Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
If one wants a real hoot by which to start off the week read the
"audition" of MIT wire in the online stereophile. This one article could alone serve as the poster child for all of what is wrong and a complete waste of time in such "auditions". That is unless one wants some amusement mixed with sadness that some people buy this stuff at up to 5 figure prices. The author, at our editor's direct command, does a classic job. He hits all the cliches expected but one. He fails to evoke the ultimate argument stopper, the "my wife was passing from the kitchen and asked why the stereo was sounding so good" test. The science, scientism?, of the MIT wire gets my vote as the pinnacle of the entire thing. Now why didn't I think of that, because someone is getting the big bucks to dream this stuff up in the marketing department? Here it is, enjoy: http://www.stereophile.com/cables/1008mit/ "All of Bruce Brisson's current designs are based on MIT's [7mpole network tec hnology. The theory is that standard cables have a very narrow frequency range within which the cable is "articulating ideally," as Brisson puts it. He refers to such a cable as a "single-pole" design. Brisson adds network interfaces to his cables that increase the number of articulation "poles," resulting in a broadening of the frequency range within which that cable is "articulating ideally." The higher the number of poles, the more elaborate the network and the more expensive the cable-MIT's Oracle biwire speaker cable has 75 poles and costs $24,900 per 8' pair. The CVT Terminator 2 cable reviewed here has additional networks that Brisson has integrated with the output networks found in the affordable Terminator 2 and 3 cables, which, MIT claims, results in a wider "articulation" bandwidth than older designs. However, in this "hybrid" cable, MIT has also added the CVT Coupler input module, which was previously found in its more expensive Reference products. The CVT input module is designed to minimize the extent to which the cables reflect energy back to the source component. The marriage of these two technologies results in increasing the number of articulation poles available at the price: 9 poles for the interconnect, 15 for the speaker cable, and 16 for the biwire speaker cable." |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
On Oct 21, 8:07*am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
wrote (about MIT cables): ... amusement mixed with sadness that some people buy this stuff at up to 5 figure prices. Why does it make you sad that some people - who can apparently afford it - buy expensive cables such as MIT's? It is very sad that the marketers of such nonsense are becoming wealthy by taking advantage of the technically illiterate. The claims here about poles and articulation sound like there is a scientific basis for justifying the ridiculous expense but actually are totally fictitious. The FDA vigorously prosecutes companies selling health care products with similarly bogus claims and IIRC, there have been legal actions in the UK over speaker wire claims. Does it make you sad that some people buy expensive homes, or cars, or jewelry, or wine? There is nothing wrong with people buying expensive products as long as the perceived product value is based on valid information, prestige or real scarcity. It may be stupid for people to spend outrageous amounts of money on speaker cable because of the status provided but as long as such purchases are based on real facts, there is no problem. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
jwvm wrote (about MIT cables):
It is very sad that the marketers of such nonsense are becoming wealthy by taking advantage of the technically illiterate. This raises a few questions. First, are the marketers of MIT cables getting wealthy from their efforts? Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Second, are those who buy MIT cables technically illiterate? (Or, is it possible that they have their own reasons for buying the product?) The claims here about poles and articulation sound like there is a scientific basis for justifying the ridiculous expense but actually are totally fictitious. The FDA vigorously prosecutes companies selling health care products with similarly bogus claims... Are you suggesting that the purchase of MIT cables could result in some sort of health problem? There is nothing wrong with people buying expensive products as long as the perceived product value is based on valid information, prestige or real scarcity. Do you mean that it is improper for people to buy expensive products simply for their own reasons, such as because they can and they want to? Really, people spend all sorts of money on all sorts of things for all kinds of reasons. What's wrong with that? Especially in an ostensibly high-end audio newsgroup, what's the objection to expensive product? Why should anyone's buying criteria be first subject to your approval? |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
On Oct 21, 11:49*am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
Second, are those who buy MIT cables technically illiterate? Obviously the makers of MIT cables think so. Just read their marketing copy. Who else could they be targeting? And fortunately for the makers of MIT cables, Stereophile employs some technically illiterate reviewers. bob |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
On Oct 20, 7:49*pm, wrote:
If one wants a real hoot by which to start off the week read the "audition" of MIT wire in the online stereophile. *This one article could alone serve as the poster child for all of what is wrong and a complete waste of time in such "auditions". * Yeah, well. Until someone explains to me how a one-meter, $XXXX.xx bit of line cord can overcome hundreds of miles of transmission lines, half-a- dozen transformations, household wiring and more... Until someone explains to me how $XXXX.xx speaker cables that are *not* spun from fine silver will sound or measure any better than same- gauge plain copper fine-stranded THHN or THWN wire... And fine silver is 'better' only because silver is a better conductor than copper - not that it has any otherwise magical properties. After all, the issue is audio frequencies at (relatively) low voltages. No big strain for any conductor of sufficient gauge. Until someone explains to me how $XXXX.xx patch cords are any better than well-made basic patch cords length-for-length... It all remains smoke-and-mirrors in an effort to steal (word chosen deliberately) money from the gullible - exactly as Florida/Arizona land salespeople, snake-oil salespeople and other scammers have done as long as civilization has existed. It ain't nohow gonna change, and publications such as Stereophile exist on the strength of it. Imagine if they actually told the absolute and actual truth? They would be 'done' as of that issue. It would be refreshing though, however short- lived. Much as the Emperor's New Clothes, the system becomes self-supporting and self-fulfilling. Imagine the fallout if all those owners of $XXXX.xx interconnects (of any nature) woke up one morning and realized that their investment was snake-oil? Entire industries would die instantly. All those little cable catenaries, pet rocks, juju beads, fancy wooden blocks, EMF suppression clocks - the mind boggles. Another recession-in-the-making. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
On Oct 21, 8:07*am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
Why does it make you sad that some people - who can apparently afford it - buy expensive cables such as MIT's? Sad? Not me. Amused is more apt for my feelings. After all, even scammers and snake-oil purveyors have to live. Does it make you sad that some people buy expensive homes, or cars, or jewelry, or wine? Um... for the most part, houses (one cannot buy a "home"), cars, jewelry and wine provide tangible benefits. That would be the significant difference. But, in the immortal words of David Hannum: There is a sucker born every minute. Sheep are for the shearing. With cooperative sheep, the process may be repeated at regular intervals - and so many industries survive and grow. Sliding a little bit off-topic, the interchangeable use of "home" for bricks and mortar (house/apartment/condo/whatever) is part-and-parcel of the degrading of language that allows for such scammers to get away with vague language, shaded misrepresentations and much worse. If actual "truth in advertizing" were enforced in any substantial way much of this stuff could (word chosen deliberately) not happen. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
"C. Leeds" wrote in message
wrote (about MIT cables): ... amusement mixed with sadness that some people buy this stuff at up to 5 figure prices. Why does it make you sad that some people - who can apparently afford it - buy expensive cables such as MIT's? Some of my best friends are millionaires - even deca-millionaires, perhaps a centa-millionaire or two. I hate to see them get cheated. Does it make you sad that some people buy expensive homes, or cars, or jewelry, or wine? When they do that, they generally get what they pay for. OK, so they have all seen significant decreases in the values of their homes just lately, and the cars and boats depreciate pretty fast. But, Bimmers and Mercers are pretty nice cars, they do many things measurably better than what I drive. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
On Oct 21, 11:49*am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
snip This raises a few questions. First, are the marketers of MIT cables getting wealthy from their efforts? Do you have any evidence to support this claim? No. But if they are not getting rich, they are really poor business people. How could cables realistically cost as much as they charge? Second, are those who buy MIT cables technically illiterate? (Or, is it possible that they have their own reasons for buying the product?) If they believe the marketing claims, they are technically illiterate. The claims here about poles and articulation sound like there is a scientific basis for justifying the ridiculous expense but actually are totally fictitious. The FDA vigorously prosecutes companies selling health care products with similarly bogus claims... Are you suggesting that the purchase of MIT cables could result in some sort of health problem? No. What I am suggesting is that their marketing claims border on fraud that in other markets can result in legal action. There is nothing wrong with people buying expensive products as long as the perceived product value is based on valid information, prestige or real scarcity. Do you mean that it is improper for people to buy expensive products simply for their own reasons, such as because they can and they want to? That is clearly not what I said. Really, people spend all sorts of money on all sorts of things for all kinds of reasons. What's wrong with that? Especially in an ostensibly high-end audio newsgroup, what's the objection to expensive product? Why should anyone's buying criteria be first subject to your approval? I have no problem with people buying whatever they want as long as their purchases are not due to fraudulent marketing. I have a big problem when they purchase something based on completely bogus technobable. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:48:59 -0700, jwvm wrote
(in article ): On Oct 21, 8:07*am, "C. Leeds" wrote: wrote (about MIT cables): ... amusement mixed with sadness that some people buy this stuff at up to 5 figure prices. Why does it make you sad that some people - who can apparently afford it - buy expensive cables such as MIT's? It is very sad that the marketers of such nonsense are becoming wealthy by taking advantage of the technically illiterate. The claims here about poles and articulation sound like there is a scientific basis for justifying the ridiculous expense but actually are totally fictitious. The FDA vigorously prosecutes companies selling health care products with similarly bogus claims and IIRC, there have been legal actions in the UK over speaker wire claims. It looks as if snake-oil salesmen will always be with us in one form or another. Of course, it can be argued - successfully too, that expensive cables do no harm. And if the rich buyer "thinks" that they improve his system, then so be it. But of course, it doesn't stop there. Many working class audiophiles save up their hard-earned pennies to buy expensive cables thinking that these are going to improve their systems when the money would be better spent on speakers (or music). Does it make you sad that some people buy expensive homes, or cars, or jewelry, or wine? There is nothing wrong with people buying expensive products as long as the perceived product value is based on valid information, prestige or real scarcity. It may be stupid for people to spend outrageous amounts of money on speaker cable because of the status provided but as long as such purchases are based on real facts, there is no problem. Or, if the buyer has so much money that such a purchase will, in no way, impact them financially, then let them buy what they will. Expensive cables are like jewelry. They serve no real purpose, but they exude wealth and look impressive. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:49:26 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ): jwvm wrote (about MIT cables): It is very sad that the marketers of such nonsense are becoming wealthy by taking advantage of the technically illiterate. This raises a few questions. First, are the marketers of MIT cables getting wealthy from their efforts? Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Second, are those who buy MIT cables technically illiterate? (Or, is it possible that they have their own reasons for buying the product?) While I can't comment on the people at MIT, Bob Lowe, head of Audioquest drives a fairly new Ferrari, I'm told. That should say that he's not doing too badly... |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:16:14 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): On Oct 21, 11:49*am, "C. Leeds" wrote: Second, are those who buy MIT cables technically illiterate? Obviously the makers of MIT cables think so. Just read their marketing copy. Who else could they be targeting? And fortunately for the makers of MIT cables, Stereophile employs some technically illiterate reviewers. bob Kind of makes you wonder. Cable makers are big advertisers in all of the audio rags. Do you think that they would remain advertisers if Stereophile (or TAS, or any other audio magazine) did a review of these cables and said, straight-out: " This reviewer was unable to discern any difference between the sound of the reference system when wired with (insert brand here) cables and the system wired with Radio Shack molded cables at 1/100th the price." ? I don't think so. But Having said that, I must point out that I have written for most of these magazines at one time or another, and I can say that NO editor has ever tried to tell me what the outcome of my review must or even should be and mostly, they have published my work as I have written it, and always I've had final say. Of course, they have the right to not publish a review AT ALL, and in fact might do so if they felt that a review is too negative. I've never had it happen to me, but I have heard of it happening. If they treat all of their reviewers that way, I'd have to say that either these reviewers who wax rhapsodic about certain cables have their own agendas, or they really believe that the cables change the sound of their systems in some positive way. None that I know of, listen to cables double-blind. If they did, I dare say that even the most dedicated believers would change their tune. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
On Oct 21, 3:12�pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Oct 21, 8:07�am, "C. Leeds" wrote: Um... for the most part, houses (one cannot buy a "home"), cars, jewelry and wine provide tangible benefits. That would be the significant difference. If someone enjoys listening to their system more as a result of using these various cables and power chords how is that any less tangeble than the pleasure derived from wearing a cut and pollished rock wrapped in shiny metal? I understand the outrage against false advertising but I don't understand the denial of user satisfaction. Satisfaction is a state of mind. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
On Oct 21, 6:25*pm, Sonnova wrote:
Kind of makes you wonder. Cable makers are big advertisers in all of the audio rags. Do you think that they would remain advertisers if Stereophile (or TAS, or any other audio magazine) did a review of these cables and said, straight-out: " This reviewer was unable to discern any difference between the sound of the reference system when wired with (insert brand here) cables and the system wired with Radio Shack molded cables at 1/100th the price." ? I think the bigger and more immediate problem would be reader abandonment. Stereophile feeds a fantasy: that there are subtle differences among all these wonderful components, and you, dear reader, can train yourself to hear those differences and become a member of the in-club of audiophiles. Puncture that myth, and there's nobody left to read the magazine but the people who appreciate Atkinson's speaker measurements. And how many advertisers want to tell to *them*? bob |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:12:06 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ): On Oct 21, 8:07*am, "C. Leeds" wrote: Why does it make you sad that some people - who can apparently afford it - buy expensive cables such as MIT's? Sad? Not me. Amused is more apt for my feelings. After all, even scammers and snake-oil purveyors have to live. Does it make you sad that some people buy expensive homes, or cars, or jewelry, or wine? Um... for the most part, houses (one cannot buy a "home"), cars, jewelry and wine provide tangible benefits. That would be the significant difference. But, in the immortal words of David Hannum: There is a sucker born every minute. Hmmm. I thought it was P.T. Barnum who coined that phrase! |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
wrote in message
If someone enjoys listening to their system more as a result of using these various cables and power chords how is that any less tangeble than the pleasure derived from wearing a cut and pollished rock wrapped in shiny metal? The rock and metal typically has established long-lasting, even appreciating value. Diamonds and gold are good choices. High end cables tend to depreciate pretty rapidly, if ebay and Audiogon are any guide. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
jwvm wrote (about MIT cables):
It is very sad that the marketers of such nonsense are becoming wealthy by taking advantage of the technically illiterate. so I asked: Why does it make you sad that some people - who can apparently afford it - buy expensive cables such as MIT's? Peter Wieck answers: Sad? Not me. Amused is more apt for my feelings... I also asked: Does it make you sad that some people buy expensive homes, or cars, or jewelry, or wine? Peter Wieck answers; Um... for the most part, houses (one cannot buy a "home"), cars, jewelry and wine provide tangible benefits. That would be the significant difference. High-end cables provide benefits too, though perhaps those benefits don't represent good value to you. For example, there are bragging rights! There may be some appeal to having cables the thickness of fire hoses in your living room. And the MITs have "network boxes" attached to one end; there may be some appeal to that feature. Again, perhaps those things have no value to you. But the cables are tangibly different, no doubt. They are distinctive. Sliding a little bit off-topic, the interchangeable use of "home" for bricks and mortar (house/apartment/condo/whatever) is part-and-parcel of the degrading of language that allows for such scammers to get away with vague language... That sounds as though you received your education in English from pop music! You must be thinking of the famous Burt Bacharach song "A House Is Not A Home"... A chair is still a chair Even when there's no one sitting there But a chair is not a house And a house is not a home When there's no one there to hold you tight, And no one there you can kiss good night. But that's just pop music. Here's the definition of "home" from the American Heritage dictionary: n. 1. A place where one lives; residence; habitation. 2. The physical structure or portion thereof within which one lives, as a house or apartment. In fact, I chose the word "home" to specifically include condos, townhomes and the like, because the word "house" would exclude them. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
On Oct 21, 8:20�pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 21, 5:45�pm, wrote: On Oct 21, 3:12 pm, Peter Wieck wrote: On Oct 21, 8:07 am, "C. Leeds" wrote: Um... for the most part, houses (one cannot buy a "home"), cars, jewelry and wine provide tangible benefits. That would be the significant difference. If someone enjoys listening to their system more as a result of using these various cables and power chords how is that any less tangeble than the pleasure derived from wearing a cut and pollished rock wrapped in shiny metal? I understand the outrage against false advertising but I don't understand the denial of user satisfaction. Satisfaction is a state of mind. �So is delusion. Indeed. but we are all deluded to some degree about all sorts of things. Anyone who fancies themselves as truly objective and free of any delusions is really just a little more deluded about themselves. Ironic no? �In general, I think the prevalence of snake oil damages the hobby and diminishes the market for good hi-end audio products which in turn diminishes our own choices and drives up expense. That is an interesting assertion. I'd like to see you flesh it out. Snake oil, as I undertsand the term there is an implied understanding on the part of the slaesman that his product lacks substance. IOW "snake oil" is a from of deliberate fraud. I would agree that this is an outrageous and unacceptable business practice. But I think a lot of people, when they refer to snake oil in audio, are using the term to stand for anything they believe makes no audible difference or even worse makes an audible difference that they personally have a philisophical problem with. I find this broader use of the term to be unfair and a bit of an attempt by some people to push a personal agenda on other consumers. I find that sort of thing just as outrageous and unaccptable as the fraud. I am against policing perosnal beliefs. The cable issue is a creeping malaise which now pervades all levels of the audio video world with Best Buy sales kids pushing Monster audio and video cable with BS claims. The nerdy know-nothing at Radio Shack tried to make BS claims for their overpriced "Gold" junk while they've purged the shelves of any reasonable cable. �Even Home Depot has dropped their decent connector RCA or GE cable leaving behind tin or nickel crap with no spring force and put up a 3x as expensive Monster beast with those hideous jack damaging cyclone jaws of death plugs. How does this prevent legitimate audio designers from making and selling better products? That does seem to be your assertion, that it "diminishes the market for good hi-end audio products." Why is this allowed to stand? �A state of mind. Well yeah, freedom of belief. There are a lot of things I don't believe in but would never consider supressing other peoples' right to believe in them. There is a difference between being a fraud and simply being wrong. the latter is far more inocent IMO. The capitalist in me says let the market sort it out but the pro regulation side of me defintiely wants to do something about fraud. The proud American in me hates the idea of regulating beliefs. I hope this post doesn't appear to be too political. But we are talking about commerce here as much as audio. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:15:49 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): On Oct 21, 6:25*pm, Sonnova wrote: Kind of makes you wonder. Cable makers are big advertisers in all of the audio rags. Do you think that they would remain advertisers if Stereophile (or TAS, or any other audio magazine) did a review of these cables and said, straight-out: " This reviewer was unable to discern any difference between the sound of the reference system when wired with (insert brand here) cables and the system wired with Radio Shack molded cables at 1/100th the price." ? I think the bigger and more immediate problem would be reader abandonment. Stereophile feeds a fantasy: that there are subtle differences among all these wonderful components, and you, dear reader, can train yourself to hear those differences and become a member of the in-club of audiophiles. Puncture that myth, and there's nobody left to read the magazine but the people who appreciate Atkinson's speaker measurements. And how many advertisers want to tell to *them*? bob That myth is truly punctured with me, yet I still read Stereophile, TAS and TAV (The Audiophile Voice) because I'm interested in seeing new equipment and to get the reaction of "experts"* to their hands-on experience with new equipment. I don't put much faith in their sonic evaluations (other than for entertainment purposes), but I find the rags fun reading just the same. * "Experts" in that these reviewers see a LOT of new gear at all price points pass through their systems. That kind of familiarity with what Harry Pearson used to call the "passing parade" is of some value. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
On Oct 22, 9:16*am, Sonnova wrote:
* "Experts" in that these reviewers see a LOT of new gear at all price points pass through their systems. That kind of familiarity with what Harry Pearson used to call the "passing parade" *is of some value. This sets the bar VERY low. Go back and read the first post in this thread—or the whole review for that matter—and tell me what 'expertise" the reviewer is demonstrating other than an uncanny ability to spit back the marketing gibberish that MIT has spoon-fed him. He's not an expert; he's an embarrassment. And the pages of S- phile and TAS are full of such embarrassments. bob |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
On Oct 22, 9:15*am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
But that's just pop music. Here's the definition of "home" from the American Heritage dictionary: n. 1. A place where one lives; residence; habitation. 2. The physical structure or portion thereof within which one lives, as a house or apartment. In fact, I chose the word "home" to specifically include condos, townhomes and the like, because the word "house" would exclude them. Older (1963 edition) Merriam-Webster 1 a: the social unit formed by a family living together 2 a: a familiar or usual setting : congenial environment ; also : the focus of one's domestic attention home is where the heart is b: habitat 3 a: a place of origin salmon returning to their home to spawn Yeah, the newer version does put bricks first. Sadly. Wanna play dictionary? I expect that the word you are searching for is "domicile" - that covers bricks-and-mortar in all of its forms. English has the power to be a very precise language able to convey concepts with great accuracy. Diluting that power happens all the time, but it does remove the 'snap' from the language. And fosters delusions... Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
Please forgive this top-posting - please note the interpolations.
For the sake of the moderators, I will try not to go over the top. But there is a great deal of faulty logic here, which when mixed with complaisance is dangerous. On Oct 22, 9:15*am, wrote: On Oct 21, 8:20 pm, ScottW wrote: On Oct 21, 5:45 pm, wrote: On Oct 21, 3:12 pm, Peter Wieck wrote: On Oct 21, 8:07 am, "C. Leeds" wrote: Um... for the most part, houses (one cannot buy a "home"), cars, jewelry and wine provide tangible benefits. That would be the significant difference. If someone enjoys listening to their system more as a result of using these various cables and power chords how is that any less tangeble than the pleasure derived from wearing a cut and pollished rock wrapped in shiny metal? I understand the outrage against false advertising but I don't understand the denial of user satisfaction. Satisfaction is a state of mind. So is delusion. Indeed. but we are all deluded to some degree about all sorts of things. Anyone who fancies themselves as truly objective and free of any delusions is really just a little more deluded about themselves. Ironic no? Yes. But the deliberate packaging of delusion as a desired state or on the basis that 'everybody does it' is both unethical and cruel. In general, I think the prevalence of snake oil damages the hobby and diminishes the market for good hi-end audio products which in turn diminishes our own choices and drives up expense. All of the above. That is an interesting assertion. I'd like to see you flesh it out. Snake oil, as I undertsand the term there is an implied understanding on the part of the slaesman that his product lacks substance. Yes. Absolutely. I defy you to find any engineer - even the designers of said cables - who by actual test can or will even try to prove the assertions commonly given about the cables under discussion. further, I defy you to find any human being on earth who will discern these cables even 75% of the time from any given well-made similar cable in any carefully designed blind test - I will go further to say that the design of said test must be acceptable to both sides. Salespeople are on commission (or survive on what they kill) and so have the ethics of a wolverine and the morals of a typical politician. This is a necessary state to their survival. IOW "snake oil" is a form (corrected) of deliberate fraud. Absolutely - see above. I would agree that this is an outrageous and unacceptable business practice. But I think a lot of people, when they refer to snake oil in audio, are using the term to stand for anything they believe makes no audible difference or even worse makes an audible difference that they personally have a philisophical problem with. I find this broader use of the term to be unfair and a bit of an attempt by some people to push a personal agenda on other consumers. I find that sort of thing just as outrageous and unaccptable as the fraud. I am against policing perosnal beliefs. All very nice. Sheep are made for shearing - and with cooperative sheep, this may be done on a regular basis. When it comes to humans, that should not be the case. It is a "victimless crime" but a crime nonetheless. The cable issue is a creeping malaise which now pervades all levels of the audio video world with Best Buy sales kids pushing Monster audio and video cable with BS claims. The nerdy know-nothing at Radio Shack tried to make BS claims for their overpriced "Gold" junk while they've purged the shelves of any reasonable cable. Even Home Depot has dropped their decent connector RCA or GE cable leaving behind tin or nickel crap with no spring force and put up a 3x as expensive Monster beast with those hideous jack damaging cyclone jaws of death plugs. That is a tad over-the-top - if one's jacks might be damaged by these cables, perhaps the jacks (and thereby the build-quality) is not so hot to begin with. But otherwise dead on-point. How does this prevent legitimate audio designers from making and selling better products? That does seem to be your assertion, that it "diminishes the market for good hi-end audio products." Because those products will not penetrate the high-end market. There will neither be the mark-up or the hype to support them. Our local Mercedes Benz dealer (no, we don't own one) survives well on selling ~50 new cars *PER MONTH*. The local Chrysler-Plymouth dealer is going under at ~30 new cars *PER WEEK*. Boutique audio sellers have come to depend on the 100% and 200% (and more) mark-up items to survive - and therefore cannot afford to compete against themselves. Mid/low end dealers see this and in the "rising tide lifts all boats" approach gradually increase the price of their goods - but are still only a fraction of high-end costs. But the consumer gets screwed from both ends. Few have alternatives to Radio Shack, Home Depot or Circuit City at the low end. And fewer can afford nose-bleed prices at the high end. Me, I go to HBF electronics on State Road in Philadelphia and get my 2-meter patch cords at 4/$5. And they work just fine. Why is this allowed to stand? A state of mind. Well yeah, freedom of belief. No. Carefully managed smoke and mirrors. Do you remember history and the great Tulip Craze - that was all belief based on delusion. Enron tried it more recently - also belief based on delusion, smoke and mirrors. Now we are in a credit-crisis for largely the same reasons - as long as the delusion survives the market continues - but does that make it a "good" thing? Or rather something to be prevented or eliminated by all possible means whenever confronted? There are a lot of things I don't believe in but would never consider supressing other peoples' right to believe in them. But, would you permit the deliberate distribution of false assertions in their support? I think that is what is at issue here. Not the closely held beliefs or other forms of revealed religion that goes along with them. There is a difference between being a fraud and simply being wrong. Absolutely. See "engineer" and "salesperson" above. The engineer is committing fraud. The salesperson is just wrong. the latter is far more inocent IMO. The capitalist in me says let the market sort it out but the pro regulation side of me defintiely wants to do something about fraud. The proud American in me hates the idea of regulating beliefs. I hope this post doesn't appear to be too political. But we are talking about commerce here as much as audio. Yet we regulate drugs or things purported to be drugs with some care and attention. Audio cables are relatively harmless and lives do not depend on them - but the principles are precisely the same. It is one thing to state that an audio cable *WILL* give a noticeable improvement - it is entirely another to state that the same cable gives no measurable improvement, that audible improvements are as-yet unproven, but they may make *you* feel better. That would be fair enough. But it would sell very, very few cables. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:15:36 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): On Oct 22, 9:16*am, Sonnova wrote: * "Experts" in that these reviewers see a LOT of new gear at all price points pass through their systems. That kind of familiarity with what Harry Pearson used to call the "passing parade" *is of some value. This sets the bar VERY low. Go back and read the first post in this thread—or the whole review for that matter—and tell me what 'expertise" the reviewer is demonstrating other than an uncanny ability to spit back the marketing gibberish that MIT has spoon-fed him. He's not an expert; he's an embarrassment. And the pages of S- phile and TAS are full of such embarrassments. bob Like I said (in context). Reviewers see a lot of different equipment. Many are good at explaining features, accessing build quality, and discussing features left out, as well as ergonomic and interface problems, etc. It's all I expect from a review, and except for speakers (where sonic observations MIGHT give one at least a frame of reference), their comments about sound quality are, mostly, irrelevant to me. Add to that, a chance to see new equipment discussed and a certain entertainment value, and I find these and a couple of British magazines fun reading. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A proposed poster child
On Oct 22, 2:48�pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: On Oct 21, 8:20?pm, ScottW wrote: On Oct 21, 5:45?pm, wrote: On Oct 21, 3:12 pm, Peter Wieck wrote: On Oct 21, 8:07 am, "C. Leeds" wrote: Um... for the most part, houses (one cannot buy a "home"), cars, jewelry and wine provide tangible benefits. That would be the significant difference. If someone enjoys listening to their system more as a result of using these various cables and power chords how is that any less tangeble than the pleasure derived from wearing a cut and pollished rock wrapped in shiny metal? I understand the outrage against false advertising but I don't understand the denial of user satisfaction. Satisfaction is a state of mind. ?So is delusion. Indeed. but we are all deluded to some degree about all sorts of things. Anyone who fancies themselves as truly objective and free of any delusions is really just a little more deluded about themselves. Ironic no? Do you know ANYONE who so fancies themselves, and is considered sane? I think the attitude is pandemic. I suspect it is human nature to have excessive confidence in one's own objectivity. What about the middle ground, of realizing that we are prey to delusion, and attempting to be aware of that when making claims? I think there is value in having enough humility to accept that one can be deluded. I think having the same humility when making claims of "truth" is a very good thing. That is an interesting assertion. I'd like to see you flesh it out. Snake oil, as I undertsand the term there is an implied understanding on the part of the slaesman that his product lacks substance. IOW "snake oil" is a from of deliberate fraud. I would agree that this is an outrageous and unacceptable business practice. But I think a lot of people, when they refer to snake oil in audio, are using the term to stand for anything they believe makes no audible difference or even worse makes an audible difference that they personally have a philisophical problem with. I find this broader use of the term to be unfair and a bit of an attempt by some people to push a personal agenda on other consumers. I find that sort of thing just as outrageous and unaccptable as the fraud. I am against policing perosnal beliefs. When someone is asking for money for their product, rather than giving it away, that inevitably raises the question of how much their 'belief' in the product is tainted by the prospect of profit. It may raise the question but it doesn't answer it. There are people in this world selling things that they whole heartedly believe in. But even a 'sincerity defense' doesn't exonerate them from fault if they make claims that simply aren't true. I think that is an overly broad claim. I thing in some cases you are absolutely right. There comes a point where ignorance becomes neglegance. In other cases it can be quite innocent. you got to judge that on a case by case basis. The cable issue is a creeping malaise which now pervades all levels of the audio video world with Best Buy sales kids pushing Monster audio and video cable with BS claims. The nerdy know-nothing at Radio Shack tried to make BS claims for their overpriced "Gold" junk while they've purged the shelves of any reasonable cable. ?Even Home Depot has dropped their decent connector RCA or GE cable leaving behind tin or nickel crap with no spring force and put up a 3x as expensive Monster beast with those hideous jack damaging cyclone jaws of death plugs. How does this prevent legitimate audio designers from making and selling better products? That does seem to be your assertion, that it "diminishes the market for good hi-end audio products." Ever hear of Gresham's Law? � I had not. I looked it up. I don't think it is at work in this case. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Proposed Eico Tone Control Mod | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Proposed Eico Mode - #2 | Vacuum Tubes | |||
proposed submission to the FAQ | Car Audio | |||
The next Top Poster is getting a Smack Down | Audio Opinions | |||
{Admin] Change proposed to the Posting Guidelines | High End Audio |