Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are ready
for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power cords and speaker cables.) This is the gear we chose: YBA Passion 200 Focal Electra 1027 Be Ayre CX-7 Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make personal recommendations? douga |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"DougA" wrote in message
... After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are ready for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power cords and speaker cables.) This is the gear we chose: YBA Passion 200 Focal Electra 1027 Be Ayre CX-7 Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make personal recommendations? douga Assuming the OP is asking a serious question, certain answers come to mind:- 1) Are the cables from CD to amplifier already XLR balanced or conventional phono unbalanced? If already balanced, then why is the OP wanting to change them? What possible improvement could result? If the cables are unbalanced, then why does the OP think that balanced operation will result in an improvement? Balanced operation comes from professional studio practice where cable runs are many many times longer than in a domestic environment, and balancing is used to reject hum and to some extent rf interference from long runs. In a normal domestic environement, with cable runs of less than 10 metres (33 feet) balanced operation will give no improvement. 2) Power cords are power cords are power cords. As long as the cable is thick enough that it won't heat up with the load, there is no possible benefit from replacement cables. Note that in the equipment there is a power supply that rectifies and smooths the mains, and, if there is a stabilised supply, very effectively isolates the equipment from mains disturbances. With competent design, even power supply ripple is rejected to a high order, so absolutley no improvement will be noticed by changing mains cables. 3) Loudspeaker cables need to be thick enough so that they do not drop significant volts and of low enough inductance (but not too low) and capacitance so they don't upset the power amplifier. Note, incidentally, that any competent power amp should be unconditionally stable into any load, but not all amps are unconditionally stable. For example, NAIM amps in the past needed a minimum amount of inductance for stability. What the cable is made of, what its construction is, and how much it costs has no bearing on the sound, which will not differ from ordinary cable. I normally use 30 amp cable, the sort used in car headlamp wiring, as it's cheap and perfect for the job. S. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
Serge Auckland wrote:
"DougA" wrote in message ... After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are ready for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power cords and speaker cables.) This is the gear we chose: YBA Passion 200 Focal Electra 1027 Be Ayre CX-7 Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make personal recommendations? douga Assuming the OP is asking a serious question, certain answers come to mind:- 1) Are the cables from CD to amplifier already XLR balanced or conventional phono unbalanced? If already balanced, then why is the OP wanting to change them? What possible improvement could result? If the cables are unbalanced, then why does the OP think that balanced operation will result in an improvement? Balanced operation comes from professional studio practice where cable runs are many many times longer than in a domestic environment, and balancing is used to reject hum and to some extent rf interference from long runs. In a normal domestic environement, with cable runs of less than 10 metres (33 feet) balanced operation will give no improvement. 2) Power cords are power cords are power cords. As long as the cable is thick enough that it won't heat up with the load, there is no possible benefit from replacement cables. Note that in the equipment there is a power supply that rectifies and smooths the mains, and, if there is a stabilised supply, very effectively isolates the equipment from mains disturbances. With competent design, even power supply ripple is rejected to a high order, so absolutley no improvement will be noticed by changing mains cables. To amplify the point, if the user questions the quality of the power cord that comes with the electronics, he probably should not buy the electronics from that manufacturer. It is much harder designing good electronics than picking a power cord, so shipping a product with a audibly sub-optimal power cord is a clear sign of incompetence, no? 3) Loudspeaker cables need to be thick enough so that they do not drop significant volts and of low enough inductance (but not too low) and capacitance so they don't upset the power amplifier. Note, incidentally, that any competent power amp should be unconditionally stable into any load, but not all amps are unconditionally stable. For example, NAIM amps in the past needed a minimum amount of inductance for stability. What the cable is made of, what its construction is, and how much it costs has no bearing on the sound, which will not differ from ordinary cable. I normally use 30 amp cable, the sort used in car headlamp wiring, as it's cheap and perfect for the job. In the US, 12-gauge speaker cable is commonly available and does the job. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 3, 12:11 pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote: "DougA" wrote in message ... After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are ready for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power cords and speaker cables.) This is the gear we chose: YBA Passion 200 Focal Electra 1027 Be Ayre CX-7 Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make personal recommendations? douga Assuming the OP is asking a serious question, certain answers come to mind:- 1) Are the cables from CD to amplifier already XLR balanced or conventional phono unbalanced? If already balanced, then why is the OP wanting to change them? What possible improvement could result? If the cables are unbalanced, then why does the OP think that balanced operation will result in an improvement? Balanced operation comes from professional studio practice where cable runs are many many times longer than in a domestic environment, and balancing is used to reject hum and to some extent rf interference from long runs. In a normal domestic environement, with cable runs of less than 10 metres (33 feet) balanced operation will give no improvement. 2) Power cords are power cords are power cords. As long as the cable is thick enough that it won't heat up with the load, there is no possible benefit from replacement cables. Note that in the equipment there is a power supply that rectifies and smooths the mains, and, if there is a stabilised supply, very effectively isolates the equipment from mains disturbances. With competent design, even power supply ripple is rejected to a high order, so absolutley no improvement will be noticed by changing mains cables. 3) Loudspeaker cables need to be thick enough so that they do not drop significant volts and of low enough inductance (but not too low) and capacitance so they don't upset the power amplifier. Note, incidentally, that any competent power amp should be unconditionally stable into any load, but not all amps are unconditionally stable. For example, NAIM amps in the past needed a minimum amount of inductance for stability. What the cable is made of, what its construction is, and how much it costs has no bearing on the sound, which will not differ from ordinary cable. I normally use 30 amp cable, the sort used in car headlamp wiring, as it's cheap and perfect for the job. Something tells me this is not the sort of answer the OP was looking for! If I'm right about that, he might do better to consult places like AudioAsylum or Audiogon, where he will find like-minded audiophiles happy to tell him everything he wants to hear. My own recommendation for cables is: http://www.bluejeanscable.com/ bob |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
2) Power cords are power cords are power cords. As long as the cable is
thick enough that it won't heat up with the load, there is no possible benefit from replacement cables. Note that in the equipment there is a power supply that rectifies and smooths the mains, and, if there is a stabilised supply, very effectively isolates the equipment from mains disturbances. With competent design, even power supply ripple is rejected to a high order, so absolutley no improvement will be noticed by changing mains cables. Well said. I don't know why some audiophiles think the last 3 feet of cable are magical. There may be 100 miles of power cables of one kind or another between your stereo and the power plant. And, as you say, the power supply of the amplifier very effectively isolates everything else from the power line. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
Assuming the OP is asking a serious question, certain answers come to
mind:- 1) Are the cables from CD to amplifier already XLR balanced or conventional phono unbalanced? If already balanced, then why is the OP wanting to change them? What possible improvement could result? If the cables are unbalanced, then why does the OP think that balanced operation will result in an improvement? Balanced operation comes from professional studio practice where cable runs are many many times longer than in a domestic environment, and balancing is used to reject hum and to some extent rf interference from long runs. In a normal domestic environement, with cable runs of less than 10 metres (33 feet) balanced operation will give no improvement. Yes, they are balanced but the cable I bought with the system are cheap and after demoing some Acoustic Zen Silver references XLRs, I was awed by the depth, detail, soundstage and extra music they offered. There are many reasons to use balanced on short runs, I only that the CD players that I tested without the balanced XLR connectors didn't sound as good. 2) Power cords are power cords are power cords. As long as the cable is thick enough that it won't heat up with the load, there is no possible benefit from replacement cables. Note that in the equipment there is a power supply that rectifies and smooths the mains, and, if there is a stabilised supply, very effectively isolates the equipment from mains disturbances. With competent design, even power supply ripple is rejected to a high order, so absolutley no improvement will be noticed by changing mains cables. Again, I tried a few expensive cables and was blown away by the difference they made. I want to believe that a cord is a cord but my ears won't let me. 3) Loudspeaker cables need to be thick enough so that they do not drop significant volts and of low enough inductance (but not too low) and capacitance so they don't upset the power amplifier. Note, incidentally, that any competent power amp should be unconditionally stable into any load, but not all amps are unconditionally stable. For example, NAIM amps in the past needed a minimum amount of inductance for stability. What the cable is made of, what its construction is, and how much it costs has no bearing on the sound, which will not differ from ordinary cable. I normally use 30 amp cable, the sort used in car headlamp wiring, as it's cheap and perfect for the job. In a blind test with reg wire and expensive cable I was blown away with the difference. S. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On 3 Mar 2007 19:22:51 GMT, "bob" wrote:
Something tells me this is not the sort of answer the OP was looking for! Truthful advice is not what the OP was searching for? If I'm right about that, he might do better to consult places like AudioAsylum or Audiogon, where he will find like-minded audiophiles happy to tell him everything he wants to hear. My own recommendation for cables is: Anywhere you go it is always easy indeed to find lots of people who will tell you that what you want to believe is the truth. People who will tell you the actual truth are much rarer, much more valuable, and, of course, pretty generally ignored. Just one person's opinion. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
DougA wrote:
After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are ready for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power cords and speaker cables.) This is the gear we chose: YBA Passion 200 Focal Electra 1027 Be Ayre CX-7 Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make personal recommendations? What gives you the idea that you can upgrade a cable ? It's all mostly bunkum. Some cable type can make audible differences *when used for speaker connections* for perfectly scientific reasons such as cable resistance and inductancebut it's related solely to cable size and construction and doesn't requite a fortune spending. There are no reasons whatever why one decent cable used to connect a CD player to an amp will sound (or measure) any different to another decent one. I personally buy the ones on ebay that cost a few pounds each. Similarly a power cord is quite incapable of making any difference at all. There is however a huge industry that plays to ppls' gullibility. Graham |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 4, 7:39�am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 3 Mar 2007 19:22:51 GMT, "bob" wrote: Something tells me this is not the sort of answer the OP was looking for! Truthful advice is not what the OP was searching for? If I'm right about that, he might do better to consult places like AudioAsylum or Audiogon, where he will find like-minded audiophiles happy to tell him everything he wants to hear. My own recommendation for cables is: Anywhere you go it is always easy indeed to find lots of people who will tell you that what you want to believe is the truth. *People who will tell you the actual truth are much rarer, much more valuable, and, of course, pretty generally ignored. Just one person's opinion. i am always leary of anyone or any group of people who believe they have a monopoly on "the truth." Just another person's opinion. Scott |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 4, 10:39 am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 3 Mar 2007 19:22:51 GMT, "bob" wrote: Something tells me this is not the sort of answer the OP was looking for! Truthful advice is not what the OP was searching for? Not that kind of truth. "I tried cable X and it sounded amazing!" is (probably) truthful advice. Bad, but truthful. People who believe in high-priced cables (and even people who think they don't believe in high-priced cables) can be truly amazed by what they hear. If I'm right about that, he might do better to consult places like AudioAsylum or Audiogon, where he will find like-minded audiophiles happy to tell him everything he wants to hear. My own recommendation for cables is: Anywhere you go it is always easy indeed to find lots of people who will tell you that what you want to believe is the truth. People who will tell you the actual truth are much rarer, much more valuable, and, of course, pretty generally ignored. Which would indicate that truthful advice is indeed NOT what they are seeking, wouldn't it? But, as I suggested above, you don't really mean "truthful" here. What you mean is, "technically sound." So, to answer a restated version of your initial question: No, I do not believe that the OP is searching for technically sound advice. That is why I referred him to places where he can find the technically unsound advice he is seeking. bob |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"DougA" wrote in message
... Assuming the OP is asking a serious question, certain answers come to mind:- 1) Are the cables from CD to amplifier already XLR balanced or conventional phono unbalanced? If already balanced, then why is the OP wanting to change them? What possible improvement could result? If the cables are unbalanced, then why does the OP think that balanced operation will result in an improvement? Balanced operation comes from professional studio practice where cable runs are many many times longer than in a domestic environment, and balancing is used to reject hum and to some extent rf interference from long runs. In a normal domestic environement, with cable runs of less than 10 metres (33 feet) balanced operation will give no improvement. Yes, they are balanced but the cable I bought with the system are cheap and after demoing some Acoustic Zen Silver references XLRs, I was awed by the depth, detail, soundstage and extra music they offered. There are many reasons to use balanced on short runs, I only that the CD players that I tested without the balanced XLR connectors didn't sound as good. 2) Power cords are power cords are power cords. As long as the cable is thick enough that it won't heat up with the load, there is no possible benefit from replacement cables. Note that in the equipment there is a power supply that rectifies and smooths the mains, and, if there is a stabilised supply, very effectively isolates the equipment from mains disturbances. With competent design, even power supply ripple is rejected to a high order, so absolutley no improvement will be noticed by changing mains cables. Again, I tried a few expensive cables and was blown away by the difference they made. I want to believe that a cord is a cord but my ears won't let me. 3) Loudspeaker cables need to be thick enough so that they do not drop significant volts and of low enough inductance (but not too low) and capacitance so they don't upset the power amplifier. Note, incidentally, that any competent power amp should be unconditionally stable into any load, but not all amps are unconditionally stable. For example, NAIM amps in the past needed a minimum amount of inductance for stability. What the cable is made of, what its construction is, and how much it costs has no bearing on the sound, which will not differ from ordinary cable. I normally use 30 amp cable, the sort used in car headlamp wiring, as it's cheap and perfect for the job. In a blind test with reg wire and expensive cable I was blown away with the difference. S. And I am very happy for you, and if you want to spend your money completely needlessly, there are no end of people out there ready and willing to relieve you of it. You have asked for personal opinions and recommendations:- As there is NO audible difference between cables, any perceived differences are entirely of your own construction, therefore, listen to as many as you can/want to, then buy what sounds best to *you*. There isn't a bad choice to be made, except to your wealth. S. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
Yes, they are balanced but the cable I bought with the system are cheap and
after demoing some Acoustic Zen Silver references XLRs, I was awed by the depth, detail, soundstage and extra music they offered. There are many reasons to use balanced on short runs, I only that the CD players that I tested without the balanced XLR connectors didn't sound as good. I am very curious about this demo. Was it conducted using an ABX double blind methodology, or was some other method used? There are people out there offering substantial monetary rewards to anyone who can demonstrate they hear differences under repeatable conditions. The basics of the matter are that so long as the cable meets basic electrical criteria such as appropriate resistance, inductance, capacitance, length and sheilding there is no repeatable measurement showing that a person can hear the difference. The situation in the audio industry with 'exotic' cable claims is such that it is ripe for some enterprising attorney general to blow the lid off the whole thing. Personally I buy my cables from Ram Electronics. They have fairly priced examples for a wide range of applications. The customer service can be a bit flakey at times, but to will make things right if they make a mistake. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On 4 Mar 2007 22:00:44 GMT, "bob" wrote:
"I tried cable X and it sounded amazing!" is (probably) truthful advice. I'd go along with you if you said ""I tried cable X and I sincerely believe it sounded amazing!" is (probably) truthful advice." But I would be highly doubtful of anyone who made the statement as you quote it. Bad, but truthful. As I have reformulated it above, I can agree. Which would indicate that truthful advice is indeed NOT what they are seeking, wouldn't it? I try to assume that they are until I see evidence to the contrary. But you may be right. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
... ...I tend to be suspicious of anyone's opinion if they cannot point to actual evidence in favour of their opinions. And I find that those who believe in, among other things, astrology and competently made speaker wires that differ greatly in sound, tend not to be able to provide any actual evidence... Bingo! There is actually a connection. A philosopher -- I think it was Paul Thagard -- pointed out that the problem with astrology is not that it doesn't work, it's that its advocates don't care how it might work. That's why it is not simply a false theory. Astrologers simply have no interest in causal mechanisms. And the same seems to be the case with the $1000 power cords. If you think a $1000 power cord improves the sound, why not investigate -- rigorously, with the best possible science, and not just by tossing out a few speculations -- *how* and *why* it improves the sound? Presumably, that would be the path to fundamental new discoveries about audio. But nobody wants to take that path. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
DougA wrote:
In a normal domestic environement, with cable runs of less than 10 metres (33 feet) balanced operation will give no improvement. Yes, they are balanced but the cable I bought with the system are cheap and after demoing some Acoustic Zen Silver references XLRs, I was awed by the depth, detail, soundstage and extra music they offered. Clearly your ears needed a good washing out in that case. Silver wire may sound sexy but won't influence the sound one iota. It appeals to ppl who are impressed by 'shiny things' though ! Graham |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
erich wrote:
The basics of the matter are that so long as the cable meets basic electrical criteria such as appropriate resistance, inductance, capacitance, length and sheilding there is no repeatable measurement showing that a person can hear the difference. Oh come one ! You know very well that gold plated connectors makes the sound 'shine'. Graham |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
wrote in message
On Mar 4, 7:39?am, Ed Seedhouse wrote: On 3 Mar 2007 19:22:51 GMT, "bob" wrote: Something tells me this is not the sort of answer the OP was looking for! Truthful advice is not what the OP was searching for? If I'm right about that, he might do better to consult places like AudioAsylum or Audiogon, where he will find like-minded audiophiles happy to tell him everything he wants to hear. Certainly there's enough diversity at AudioAsylum for a person to get a balanced view. Other forums like AudioHolics seem to be more interested in facts, as opposed to unsupported opinions. Anywhere you go it is always easy indeed to find lots of people who will tell you that what you want to believe is the truth. Why, its just good salesmanship! People who will tell you the actual truth are much rarer, much more valuable, and, of course, pretty generally ignored. Just one person's opinion. i am always leary of anyone or any group of people who believe they have a monopoly on "the truth." Just another person's opinion. One such group of people that certain vocal audiophiles blithely and proudly ignore are called "scientists". |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"bob" wrote in message
On Mar 4, 10:39 am, Ed Seedhouse wrote: On 3 Mar 2007 19:22:51 GMT, "bob" wrote: Something tells me this is not the sort of answer the OP was looking for! Truthful advice is not what the OP was searching for? Not that kind of truth. "I tried cable X and it sounded amazing!" is (probably) truthful advice. Bad, but truthful. People who believe in high-priced cables (and even people who think they don't believe in high-priced cables) can be truly amazed by what they hear. If I'm right about that, he might do better to consult places like AudioAsylum or Audiogon, where he will find like-minded audiophiles happy to tell him everything he wants to hear. My own recommendation for cables is: Anywhere you go it is always easy indeed to find lots of people who will tell you that what you want to believe is the truth. People who will tell you the actual truth are much rarer, much more valuable, and, of course, pretty generally ignored. Which would indicate that truthful advice is indeed NOT what they are seeking, wouldn't it? There are clearly any number of people who do or should know better, who cynically do that which is profitable, not that which is in the best and most complete analysis, right. But, as I suggested above, you don't really mean "truthful" here. As these things are commonly defined, the difference between truth and a lie is just just the speaker's state of mind. If someone swears to tell the truth, but everything they know is based on false information, in a common sense of the word, they are still telling the truth. What you mean is, "technically sound." More to the point - reliable information. So, to answer a restated version of your initial question: No, I do not believe that the OP is searching for technically sound advice. I subscribe to the thinking that there is no need to assume malevolence, when simple ignorance provides a sufficient explanation. OTOH, if you find strong evidence of malevolence, well that is a sufficient explanation, too. That is why I referred him to places where he can find the technically unsound advice he is seeking. Some people seem to be dedicated to finding audio advice in the worst way. After all, it is their money, and their time. Conspicious consumption probably finds its highest point in aggressive wastage. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"DougA" wrote in message
In a blind test with reg wire and expensive cable I was blown away with the difference. Please tell us the full, detailed story. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 5, 3:20�pm, "MC" wrote:
"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message ... ...I tend to be suspicious of anyone's opinion if they cannot point to actual evidence in favour of their opinions. *And I find that those who believe in, among other things, astrology and competently made speaker wires that differ greatly in sound, tend not to be able to provide any actual evidence... Bingo! *There is actually a connection. A philosopher -- I think it was Paul Thagard -- pointed out that the problem with astrology is not that it doesn't work, it's that its advocates don't care how it might work. *That's why it is not simply a false theory. Astrologers simply have no interest in causal mechanisms. That philosopher, quite frankly , was out to lunch. Really, how many computer users have any idea how semi-conducters and software really work? does that mean computers don't really work? It does not matter if the users know how something works or not. It really doesn't matter if anyone knows "how" something works. And the same seems to be the case with the $1000 power cords. *If you think a $1000 power cord improves the sound, why not investigate -- rigorously, Becuase some people are quite happy just enjoying the benefits of technology without needing to know how things work. Would you make this demand on any other hobbyist? with the best possible science, and not just by tossing out a few speculations -- *how* and *why* it improves the sound? The best possible scince? That is a joke. Audio does not have access to the best possible science. *Presumably, that would be the path to fundamental new discoveries about audio. *But nobody wants to take that path. You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best possible science, well legitimate science period has not chimed in on the topics most often debated by audiophiles. That is the reality of the situation. Hardly any ground for anyone thinking they have the "truth. Scott |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 6, 3:47?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: On Mar 4, 7:39???am, Ed Seedhouse wrote: On 3 Mar 2007 19:22:51 GMT, "bob" wrote: Something tells me this is not the sort of answer the OP was looking for! Truthful advice is not what the OP was searching for? If I'm right about that, he might do better to consult places like AudioAsylum or Audiogon, where he will find like-minded audiophiles happy to tell him everything he wants to hear. My own recommendation for cables is: Anywhere you go it is always easy indeed to find lots of people who will tell you that what you want to believe is the truth. ?People who will tell you the actual truth are much rarer, much more valuable, and, of course, pretty generally ignored. Just one person's opinion. i am always leary of anyone or any group of people who believe they have a monopoly on "the truth." Just another person's opinion. I've always been leery of Leary, much less people who are *always* leary. I think you have found a spelling error on my part. In 19 posts it seems to be the only thing on this thread based in fact so far. To bad it has nothing to do with the subject. Scott |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
wrote in message
... On Mar 5, 3:20?pm, "MC" wrote: [analogy between astrology and cable subjectivism was here] A philosopher -- I think it was Paul Thagard -- pointed out that the problem with astrology is not that it doesn't work, it's that its advocates don't care how it might work. That's why it is not simply a false theory. Astrologers simply have no interest in causal mechanisms. That philosopher, quite frankly , was out to lunch. Really, how many computer users have any idea how semi-conducters and software really work? does that mean computers don't really work? It does not matter if the users know how something works or not. It really doesn't matter if anyone knows "how" something works. It certainly is necessary for SOMEONE to know how computers work, or else we wouldn't have them! The individual users don't have to know, but the engineers do. The problem is astrology is that there are no engineers. Nobody in the whole astrology community has any concrete proposals as to how astrology works. And the same is true of the $1000 power cord market. Supposing these things to improve the sound quality -- Given that this is contrary to the predictions of current electronic theory (on which the whole rest of the amplifier is based), it would be VERY interesting to investigate WHY they improve sound quality. But no one does. And the same seems to be the case with the $1000 power cords. If you think a $1000 power cord improves the sound, why not investigate -- rigorously, Becuase some people are quite happy just enjoying the benefits of technology without needing to know how things work. Would you make this demand on any other hobbyist? See point already made. I with the best possible science, and not just by tossing out a few speculations -- *how* and *why* it improves the sound? The best possible scince? That is a joke. Audio does not have access to the best possible science. I don't think you are serious. You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best possible science, well legitimate science period has not chimed in on the topics most often debated by audiophiles. That is the reality of the situation. Hardly any ground for anyone thinking they have the "truth. The truth is that audio technology is based 99.999999% on science. Have you ever designed an amplifier? Did you do it by applying principles of electrical engineering? If not, then how? |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
wrote in message
On Mar 5, 3:20?pm, "MC" wrote: "Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message ... ...I tend to be suspicious of anyone's opinion if they cannot point to actual evidence in favour of their opinions. And I find that those who believe in, among other things, astrology and competently made speaker wires that differ greatly in sound, tend not to be able to provide any actual evidence... Bingo! There is actually a connection. A philosopher -- I think it was Paul Thagard -- pointed out that the problem with astrology is not that it doesn't work, it's that its advocates don't care how it might work. That's why it is not simply a false theory. Astrologers simply have no interest in causal mechanisms. It turns out that Paul Thagard's paper about the matter is online http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/bnccde/PH29A/thagard.html It says: A theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific if and only if: [228] 1. it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems; but 2. the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations. That philosopher, quite frankly , was out to lunch. Pot:kettle:Black. Really, how many computer users have any idea how semi-conducters and software really work? does that mean computers don't really work? It does not matter if the users know how something works or not. It really doesn't matter if anyone knows "how" something works. And the same seems to be the case with the $1000 power cords. If you think a $1000 power cord improves the sound, why not investigate -- rigorously, Becuase some people are quite happy just enjoying the benefits of technology without needing to know how things work. Would you make this demand on any other hobbyist? The fallacy with this argument is that the community of people who are relevant is not just limited to hobbyists. with the best possible science, and not just by tossing out a few speculations -- *how* and *why* it improves the sound? The best possible science? That is a joke. Audio does not have access to the best possible science. This is false - Audio has the same access to science as anything else. There's no hedge around the best science that excludes questions about audio. Some of the best scientists are also audiophiles. Presumably, that would be the path to fundamental new discoveries about audio. But nobody wants to take that path. Most so-called high end audio cable science fails to be scientific because it disagrees with established science. You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best possible science, well legitimate science period has not chimed in on the topics most often debated by audiophiles. It surely has. That is the reality of the situation. Hardly any ground for anyone thinking they have the "truth. This is just plain wrong. Scott |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 7, 8:12�pm, "MC" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Mar 5, 3:20?pm, "MC" wrote: [analogy between astrology and cable subjectivism was here] A philosopher -- I think it was Paul Thagard -- pointed out that the problem with astrology is not that it doesn't work, it's that its advocates don't care how it might work. That's why it is not simply a false theory. Astrologers simply have no interest in causal mechanisms. That philosopher, quite frankly , was out to lunch. Really, how many computer users have any idea how semi-conducters and software really work? does that mean computers don't really work? It does not matter if the users know how something works or not. It really doesn't matter if anyone knows "how" something works. It certainly is necessary for SOMEONE to know how computers work, No one said otherwise. try to remain relevant please. My post was in response to a comment that stated "its advocates don't care how it might work. That's why it is not simply a false theory." It does not matter if "advocates know how something works. End user's knowledge does not manifest itself in the inner workings of mechanisms. or else we wouldn't have them! *The individual users don't have to know, but the engineers do. Never said otherwise. *The problem is astrology is that there are no engineers. LOL that is NOT the problem with astrology. I think this may be indicative of a bizaare engineering-centric mind set that dominates rec.audio.highend. I don't know that there is a "problem" with astrology. I don't believe in it's predictive powers but I don't see that there is a problem with it. I mean it's not like people are refusing legitimate medical treatment as a result. I don't know, I don't follow it but it looks to me like a fairly harmless source of entertainment, even amoung those who really believe in it. REALITY does not rely on the varification of engineers to be. Nobody in the whole astrology community has any concrete proposals as to how astrology works. I wouldn't know. I don't really pay any attention to it. And the same is true of the $1000 power cord market. How do you know? *Supposing these things to improve the sound quality -- Given that this is contrary to the predictions of current electronic theory (on which the whole rest of the amplifier is based), it would be VERY interesting to investigate WHY they improve sound quality. *But no one does. What particular theories tell us that the quality of power coming to any component will have no affect on the sonics of that component? And the same seems to be the case with the $1000 power cords. If you think a $1000 power cord improves the sound, why not investigate -- rigorously, Becuase some people are quite happy just enjoying the benefits of technology without needing to know how things work. Would you make this demand on any other hobbyist? See point already made. *I I have.It seems to agree with my point that users do not need know how things work. with the best possible science, and not just by tossing out a few speculations -- *how* and *why* it improves the sound? The best possible scince? That is a joke. Audio does not have access to the best possible science. I don't think you are serious. I don't think you have anything meaningful to offer and are just posturing now. Feel free to prove me wrong. You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best possible science, well legitimate science period has not chimed in on the topics most often debated by audiophiles. That is the reality of the situation. Hardly any ground for anyone thinking they have the "truth. The truth is that audio technology is based 99.999999% on science. Where did you come up with that number? What facts and figures suport it? Again I think you are just posturing with no facts to support your assertions. *Have you ever designed an amplifier? No, Have you? *Did you do it by applying principles of electrical engineering? *If not, then how? You are confusing "science" and "engineering."Please feel free to cite any real scientific research done on the issues commonly debated by audiophiles such as amplifier sound, CD sound LP sound, cable sound etc. Scott |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
with the best possible science, and not just by tossing
out a few speculations -- *how* and *why* it improves the sound? The best possible science? That is a joke. Audio does not have access to the best possible science. This is false - Audio has the same access to science as anything else. It seems that you know very little about the nature of funding scientific research. There's no hedge around the best science that excludes questions about audio. Some of the best scientists are also audiophiles. Yeah but they are paid to do research on things other than audio. Again I think you are unaware of or simply ignoring the nature of funding for scientific research. Presumably, that would be the path to fundamental new discoveries about audio. But nobody wants to take that path. Most so-called high end audio cable science fails to be scientific *because it disagrees with established science. What "cable science" are you refering to and what specific "established science" are you refering to and how exactly do they disagree? You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best possible science, well legitimate science period has not chimed in on the topics most often debated by audiophiles. It surely has. Prove it. Cite the legitimate scientific research, you know peer reviewed published studies that have examined audiophile issues such as amplifier sound, CD sound, LP sound, cable sound and the like. If real scientific research "surely has" chimmed in on those topics it should be easy enough to cite the peer reviewed published scientific studies. That is the reality of the situation. Hardly any ground for anyone thinking they have the "truth. This is just plain wrong. Prove it. Talk is cheap. Scott |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
wrote in message
You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best possible science, well legitimate science period has not chimed in on the topics most often debated by audiophiles. Actually it has. Being science, it often doesn't tell audiophiles what they want to hear. It surely has. Prove it. See below. Cite the legitimate scientific research, you know peer reviewed published studies that have examined audiophile issues such as amplifier sound, Please check the JAES JASA, and IEEE archives. CD sound, Please check the JAES JASA, and IEEE archives. LP sound, Please check the JAES JASA, and IEEE archives. In fact I just recently cited a bunch of them for your beneft, Scott. cable sound and the like. Please check the JAES JASA, and IEEE archives. If real scientific research "surely has" chimed in on those topics it should be easy enough to cite the peer reviewed published scientific studies. No need for me to redo what myself and others have done, and been ignored and even insulted for doing. I've been posting cites of peer-reviewed articles for the last 10 or so years that I've been posting on Usenet, and so have others. Google finds 280 Usenet mentions of the JAES by myself, alone. Google finds 164 Usenet mentions of the JAES for RAHE. Google finds 384 Usenet mentions of the JAES for RAO. Google finds 180 Usenet mentions of the JAES for RAP. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best possible science, well legitimate science period has not chimed in on the topics most often debated by audiophiles. Actually it has. Being science, it often doesn't tell audiophiles what they want to hear. I suspect he is now going to ask which independent research labs have tested X particular brand of high end audio gear against X brand of 'midgrade' gear or somesuch, as if that was the sort of thing scientists did, and as if *basic* research findings, such as tends to published in the JAES had no bearing on such questions. Or perhaps I'm confusing Scott's tropes with Mirabel's. (When JAES papers employ DO consumer gear, they tend not to publish the brand names, becasue they aren't usually running a particular comparison for it's own sake, but to elucidate a more general property -- e.g., Olive's speaker comparison studies for Harman, where one of the 'losing' models was described as having won awards in audiophile magazines, but not directly identified). ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 9, 11:05�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best possible science, well legitimate science period has not chimed in on the topics most often debated by audiophiles. Actually it has. I disagree. It surely has. Prove it. See below. OK Cite the legitimate scientific research, you know peer reviewed published studies that have examined audiophile issues such as amplifier sound, Please check the JAES JASA, and IEEE archives. I have. I didn't find any studies that put the age old debates in audiophilia to the test. CD sound, Please check the JAES JASA, and IEEE archives. I have. Didn't find anything that put the common debates to the test. *LP sound, Please check the JAES JASA, and IEEE archives. I have. Didn't find anything that put the common debates regarding LP sound to the test. cable sound and the like. Please check the JAES JASA, and IEEE archives. See above for the same answer. If real scientific research "surely has" chimed in on those topics it should be easy enough to cite the peer reviewed published scientific studies. No need for me to redo what myself and others have done, and been ignored and even insulted for doing. IOW you still have nothing. I've been posting cites of peer-reviewed articles for the last 10 or so years that I've been posting on Usenet, and so have others. Google finds 280 Usenet mentions of the JAES by myself, alone. Google finds 164 Usenet mentions of the JAES for RAHE. Google finds 384 Usenet mentions of the JAES for RAO. Google finds 180 Usenet mentions of the JAES for RAP. "mentioning" peer reviewed articles isn't the same as citing relevant peer reviewed *research* that directly investigates the specific topics I refered to. Heck half the time it is "mentioned" it is probably "mentioning" the utter lack of such studies. You can try to create more audio urban lengend by insisting things exist. Until you produce a record of actual *peer reviewed research that directly investigates the topics debated by audiophiles" you are not doing anything more than creating audio urban legend. Show me the actual studies. Scott |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best possible science, well legitimate science period has not chimed in on the topics most often debated by audiophiles. Actually it has. Being science, it often doesn't tell audiophiles what they want to hear. I suspect he is now going to ask which independent research labs have tested X particular brand of high end audio gear against X brand of 'midgrade' gear or somesuch, as if that was the sort of thing scientists did, and as if *basic* research findings, such as tends to published in the JAES had no bearing on such questions. In a sense, that's been going on for some time. One of the problems is that the persons in question aren't degreed engineers and AFAIK don't even want to be assciated with the enginering profession in any way. For example, some of the worst figurative hellfire and damnation that has ever been leveled at the LP format can be found in the JAES archives, written the chief scientists of companies that were leading producers of LP media or playback equipment. Of course, the writing lacks specfics that lay people have been quick to demand, and it is written up in such a way that it generates minimal excitment. The JAES paper laying out the lack of need for higher sample rates than 44 KHz was old when the SACD was new, but remains unrebutted. Nobody should be surprised when people who lack appropriate respect for basic engineering principles fail to perceive engineering papers as they were intended to be understood. (When JAES papers employ DO consumer gear, they tend not to publish the brand names, becasue they aren't usually running a particular comparison for it's own sake, but to elucidate a more general property -- e.g., Olive's speaker comparison studies for Harman, where one of the 'losing' models was described as having won awards in audiophile magazines, but not directly identified). Exactly. And when Olive says that some other testing methodolgy suits a particular need better, that information is reformulated for Usenet as totally discrediting the use of any other means in any other context. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 12, 6:14 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
One of the problems is that the persons in question aren't degreed engineers and AFAIK don't even want to be assciated with the enginering profession in any way. For example, some of the worst figurative hellfire and damnation that has ever been leveled at the LP format can be found in the JAES archives, written the chief scientists of companies that were leading producers of LP media or playback equipment. Of course, the writing lacks specfics that lay people have been quick to demand, and it is written up in such a way that it generates minimal excitment. The JAES paper laying out the lack of need for higher sample rates than 44 KHz was old when the SACD was new, but remains unrebutted. Nobody should be surprised when people who lack appropriate respect for basic engineering principles fail to perceive engineering papers as they were intended to be understood. The problem goes much deeper than this. To believe, for example, that different brands of measurably similar cables can be audibly different, you have to believe that physicists' understanding of how electrical signals pass through wires is fundamentally wrong. It is scientific denialism, pure and simple. bob |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best possible science, well legitimate science period has not chimed in on the topics most often debated by audiophiles. Actually it has. Being science, it often doesn't tell audiophiles what they want to hear. I suspect he is now going to ask which independent research labs have tested X particular brand of high end audio gear against X brand of 'midgrade' gear or somesuch, as if that was the sort of thing scientists did, and as if *basic* research findings, such as tends to published in the JAES had no bearing on such questions. In a sense, that's been going on for some time. One of the problems is that the persons in question aren't degreed engineers and AFAIK don't even want to be assciated with the enginering profession in any way. For example, some of the worst figurative hellfire and damnation that has ever been leveled at the LP format can be found in the JAES archives, written the chief scientists of companies that were leading producers of LP media or playback equipment. Of course, the writing lacks specfics that lay people have been quick to demand, and it is written up in such a way that it generates minimal excitment. Then it is hardly "hellfire and damnataion" is it? The JAES paper laying out the lack of need for higher sample rates than 44 KHz was old when the SACD was new, but remains unrebutted. And did it deal with poor impulse response, pre-ripple, and other transiant, dynamic factors involved in *audio* reproduction? Or did it just deal with frequency response? Not too many audiophiles will claim we can physically hear beyond 20khz. Straw man. Nobody should be surprised when people who lack appropriate respect for basic engineering principles fail to perceive engineering papers as they were intended to be understood. One poor example. Is that all you have? (When JAES papers employ DO consumer gear, they tend not to publish the brand names, becasue they aren't usually running a particular comparison for it's own sake, but to elucidate a more general property -- e.g., Olive's speaker comparison studies for Harman, where one of the 'losing' models was described as having won awards in audiophile magazines, but not directly identified). Okay, that's about the fourth time Steven or you has trotted out that canard. So far as I know....nobody is asking that brand names be used and identified...only that real *audio* issues be addressed, ones that are somewhat controversial in the audio communicty. Ones that you are sure and constantly promote as non-existant, despite their apparent continuing existance. Exactly. And when Olive says that some other testing methodolgy suits a particular need better, that information is reformulated for Usenet as totally discrediting the use of any other means in any other context. That's a choice of test technique...not basic scientific research. But it *is* important nontheless as part and parcel of the scientific method in the social sciences. For it suggested what many of us suspect....that in general it easier to do AB tests than ABX tests, preference tests rather than identification tests when it comes to music. So pointing that out is not out of bounds, even in conjunction with a specific test. The fact is, in evaluating loudspeakers the preference test was more discriminating than the identification test, which is why he ended up using it. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"bob" wrote in message
... On Mar 12, 6:14 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Nobody should be surprised when people who lack appropriate respect for basic engineering principles fail to perceive engineering papers as they were intended to be understood. The problem goes much deeper than this. To believe, for example, that different brands of measurably similar cables can be audibly different, you have to believe that physicists' understanding of how electrical signals pass through wires is fundamentally wrong. It is scientific denialism, pure and simple. Precisely my point, somewhat earlier. If these cables really do affect sound quality, then some major law of physics needs to be discovered. Nobody seems to be trying to discover it. I think it's not there. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
We ended up purchasing the AZ Silver Reference XLR interconnects.
A review can be read he http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...cousticzen.htm Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of cables you folks mention, I was able to hear and feel more of the "music, rhythm and passion" that cannot be quantified and measured. Has anyone here tried high end cables in their home systems or are all the arguments based on theory? Are you saying that all of the high end magazines and reviewers who rave about cables are full of beans? Are bought by the high end cable companies? All audiophiles are wasting their money on high end cables? "DougA" wrote in message ... After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are ready for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power cords and speaker cables.) This is the gear we chose: YBA Passion 200 Focal Electra 1027 Be Ayre CX-7 Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make personal recommendations? douga |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
DougA wrote:
We ended up purchasing the AZ Silver Reference XLR interconnects. A review can be read he http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...cousticzen.htm We're happy for you that you are in a strong enough financial position to spend that kind of money on cables. Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of cables you folks mention, I was able to hear and feel more of the "music, rhythm and passion" that cannot be quantified and measured. Ever wonder why those feeling cannot be backed up by measurements and therfore explained? Surely we can measure better than our ears can detect, no? For instance, our test equipment can routinely measure signal to noise ratios in excess of 120 dB, frequency responses to gigahertz's with 0.01 dB of resolution, etc. A cable is really among the simplest of electronic gear. If we don't understand how a cable works in audio, what chance do we have of designing complex systems, like cellular communication systems for instance? Has anyone here tried high end cables in their home systems or are all the arguments based on theory? A lot of us have tried high-end cables. Some of us have tried controlled testing: via carefully controlled listening tests or via measurements. By the way, theory is an excellent place to base ones aruments on. Are you saying that all of the high end magazines and reviewers who rave about cables are full of beans? In short, yes. Are bought by the high end cable companies? That I am not sure about. The raving can be simply due to lack of understanding of the effects of perception bias, or lack of appreciation for the importance of controlled testing when differences are subtle. Ever read a review of cables where they actually show (a) measurement results, or (b) controlled listening test results? All audiophiles are wasting their money on high end cables? Well, yes. But if you find happiness in high-end cables and do not mind the expense, who are we to judge? "DougA" wrote in message ... After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are ready for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power cords and speaker cables.) This is the gear we chose: YBA Passion 200 Focal Electra 1027 Be Ayre CX-7 Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make personal recommendations? douga |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On 14 Mar 2007 23:40:06 GMT, DougA wrote:
Are you saying that all of the high end magazines and reviewers who rave about cables are full of beans? Are bought by the high end cable companies? All audiophiles are wasting their money on high end cables? I think you are all just as gullible as me. One caveat though - if you think you cannot be easily fooled then I conclude you are even more gullible than I. Those of us who recognize how easily human beings in general (and ourselves in particular) are fooled tend to insist on properly controlled comparisons before they reach such conclusions. Those who don't, I think, are living in a fool's paradise. I do admit to the bias of thinking audio magazine reviewers are especially easy to fool, but I have as evidence their own words. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"DougA" wrote in message
... We ended up purchasing the AZ Silver Reference XLR interconnects. A review can be read he http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...cousticzen.htm Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of cables you folks mention, I was able to hear and feel more of the "music, rhythm and passion" that cannot be quantified and measured. Ah, audio interconnects. Some of us were talking about power cables. Interconnects are much more subject to minor degradation. With audio interconnects, there's a real possibility that your old cable had dirty contacts, or weren't connected firmly, or something like that. High-end cables ought not to be better than mid-range cables, provided they are in good condition. You might try cleaning the old cable and putting it back in. Better yet, get someone else to *either* do this or not, and see if you can tell, by listening, whether they did it. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 14, 7:49?pm, Chung wrote:
DougA wrote: We ended up purchasing the AZ Silver Reference XLR interconnects. A review can be read he http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...cousticzen.htm Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of cables you folks mention, I was able to hear and feel more of the "music, rhythm and passion" that cannot be quantified and measured. Ever wonder why those feeling cannot be backed up by measurements and therfore explained? How do we know it *can't* be backed up by measurements? Surely we can measure better than our ears can detect, no? Indeed we can. For instance, our test equipment can routinely measure signal to noise ratios in excess of 120 dB, frequency responses to gigahertz's with 0.01 dB of resolution, etc. OK so has anyone done tests showing that cables have no measurable effect within these tolerances? I was under the impression that there were readily measurable differences between various cables. Are you suggesting that SOTA measurements fail to detect any measurable differences between cables? A cable is really among the simplest of electronic gear. If we don't understand how a cable works in audio, what chance do we have of designing complex systems, like cellular communication systems for instance? What does that have to do with anything? Just because they can be made quite simply does not mean they are all free from distortion. Scott |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"DougA" wrote in message
We ended up purchasing the AZ Silver Reference XLR interconnects. Given the pricing, I can see that a consortium of buyers might be required. ;-) A review can be read he http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...cousticzen.htm Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of cables you folks mention, I was able to hear and feel more of the "music, rhythm and passion" that cannot be quantified and measured. I suspect that one has to conjur up quite a bit of passion in order to pay just under $1,000 per meter for interconnects. Once you've conjured all that passion up, it probably doesn't dissipate immediately after the sale. Has anyone here tried high end cables in their home systems or are all the arguments based on theory? I've definately auditioned a variety kinds of high end and tweek home-made cables in what should be the ideal envrionment - systems belonging to people who advocate this sort of thing. Are you saying that all of the high end magazines and reviewers who rave about cables are full of beans? In private its common to use a bit stronger language, but you've obviously got the basic idea. ;-) Are bought by the high end cable companies? I doubt that there is much outright bribery. OTOH, how many high end reviewers are using cables (and other equipment) that were "loaned" to them by the vendor? I know a bit of personal information about some high end reviewers - most don't make a pile of money doing high end reviews. If they actually bought all the equipment they use to review high end gear, their reviewing operations would probably be major cost centers for them. "Loaned" equipment is often a major source of capitalization for their reviewing operations. All audiophiles are wasting their money on high end cables? Only the ones who actually fall for this scam. Not all do. Don't get me wrong, I think that at least some of the people who promote this sort of thing are doing so sincerily. Of course, their sincerity doesn't prevent them from suspending disbelief, being hard to convince of basic scientific principles, and in the case of the vendors - marking up inexpensive raw materials in well, highly imaginative ways. ;-) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Here's another one | Audio Opinions | |||
MIT Oracle cables...what's in the box? | High End Audio | |||
mini cable suggestions | Pro Audio | |||
FA: Neve, Manley, TT patch cables, Eventide, Neumann, Coles, bulk cable, connectors, etc. | Pro Audio | |||
Suggestions on what cable to use inside a console. | Pro Audio |