$35K for Speaker Cables!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

A reviewer (from Stereophile, I think) once said that he never reviewed cables because he regarded them as just expensive tone controls...

Personally, I am deeply suspicious of what is actually in the box...

So am I, especially when it comes from MIT.

Back when I was a weee little boy, I had a subscription to Stereo Review. They did a big test on expensive cables that I thought was very enlightening. One cable belong to MIT had a little box attached to the cable, and when they cracked open the little box(see the trend here), they found a few cheap little parts in this big empty box. When they measured the response of the cable, it did all kinds of screwy things to the signal, and didn't sound as good to the listeners as a MUCH cheaper cable. Boy did Stereo review lay MIT over the coals on that one. Its funny that the same description of that cable(it took years of R&D, and is made by the finest well tested components) is the same description for this cable.

I do not think I have had the same respect for MIT since then.

I also have to agree with Ajani on his basic point. Nobody can place judgement on another for what they spend their money on. Every works within the constraints of their revenue.

I pay insurance to cover over $2 million dollars worth of audio, video and recording equipment spread out over 10 different properties that I either own, co own, or share with my friends. Some would say this is excessive, and that the money could be better spent. However, I went to work to buy this equipment, so I choose how much I want to spend for it. I can definitely afford to spend 35K on wire if I choose, but I know that it does not cost that much for good wire that does all of the things that E-stat mentions in his post. I can get those same bennies for far less money than 35k. But the fact is, somebody is going to buy that wire, and really nobody has a right to judge that person negatively because he does...it's their choice. Now can we take a stick and poke at them, sure, that's fun. But nobody decides for me what is worthy of a price if I am foolish enough to pay for it.

In saying that, I would still pick up my little stick and poke fun at them for buying this questionable wire LOL I just couldn't help it, I wouldn't be able to hold myself back.

[Feanor]

No, not really. It [$4k watch] was a gift from my wife for my 50th birthday (15 years ago!) that still works perfectly. The crystal is made of an unusual material that, despite 24/7 use (including showering and swimming) has yet to develop a single scratch. And no gold "plating" has worn off, since the gold trim is all 18 kt. stuff.

I will be able to will this watch to my grandchildren.

More likely they'd prefer the $4k + interest.

40 years ago, when I'd just started work, I bought my mother a Seiko manual wind for about $100. It recentlhy went in for a repair; turned out it just needed a cleaning. I have another, quartz Seiko which cost $120 that is still running perfectly -- after about 22 years old.

Probably I'm just a bitter, resentful poor person, but I find the excuses rich people invent to justify their extravagances are quite pathetic at times.

[emaidel]

I find the excuses rich people invent to justify their extravagances are quite pathetic at times.

That's a needless, personal insult my friend, and entirely inappropriate for this, or any other, site. My wife and I spent years and years in our separate careers after many difficult struggles trying to make ends meet, finally were enjoying the "empty nest," and wished to reward ourselves for our 50th birthdays. I bought her a mink coat (gasp! Such extravagance!!) and she bought me my Ebel watch.

Neither of us makes an issue of these two possessions, but we each thoroghly enjoy, and appreciate them. Simply being unable to afford something isn't a reason to condemn others for owning that "something." I can't afford a Maserati, a yacht, or a house in the Marina in San Francisco, but I'd love to have all of them, and don't belittle those who do.

I can't afford $35K speaker cables either, but then, that's another issue...

[Feanor]

That's a needless, personal insult my friend, and entirely inappropriate for this, or any other, site. My wife and I spent years and years in our separate careers after many difficult struggles trying to make ends meet, finally were enjoying the "empty nest," and wished to reward ourselves for our 50th birthdays. I bought her a mink coat (gasp! Such extravagance!!) and she bought me my Ebel watch.

Neither of us makes an issue of these two possessions, but we each thoroghly enjoy, and appreciate them. Simply being unable to afford something isn't a reason to condemn others for owning that "something." I can't afford a Maserati, a yacht, or a house in the Marina in San Francisco, but I'd love to have all of them, and don't belittle those who do.

I can't afford $35K speaker cables either, but then, that's another issue...

Why justify yourself? Why raise the excuse of "difficult struggles"; (I know about those too but have nothing to show for them).

Why not just ignore me? Why not just say, "We're self-indulgent and we love it -- suck it up, B!tch"

[E-Stat]

... but I know that it does not cost that much for good wire that does all of the things that E-stat mentions in his post.

I can't speak for the MIT cable, but how much time did you hear the Nordost Odin cabling in your systems? Indeed, such would be overkill for the Onkyo based system. Speaking of which, what power, speaker and interconnects do you use with that one?

rw

[JohnMichael]

Amen to that, brother. $35K for speaker cables is one thing, and one thing only: ridiculous, conspicuous consumption for the super-wealthy. This is the type of item one would see on the USA network show, "Royal Pains," which does a splendid job illustrating the vacuuous, shallow mindset of the ultra-wealthy Hamptonites on Long Island's East End South Shore.

And here I am, wearing a lowly $4,000 Ebel watch that I actually thought was good.

I am a fan of Swiss watches. What movement does your Ebel have?

[emaidel]

I am a fan of Swiss watches. What movement does your Ebel have?

The back of the bezel says "1911." I hope that answers your question, and perhaps you can explain what it means to me, since I don't know!

[Feanor]

....

I pay insurance to cover over $2 million dollars worth of audio, video and recording equipment spread out over 10 different properties that I either own, co own, or share with my friends. Some would say this is excessive, and that the money could be better spent. However, I went to work to buy this equipment, so I choose how much I want to spend for it. I can definitely afford to spend 35K on wire if I choose, but I know that it does not cost that much for good wire that does all of the things that E-stat mentions in his post. I can get those same bennies for far less money than 35k. But the fact is, somebody is going to buy that wire, and really nobody has a right to judge that person negatively because he does...it's their choice. Now can we take a stick and poke at them, sure, that's fun. But nobody decides for me what is worthy of a price if I am foolish enough to pay for it.

...

This is wisdom of the professional coming through -- no matter how deep one's pockets, one should not loose a sense of value.

I lack Sir T's professional experience but common sense tells me that among cables that are capable of accurate transmission, (as opposed to those that act as tone controls), the differences are going to be extremely small relative to most other components in the chain.

Or to put it another way, expensive cables are mostly to appeal amateurs with deep pockets but a relatively weak sense of value.

On the subject of cables modifying signals, you can read about Spectral equipment, (see HERE), (which has very high reputation). The Spectral warranty demands the use of their own, MIT sourced interconnects and cables precisely because they modify the signal in away that is important to the proper functioning of the Spectral components which handle extraordinarily high bandwidths.

[Ajani]

no matter how deep one's pockets, one should not loose a sense of value.

I agree.... It is your choice whether you choose to spend the money anyway, but I don't see the point in pretending that certain excesses can be justified based on performance, cost or whatever...

A $35K cable is IMO (and probably most persons as well) more absurd than a $20K watch... But in truth, both are absurd, so it's really just a matter of which is less absurd... Neither represents any kind of good value for money... The reason to buy one or the other is because you want to buy one and you will gain some kind of satisfaction from doing so...

It's why I find it so amusing that people want to ridicule persons who drop loads of money on cables, and yet are deeply offended if someone questions the value of their artwork, wine, watches or cars... At the end of the day, none of these luxury items can really be justified based on value... So it really just becomes a finger pointing excercise - "You're stupider for buying $35K cables!" "No, You're Stoopidest for buying a $35K painting!".

I purchased my headphone setup, not because it can really be justified in absolute terms based on value for money (Does my $2K Squeezebox/Benchmark/AKG setup sound 100 times better than my $20 Denon In-Ear Cans through my laptop? HELL NO! In terms of relative value it is a total ripoff,,, Would I buy it again? HELL YES - because I'm willing to pay the excess).... My little brother and my girlfriend both appreciate how sweet my setup sounds, but still look at me like I'm mentally retarded when I discuss the price...

As Sir T and GM have said: it's only human to laugh a little when you see the extreme price of some of these luxury goods (such as cables)... Nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't delude yourself into believing that other luxury purchases are somehow justifiable....

[audio amateur]

Nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't delude yourself into believing that other luxury purchases are somehow justifiable....

The problem here is, cables aren't a 'luxury good'. That's why I have issues with the 35k price, and why I don't with watches, art and the rest which are luxury goods.

[Ajani]

The problem here is, cables aren't a 'luxury good'. That's why I have issues with the 35k price, and why I don't with watches, art and the rest which are luxury goods.

In economics, a luxury good is a good for which demand increases more than proportionally as income rises, in contrast to a "necessity good", for which demand is not related to income.

All HiFi products are luxury goods (nothing in HiFi is a necessity).... and HiFi includes cables...

[audio amateur]

All HiFi products are luxury goods (nothing in HiFi is a necessity).... and HiFi includes cables...

I'm interpreting luxury goods in the literal sense, not economic the definition. In economic terms i'm interpreting them more as Veblen goods, of which cables are not, although they might be to some people...

[Ajani]

I'm interpreting luxury goods in the literal sense, not economic the definition. In economic terms i'm interpreting them more as Veblen goods, of which cables are not, although they might be to some people...

What are "luxury goods in the literal sense"? And why would you (presumably) include a Rolex in that category and not a Krell or MIT Cables?

I think the issue is that expensive art, watches, cars etc... are generally regarded as status symbols... Whereas HiFi is no longer regarded as a status symbol in most countries... If it was, then I'm sure you all would accept extreme prices for cables the way you accept them for art and watches...

[nightflier]

Well since most of us can agree that what's happening in the little box isn't what warrants the high price, then the next question is: what does? While I know this is taboo around here, I would love to hear what the engineers are MIT have to say about this cable.

I also wish one of the more reputable evaluators would do a story on these cables. I applaud Audioholics for their debunking of the Lexicon BR player, and I hope they take this one on too. I think this cable should be filed in the same category. More importantly, it's this kind of product that continues to paint high end audio with a broad and very negative brush.

[Ajani]

Well since most of us can agree that what's happening in the little box isn't what warrants the high price, then the next question is: what does? While I know this is taboo around here, I would love to hear what the engineers are MIT have to say about this cable.

I also wish one of the more reputable evaluators would do a story on these cables. I applaud Audioholics for their debunking of the Lexicon BR player, and I hope they take this one on too. I think this cable should be filed in the same category. More importantly, it's this kind of product that continues to paint high end audio with a broad and very negative brush.

Let's assume that what is in the box is just a tone control. Suppose MIT learned their lesson from that experience that Sir T refered to and put some expensive circuitry in the box... So same basic function but made from diamond and platinum or some other expensive materials... Would the cable then be worth the money?

I don't think there is anyway that MIT can justify the cable's price to most of us... And why should they? We're not customers or even potential customers...

I think the entire established approach to 'high end audio' is what is responsible for the broad and very negative image... (not just guys like MIT or even Lexiclown)...

1) Pretending that HiFi is solely about performance and nothing else is a joke... You don't buy a luxury car simply because it outruns a cheaper one or an expensive watch because it supposedely keeps better time than a Seiko... You also buy them for aesthetics, craftmanship and comfort (not to mention exlcusivity)... So trying to diss all the HiFi companies who make attractive gear only hurts the industry...

2) Focusing so much on technologies that the majority of persons believe went extinct decades ago... When I read reviews where the reviewer continues to diss digital in 2010 and proposes that readers use only vinyl or "better yet" reel to reel tape... Reel to what??? Nothing wrong with using such products if you enjoy them (and can find recordings on them), but honestly trying to push them as the only choice of "real audiophiles" makes the hobby look like it is the preserve of dinosaurs and the mentally handicapped....

3) Don't get me started on the use of terms like 'mid-fi' and the antisocial nature of the 'swetspot' in the listening room... Seriously, a single chair in the listening position? And then you wonder why your wife/girlfriend/kids show no interest in your hobby....

[nightflier]

1) Pretending that HiFi is solely about performance and nothing else is a joke... You don't buy a luxury car simply because it outruns a cheaper one or an expensive watch because it supposedely keeps better time than a Seiko... You also buy them for aesthetics, craftmanship and comfort (not to mention exlcusivity)... So trying to diss all the HiFi companies who make attractive gear only hurts the industry...

...we're just talking about a cable, here.

Aesthetics?
How good can a cable look, really? Sure it can be colored purple with pink highlights and a neon sheen, but let's be honest, it's still just a piece of wire. Not to mention that it typically sits behind the gear.

Craftmanship?
This isn't something that is a mystery. Cables have been made for decades, some for scientific applications that require a much higher degree of perfection and still cost a bundle less (can't quite see a purchasing agent working for even the military approving a $35K cable for anything). In the end, a cable is a cable and has one function: to pass a signal with a s little interference or coloration as possible

Comfort?
For what? to please the mind with the knowledge that it's there?

Exclusivity?
Even that one is a hard sell. A Ferrari on the driveway certainly would do this, but a cable, hidden behind a rack, doesn't quite measure up that way. Unless the owner expends a lot of energy bragging about it, and well that doesn't appeal to too many people, especially not here.

Ultimately, it's just a cable that apparently colors the sound and is outrageously priced for doing this quite possibly questionable thing.

[Ajani]

...we're just talking about a cable, here.

Aesthetics?
How good can a cable look, really? Sure it can be colored purple with pink highlights and a neon sheen, but let's be honest, it's still just a piece of wire. Not to mention that it typically sits behind the gear.

Craftmanship?
This isn't something that is a mystery. Cables have been made for decades, some for scientific applications that require a much higher degree of perfection and still cost a bundle less (can't quite see a purchasing agent working for even the military approving a $35K cable for anything). In the end, a cable is a cable and has one function: to pass a signal with a s little interference or coloration as possible

Comfort?
For what? to please the mind with the knowledge that it's there?

Exclusivity?
Even that one is a hard sell. A Ferrari on the driveway certainly would do this, but a cable, hidden behind a rack, doesn't quite measure up that way. Unless the owner expends a lot of energy bragging about it, and well that doesn't appeal to too many people, especially not here.

Ultimately, it's just a cable that apparently colors the sound and is outrageously priced for doing this quite possibly questionable thing.

Hey, I strongly suspect that a $35K Cable is more exclusive than a Ferrari! (even though very few of us really want to be part of the exclusive cable group - whereas most of us would have no problem with being part of the Ferrari owners group)...

Also you need to remember that cables are not used in isolation... You won't just buy a $35K Cable and throw it on some Monitor Audio RX6s... You already likely own (as I mentioned earlier in this thread) a $350K setup... So you're not going to put any old $300 cable on that... That's like putting Toyota rims on a Ferrari (regardless of whether they do they job, they just don't fit the exclusive image)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I can't speak for the MIT cable, but how much time did you hear the Nordost Odin cabling in your systems? Indeed, such would be overkill for the Onkyo based system. Speaking of which, what power, speaker and interconnects do you use with that one?

rw

Wow, you seem pretty stuck on one system out of perhaps ten that I own. Once again you are riding down Assumption Blvd with your comments.

As far as what cabling do I use for that particular system? Feanor really got it right. They are more than capable of accurate transmission than they are to impress you with their price. They do not have a brand name, so I am sure this will disappoint you.

[E-Stat]

They are more than capable of accurate transmission than they are to impress you with their price. They do not have a brand name, so I am sure this will disappoint you.

While I tend to agree with your viewpoints on video, we obviously have different points of reference when it comes to high performance audio when it comes to music. I'm sure you find generic cable to be quite satisfactory in home theater environments as do I.

Neither you nor Feanor knows what you don't know.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

While I tend to agree with your viewpoints on video, we obviously have different points of reference when it comes to high performance audio when it comes to music. I'm sure you find generic cable to be quite satisfactory in home theater environments as do I.

Neither you nor Feanor knows what you don't know.

rw

Who said the cables were generic? I didn't say that. Once again, you are making assumptions and creating information that does not exist.

Audio is about listening first, and commenting afterward. Perhaps this is a good time to get things straight.

High performance audio is not about high priced(more like overpriced) speakers, amps, or cables. IMO it is about accuracy, which does not require high priced(or overpriced) speakers, amps, or cables. As far as reference points, I don't think they are so different. I just don't think what you think is required for a high performance system is really necessary.

And you do not know any more than Feanor or I, so get up off that box because sombody needs the wood.

[Ajani]

Who said the cables were generic? I didn't say that. Once again, you are making assumptions and creating information that does not exist.

Audio is about listening first, and commenting afterward. Perhaps this is a good time to get things straight.

High performance audio is not about high priced(more like overpriced) speakers, amps, or cables. IMO it is about accuracy, which does not require high priced(or overpriced) speakers, amps, or cables. As far as reference points, I don't think they are so different. I just don't think what you think is required for a high performance system is really necessary.

And you do not know any more than Feanor or I, so get up off that box because sombody needs the wood.

While I totally agree with your point (highlighted in bold), I suspect that what E-Stat has been attempting to ask in multiple threads is: "What high end gear have you used as your reference points for comparison?"

I may make enough income to buy a BMW, yet choose to drive a Honda Civic... That only means that I feel a Civic is sufficient to meet my needs, not that I have necessarily ever driven a BMW and compared it to my Civic... So the fact that your various HT systems cost more than a mind-bogglingly expensive 2 channel setup, doesn't indicate that you have heard such a setup...

So is you point of view based on comparison of your gear to more 'traditional' high end gear ? And if so, are we talking about comparison via listening tests and/or performance specifications?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

While I totally agree with your point (highlighted in bold), I suspect that what E-Stat has been attempting to ask in multiple threads is: "What high end gear have you used as your reference points for comparison?"

Because I have debated E-stat enough to know exactly where he is coming from, I have to say none of his damn business. I am not interested in getting into that kind of pissing contest with him sorry.

I may make enough income to buy a BMW, yet choose to drive a Honda Civic... That only means that I feel a Civic is sufficient to meet my needs, not that I have necessarily ever driven a BMW and compared it to my Civic... So the fact that your various HT systems cost more than a mind-bogglingly expensive 2 channel setup, doesn't indicate that you have heard such a setup...

Funny that you would mention this. My son needed a car, and the first place I took him was a BMW dealer to look at used BMW's. The car he really wanted was a Honda Civic, go figure.

I would not make the kinds of comments I make if I have not heard high performance and high end(they are not the same to me) two channel systems. Remember, I am a audio engineer, not a plumber. I have worked and listened on equipment that cost more than most peoples houses, and a few that costs more than several houses. I try to always come from an educated perspective, or I do not engage in the subject.

So is you point of view based on comparison of your gear to more 'traditional' high end gear ? And if so, are we talking about comparison via listening tests and/or performance specifications?

My perspective comes from listening to a wide variety of traditional high end gear versus highly accurate high performance systems.(they are not always the same) Performance specifications are great eye candy, but audio requires the ears, and that is what I do. I listen, then I comment. I do not disparage ones equipment before I actually listening to it. This is where E-stat and I went wrong. Audio= ears, video= eyes. You cannot use your mouth with audio before you use your ears, no matter what name is on the equipment.

[Ajani]

Because I have debated E-stat enough to know exactly where he is coming from, I have to say none of his damn business. I am not interested in getting into that kind of pissing contest with him sorry.

No need to apologise, I have no desire to get into any pissing contests either.

Funny that you would mention this. My son needed a car, and the first place I took him was a BMW dealer to look at used BMW's. The car he really wanted was a Honda Civic, go figure..

Probably has to do with his age and what his friends drive.... A used BMW is a lot more conspicous than a Civic...

I would not make the kinds of comments I make if I have not heard high performance and high end(they are not the same to me) two channel systems. Remember, I am a audio engineer, not a plumber. I have worked and listened on equipment that cost more than most peoples houses, and a few that costs more than several houses. I try to always come from an educated perspective, or I do not engage in the subject.

My perspective comes from listening to a wide variety of traditional high end gear versus highly accurate high performance systems.(they are not always the same) Performance specifications are great eye candy, but audio requires the ears, and that is what I do. I listen, then I comment. I do not disparage ones equipment before I actually listening to it. This is where E-stat and I went wrong. Audio= ears, video= eyes. You cannot use your mouth with audio before you use your ears, no matter what name is on the equipment.

I like that distinction. Expensive gear does not necessarily = accurate. A lot of audiophiles go gaga over obviously coloured components, yet insist that the more accurate ones are bright or lacked some sparkle, pixie dust, etc... I believe we should all buy what sounds best to us (regardless of whether it is accurate or coloured), but we should be aware of whether it is accuracy or colour that we are hearing (hmmm, I wonder what red sounds like?...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I believe we should all buy what sounds best to us (regardless of whether it is accurate or coloured), but we should be aware of whether it is accuracy or colour that we are hearing (hmmm, I wonder what red sounds like?...

I would imagine red would sound bold, bright, big, in your face, brash without being harsh or strident, in your face without being ear grating. (Sorry, I had a Fantasia moment, it comes with working with the mouse ears on film with a lot of music. LOL)

[E-Stat]

Who said the cables were generic? I didn't say that. Once again, you are making assumptions and creating information that does not exist.

The fact that you'd rather posture than answering my simple question is very telling. Surely you know the answers. Right?

Audio is about listening first, and commenting afterward. Perhaps this is a good time to get things straight.

Gee, that's funny! That is exactly what I thinking when I responded to your having done precisely what you describe in post #126!

High performance audio is not about high priced(more like overpriced) speakers, amps, or cables.

Agree again! High performance audio is about well matched high performance audio components.

As far as reference points, I don't think they are so different. I just don't think what you think is required for a high performance system is really necessary.

Necessary? Are PZero Corsa tires really necessary? Is an IMAX 15/70 film really necessary? What does "necessary" have to do with observing that which has higher useful performance? There is nothing wrong with "good enough", but "good enough" is not the same as "what is possible".

And you do not know any more than Feanor or I, so get up off that box because sombody needs the wood.

Actually, I do. Let's go back to your first observation: Audio is about listening first, and commenting afterward.

I have heard Nordost Valhalla and Odin at length in a spectacular system (not my own). It is on that experience that I base my comments. You and Feanor, on the other hand, are speculating.

rw