| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
MIT Oracle cables...what's in the box?
I have 4 different friends running the Oracle cables and I can't help
but wonder what's in the little box just before the ends? I've always bi-wired my speakers with Canare 4S11. When I swapped my cables in to 2 different systems to replace the MIT Oracles, I couldn't discern any difference. Of course, the owner in each case said the MIT cables were "more revealing." 8-) Anyone know what's in the little box? Cheers, |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"I have 4 different friends running the Oracle cables and I can't help
but wonder what's in the little box just before the ends? I've always bi-wired my speakers with Canare 4S11. When I swapped my cables in to 2 different systems to replace the MIT Oracles, I couldn't discern any difference. Of course, the owner in each case said the MIT cables were "more revealing." 8-) Anyone know what's in the little box?" A frequency shaping network, it is said if I recall correctly reading someone who took one apart. Because it is impossible to hear wire difference, one can introduce deliberate difference by changing frequency,ie. a very expensive tone control. Now hearing a difference and having the emotional and cash investment in them, zippo, bango all manner of improvement one can not but behold. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 19 Jul 2005 00:50:03 GMT, Ritz wrote:
I have 4 different friends running the Oracle cables and I can't help but wonder what's in the little box just before the ends? I've always bi-wired my speakers with Canare 4S11. When I swapped my cables in to 2 different systems to replace the MIT Oracles, I couldn't discern any difference. Of course, the owner in each case said the MIT cables were "more revealing." 8-) Anyone know what's in the little box? A couple of 50 cent resistors and capacitors, and about a gallon of priceless snake oil.................... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 19 Jul 2005 00:50:03 GMT, Ritz wrote: I have 4 different friends running the Oracle cables and I can't help but wonder what's in the little box just before the ends? I've always bi-wired my speakers with Canare 4S11. When I swapped my cables in to 2 different systems to replace the MIT Oracles, I couldn't discern any difference. Of course, the owner in each case said the MIT cables were "more revealing." 8-) Anyone know what's in the little box? A couple of 50 cent resistors and capacitors, and about a gallon of priceless snake oil.................... I think that there is a bit more than that in those shipping crates. They look well made and certainly have the "geez... look at those jumper cables hooked up to the speakers" effect. Although I have never heard them, I have heard some of the other MIT "boxed" stuff. I really would have a tough time telling you which speaker cable was which in a sighted listening test. I have had the MIT, Vampire, AudioQuest, Monster, Polk and Home Depot hooked up to my equipment. I would not bet any money on telling them apart. I am using AudioQuest Indigo II shotgunned right now for my Von Schweikert VR4's. Why? Because I have enough to make the runs and I got it dirt cheap. No other "sonic" reason. Oh, and they look drab and dull. No "wow" visual factor. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
TonyP wrote:
I have 4 different friends running the Oracle cables and I can't help but wonder what's in the little box just before the ends? I've always bi-wired my speakers with Canare 4S11. When I swapped my cables in to 2 different systems to replace the MIT Oracles, I couldn't discern any difference. Of course, the owner in each case said the MIT cables were "more revealing." 8-) Anyone know what's in the little box? A couple of 50 cent resistors and capacitors, and about a gallon of priceless snake oil.................... I think that there is a bit more than that in those shipping crates... ==================================== No, there isn't. And even "fifty-cent" is pushing it. The Hacksaw Test doesn't lie. -GP |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gene Poon wrote:
TonyP wrote: I have 4 different friends running the Oracle cables and I can't help but wonder what's in the little box just before the ends? I've always bi-wired my speakers with Canare 4S11. When I swapped my cables in to 2 different systems to replace the MIT Oracles, I couldn't discern any difference. Of course, the owner in each case said the MIT cables were "more revealing." 8-) Anyone know what's in the little box? A couple of 50 cent resistors and capacitors, and about a gallon of priceless snake oil.................... I think that there is a bit more than that in those shipping crates... ==================================== No, there isn't. And even "fifty-cent" is pushing it. The Hacksaw Test doesn't lie. -GP Does anyone have a schematic of what's in the box? |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chung wrote:
==================================== No, there isn't. And even "fifty-cent" is pushing it. The Hacksaw Test doesn't lie. -GP Does anyone have a schematic of what's in the box? I would find that to be of extreme interest as well. I don't really care to duplicate the design "on the cheap." I'm more interested in showing my buddies who spent several grand on speaker cables how absolutely silly that is. As I said in the original post, I wasn't able to discern a difference betwen the Oracle V3 cables and my custom Canare cables (4S11 w/cardas spades). Best regards, |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ritz wrote:
I would find that to be of extreme interest as well. I don't really care to duplicate the design "on the cheap." I'm more interested in showing my buddies who spent several grand on speaker cables how absolutely silly that is. As I said in the original post, I wasn't able to discern a difference betwen the Oracle V3 cables and my custom Canare cables (4S11 w/cardas spades). Well, you might show them the pictures on this site: http://cable.tcnerd.com/whymit.asp ....especially the box with nothing in it. (The cheapskates didn't even spring for potting compound!) Tom Nousaine has reported opening a box and finding a single resistor, installed in such a way as to have almost no impact on the signal. But I don't think you're going to convince people who've already shelled out thousands that they're silly for doing so. bob |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chung wrote:
Gene Poon wrote: TonyP wrote: I have 4 different friends running the Oracle cables and I can't help but wonder what's in the little box just before the ends? I've always bi-wired my speakers with Canare 4S11. When I swapped my cables in to 2 different systems to replace the MIT Oracles, I couldn't discern any difference. Of course, the owner in each case said the MIT cables were "more revealing." 8-) Anyone know what's in the little box? A couple of 50 cent resistors and capacitors, and about a gallon of priceless snake oil.................... I think that there is a bit more than that in those shipping crates... ==================================== No, there isn't. And even "fifty-cent" is pushing it. The Hacksaw Test doesn't lie. -GP Does anyone have a schematic of what's in the box? ======================= The one in the Hacksaw Test had a single resistor of something like 100K, way, WAY above where it would make any difference at all, and...surprise of surprises...one end of it wasn't connected to anything. Others have reported finding nothing in the box at all. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
wrote: Ritz wrote: I would find that to be of extreme interest as well. I don't really care to duplicate the design "on the cheap." I'm more interested in showing my buddies who spent several grand on speaker cables how absolutely silly that is. As I said in the original post, I wasn't able to discern a difference betwen the Oracle V3 cables and my custom Canare cables (4S11 w/cardas spades). Well, you might show them the pictures on this site: http://cable.tcnerd.com/whymit.asp ...especially the box with nothing in it. (The cheapskates didn't even spring for potting compound!) Tom Nousaine has reported opening a box and finding a single resistor, installed in such a way as to have almost no impact on the signal. This is the kind of stuff that skeptics should be doing. Bravo for exposing a scam for what it is. 9,800 bucks for speaker cable? That ought to raise an eyebrow or two even if the box is stuffed with whatever. Considering what one can get in the way of speakers and electronics for the same price megabuck cables are obviously, if nothing else, ridiculously over priced. my god 9,800 bucks buys you soooo much in audio. Maybe if they were all gold... Unfortunately, this is a rather expensive form of muckraking. In fact, the more expensive the cable, the less likely anyone's going to open it up. And skeptics tend not to have a lot of old, expensive cables lying around. But I don't think you're going to convince people who've already shelled out thousands that they're silly for doing so. I'd feel outraged at the manufacturer if I shelled out 9,800 bucks for an obvious scam. I'd feel pretty stupid too. Yeah, but the reason you'd feel that way is probably why you wouldn't shell out $9,800 in the first place. People who do spend that kind of money find it easy to convince themselves that they're paying for "R&D," so the cost of the parts really doesn't matter. bob |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
wrote: wrote: I'd feel outraged at the manufacturer if I shelled out 9,800 bucks for an obvious scam. I'd feel pretty stupid too. Yeah, but the reason you'd feel that way is probably why you wouldn't shell out $9,800 in the first place. In this particular case the reasons are even simpler. 9,800 for a cable is, to me, obviouly too much money. There is simply too much that can be done with that much money in the way of other improvements. But, for argument's sake if I did shell out that kind of money with the presumption that the box is filled with extensively researched technology that actually justified the price (real R&D does have to be recouped) only to find out it was empty I'd be quite outraged. The manufacturer would have quite a difficult time convincing me that the R&D that went into an empty box was so costly. People who do spend that kind of money find it easy to convince themselves that they're paying for "R&D," so the cost of the parts really doesn't matter. People who spend that kind of money on cables and believe that extensive R&D went into an empty box probably were going to blow the money one way or another. Scott Wheeler |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
wrote: But I don't think you're going to convince people who've already shelled out thousands that they're silly for doing so. I'd feel outraged at the manufacturer if I shelled out 9,800 bucks for an obvious scam. I'd feel pretty stupid too. Questions is, which emotion would dominate? Would the outrage overcome all and make one cry out. Ovecome all what? You can bet I'd make a lot of noise. I'd start by demanding my money back. "I've just spent $9,800 on a scam, I'm mad as hell and not going to take it any more," or will the embarassment of feeling stupid make one shut up or even attempt to justify the expense to silence the discomfort of congitive dissonance? I can see how some may shut up about the actual purchase if they feel stupid about being duped but I cannot see how someone would try to justify the actions of the scammers if one really beleives they have been scammed. Scott Wheeler |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... wrote: Ritz wrote: I would find that to be of extreme interest as well. I don't really care to duplicate the design "on the cheap." I'm more interested in showing my buddies who spent several grand on speaker cables how absolutely silly that is. As I said in the original post, I wasn't able to discern a difference betwen the Oracle V3 cables and my custom Canare cables (4S11 w/cardas spades). Well, you might show them the pictures on this site: http://cable.tcnerd.com/whymit.asp ...especially the box with nothing in it. (The cheapskates didn't even spring for potting compound!) Tom Nousaine has reported opening a box and finding a single resistor, installed in such a way as to have almost no impact on the signal. This is the kind of stuff that skeptics should be doing. They've been doing it for years - and getting the same disbelieving response from "audiophiles" who insist that megabuck cables make a difference. - Gary Rosen |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was at a Stereophile show in San Francisco several years ago and a
manufacturer was demoing expensive cables with a box at the end. They had an analyzer set showing the frequency response of the cable and it appeared to be a low-pass filter with a cutoff frequency of 6mhz. Very important for people who can hear above 6mhz!!! -- Ron Stewart Santa Rosa, Calif. "Ritz" wrote in message ... I have 4 different friends running the Oracle cables and I can't help but wonder what's in the little box just before the ends? I've always bi-wired my speakers with Canare 4S11. When I swapped my cables in to 2 different systems to replace the MIT Oracles, I couldn't discern any difference. Of course, the owner in each case said the MIT cables were "more revealing." 8-) Anyone know what's in the little box? Cheers, |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
chung wrote:
wrote: I'd feel outraged at the manufacturer if I shelled out 9,800 bucks for an obvious scam. They let you return it within a certain time, didn't they? As a subjectivist, you trusted your hearing, right? It must have sounded good to you for you to spend that kind of dough, correct? You could have compared it with Home Depot cables first, right? So why would you be outraged at the manufacturer? And hey, isn't 'trust your ears' the rule that trumps all others, in the audiophile subculture? |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
chung wrote:
wrote: I'd feel outraged at the manufacturer if I shelled out 9,800 bucks for an obvious scam. They let you return it within a certain time, didn't they? They being this particular manufacturer? I don't know. As a subjectivist, you trusted your hearing, right? As a subjectivist I make my decisions based on practical usage. yes i do trust my ears. It must have sounded good to you for you to spend that kind of dough, correct? Good? No, it would have to sound magnificent. It would have to be a revelation. You could have compared it with Home Depot cables first, right? So why would you be outraged at the manufacturer? Because it is outright fraud. Perhaps you should be outraged at the reviews? Or those experts who endorse such products? If I catch them in a lie I will be outraged. I'd feel pretty stupid too. If you have simply asked the objectivists about cables here, we would have educated you...  No thanks. The objectivists reviewers have already failed me too many times. Assuming you listen to us, of course. I did back in the day and suffered the consequences of inferior sound. Julian Hirsch may have been a nice guy but taking him at his word was one my biggest mistakes I ever as an audiophile. I was a bit outraged at the time. It didn't cost me 9,800 bucks but the money I wasted was meaningful. I was just starting out on my professional career. But I wasn't quiet about being duped. I was quite vocal about it. I wasn't shy about eating humble pie back in the day. It happened. I learned. Scott Wheeler |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
chung wrote: wrote: I'd feel outraged at the manufacturer if I shelled out 9,800 bucks for an obvious scam. They let you return it within a certain time, didn't they? They being this particular manufacturer? I don't know. "They" also refers to the seller. You mean you might buy an expensive cable with no return policy? Oh my... As a subjectivist, you trusted your hearing, right? As a subjectivist I make my decisions based on practical usage. yes i do trust my ears. So you must have liked the sound of those cables before plucking down those big bills, no? If you trust your ears, and they told you the cable sounded good, what is the outrage about? It must have sounded good to you for you to spend that kind of dough, correct? Good? No, it would have to sound magnificent. It would have to be a revelation. Reading reviews of cables, I often got the impression that the reviewer had some revelations... So those cables sounded magnificient to you for you to have spent that kind of money. So what's the outrage about? You could have compared it with Home Depot cables first, right? So why would you be outraged at the manufacturer? Because it is outright fraud. To play devil's advocate, how is it outright fraud? Did they say anything about the construction of the cables or the box, or did the cables not meet published specs? Didn't you like those cables enought to buy them? How is it any more fraud than, say, the Wavac amp that sells for $350K that does not meet specs? Or the green CD pen? Or the Shatki stones? And how is it any more fraudulent than cable companies writing white papers on cable break-in, directivity, golden ratios, micro-diodes, "articulation response", etc.? Are you equally outraged at those examples? Perhaps you should be outraged at the reviews? Or those experts who endorse such products? If I catch them in a lie I will be outraged. What exactly is the lie here? Did they say that the box has to have certain components? Would you have been happier if the box actually modifies the frequency response of the cable? I'd feel pretty stupid too. If you have simply asked the objectivists about cables here, we would have educated you... No thanks. The objectivists reviewers have already failed me too many times. Not sure if I can remember seeing any objectivist reviewing cables. In fact, the objectivists here all seem to recommend generic 12-ga stuff from R-S or Home Depot. And you are saying that the subjectivist reviews don't fail you? I am pretty sure we can find a great review on that Transparent cable... Can you cite any example of an objectivist reviewer on rahe failing you? Assuming you listen to us, of course. I did back in the day and suffered the consequences of inferior sound. Julian Hirsch may have been a nice guy but taking him at his word was one my biggest mistakes I ever as an audiophile. I was a bit outraged at the time. It didn't cost me 9,800 bucks but the money I wasted was meaningful. I was just starting out on my professional career. But I wasn't quiet about being duped. I was quite vocal about it. I wasn't shy about eating humble pie back in the day. It happened. I learned. So the subjectivists' reviews are more trustworthy? Also I did not realize that Julian Hirsch gives advice here on rahe... How much money did you waste by listening to Julian Hirsch? And are you sure that you were not misunderstanding Julian Hirsch's word? Scott Wheeler |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chung wrote:
wrote: chung wrote: wrote: I'd feel outraged at the manufacturer if I shelled out 9,800 bucks for an obvious scam. They let you return it within a certain time, didn't they? They being this particular manufacturer? I don't know. "They" also refers to the seller. OK. I wasn't sure who you were refering to. you know that old pronoun without an established noun thing. That is why I asked. You mean you might buy an expensive cable with no return policy? No. Never. What on earth gave you that idea? Oh my... Indeed. As a subjectivist, you trusted your hearing, right? As a subjectivist I make my decisions based on practical usage. yes i do trust my ears. So you must have liked the sound of those cables before plucking down those big bills, no? So far, no. As of yet I have never plucked down that kind of bread on cables. If you trust your ears, and they told you the cable sounded good, what is the outrage about? That's a pretty big *if* there but the outrage, as I said before, is over the blatent fraud. It must have sounded good to you for you to spend that kind of dough, correct? Good? No, it would have to sound magnificent. It would have to be a revelation. Reading reviews of cables, I often got the impression that the reviewer had some revelations... They often buy expensive cables too dont they. I have yet to hear a cable that i think is worth 9,800 bucks in terms of performance. I doubt any of them can justify that kind of a price tag based on materials, construction and cost of R&D. I don't know but I doubt it. So those cables sounded magnificient to you for you to have spent that kind of money. Keep in mind this is a hypathetical. no such cable has sounded so magnificent so far. I'm not holding my breath. So what's the outrage about? The fraud. You could have compared it with Home Depot cables first, right? So why would you be outraged at the manufacturer? Because it is outright fraud. To play devil's advocate, how is it outright fraud? Did they say anything about the construction of the cables or the box, or did the cables not meet published specs? They say a lot about the construction of what's in the box. http://www.transparentcable.com/desi..._networks.html Didn't you like those cables enought to buy them? I have never heard them. but if you are talking hypathetically.... OK I'll bite, lets say I did. doesn't change the fact that this is fraud. The buyer paid 9,800 for an empty box. Lets say for argument's sake the cables actually did sound way better. They are still lying to rationalize the price. If they said "hey we got this cable, it's actually cheap to build and the box is empty but it sounds great and we are charging you because we know how to make this cable and nobody else does." I'd accept that. But they are blatently lying about what the buyer is actually getting. fraud. plain and simple. How is it any more fraud than, say, the Wavac amp that sells for $350K that does not meet specs? Glad you asked. I thought this would make a good counter-example since it raised a lot of eyebrows on this forum. The Wavac doesn't have any empty boxes. It is exactly what the manufacturer says it is. You may not like the design, you may not think the design will make any audible diffence. But the Wavac is exactly what it is claimed to be. http://www.wavac-audio.jp/he833mk2_e.html. If you can find any lies about what is in the package please point them out. Again, you may not like them but there is no denying the expense that went into building these puppies. I see no reason to think that a fair amount of listening and tweaking went into the design proccess as well. That would be legitimate R&D. I don't see any fraud here at all. Or the green CD pen? Are they not actually green pens? Or the Shatki stones? Are they not what the manufacturer claims they are? I don't know. Despite all the fighting over Shatki stones, I really haven't looked into them. I don't know what the manufacturer claims is in them. If they are empty boxes I'd say they are probably frauds as well. But I don't see the point of talking about Shatki stones until someone cuts them open and finds they are not what the manufacturer claims them to be. And how is it any more fraudulent than cable companies writing white papers on cable break-in, directivity, golden ratios, micro-diodes, "articulation response", etc.? Are you equally outraged at those examples? No, I'm not. I don't really know much about your claims on these matters. I wasn't outraged by the Transparent Cables until I saw the fraud exposed. Please don't expect me to make presumptions about things. This was an excellent job of fraud being exposed. That's a good thing isn't it? Perhaps you should be outraged at the reviews? Or those experts who endorse such products? If I catch them in a lie I will be outraged. What exactly is the lie here? http://www.transparentcable.com/desi..._networks.html vs. an empty box. Did they say that the box has to have certain components? They clearly say that they have components! Clearly they don't. You can read their claims and see if they match the contents of an empty box. I say clearly they do not. Would you have been happier if the box actually modifies the frequency response of the cable? I would be satisfied that no fraud was involved if the box contained something that can reasonably be considered what they describe as being in the box. I'd feel pretty stupid too. If you have simply asked the objectivists about cables here, we would have educated you... No thanks. The objectivists reviewers have already failed me too many times. Not sure if I can remember seeing any objectivist reviewing cables. Not sure what this has to do with my statement. In fact, the objectivists here all seem to recommend generic 12-ga stuff from R-S or Home Depot. And you are saying that the subjectivist reviews don't fail you? I suggest you reread what I said. I made no mention of subjectivist reviewers. But to answer your question, no they have never failed me. They have never asked me to take them at their word on their subjective impressions. They have always asked me to listen for myself and i have always done so. I have been quite happy with that advice. Only the objectivist reviewers have failed me so far. I am pretty sure we can find a great review on that Transparent cable... If you can find one that says don't bother with an audition, everything the manufacturer says about their cables is true and they are worth every penny you will inded find a review that fails the reader. Can you cite any example of an objectivist reviewer on rahe failing you? yes. Assuming you listen to us, of course. I did back in the day and suffered the consequences of inferior sound. Julian Hirsch may have been a nice guy but taking him at his word was one my biggest mistakes I ever as an audiophile. I was a bit outraged at the time. It didn't cost me 9,800 bucks but the money I wasted was meaningful. I was just starting out on my professional career. But I wasn't quiet about being duped. I was quite vocal about it. I wasn't shy about eating humble pie back in the day. It happened. I learned. So the subjectivists' reviews are more trustworthy? I don't think they were lying. Those reviews were also followed with the recomendation that listeners audtion all things for themselves. Julian Hirsch suggested *not* auditioning certain things including a crapy 14 CD player. Also I did not realize that Julian Hirsch gives advice here on rahe... I did not realize one had to give advice on RAHE to be of the same mind set. How much money did you waste by listening to Julian Hirsch? About 1,000 bucks. And are you sure that you were not misunderstanding Julian Hirsch's word? I'm pretty sure. Scott Wheeler |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
--On Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:12 PM +0000 wrote:
Ritz wrote: I would find that to be of extreme interest as well. I don't really care to duplicate the design "on the cheap." I'm more interested in showing my buddies who spent several grand on speaker cables how absolutely silly that is. As I said in the original post, I wasn't able to discern a difference betwen the Oracle V3 cables and my custom Canare cables (4S11 w/cardas spades). Well, you might show them the pictures on this site: http://cable.tcnerd.com/whymit.asp ...especially the box with nothing in it. (The cheapskates didn't even spring for potting compound!) Tom Nousaine has reported opening a box and finding a single resistor, installed in such a way as to have almost no impact on the signal. But I don't think you're going to convince people who've already shelled out thousands that they're silly for doing so. bob The Transparent Cable Web site shows Roxanne carefully building an interconnect, and says that each length of cable "...has its own particular design spec for the networks." Could it be that the "particular design spec" of the cable whose box was opened (discovering nothing inside) actually specified *nothing* as the optimal design? Maybe if the cable were 6 inches longer, the box would have been chock full of exotic space-age components? Perhaps the algorithm for the "design spec" has nulls at cable lengths of 1 meter, 2 meters, 3 meters, etc, and to get a box with stuff in it, you need to specify a length of 3.14159 meters? Steve |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
[Moderator's note: I accidentally allowed the previous post thru with
the word "lying" in it, which is against the guidelines. Please do not use it again in any followups. -- deb ] wrote: Chung wrote: wrote: chung wrote: wrote: I'd feel outraged at the manufacturer if I shelled out 9,800 bucks for an obvious scam. They let you return it within a certain time, didn't they? They being this particular manufacturer? I don't know. "They" also refers to the seller. OK. I wasn't sure who you were refering to. you know that old pronoun without an established noun thing. That is why I asked. You mean you might buy an expensive cable with no return policy? No. Never. What on earth gave you that idea? Because you said you did not know whether you can return them. Oh my... Indeed. So we can agree that there is a return policy and you could have returned the cables if you did not like them, correct? As a subjectivist, you trusted your hearing, right? As a subjectivist I make my decisions based on practical usage. yes i do trust my ears. So you must have liked the sound of those cables before plucking down those big bills, no? So far, no. As of yet I have never plucked down that kind of bread on cables. Of course, we are discussing the hypothetical case that you bought those cables and were somehow outraged. If you trust your ears, and they told you the cable sounded good, what is the outrage about? That's a pretty big *if* there but the outrage, as I said before, is over the blatent fraud. So we are arguing if there is blatant fraud. Let's see if we could establish fraud. But we have established that the cables did sound good to you. It must have sounded good to you for you to spend that kind of dough, correct? Good? No, it would have to sound magnificent. It would have to be a revelation. Reading reviews of cables, I often got the impression that the reviewer had some revelations... They often buy expensive cables too dont they. I have yet to hear a cable that i think is worth 9,800 bucks in terms of performance. I doubt any of them can justify that kind of a price tag based on materials, construction and cost of R&D. I don't know but I doubt it. We are staying with the hypothetical case here, of course. So those cables sounded magnificient to you for you to have spent that kind of money. Keep in mind this is a hypathetical. no such cable has sounded so magnificent so far. I'm not holding my breath. So what's the outrage about? The fraud. Let's see if you can establish that there is fraud, shall we? You could have compared it with Home Depot cables first, right? So why would you be outraged at the manufacturer? Because it is outright fraud. To play devil's advocate, how is it outright fraud? Did they say anything about the construction of the cables or the box, or did the cables not meet published specs? They say a lot about the construction of what's in the box. http://www.transparentcable.com/desi..._networks.html Pay attention now. There is stuff in the "Network Box". There is an inductor encased in epoxy. Did Transparent Cable specify that there have to be some other components? Did Transparent Cable say anything about the little enclosures at the ends of the cable? There is a RC netork in one of those enclosures, too. All they are saying is that there is a network in the cable. And there is the "Network Box" with a component inside. In fact, the network could have been be an empty box, if they believe the material of the box can affect performance of the cable, or if the box somehow adjusts the electrical length of the cable. But they are shipping a legitimate box with a component inside. Didn't you like those cables enought to buy them? I have never heard them. but if you are talking hypathetically.... OK I'll bite, lets say I did. doesn't change the fact that this is fraud. The buyer paid 9,800 for an empty box. You clearly have not read carefully the link that described what is in those boxes. There is a network made up of components inside the "Network Box" and one of the end enclosures. Lets say for argument's sake the cables actually did sound way better. They are still lying to rationalize the price. If they said "hey we got this cable, it's actually cheap to build and the box is empty but it sounds great and we are charging you because we know how to make this cable and nobody else does." I'd accept that. But they are blatently lying about what the buyer is actually getting. fraud. plain and simple. You clearly do not understand what Transparent is shipping. You want to withdraw your fraudulent claim now? Where exactly is the lie? Why would they tell you that the cable is cheap to build? Of course, they want you to believe that the R&D is what makes the cables so expensive. And, hey, they are built by "artisans who take great pride in their work"! How is it any more fraud than, say, the Wavac amp that sells for $350K that does not meet specs? Glad you asked. I thought this would make a good counter-example since it raised a lot of eyebrows on this forum. The Wavac doesn't have any empty boxes. It is exactly what the manufacturer says it is. You may not like the design, you may not think the design will make any audible diffence. But the Wavac is exactly what it is claimed to be. http://www.wavac-audio.jp/he833mk2_e.html. If you can find any lies about what is in the package please point them out. Again, you may not like them but there is no denying the expense that went into building these puppies. I see no reason to think that a fair amount of listening and tweaking went into the design proccess as well. That would be legitimate R&D. I don't see any fraud here at all. So given your position, why is the Transparent cable a fraud? It meets all of the manufacturer's specs! OTOH, the Wavac does not meet its specs. It does not do what the manufacturer says that it will do. If you think that Transparent is fraudulent, isn't Wavac even more fraudulent? Or the green CD pen? Are they not actually green pens? Are the Transparent cables not cables? Or the Shatki stones? Are they not what the manufacturer claims they are? Is the Transparent cable not what the manufacturer claims it is? I don't know. Despite all the fighting over Shatki stones, I really haven't looked into them. I don't know what the manufacturer claims is in them. If they are empty boxes I'd say they are probably frauds as well. But I don't see the point of talking about Shatki stones until someone cuts them open and finds they are not what the manufacturer claims them to be. Someone cut the Transparent cable, and it is what the manufacturer claims it is. And how is it any more fraudulent than cable companies writing white papers on cable break-in, directivity, golden ratios, micro-diodes, "articulation response", etc.? Are you equally outraged at those examples? No, I'm not. I don't really know much about your claims on these matters. I wasn't outraged by the Transparent Cables until I saw the fraud exposed. Please don't expect me to make presumptions about things. This was an excellent job of fraud being exposed. That's a good thing isn't it? How good it is depends on your perspective. For me, clearly there is no box that can improve the performance of the cable, so I know that it is pure marketing BS. But for subjectivists believing in cable sound, it is a good thing I guess. Unless they have bought that cable. Perhaps you should be outraged at the reviews? Or those experts who endorse such products? If I catch them in a lie I will be outraged. What exactly is the lie here? http://www.transparentcable.com/desi..._networks.html vs. an empty box. Go back and read carefully. Did they say that the box has to have certain components? They clearly say that they have components! Clearly they don't. You can read their claims and see if they match the contents of an empty box. I say clearly they do not. Go back and read carefully. Would you have been happier if the box actually modifies the frequency response of the cable? I would be satisfied that no fraud was involved if the box contained something that can reasonably be considered what they describe as being in the box. Even if the box is empty, it can be easily argued that it is the material of the box or the carefully adjustment of the cables inside the box that lead to superior performance. That certainly does not sound any more outrageous than cables having directivity or needing break-in. I'd feel pretty stupid too. If you have simply asked the objectivists about cables here, we would have educated you... No thanks. The objectivists reviewers have already failed me too many times. Not sure if I can remember seeing any objectivist reviewing cables. Not sure what this has to do with my statement. You were responding to the point I made, which is that if you have simply asked the objectivists here about cables, we would have educated you. You said that the objectivists have failed you, so of course I want to find out when have objectivists failed you in cable reviews. In fact, the objectivists here all seem to recommend generic 12-ga stuff from R-S or Home Depot. And you are saying that the subjectivist reviews don't fail you? I suggest you reread what I said. I made no mention of subjectivist reviewers. But you clearly were making a distinction between objectivist reviews and other reviews. You said objectivists reviews failed you many times. The implication is that subjectivist reviews don't fail you as much. But to answer your question, no they have never failed me. They have never asked me to take them at their word on their subjective impressions. They have always asked me to listen for myself and i have always done so. I have been quite happy with that advice. Only the objectivist reviewers have failed me so far. Did the objectivists tell you to take them on their words and buy stuff they told you to buy? I thought they always tell you to listen carefully, and that you can buy whatever you want. I am pretty sure we can find a great review on that Transparent cable... If you can find one that says don't bother with an audition, everything the manufacturer says about their cables is true and they are worth every penny you will inded find a review that fails the reader. That's neither here nor there. The point I am making is that it is the subjectivists who will review the Transparent cable highly. The objectivist will never tell you to buy such cables. Can you cite any example of an objectivist reviewer on rahe failing you? yes. Please show it. And please show how the objectivist on rahe told you to simply take his word and buy what he recommends. And that the obvjectivist recommended something that he does not believe in. Assuming you listen to us, of course. I did back in the day and suffered the consequences of inferior sound. Julian Hirsch may have been a nice guy but taking him at his word was one my biggest mistakes I ever as an audiophile. I was a bit outraged at the time. It didn't cost me 9,800 bucks but the money I wasted was meaningful. I was just starting out on my professional career. But I wasn't quiet about being duped. I was quite vocal about it. I wasn't shy about eating humble pie back in the day. It happened. I learned. So the subjectivists' reviews are more trustworthy? I don't think they were lying. Are you saying then the objectivists are lying? That's a pretty serious charge. Those reviews were also followed with the recomendation that listeners audtion all things for themselves. Julian Hirsch suggested *not* auditioning certain things including a crapy 14 CD player. Pay attention to the word "suggested". It was simply a suggestion. What is "a crappy 14 CD player"? Also I did not realize that Julian Hirsch gives advice here on rahe... I did not realize one had to give advice on RAHE to be of the same mind set. You were responding to the point I made that the objectivist here on rahe can educate you. And I am not even sure if Julian Hirsch is an objectivist. How much money did you waste by listening to Julian Hirsch? About 1,000 bucks. You mean you did not like what he recommended you to buy. Well, did Hirsch say that you had to like it? So you bought a "$1K crappy 14 CD player" based on his recommendation? Did that player sound crappy to everyone? Did it not meet specs? And are you sure that you were not misunderstanding Julian Hirsch's word? I'm pretty sure. I am sure that you were misunderstanding him. Scott Wheeler |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stephen Roehrig wrote:
full of exotic space-age components? Perhaps the algorithm for the "design spec" has nulls at cable lengths of 1 meter, 2 meters, 3 meters, etc, and to get a box with stuff in it, you need to specify a length of 3.14159 meters? ========================================== That's Pi-in-the-sky optimism. G And perhaps I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell. One of those super-duper cable manufacturers, who will make a set of interconnects to order if you want a special length, shipped one that was shorted on one channel, billing several hundred dollars for it. Looking at it, we found that a setscrew which is supposed to secure the cable to the barrel of the RCA plug had been driven in too far, piercing the outer jacket, through the shield and through the inner dielectric to the centre conductor. Several hundred dollars ruined, by a two-cent setscrew? Of course, you know, it must be all those high-priced ASSEMBLERS making a couple of dozen dollars a MINUTE that are responsible high priced cables being worth what you pay for them. We did have to admit that installing that particular interconnect in the system made a drastic and unsubtle subjective difference to the sound, as well as an objectively measured one. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
[Moderator's note: I think this subthread has been thoroughly beaten
to death, so it is ended. -- deb ] Chung wrote: [Moderator's note: I accidentally allowed the previous post thru with the word "lying" in it, which is against the guidelines. Please do not use it again in any followups. -- deb ] wrote: Chung wrote: wrote: chung wrote: wrote: I'd feel outraged at the manufacturer if I shelled out 9,800 bucks for an obvious scam. They let you return it within a certain time, didn't they? They being this particular manufacturer? I don't know. "They" also refers to the seller. OK. I wasn't sure who you were refering to. you know that old pronoun without an established noun thing. That is why I asked. You mean you might buy an expensive cable with no return policy? No. Never. What on earth gave you that idea? Because you said you did not know whether you can return them. I don't know. This is not a hypothetical. This is an actual product with policies in place. I don't know what they are. But i never bought this cable in real life. I would certainly find out the relevant information on returns bfore putting any money on the table. Oh my... Indeed. So we can agree that there is a return policy and you could have returned the cables if you did not like them, correct? No, we cannot agree on that until we have the facts. This is not a hypothetical. There are policies I just don't know them. As a subjectivist, you trusted your hearing, right? As a subjectivist I make my decisions based on practical usage. yes i do trust my ears. So you must have liked the sound of those cables before plucking down those big bills, no? So far, no. As of yet I have never plucked down that kind of bread on cables. Of course, we are discussing the hypothetical case that you bought those cables and were somehow outraged. If you trust your ears, and they told you the cable sounded good, what is the outrage about? That's a pretty big *if* there but the outrage, as I said before, is over the blatent fraud. So we are arguing if there is blatant fraud. For me, that is the big issue here. Let's see if we could establish fraud. Here is an online dictionary defintion. I agree with it. let's see if you do as well. fraud (noun) 1 a : DECEIT , TRICKERY ; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right; b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK ; 2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTOR ; also : one who defrauds : CHEAT ; b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be But we have established that the cables did sound good to you. Hypothetically, yes. It must have sounded good to you for you to spend that kind of dough, correct? Good? No, it would have to sound magnificent. It would have to be a revelation. Reading reviews of cables, I often got the impression that the reviewer had some revelations... They often buy expensive cables too dont they. I have yet to hear a cable that i think is worth 9,800 bucks in terms of performance. I doubt any of them can justify that kind of a price tag based on materials, construction and cost of R&D. I don't know but I doubt it. We are staying with the hypothetical case here, of course. But there is nothing hypothetical about the claim that some reviewers rave about some cables. I agree with your claim but IME some of them have laid there money down on those claims. I have not gone to the extreme of buying a cable for 9,800 bucks and I am hard pressed to believe any cable is worth it in either terms of performance or cost of development and manufacturing. So those cables sounded magnificient to you for you to have spent that kind of money. Keep in mind this is a hypathetical. no such cable has sounded so magnificent so far. I'm not holding my breath. So what's the outrage about? The fraud. Let's see if you can establish that there is fraud, shall we? I believe I have. If you find any flaws in my argument please point them out. You could have compared it with Home Depot cables first, right? So why would you be outraged at the manufacturer? Because it is outright fraud. To play devil's advocate, how is it outright fraud? Did they say anything about the construction of the cables or the box, or did the cables not meet published specs? They say a lot about the construction of what's in the box. http://www.transparentcable.com/desi..._networks.html Pay attention now. There is stuff in the "Network Box". There is an inductor encased in epoxy. Did Transparent Cable specify that there have to be some other components? IMO yes by simply calling it a network. Here is adictionary definition that i believe is relevant. network[1] (noun) 1 : a fabric or structure of cords or wires that cross at regular intervals and are knotted or secured at the crossings; 2 : a system of lines or channels resembling a network; 3 a : an interconnected or interrelated chain, group, or system a network of hotels; b : a system of computers, terminals, and databases connected by communications lines; 4 a : a group of radio or television stations linked by wire or radio relay; b : a radio or television company that produces programs for broadcast over such a network Did Transparent Cable say anything about the little enclosures at the ends of the cable? There is a RC netork in one of those enclosures, too. We are talking about one box that they specify as a netwrok box that is in fact empty. All they are saying is that there is a network in the cable. And there is the "Network Box" with a component inside. So you think they are playing games. I think they are failing at those games. They talk about networks as opposed to regular lengths of cable and they show pictures of the network box above and below where they talk about these networks. IMO it is fraud. In fact, the network could have been be an empty box, if they believe the material of the box can affect performance of the cable, or if the box somehow adjusts the electrical length of the cable. I don't agree with you. I doubt anyone woul agree with that if it were ever taken to court. Once upon a time Taco Bell came out with a product called Taco light. it actually had moe calories than their regular taco. they argued that they called it taco light because the torilla was a lighter color. Same sort of trickery no? Taco Bell was forced to change the name of their Taco light. But they are shipping a legitimate box with a component inside. No, the box was empty except for the cable running through it. Didn't you like those cables enought to buy them? I have never heard them. but if you are talking hypathetically.... OK I'll bite, lets say I did. doesn't change the fact that this is fraud. The buyer paid 9,800 for an empty box. You clearly have not read carefully the link that described what is in those boxes. There is a network made up of components inside the "Network Box" and one of the end enclosures. I have read it carefully. i don't think it stands up to the claims. I think your arguments would have about as much validity as did Taco Bell's on their taco light. Lets say for argument's sake the cables actually did sound way better. They are still lying to rationalize the price. If they said "hey we got this cable, it's actually cheap to build and the box is empty but it sounds great and we are charging you because we know how to make this cable and nobody else does." I'd accept that. But they are blatently lying about what the buyer is actually getting. fraud. plain and simple. You clearly do not understand what Transparent is shipping. You want to withdraw your fraudulent claim now? I do understand and no I do not want to withdraw my claim. Where exactly is the lie? I have already answered that question. pretty soon you may have to srtart arguing about what *is* is to play devil's advocate. I don't think it would hold up if presented to a reasonable arbitrator. I think one would agree with my claim. Why would they tell you that the cable is cheap to build? Of course, they want you to believe that the R&D is what makes the cables so expensive. Why do you no see the distintion betwen what frauds want me to believe and what is true? C'mon. And, hey, they are built by "artisans who take great pride in their work"! OK that was funny. How is it any more fraud than, say, the Wavac amp that sells for $350K that does not meet specs? Glad you asked. I thought this would make a good counter-example since it raised a lot of eyebrows on this forum. The Wavac doesn't have any empty boxes. It is exactly what the manufacturer says it is. You may not like the design, you may not think the design will make any audible diffence. But the Wavac is exactly what it is claimed to be. http://www.wavac-audio.jp/he833mk2_e.html. If you can find any lies about what is in the package please point them out. Again, you may not like them but there is no denying the expense that went into building these puppies. I see no reason to think that a fair amount of listening and tweaking went into the design proccess as well. That would be legitimate R&D. I don't see any fraud here at all. So given your position, why is the Transparent cable a fraud? It meets all of the manufacturer's specs! I have answered this question more than once. What they claim is in the package is not actually in the package. OTOH, the Wavac does not meet its specs. Yes it does. It does not do what the manufacturer says that it will do. Yes it does. If you think that Transparent is fraudulent, isn't Wavac even more fraudulent? Not even close. Or the green CD pen? Are they not actually green pens? Are the Transparent cables not cables? Is that all they are claiming them to be? No it isn't. Or the Shatki stones? Are they not what the manufacturer claims they are? Is the Transparent cable not what the manufacturer claims it is? Nope. clearly not. I don't know. Despite all the fighting over Shatki stones, I really haven't looked into them. I don't know what the manufacturer claims is in them. If they are empty boxes I'd say they are probably frauds as well. But I don't see the point of talking about Shatki stones until someone cuts them open and finds they are not what the manufacturer claims them to be. Someone cut the Transparent cable, and it is what the manufacturer claims it is. If you think an empty box meets the definition of a network as I posted it.... I don't think you will find many people who would agree with that. And how is it any more fraudulent than cable companies writing white papers on cable break-in, directivity, golden ratios, micro-diodes, "articulation response", etc.? Are you equally outraged at those examples? No, I'm not. I don't really know much about your claims on these matters. I wasn't outraged by the Transparent Cables until I saw the fraud exposed. Please don't expect me to make presumptions about things. This was an excellent job of fraud being exposed. That's a good thing isn't it? How good it is depends on your perspective. For me, clearly there is no box that can improve the performance of the cable, so I know that it is pure marketing BS. But for subjectivists believing in cable sound, it is a good thing I guess. Unless they have bought that cable. Perhaps you should be outraged at the reviews? Or those experts who endorse such products? If I catch them in a lie I will be outraged. What exactly is the lie here? http://www.transparentcable.com/desi..._networks.html vs. an empty box. Go back and read carefully. I did. My claims stand. Did they say that the box has to have certain components? They clearly say that they have components! Clearly they don't. You can read their claims and see if they match the contents of an empty box. I say clearly they do not. Go back and read carefully. Would you have been happier if the box actually modifies the frequency response of the cable? I would be satisfied that no fraud was involved if the box contained something that can reasonably be considered what they describe as being in the box. Even if the box is empty, it can be easily argued that it is the material of the box or the carefully adjustment of the cables inside the box that lead to superior performance. That certainly does not sound any more outrageous than cables having directivity or needing break-in. Yes and taco Bell easliy argued that their taco light was in fact lighter in color. They still had to change the name. Know why? I'd feel pretty stupid too. If you have simply asked the objectivists about cables here, we would have educated you... No thanks. The objectivists reviewers have already failed me too many times. Not sure if I can remember seeing any objectivist reviewing cables. Not sure what this has to do with my statement. You were responding to the point I made, which is that if you have simply asked the objectivists here about cables, we would have educated you. You said that the objectivists have failed you, so of course I want to find out when have objectivists failed you in cable reviews. I don't recall the topic of failure by objectivists being limited to cables. In fact, the objectivists here all seem to recommend generic 12-ga stuff from R-S or Home Depot. And you are saying that the subjectivist reviews don't fail you? I suggest you reread what I said. I made no mention of subjectivist reviewers. But you clearly were making a distinction between objectivist reviews and other reviews. You said objectivists reviews failed you many times. I said they have failed me. i don't think i said many times. The implication is that subjectivist reviews don't fail you as much. OK. But to answer your question, no they have never failed me. They have never asked me to take them at their word on their subjective impressions. They have always asked me to listen for myself and i have always done so. I have been quite happy with that advice. Only the objectivist reviewers have failed me so far. Did the objectivists tell you to take them on their words and buy stuff they told you to buy? Yes. I thought they always tell you to listen carefully, and that you can buy whatever you want. That's what the *subjectivist reviewers* said. I am pretty sure we can find a great review on that Transparent cable... If you can find one that says don't bother with an audition, everything the manufacturer says about their cables is true and they are worth every penny you will inded find a review that fails the reader. That's neither here nor there. The point I am making is that it is the subjectivists who will review the Transparent cable highly. The objectivist will never tell you to buy such cables. Neither will the subjectivists. But the objectivists will tell me to buy things that I already found dissatisfying. there in lies the faliure of some subjectivist reviewers. Can you cite any example of an objectivist reviewer on rahe failing you? yes. Please show it. And please show how the objectivist on rahe told you to simply take his word and buy what he recommends. Again, you are placing this artificial limit to RAHE objectivists. My claim was not limited to that. And that the obvjectivist recommended something that he does not believe in. Is that a claim or a question? Assuming you listen to us, of course. I did back in the day and suffered the consequences of inferior sound. Julian Hirsch may have been a nice guy but taking him at his word was one my biggest mistakes I ever as an audiophile. I was a bit outraged at the time. It didn't cost me 9,800 bucks but the money I wasted was meaningful. I was just starting out on my professional career. But I wasn't quiet about being duped. I was quite vocal about it. I wasn't shy about eating humble pie back in the day. It happened. I learned. So the subjectivists' reviews are more trustworthy? I don't think they were lying. Are you saying then the objectivists are lying? That's a pretty serious charge. It's pretty wild leap too. Those reviews were also followed with the recomendation that listeners audtion all things for themselves. Julian Hirsch suggested *not* auditioning certain things including a crapy 14 CD player. Pay attention to the word "suggested". It was simply a suggestion. No, I read it. It was a dogmatic claim. I call it a suggestion to be nice. What is "a crappy 14 CD player"? I left out the word bit. Also I did not realize that Julian Hirsch gives advice here on rahe... I did not realize one had to give advice on RAHE to be of the same mind set. You were responding to the point I made that the objectivist here on rahe can educate you. And I am not even sure if Julian Hirsch is an objectivist. How much money did you waste by listening to Julian Hirsch? About 1,000 bucks. You mean you did not like what he recommended you to buy. Correct. Well, did Hirsch say that you had to like it? So you bought a "$1K crappy 14 CD player" based on his recommendation? Did that player sound crappy to everyone? Does it matter? Did it not meet specs? Does it matter? And are you sure that you were not misunderstanding Julian Hirsch's word? I'm pretty sure. I am sure that you were misunderstanding him. You have been sure about a lot of things and turned out to be wrong. Scott Wheeler |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| on topic: we need a rec.audio.pro.ot newsgroup! | Pro Audio | |||
| MIT "Articulation Response" claims for Oracle cables and Spectral amps | High End Audio | |||
| FS: Audio Cables & Adapter Cables | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
