Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
TAS interconnects shootout
I came across a reprint of a TAS (Absolute Sound) article called
"Shootout! 13 Interconnects from $122 to $250". http://www.audience-av.com/REVIEW_985.pdf On page 6, near the end, here's what they say: "Not only did we find the differences among these interconnects rather small and not always consistent from one source to another, but rapid A/B comparisons were just about the only way we could be hearing the differences most of the time. Indeed I would not bet that I could tell which was playing several hours after an A/B session". TAS endorsing the ABX methodology? Nothing about needing long term right/left brain paradigm shifts to detect musicality? What do our subjectivists say about that? Here's something else from the article: "My experience suggests that if substituting an interconnect makes a huge difference in your system, the likelihood is that one or the other is doing something greviously wrong or that the frequency response of your speakers is seriously amiss". I wonder if someone should post this on the Audio Asylum cable forum. Too bad they did not bother to simply measure the frequency response and S/N of each interconnect. That would put the case of the interconnect to rest. On second thought, maybe there is severe conflict of interest if they did that. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
TAS interconnects shootout
On page 6, near the end, here's what they say: "Not only did we find the
differences among these interconnects rather small and not always consistent from one source to another, but rapid A/B comparisons were just about the only way we could be hearing the differences most of the time. Indeed I would not bet that I could tell which was playing several hours after an A/B session". TAS endorsing the ABX methodology? Nothing about needing long term right/left brain paradigm shifts to detect musicality? What do our subjectivists say about that? Here's something else from the article: "My experience suggests that if substituting an interconnect makes a huge difference in your system, the likelihood is that one or the other is doing something greviously wrong or that the frequency response of your speakers is seriously amiss". I wonder if someone should post this on the Audio Asylum cable forum. Too bad they did not bother to simply measure the frequency response and S/N of each interconnect. That would put the case of the interconnect to rest. On second thought, maybe there is severe conflict of interest if they did that. It has been said that for a publication like TAS to claim differences were minimal or insignificant would conflict with their interests and yet here they are doing it. I guess this article puts into question that very theory you are putting forth on such conflicts of interest. Funny, no one makes that accusation about Sound and Vision. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
TAS interconnects shootout
"chung" wrote in message
... I came across a reprint of a TAS (Absolute Sound) article called "Shootout! 13 Interconnects from $122 to $250". http://www.audience-av.com/REVIEW_985.pdf On page 6, near the end, here's what they say: "Not only did we find the differences among these interconnects rather small and not always consistent from one source to another, but rapid A/B comparisons were just about the only way we could be hearing the differences most of the time. Indeed I would not bet that I could tell which was playing several hours after an A/B session". TAS endorsing the ABX methodology? Nothing about needing long term right/left brain paradigm shifts to detect musicality? What do our subjectivists say about that? Here's something else from the article: "My experience suggests that if substituting an interconnect makes a huge difference in your system, the likelihood is that one or the other is doing something greviously wrong or that the frequency response of your speakers is seriously amiss". I wonder if someone should post this on the Audio Asylum cable forum. Too bad they did not bother to simply measure the frequency response and S/N of each interconnect. That would put the case of the interconnect to rest. On second thought, maybe there is severe conflict of interest if they did that. That article was written by a couple of avowed objectivists....they say right up front that they have never heard much difference in cables. So they don't. Whether right or wrong. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
TAS interconnects shootout
S888Wheel wrote:
On page 6, near the end, here's what they say: "Not only did we find the differences among these interconnects rather small and not always consistent from one source to another, but rapid A/B comparisons were just about the only way we could be hearing the differences most of the time. Indeed I would not bet that I could tell which was playing several hours after an A/B session". TAS endorsing the ABX methodology? Nothing about needing long term right/left brain paradigm shifts to detect musicality? What do our subjectivists say about that? Here's something else from the article: "My experience suggests that if substituting an interconnect makes a huge difference in your system, the likelihood is that one or the other is doing something greviously wrong or that the frequency response of your speakers is seriously amiss". I wonder if someone should post this on the Audio Asylum cable forum. Too bad they did not bother to simply measure the frequency response and S/N of each interconnect. That would put the case of the interconnect to rest. On second thought, maybe there is severe conflict of interest if they did that. It has been said that for a publication like TAS to claim differences were minimal or insignificant would conflict with their interests and yet here they are doing it. I guess this article puts into question that very theory you are putting forth on such conflicts of interest. Funny, no one makes that accusation about Sound and Vision. I don't think anyone is saying that everything TAS writes about is bad. Heck, a lot of us read it for the entertainment value, and could care less about the equipment review. That TAS put forth the comment about interconnects is laudable. I just wish that they could provide measurements, which in my opinion, would have laid the issue of interconnect differences to rest. But that would have been a difficult thing for them to do, since that would be strong conflict of interest if they show that there is no measureable difference. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
TAS interconnects shootout
Scott wrote:
On page 6, near the end, here's what they say: "Not only did we find the differences among these interconnects rather small and not always consistent from one source to another, but rapid A/B comparisons were just about the only way we could be hearing the differences most of the time. Indeed I would not bet that I could tell which was playing several hours after an A/B session". TAS endorsing the ABX methodology? Nothing about needing long term right/left brain paradigm shifts to detect musicality? What do our subjectivists say about that? Here's something else from the article: "My experience suggests that if substituting an interconnect makes a huge difference in your system, the likelihood is that one or the other is doing something greviously wrong or that the frequency response of your speakers is seriously amiss". I wonder if someone should post this on the Audio Asylum cable forum. Too bad they did not bother to simply measure the frequency response and S/N of each interconnect. That would put the case of the interconnect to rest. On second thought, maybe there is severe conflict of interest if they did that. It has been said that for a publication like TAS to claim differences were minimal or insignificant would conflict with their interests and yet here they are doing it. I guess this article puts into question that very theory you are putting forth on such conflicts of interest. Funny, no one makes that accusation about Sound and Vision. Agreed. And since claims of "conflict of interest" concerning review magazines generally refer to advertising revenue issues, why should this not apply also to Sound & Vision - an advertiser supported magazine? It would seem that it is all too easy to employ double standards when comparing review magazines that either promote or fly in the face of one's personal biases. Bruce J. Richman |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
TAS interconnects shootout
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:2ZRub.191904$ao4.664795@attbi_s51... "chung" wrote in message ... I came across a reprint of a TAS (Absolute Sound) article called "Shootout! 13 Interconnects from $122 to $250". http://www.audience-av.com/REVIEW_985.pdf On page 6, near the end, here's what they say: "Not only did we find the differences among these interconnects rather small and not always consistent from one source to another, but rapid A/B comparisons were just about the only way we could be hearing the differences most of the time. Indeed I would not bet that I could tell which was playing several hours after an A/B session". TAS endorsing the ABX methodology? Nothing about needing long term right/left brain paradigm shifts to detect musicality? What do our subjectivists say about that? Here's something else from the article: "My experience suggests that if substituting an interconnect makes a huge difference in your system, the likelihood is that one or the other is doing something greviously wrong or that the frequency response of your speakers is seriously amiss". I wonder if someone should post this on the Audio Asylum cable forum. Too bad they did not bother to simply measure the frequency response and S/N of each interconnect. That would put the case of the interconnect to rest. On second thought, maybe there is severe conflict of interest if they did that. That article was written by a couple of avowed objectivists....they say right up front that they have never heard much difference in cables. So they don't. Whether right or wrong. I should have said "avowed objectivists when it comes to cables...." Sorry. And btw, neither have I heard much difference (except for one very negative experience and an occasional bad reaction to some silver cables I have heard), just so you can see how false the objectivist/subjectivist dichotomy can be. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
TAS interconnects shootout
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:2ZRub.191904$ao4.664795@attbi_s51... "chung" wrote in message ... I came across a reprint of a TAS (Absolute Sound) article called "Shootout! 13 Interconnects from $122 to $250". http://www.audience-av.com/REVIEW_985.pdf On page 6, near the end, here's what they say: "Not only did we find the differences among these interconnects rather small and not always consistent from one source to another, but rapid A/B comparisons were just about the only way we could be hearing the differences most of the time. Indeed I would not bet that I could tell which was playing several hours after an A/B session". TAS endorsing the ABX methodology? Nothing about needing long term right/left brain paradigm shifts to detect musicality? What do our subjectivists say about that? Here's something else from the article: "My experience suggests that if substituting an interconnect makes a huge difference in your system, the likelihood is that one or the other is doing something greviously wrong or that the frequency response of your speakers is seriously amiss". I wonder if someone should post this on the Audio Asylum cable forum. Too bad they did not bother to simply measure the frequency response and S/N of each interconnect. That would put the case of the interconnect to rest. On second thought, maybe there is severe conflict of interest if they did that. That article was written by a couple of avowed objectivists....they say right up front that they have never heard much difference in cables. So they don't. Whether right or wrong. I should have said "avowed objectivists when it comes to cables...." Sorry. I don't think they would call themselves "avowed" obejctivists. They did not use blind testing, and they did not include Radio Shack interconnects in the batch. Moreover, they even described the differences between the cables (even though they said those are subtle) and picked one as a best-buy! And btw, neither have I heard much difference (except for one very negative experience and an occasional bad reaction to some silver cables I have heard), just so you can see how false the objectivist/subjectivist dichotomy can be. Sure there are different levels of subjectivity. I even know some subjectivists who swear by magic discs but prefer CD's. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
TAS interconnects shootout
"chung" wrote in message
... I came across a reprint of a TAS (Absolute Sound) article called "Shootout! 13 Interconnects from $122 to $250". http://www.audience-av.com/REVIEW_985.pdf Why do you suppose they limit the price range on the bottom end? I read another such article in Home Theater some years ago. Their price range was $25 to $50. Interestingly, the lowest priced interconnect got a better score than the highest priced. Makes you wonder if perhaps a $5 interconnect wouldn't be even better. I have to guess that TAS assumed at the outset that there would be a difference in quality related to price. That's no way to run a test. Norm Strong |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
TAS interconnects shootout
"chung" wrote in message
news:R1Tub.248194$HS4.2191087@attbi_s01... It has been said that for a publication like TAS to claim differences were minimal or insignificant would conflict with their interests and yet here they are doing it. I guess this article puts into question that very theory you are putting forth on such conflicts of interest. Funny, no one makes that accusation about Sound and Vision. I don't think anyone is saying that everything TAS writes about is bad. Heck, a lot of us read it for the entertainment value, and could care less about the equipment review. That TAS put forth the comment about interconnects is laudable. I just wish that they could provide measurements, which in my opinion, would have laid the issue of interconnect differences to rest. But that would have been a difficult thing for them to do, since that would be strong conflict of interest if they show that there is no measureable difference. In Stereophile, John Atkinson runs lab tests of all the equipment they review--except cables. What would they measure on a cable? No one has any reason to expect anything measurable to affect the sound! Norm Strong |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
TAS interconnects shootout
Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Agreed. And since claims of "conflict of interest" concerning review magazines generally refer to advertising revenue issues, why should this not apply also to Sound & Vision - an advertiser supported magazine? It would seem that it is all too easy to employ double standards when comparing review magazines that either promote or fly in the face of one's personal biases. Of course it applies. And S&V's reviews are as useful/useless as any others, when they fail to properly support a claim of difference for some kinds of components. However, they *do* report bench tests in most reviews, which *is* useful, and they *do* employ bias controls for some articles, and use appropriate caveats in some others when such controls have not been employed (Dave Ranada is better about this than some of his writers). They don't buy in to most of the audiophile folklore either. Also, they almsot always summarize the pros *and* cons for individually reviewed items, in a nice little eye-catching blue graphic. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
TAS interconnects shootout
normanstrong wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... I came across a reprint of a TAS (Absolute Sound) article called "Shootout! 13 Interconnects from $122 to $250". http://www.audience-av.com/REVIEW_985.pdf Why do you suppose they limit the price range on the bottom end? I read another such article in Home Theater some years ago. Their price range was $25 to $50. Interestingly, the lowest priced interconnect got a better score than the highest priced. Makes you wonder if perhaps a $5 interconnect wouldn't be even better. I have to guess that TAS assumed at the outset that there would be a difference in quality related to price. That's no way to run a test. Norm Strong Maybe they limited the bottom end to $122 because they would not be caught dead with a Radio Shack $10 interconnect? Yes, even though they said that the differences are subtle, they still said that there are differences, and were open at least to the idea that more expensive ones may sound even better, whatever better means. I also noticed that they "broke-in" the cables for 200 hours. That, and the kind of words (marvelous bloom and presence, etc.) they used to describe the sound, make me think that these guys were not "avowed objectivists" as Harry Lavo put it. I do give one of the reviewers a lot of credit when he said "It is difficult to think of an activity more meaningless than subjectively comparing and evaluating any sort of wire". I think someone should post that in the Audio Asylum cable forum. One of the reviewers also said that one of the finest systems he has ever heard uses outdoor extension cord as speaker cables. The orange kind. That sounds like the wires used in that hi-fi show that Steven Sullivan alluded to. The one where Tom Faulkner showed the Quad speakers. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
TAS interconnects shootout
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:16:43 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:
chung wrote: I came across a reprint of a TAS (Absolute Sound) article called "Shootout! 13 Interconnects from $122 to $250". http://www.audience-av.com/REVIEW_985.pdf On page 6, near the end, here's what they say: "Not only did we find the differences among these interconnects rather small and not always consistent from one source to another, but rapid A/B comparisons were just about the only way we could be hearing the differences most of the time. Indeed I would not bet that I could tell which was playing several hours after an A/B session". This should not be surprising. $112 to $250 is at the very low end of the High End interconnect cable market. Had they found similar results comparing these to multi-thousand dollar cables, that would have been much more surprising. No, it would in fact have been *exactly* what one would expect. There is *no* sonic difference between 12AWG zipcord and Kimber Black Pearl, and there's even less reason to predict any sonic differences among interconnects. Once you get past balanced/unbalanced and shielding, there *cannot* be any differences which can justify more than about $30 for a 1 metre pair - and that's using theoretically ideal tight twisted pair balanced construction, 95% double-braid shielding, and foamed Teflon insulation. Silver conductors are of course just silly. I wouldn't disagree with their conclusions in the price range they surveyed, but that doesn't discount the concept of "cable sound". Why not? You mean, too bad reviewers aren't engineers? The reviewers job is to listen to/observe them carefully/thoroughly, Shame then that they do *not* listen *thoroughly*....... identify their sonic signatures and describe them in a way readers would be able to understand. The engineer's job is to measure them and try to correlate that with how their sound is described. Actually, the engineers job is to point out that sighted listening is useless for distinguishing subtle sonic differences. Of course, the problem with cables is that there's *no* test which will reveal non-existent differences. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
TAS interconnects shootout
Mkuller wrote:
chung wrote: I came across a reprint of a TAS (Absolute Sound) article called "Shootout! 13 Interconnects from $122 to $250". http://www.audience-av.com/REVIEW_985.pdf On page 6, near the end, here's what they say: "Not only did we find the differences among these interconnects rather small and not always consistent from one source to another, but rapid A/B comparisons were just about the only way we could be hearing the differences most of the time. Indeed I would not bet that I could tell which was playing several hours after an A/B session". This should not be surprising. $112 to $250 is at the very low end of the High End interconnect cable market. Yes, at the low end of the price scale of so-called high-end interconnects. As far as performance is concerned, these cables are as good it gets. Had they found similar results comparing these to multi-thousand dollar cables, that would have been much more surprising. To you perhaps, but to me, no, that's not surprising at all. TAS endorsing the ABX methodology? Nothing about needing long term right/left brain paradigm shifts to detect musicality? What do our subjectivists say about that? Funny how your belief system shades your interpretation. They said nothing about ABX, only quick A/B trials. No X involved. Aren't you the one who said that you need long evaluation with music to tell things apart, and that the quick A/B comparison used in ABX is your main complaint? Or are you now saying that A/B short snips is OK, but having X totally confuses everything? Here's something else from the article: "My experience suggests that if substituting an interconnect makes a huge difference in your system, the likelihood is that one or the other is doing something greviously wrong or that the frequency response of your speakers is seriously amiss". I wouldn't disagree with their conclusions in the price range they surveyed, but that doesn't discount the concept of "cable sound". I don't think there is anything anyone can do to discount your concept of cable sound. You will find objections to every possible test or measurement. As long as you can tell which cable is used, you will tell them apart, I am sure. A few years ago, one of the reviewers in this article, Neil Gader, and I both listened to 3 complete sets of Cardas cables (interconnects and speaker) independently. I believe they were Golden Section, Golden Reference, and a much less expensive Neutral Reference. The Neutral Reference was the one we each liked best. Coincidence? Hmmm, sounds like Mr Lavo's characterization of these guys as "avowed objectivists" is pretty shaky. Too bad they did not bother to simply measure the frequency response and S/N of each interconnect. That would put the case of the interconnect to rest. On second thought, maybe there is severe conflict of interest if they did that. You mean, too bad reviewers aren't engineers? No, too bad that they don't have objective measurements to support their conclusions. The reviewers job is to listen to/observe them carefully/thoroughly, identify their sonic signatures and describe them in a way readers would be able to understand. The engineer's job is to measure them and try to correlate that with how their sound is described. Actually, the engineer's job is to tell you that there cannot be cable sound in any cable not designed as tone controls. And he can best convince you by providing you with the measurements that show that the cables behave the same. Regards, Mike |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
TAS interconnects shootout
"chung" wrote in message
... normanstrong wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... I came across a reprint of a TAS (Absolute Sound) article called "Shootout! 13 Interconnects from $122 to $250". http://www.audience-av.com/REVIEW_985.pdf Why do you suppose they limit the price range on the bottom end? I read another such article in Home Theater some years ago. Their price range was $25 to $50. Interestingly, the lowest priced interconnect got a better score than the highest priced. Makes you wonder if perhaps a $5 interconnect wouldn't be even better. I have to guess that TAS assumed at the outset that there would be a difference in quality related to price. That's no way to run a test. Norm Strong Maybe they limited the bottom end to $122 because they would not be caught dead with a Radio Shack $10 interconnect? Yes, even though they said that the differences are subtle, they still said that there are differences, and were open at least to the idea that more expensive ones may sound even better, whatever better means. I also noticed that they "broke-in" the cables for 200 hours. That, and the kind of words (marvelous bloom and presence, etc.) they used to describe the sound, make me think that these guys were not "avowed objectivists" as Harry Lavo put it. Wouldn't it have been nice if you attributed my published, modified quote instead:.... "avowed objectivists when it comes to speaker cables"? Since the rest of your comments here support exactly what I said. Thanks for your courtesy. I do give one of the reviewers a lot of credit when he said "It is difficult to think of an activity more meaningless than subjectively comparing and evaluating any sort of wire". I think someone should post that in the Audio Asylum cable forum. One of the reviewers also said that one of the finest systems he has ever heard uses outdoor extension cord as speaker cables. The orange kind. That sounds like the wires used in that hi-fi show that Steven Sullivan alluded to. The one where Tom Faulkner showed the Quad speakers. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
TAS interconnects shootout
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... normanstrong wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... I came across a reprint of a TAS (Absolute Sound) article called "Shootout! 13 Interconnects from $122 to $250". http://www.audience-av.com/REVIEW_985.pdf Why do you suppose they limit the price range on the bottom end? I read another such article in Home Theater some years ago. Their price range was $25 to $50. Interestingly, the lowest priced interconnect got a better score than the highest priced. Makes you wonder if perhaps a $5 interconnect wouldn't be even better. I have to guess that TAS assumed at the outset that there would be a difference in quality related to price. That's no way to run a test. Norm Strong Maybe they limited the bottom end to $122 because they would not be caught dead with a Radio Shack $10 interconnect? Yes, even though they said that the differences are subtle, they still said that there are differences, and were open at least to the idea that more expensive ones may sound even better, whatever better means. I also noticed that they "broke-in" the cables for 200 hours. That, and the kind of words (marvelous bloom and presence, etc.) they used to describe the sound, make me think that these guys were not "avowed objectivists" as Harry Lavo put it. Wouldn't it have been nice if you attributed my published, modified quote instead:.... "avowed objectivists when it comes to speaker cables"? Since the rest of your comments here support exactly what I said. Thanks for your courtesy. OK, so here it is again. I also noticed that they "broke-in" the cables for 200 hours. That, and the kind of words (marvelous bloom and presence, etc.) they used to describe the sound, make me think that these guys were not "avowed objectivists when it comes to speaker cables" as Harry Lavo put it. Not to mention that they never even mention the cheap RS cables! OR bring in DBT! I do give one of the reviewers a lot of credit when he said "It is difficult to think of an activity more meaningless than subjectively comparing and evaluating any sort of wire". I think someone should post that in the Audio Asylum cable forum. One of the reviewers also said that one of the finest systems he has ever heard uses outdoor extension cord as speaker cables. The orange kind. That sounds like the wires used in that hi-fi show that Steven Sullivan alluded to. The one where Tom Faulkner showed the Quad speakers. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
TAS interconnects shootout
This TAS article is almost completely worthless and devoid of any useful
content. There is absolutly no reference by which to understand the adjectives they employ, either the level or nature of same. We have no reason or way to know that their hearing experience, giving momemtary benefit of the doubt, has anything to do with our's; even to not knowing if their's might be flawed and below normal in acutiety. We can't know, retracting the benefit of the doubt, any apart from the real very probability that the experience reported exists only in their individual psychological perception; no effort at all was given to controling a vast range of variables which could cloud their experiences which have nothing to do with the physical properties of the wire. This is hifi reporting at it's worst, flourish fluff flim flam and vast amounts of "you believe me don't you?" that fills pages to seperate the adverts but does nothing to advance the art and science of audio reproduction. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
TAS interconnects shootout
wrote:
This TAS article is almost completely worthless and devoid of any useful content. There is absolutly no reference by which to understand the adjectives they employ, either the level or nature of same. We have no reason or way to know that their hearing experience, giving momemtary benefit of the doubt, has anything to do with our's; even to not knowing if their's might be flawed and below normal in acutiety. We can't know, retracting the benefit of the doubt, any apart from the real very probability that the experience reported exists only in their individual psychological perception; no effort at all was given to controling a vast range of variables which could cloud their experiences which have nothing to do with the physical properties of the wire. This is hifi reporting at it's worst, flourish fluff flim flam and vast amounts of "you believe me don't you?" that fills pages to seperate the adverts but does nothing to advance the art and science of audio reproduction. Certainly, you are entitled to have strong opinion you expressed here. No doubt there are many others who think as you do. It is not likely you are a regular reader of these publications nor are they written for the benefit of people with your perspective. But that does not negate the usefullness of comparativeaudio equipment reviews like the one you refer to. Many audiophiles find them very useful in advancing their understanding of audio and in helping them to narrow down products to audition for purchase. Regular readers of these publications learn to understand the vocabulary used. They also come to know the individual reviewers' biases and preferences and which ones match their own personal ones most closely. The reviewers' associated equipment is regularly listed and their rooms and preferences are highlighted periodically. That is their "frame of reference". It is inferred that another audiophile listening to the same equipment in the same environment would hear similar things and come to the similar conclusions (if their "listening preferences" are similar). All of the information you need to recreate the "experimental conditions" is there if you care to replicate it - and compare your findings with theirs. While the information contained in these observational equipment reviews may not directly advance the "art and science of audio reproduction", that is not their intent. They are provided for the entertainment and enjoyment of audiophiles pursuing their hobby of attaining greater realism in their home music reproduction. Regards, Mike |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Digital Interconnects | Audio Opinions | |||
interconnects: home v. auto | Car Audio | |||
MIT 3i interconnects have impedence controls: Help Please | High End Audio | |||
MIT 3i interconnects have impedence controls: Help Please | Audio Opinions | |||
Scosche Interconnects | Car Audio |