[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 07:45:25 -0800, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

On 12/2/2010 8:18 PM, Audio Empire wrote:

...there is NOTHING that one
can do to a speaker cable to make it worth $6800, even if it were
made of
gold.

I answered:
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

Now Empire sez:

Lots of things in audio are opinions. This just doesn't happen to be
one of
them. Physics and DBTs....

No, you've made a value judgment that these cables aren't "worth" the
price, and that "NOTHING" could make them worth it. That is your value
judgment. The buyers of these products make their own value judgment.
There is no right or wrong with preferences such as this - it's just a
simple, personal preference. You can't logically use science to condemn
someone else's preference.

I disagree. The "value judgement" as you call it, is a received judgement
given to the unaware buyer by the unscrupulous (or previously deluded) forces
in the high-end snake-oil business. Not knowing any better, the unwary are
made to part with their money by being told that they simply must purchase
expensive cables (and perhaps myrtle wood blocks to sit on the top of their
components and insulators to lift their (expensive) speaker cables off of
their floors) to go with their new components, or they won't get everything
that they paid for out of that new component.

I understand that you think these cables are preposterous. What I think
is absurd is your flat-out refusal to accept that others disagree with
your set of values.

What I find difficult to accept is that you are surprised that others here
(including me) have enough electronics knowledge to KNOW that the idea of
cables affecting the sound of one's audio system is simply absurd, and that
they have no value except as audio jewelry or "bling". This isn't an
opinion. This is absolute, proven fact. It is as incontrovertible as is the
fact that the earth orbits the sun, or that gravity exists. Physics says that
cables do nothing at audio frequencies. The maths say that cables do nothing
at audio frequencies, Test equipment confirms that cables have no effect on
an audio signal. Every bouble-blind-test ever conducted shows that cables do
nothing because no one in those tests could ever tell a cheap cable from an
expensive one in any statistically significant way. The facts are in, the
results are well known, and denial isn't just a river in Africa 8^)

AudioEmpire also wrote:

I likewise feel it's my duty to tell people
less technically schooled than I am that fancy cables are snake oil,
and that
they're wasting their money by buying them.

No, it would be a waste of money for you to buy them. Some others find
value in these products. That's their prerogative.

To show you how wrong that notion is, I'm going to set you a higher example.
Suppose (may the fates forbid), that you are diagnosed with cancer. Suppose
further that some quack doctor convinced you that the cancer could be cured
by you drinking a 12-pack of Dr. Pepper every day. Let us further postulate
that in the desperation of your plight, you took that quack's advice and
drank a 12-pack of Dr. Pepper every day. After a few months, when you notice
that you aren't getting any better, you go to another doctor. This doctor
tells you that your cancer is so far advanced now, that there is nothing that
can be done, but if you'd just come in a few months earlier they could have
cured you. Then you find out that the first doctor you went to was a partner
in the local Dr. Pepper bottling plant....

Now, certainly it was your prerogative to accept that quack's advice about
the Dr. Pepper, but he is culpable too because he encouraged you to use a
worthless product simply for his own self-interest.

The audio world is, unfortunately, full of people, some unscrupulous, and
some well meaning, who foist upon a largely unknowledgeable sales force
through advertising and magazine coverage (by publishers and editors who
OUGHT to know better) a false and frankly dishonest notion that cables and
interconnects (among other things) have an effect on the sound of their
systems (hint: if it does, then it's not a conductor, it's a filter and is
being sold under even more false pretense). As I said before, I have no
problem with the rich guy who knowingly buys expensive cables and
interconnects because he likes their looks or wants bragging rights, but if
he buys them because some salesman (or magazine review) has convinced him
that these expensive baubles will improve the sound of his system, then he's
been duped and the fact that he is rich and can likely shrug-off the wasted
money is neither here nor there. In the case of the cancer patient, it's the
same thing. If the cancer patient drinks a 12-pack of Dr, Pepper a day
because he likes Dr, Pepper, then there's no problem. But if he drinks it
believing that he is treating a deadly disease by doing so, then he, too, has
been tragically duped. The difference is only one of scale.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"C. Leeds" wrote in message

On 12/3/2010 10:17 AM, August Karlstrom wrote:

I can admit having been duped, although I have not spent
this kind of money on speaker wire. After reading about
blind testing of speaker wire in this group I replaced
my Kimber wire with a thin and cheap standard copper
wire. And (of course) my system sounded just as good as
before.

Please explain how you were "duped."

Seems pretty clear.

Did you expect results you didn't achieve?

What is unclear about "my system sounded just as good as before."?

Did you seek a refund from the retailer?

Does getting a cash refund for the price of the potentially fraudulent
sale
offset the losses in time, travel, and mental anguish?

Note that high end products are often sold by creating anxiety in people
about the sound of their audio systems. They are told, at least by
implication that their anguish will be relieved by an expenditure of
considerable amounts of money. They make the investment, but if they are
perceptive they will realize that they have been sold the emperor's
speaker
cable. Then, they undergo additional anxiety over the realization that
they
have been duped.


Today's high-end audio is a wealthy person's game, and you need to face the
fact that you simply have a different value system.

As a mundane illustration, I have a friend who is very comfortably well off.
She recently underwent some surgery that prevented her from using her car
for a couple of months. Last week she wanted me to drive her to the dealer
for a "winterizing". The car battery was dead. The AAA fellow tested, said
the tester showed the battery was possibly kaput, but since it was a new car
and had sat three months, he didn't believe it.....the tester wasn't
designed for such circumstances and usually batteries need to be drained at
least three times to become defective. This was the first time. He
recommended we simply get the battery charged at the service station around
the corner, and it would probably be jsut fine. He was most likely correct.

She, however, requested that he swap out the battery for a new one
nonetheless, paying $110 in the process. She simply didn't want to be
bothered worrying about "risk". Now, this woman is not profligate with her
money...in many ways she is quite frugal....every bit as much as I am. But
she is risk adverse, and I have seen her spend money similarly in other
scenarios. To her, "avoiding risk" is a major value. To me, her actions
were just needlessly throwing away good money. The difference between us
was twofold: 1) she is risk adverse, and I am not, and 2) she has
substantial assets she can spend when she wants, and I must ponder my
financial decisions much more carefully.

Face it. There are many people buying high-end audio who can afford it, and
who get pleasure and comfort from the transaction. That you are not one of
them is of no consequence....you have your values and they have theirs.

This constant impugning of others motives gets very tiresome, and suggests
that maybe a bit of self-examination is in order.

[Arny Krueger]

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

On 12/4/2010 11:31 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

Note that high end products are often sold by creating
anxiety in people about the sound of their audio systems.

In my decades of buying audio equipment, I have never
witnessed this approach that you say happens "often."

I would agree that perhaps you've never knowingly witnessed this happening
in yourself or other people.

However that speaks only to your state of mind, and not some kind of global
situation.

Perhaps I'm just more empathetic than you, or perhaps I've spent more time
talking to audiophiles about it.

It looks like another red herring.

Well that seems to be one approach to the sitaution, just engage in
name-calling and denial.

They are told, at least by
implication that their anguish will be relieved by an
expenditure of considerable amounts of money.

Who tells customers this??

Obviously, persons and publications that have either escaped your notice or
perhaps you are somehow conditioned to not notice...

Examples, please.

The usual audiophile publications, for starters.

They make the investment...

No, audio equipment really doesn't qualify as a
investment.

It appears that you are denying your previous statement that people can get
their investment returned by returning the product. I've even heard people
brag about the appreciation in their investment in certain audio
equipment...

Of course I guess I should notice that you seem to be moving a casual
discussion of audio gear into the realms of tax law. Schoepenhauer, anybody?
;-)

It's an expense - the purchase of a
depreciating asset. The audio component that actually
appreciates in value is very rare, indeed.

Seems reasonable to me.

but if they are
perceptive they will realize that they have been sold
the emperor's speaker cable. Then, they undergo
additional anxiety over the realization that they have
been duped.

Examples, please.

Please use Google and search using the 3 keywords: audio cable anxiety. I
also tried high end cable anxiety

Google estimates thousands of hits, the first few dozne include a number
which seem to be exactly what I'm talking about.

For example (from the Stereophile web site):

" With equipment of this caliber, one is no longer caught up in the
anxiety-inducing process of listening to (evaluating) the equipment used in
the presentation of the music. "

http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/a...u24_cables.htm

"The ******* cables are the opposite. They make you want to forget about the
mechanical and analytical aspects of listening to music at home. You are
free to let the music envelop your consciousness and forget about all the
distracting technical details and audiophile paranoia and anxiety."

etc., etc., etc.

Otherwise, you simply repeat the canard. It's a red herring.

I think that the suggested google search and its results pretty well
deconstructs the red herring argument.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 10:57:53 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 12/4/2010 11:10 AM, C. Leeds wrote:
On 12/4/2010 11:31 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

Note that high end products are often sold by creating anxiety in people
about the sound of their audio systems.

In my decades of buying audio equipment, I have never witnessed this
approach that you say happens "often." It looks like another red herring.

They are told, at least by
implication that their anguish will be relieved by an expenditure of
considerable amounts of money.

Who tells customers this?? Examples, please.

They make the investment...

No, audio equipment really doesn't qualify as a investment. It's an
expense - the purchase of a depreciating asset. The audio component that
actually appreciates in value is very rare, indeed.

but if they are
perceptive they will realize that they have been sold the emperor's
speaker
cable. Then, they undergo additional anxiety over the realization that
they
have been duped.

Examples, please. Otherwise, you simply repeat the canard. It's a red
herring.


Well, how about "Sounds Like Music" in Phoenix? Out of business now -
like most high end stereo shops these days - but for decades they
relentlessly peddled the idea that any high end system purchase just
*had* entail at least 15% of the total *price* being reserved for cables
and interconnects. Notice their use of *price* as the explicit indicator
of cable performance. Their schtick was that the better amp and speaker
you bought, the better the interconnects and speaker cable *had* to be,
or you just couldn't get all the performance out of the expensive stuff
you were already buying. Audio Nervosa anyone?

Neither Red, nor Herring, just pure unabashed sales driven BS. While
they may not have been emblematic, neither were they unique by any means.

Keith


Yes, I've seen this particular "rule-of-thumb" before. A friend of mine who
lives in Seattle was told, when he purchased his VTL preamp and amp as well
as his Martin-Logan Vantage speakers (for a total of around $12000) that he
needed to spend at least $1800 on interconnects and speaker wire.
Unfortunately, this friend is not technical, didn't know any better, didn't
call me first, and took the salesman at his word. Spent more than two-grand
needlessly on three pairs of interconnects and a pair of 15-ft speaker
cables. He could have spent about $50 and gotten well-made interconnects made
with good quality materials on the Internet, and 30 ft of 14 Ga lamp cord at
his local Home Depot and been just as well off (better off, as he would have
had about $1950 dollars extra to spend on music. THAT'S the tragedy of this
particular scam)

[bob]

On Dec 4, 10:30=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 21:48:42 -0800, bob wrote

That people listen for different things does not mean that they listen
differently. And the important thing for a DBT is that they listen for
the *right* things. That is why a good DBT includes some form of
"training." Training can be as simple as listening sighted first, to
identify possible differences, and then trying to hear those same
differences blind. Or it can involve focusing subjects on a particular
aspect of the sound that is hypothesized to be different. But the goal
is always to focus them on the aspects of the sound that are most
likely to be different, to maximize the possibility of a positive
result.

Agreed. Buy most often, this "training" does not occur.

I cannot recall ever seeing a published DBT in which some form of
training did not occur. The standard audiophile challenge is no
exception: Someone who claims to be able to hear a difference between
two components has already trained himself sufficiently to test that
claim.

OK, I understand what you are saying, and to a degree, I agree with you.
OTOH, I have never been party to a DBT on speaker cables or interconnects
where anyone could tell the slightest difference, statistically speaking,
between the test samples.

Well, that just means that you've never participated in a DBT
involving really bad cables. Such things exist. And remember that the
reason we know that such small differences won't be audible is that
somebody's already done lots of DBTs to determine just where those
audible thresholds are.

However I have experienced your above scenario WRT
amplifiers, preamps DACs and CD players - IOW, situations where the varia=
bles
in design parameters do not allow physics to so easily predict the "expec=
ted"
outcome of the DBT.

Certainly it is more complex to model the output of an active device
than a passive cable, but hardly impossible. These are all man-made
devices, after all, not natural mysteries. We know how to measure
them, and we know what to measure. Show me the right few measurements
(granted, a bit more complex than what you see on the typical spec
sheet), and I can predict pretty well whether two such devices can be
distinguished in a blind test.

bob

[C. Leeds]

On 12/4/2010 4:55 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
...there is NOTHING that one
can do to a speaker cable to make it worth $6800, even if it were
made of
gold.

I answered:

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it... you've made a value judgment that these cables aren't "worth" the
price, and that "NOTHING" could make them worth it. That is your value
judgment. The buyers of these products make their own value judgment.
There is no right or wrong with preferences such as this - it's just a
simple, personal preference. You can't logically use science to condemn
someone else's preference.

Audio Empire now sez:

I disagree. The "value judgement" as you call it, is a received judgement
given to the unaware buyer by the unscrupulous (or previously deluded) forces
in the high-end snake-oil business. Not knowing any better, the unwary are
made to part with their money...

I think it's pretty obvious that people spending thousands of dollars on
audio cables are very likely to know exactly what they are buying.
Customers decide for themselves the value of the products they buy. You
like to laugh at the buyers of expensive cables; others think buying a
Rolex or Lamborghini or Leica is absurd. That doesn't make the purveyors
of those products unscrupulous, or their customers unwary.

[C. Leeds]

On 12/5/2010 10:39 AM, Harry Lavo wrote:

Today's high-end audio is a wealthy person's game, and you need to face the
fact that you simply have a different value system.

I would quibble with this. It's more about value than actual wealth or
dollars. By world standards, I'd guess that the vast majority of this
group's readers are "wealthy." Most likely, we all have food, clothing,
shelter and some amount of disposable income.

So, how to spend that disposable income? Some people think it's nuts to
spend more than $1,000 on an entire audio system. I'd guess most of us
have spent much more than that, because we've each decided that spending
more gives "value" to us.

Some people, maybe even in this group, think it's nuts to spend $1,000
on a turntable system. I spent much, much more than that, and I think
the system offers a great value. But that's just my opinion.

And so on, with cables, amplifiers, CD players... What defines value?
Bench test results? Appearance? Reliability? Build quality? "Look and
feel?" Bragging rights? Being the first kid on the block with new
technology? A combination of some or all of those?

It's up to the buyer to decide where his money is spent. Not all buyers
of luxury products are wealthy - it's a question of priorities. For me,
I find money spent on audio delivers a greater return of satisfaction
than, say, money spent on a car - - - but only to a point. (Otherwise,
I'd drive a beat-up Chevy, or a Kia. And I don't.)

Some people - and Audio Empire is one of them - think spending kilobucks
on audio cable is laughable, actually worthy of derision:

Sometimes It's just fun to make light of suckers and the snake oil they buy.
Besides, if one cannot join the upper classes, one should applaud anyone,
like Bill Lowe of AudioQuest, who is doing his best to deplete them!

I think it' unfortunate that participants in an audio newsgroup should
be subject to ridicule because of their audio values. The goal of the
high-end should not necessarily be the acquisition of the cheapest means
to an end unless, of course, those are your personal values. But why
should others be subject to Audio Empire's values, or any else's?

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 12:31:00 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

On Dec 5, 7:39=A0am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Today's high-end audio is a wealthy person's game, and you need to face t=
he
fact that you simply have a different value system.

A "wealthy person's game"? I think that statement reveals the
problem with todays high-end audio.
It's no longer about achieving exceptional sonic performance...it's
about price tags and bling.

That is, unfortunately, true. But high-end audio is a business and businesses
tend to migrate toward where the money is.

I used to know a high-end dealer who had a nice shop in an upscale shopping
center. He had several listening rooms, carried Audio Research, Krell, Apogee
speakers, NAD, etc. One day, I drove buy his shop and noticed that it was
closed. A few months later, I ran into the guy. Naturally, I asked him why
his shop closed. His answer was that as far as he was concerned, the "model"
for high-end audio equipment had changed. Why should he keep a store front
and have "hobbyists" (he almost literally spit the word out) come in all the
time using up his electricity and time to hear the latest and greatest and
only rarely buying some piece of equipment to upgrade their systems,
piecemeal? He went on to say that he can install one megabuck "home
theater"/music system a month in some rich guy's "macmansion" and clear more
money than he ever could clear maintaining a storefront.

When I asked him about these rich customers as repeat business, he answered,
"Nah. They buy a cost-is-no-object system and that's the last I hear from
them unless something breaks. These people aren't audiophiles, they can just
afford the best and they don't mind buying the best." So he just orders the
most expensive of everything from his suppliers and he and his building
contractor just go up to the guys house and install it. $12,000 speaker
cable? $4000 interconnects between components (X6 for home theater
installations)? No problem.

[KH]

On 12/5/2010 8:44 AM, C. Leeds wrote:
On 12/4/2010 4:55 PM, Audio Empire wrote:

snip

Audio Empire now sez:

I disagree. The "value judgement" as you call it, is a received judgement
given to the unaware buyer by the unscrupulous (or previously deluded)
forces
in the high-end snake-oil business. Not knowing any better, the unwary
are
made to part with their money...

I think it's pretty obvious that people spending thousands of dollars on
audio cables are very likely to know exactly what they are buying.

I don't think it's "obvious" at all that they know the *technical
merits* of what they are buying. I'd like to see what evidence leads you
to that conclusion.

Customers decide for themselves the value of the products they buy. You
like to laugh at the buyers of expensive cables; others think buying a
Rolex or Lamborghini or Leica is absurd. That doesn't make the purveyors
of those products unscrupulous, or their customers unwary.

I think those purchases are absurd as well, but have no problem if
people see personal value in those items sufficient to justify - to them
- the purchase price.

BUT, I doubt seriously that a Rolex purchaser expects it to *create*
time, or the Lamborghini to fly into outer space, or the Leica to create
depth and detail that doesn't exist in the actual photographic subject.
Distortions of technical performance of this magnitude would be required
for your analogy to be apt.

I mean, really, "Danceable" cables? Need one say more?

Keith

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 11:03:46 -0800, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

On 12/5/2010 10:39 AM, Harry Lavo wrote:

Today's high-end audio is a wealthy person's game, and you need to face the
fact that you simply have a different value system.

I would quibble with this. It's more about value than actual wealth or
dollars. By world standards, I'd guess that the vast majority of this
group's readers are "wealthy." Most likely, we all have food, clothing,
shelter and some amount of disposable income.

So, how to spend that disposable income? Some people think it's nuts to
spend more than $1,000 on an entire audio system. I'd guess most of us
have spent much more than that, because we've each decided that spending
more gives "value" to us.

Some people, maybe even in this group, think it's nuts to spend $1,000
on a turntable system. I spent much, much more than that, and I think
the system offers a great value. But that's just my opinion.

And so on, with cables, amplifiers, CD players... What defines value?
Bench test results? Appearance? Reliability? Build quality? "Look and
feel?" Bragging rights? Being the first kid on the block with new
technology? A combination of some or all of those?

It's up to the buyer to decide where his money is spent. Not all buyers
of luxury products are wealthy - it's a question of priorities. For me,
I find money spent on audio delivers a greater return of satisfaction
than, say, money spent on a car - - - but only to a point. (Otherwise,
I'd drive a beat-up Chevy, or a Kia. And I don't.)

Some people - and Audio Empire is one of them - think spending kilobucks
on audio cable is laughable, actually worthy of derision:

Sometimes It's just fun to make light of suckers and the snake oil they buy.
Besides, if one cannot join the upper classes, one should applaud anyone,
like Bill Lowe of AudioQuest, who is doing his best to deplete them!

It should have been apparent to anyone reading this that it was just meant to
be funny. I think I even used a smiley, here, though I don't see it above.

I think it' unfortunate that participants in an audio newsgroup should
be subject to ridicule because of their audio values. The goal of the
high-end should not necessarily be the acquisition of the cheapest means
to an end unless, of course, those are your personal values. But why
should others be subject to Audio Empire's values, or any else's?

This is not about "values" this is about dishonesty. As I have said several
times in this thread, a person who buys expensive cables for their "bling"
value, knowing that they have no technical value is not the problem here, nor
is the company who sells expensive cable and interconnects as jewelry the
problem here. It's those people who are buying expensive cables (rich or not)
with the expectation that said cables will affect the sound of their audio
systems (in some positive way) who have been cheated.

Unfortunately, the companies that sell this stuff; AudioQuest, Cardas,
Kimber, Nordost, et al. have "white papers" on their web-sites filled to
overflowing with technical jibberish about why their products will improve
the sound of one's stereo system, and the unwary accept it as truth.

Now if the high-end wire companies sold their wire like this:

"You've spent thousands on your high-end equipment, and it's beautiful. With
it's machined, solid billet aluminum fascias, this expensive equipment has
its deserved pride of place in your audio system. Why then, do you let the
aesthetic appeal of this gorgeous equipment down with ordinary, cheap and
ugly interconnects and speaker cables when you can enhance your system's
visual appeal immeasurably with the elegant, high-tech look of Acme Cables?"

Then we'd have no argument here. But they don't sell this stuff that way.
They sell it as having improved functionality over the "...ordinary, cheap,
and ugly interconnects and speaker cables..." and audio salesmen as well as
most audio magazines tell customers and readers that these cables are
necessary for good sound - and they're not.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 07:42:07 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Dec 4, 10:30=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 21:48:42 -0800, bob wrote

That people listen for different things does not mean that they listen
differently. And the important thing for a DBT is that they listen for
the *right* things. That is why a good DBT includes some form of
"training." Training can be as simple as listening sighted first, to
identify possible differences, and then trying to hear those same
differences blind. Or it can involve focusing subjects on a particular
aspect of the sound that is hypothesized to be different. But the goal
is always to focus them on the aspects of the sound that are most
likely to be different, to maximize the possibility of a positive
result.

Agreed. Buy most often, this "training" does not occur.

I cannot recall ever seeing a published DBT in which some form of
training did not occur. The standard audiophile challenge is no
exception: Someone who claims to be able to hear a difference between
two components has already trained himself sufficiently to test that
claim.

OK, I understand what you are saying, and to a degree, I agree with you.
OTOH, I have never been party to a DBT on speaker cables or interconnects
where anyone could tell the slightest difference, statistically speaking,
between the test samples.

Well, that just means that you've never participated in a DBT
involving really bad cables. Such things exist. And remember that the
reason we know that such small differences won't be audible is that
somebody's already done lots of DBTs to determine just where those
audible thresholds are.

While I'm sure that there are defective cables on the market. The run-of
-the-mill stuff that comes with new equipment purchases or that one buys in a
blister pack from Best Buy or Radio Shack simply aren't among them. All of
the wire DBT tests to which I've been privy have been the classic "cheap vs
expensive" variety.

However I have experienced your above scenario WRT
amplifiers, preamps DACs and CD players - IOW, situations where the varia=
bles
in design parameters do not allow physics to so easily predict the "expec=
ted"
outcome of the DBT.

Certainly it is more complex to model the output of an active device
than a passive cable, but hardly impossible.

Of course it's not impossible. I didn't say it was. I just said that it's
more complex. Cable comparisons are easy because there are so few variables
and the characteristics are so easily tested and calculated.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 07:44:31 -0800, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

On 12/4/2010 4:55 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
...there is NOTHING that one
can do to a speaker cable to make it worth $6800, even if it were
made of
gold.

I answered:

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it... you've made a value
judgment that these cables aren't "worth" the
price, and that "NOTHING" could make them worth it. That is your value
judgment. The buyers of these products make their own value judgment.
There is no right or wrong with preferences such as this - it's just a
simple, personal preference. You can't logically use science to condemn
someone else's preference.

Audio Empire now sez:

I disagree. The "value judgement" as you call it, is a received judgement
given to the unaware buyer by the unscrupulous (or previously deluded)
forces
in the high-end snake-oil business. Not knowing any better, the unwary are
made to part with their money...

I think it's pretty obvious that people spending thousands of dollars on
audio cables are very likely to know exactly what they are buying.

Rich ones don't care. They usually hire a an "A/V" consultant anyway, and
don't think about such things.

Customers decide for themselves the value of the products they buy. You
like to laugh at the buyers of expensive cables; others think buying a
Rolex or Lamborghini or Leica is absurd. That doesn't make the purveyors
of those products unscrupulous, or their customers unwary.

People buy Rolex's for status. Everyone knows that that a Rolex keeps no
better time (and in fact, they don't keep as good time) than a cheap
electronic watch from Timex. But they are well made and will last for
generations. Lamborghinis are high-performance cars. They are also often
bought as status symbols, but the buyer is getting something for his money.
He is getting performance. Lamborghini doesn't sell a 100 horsepower
4-cylinder car for $200,000 and tell the customer that it will outperform any
car on the road. They can't. Road & Track (et al) will test it and find that
they're lying. So they actually give the buyer the performance that the buyer
thinks he's buying. Leica's have outstanding build quality and their lenses
used to be superior to anyone else (don't know about today). At one time all
pros used rangefinder Leicas because they were absolutely reliable, had great
lenses and were quiet compared to SLRs. Again, the buyer was getting
something FUNCTIONAL for his money.

Audio cables are different. They are sold on the EXPECTATION that they
deliver some functional value. It's easy to understand a car's specs: 0-60
MPH, top speed, cornering and handling ability. These things are easily
understood. But cable reviews rarely measure the cables, and most people
wouldn't understand the measurements as they pertain to sonic performance
anyway. Even here on this forum, there are posters who continue to insist
that cables have a sound in spite of the fact that knowledgeable people here
have told them that the physics and the maths and the DBTs say that it's
impossible. OTOH, nobody is going to keep insisting that a car that
advertises 0-60 MPH in 4.2 seconds really does that when every test made on
it says that it's 0-60 time is 10 seconds.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 12:31:00 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

On Dec 5, 7:39=A0am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Today's high-end audio is a wealthy person's game, and you need to face t=
he
fact that you simply have a different value system.

A "wealthy person's game"? I think that statement reveals the
problem with todays high-end audio.
It's no longer about achieving exceptional sonic performance...it's
about price tags and bling.

That is, unfortunately, true. But high-end audio is a business and businesses
tend to migrate toward where the money is.

I used to know a high-end dealer who had a nice shop in an upscale shopping
center. He had several listening rooms, carried Audio Research, Krell, Apogee
speakers, NAD, etc. One day, I drove buy his shop and noticed that it was
closed. A few months later, I ran into the guy. Naturally, I asked him why
his shop closed. His answer was that as far as he was concerned, the "model"
for high-end audio equipment had changed. Why should he keep a store front
and have "hobbyists" (he almost literally spit the word out) come in all the
time using up his electricity and time to hear the latest and greatest and
only rarely buying some piece of equipment to upgrade their systems,
piecemeal? He went on to say that he can install one megabuck "home
theater"/music system a month in some rich guy's "macmansion" and clear more
money than he ever could clear maintaining a storefront.

When I asked him about these rich customers as repeat business, he answered,
"Nah. They buy a cost-is-no-object system and that's the last I hear from
them unless something breaks. These people aren't audiophiles, they can just
afford the best and they don't mind buying the best." So he just orders the
most expensive of everything from his suppliers and he and his building
contractor just go up to the guys house and install it. $12,000 speaker
cable? $4000 interconnects between components (X6 for home theater
installations)? No problem.

[August Karlstrom]

On 2010-12-03 16:33, C. Leeds wrote:
[...]
Did you seek a refund from the retailer?

Well, before I tried a standard wire I had my Kimber cables for about a
year so I seriously doubt that a refund is possible. OK, so I spent
about 550 dollar (or rather 3800 Swedish kronor) on snake oil but I
think I can live with that. At least I used it for a year and it did the
job - as any other wire would. I can of course sell it on the
second-hand market although it feels a bit dishonest now when I know the
truth about cables. ;-)


/August

[graham]

"August Karlstrom" wrote in message ...
On 2010-12-03 16:33, C. Leeds wrote:
[...]
Did you seek a refund from the retailer?

Well, before I tried a standard wire I had my Kimber cables for about a
year so I seriously doubt that a refund is possible. OK, so I spent
about 550 dollar (or rather 3800 Swedish kronor) on snake oil but I
think I can live with that. At least I used it for a year and it did the
job - as any other wire would. I can of course sell it on the
second-hand market although it feels a bit dishonest now when I know the
truth about cables. ;-)


/August


"although it feels a bit dishonest now when I know the truth about cables. ;-)"

... or do you? .. I am not sure you will find that in this forum or any for that matter ...
trust your ears and your judgment, not the opinions of others ...

[August Karlstrom]

On 2010-12-03 16:33, C. Leeds wrote:
On 12/3/2010 10:17 AM, August Karlstrom wrote:

I can admit having been duped, although I have not spent this kind of
money on speaker wire. After reading about blind testing of speaker wire
in this group I replaced my Kimber wire with a thin and cheap standard
copper wire. And (of course) my system sounded just as good as before.

Please explain how you were "duped." Did you expect results you didn't
achieve? Did you seek a refund from the retailer?

I mean duped by hi-hi retailers and by hi-fi magazines in general (which
claim that there are audible differences between cables) and by a review
in HiFi Choice in particular which gave the Kimber cable in question a
best buy recommendation.

I think that when we do critical listening we tend to hear something new
every time. It may be something good or it maybe something bad. In the
case where we have just switched or installed a new component there is a
risk of falsely concluding that this new thing we hear can be attributed
to the component.


/August

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 17:36:23 -0800, August Karlstrom wrote
(in article ):

On 2010-12-03 16:33, C. Leeds wrote:
[...]
Did you seek a refund from the retailer?

Well, before I tried a standard wire I had my Kimber cables for about a
year so I seriously doubt that a refund is possible. OK, so I spent
about 550 dollar (or rather 3800 Swedish kronor) on snake oil but I
think I can live with that. At least I used it for a year and it did the
job - as any other wire would. I can of course sell it on the
second-hand market although it feels a bit dishonest now when I know the
truth about cables. ;-)


/August


And like you said, the money is water over the dam, and they DO the job.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 19:20:07 -0800, graham wrote
(in article ):

"August Karlstrom" wrote in message
...
On 2010-12-03 16:33, C. Leeds wrote:
[...]
Did you seek a refund from the retailer?

Well, before I tried a standard wire I had my Kimber cables for about a
year so I seriously doubt that a refund is possible. OK, so I spent
about 550 dollar (or rather 3800 Swedish kronor) on snake oil but I
think I can live with that. At least I used it for a year and it did the
job - as any other wire would. I can of course sell it on the
second-hand market although it feels a bit dishonest now when I know the
truth about cables. ;-)


/August


"although it feels a bit dishonest now when I know the truth about cables.
;-)"

.. or do you? .. I am not sure you will find that in this forum or any for
that matter ...
trust your ears and your judgment, not the opinions of others ...


You can't even really trust your ears and judgement except in carefully
controlled circumstances where all sighted bias has been eliminated from the
equation. It's best to trust to physics and mathematics. They don't lie, and
aren't affected by ego, expectational biases, or other psychoacoustic
phenomena. Your "ears" are affected by all of those things.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 21:29:21 -0800, August Karlstrom wrote
(in article ):

On 2010-12-03 16:33, C. Leeds wrote:
On 12/3/2010 10:17 AM, August Karlstrom wrote:

I can admit having been duped, although I have not spent this kind of
money on speaker wire. After reading about blind testing of speaker wire
in this group I replaced my Kimber wire with a thin and cheap standard
copper wire. And (of course) my system sounded just as good as before.

Please explain how you were "duped." Did you expect results you didn't
achieve? Did you seek a refund from the retailer?

I mean duped by hi-hi retailers and by hi-fi magazines in general (which
claim that there are audible differences between cables) and by a review
in HiFi Choice in particular which gave the Kimber cable in question a
best buy recommendation.

I think that when we do critical listening we tend to hear something new
every time. It may be something good or it maybe something bad. In the
case where we have just switched or installed a new component there is a
risk of falsely concluding that this new thing we hear can be attributed
to the component.


/August

It's called expectational bias. You just bought a new component. it cost a
lot of money, and it's very neat looking. Of course it just HAS to be better
than that which you are replacing. So it is.....

[Harry Lavo]

"ScottW" wrote in message
...
On Dec 5, 7:39=A0am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Today's high-end audio is a wealthy person's game, and you need to face
t=
he
fact that you simply have a different value system.

A "wealthy person's game"? I think that statement reveals the
problem with todays high-end audio.
It's no longer about achieving exceptional sonic performance...it's
about price tags and bling.


As a mundane illustration, I have a friend who is very comfortably well
o=
ff.
She recently underwent some surgery that prevented her from using her car
for a couple of months. =A0Last week she wanted me to drive her to the
de=
aler
for a "winterizing". =A0The car battery was dead. =A0The AAA fellow
teste=
d, said
the tester showed the battery was possibly kaput, but since it was a new
=
car
and had sat three months, he didn't believe it.....the tester wasn't
designed for such circumstances and usually batteries need to be drained
=
at
least three times to become defective. =A0This was the first time. =A0He
recommended we simply get the battery charged at the service station
arou=
nd
the corner, and it would probably be jsut fine. =A0He was most likely
cor=
rect.

She, however, requested that he swap out the battery for a new one
nonetheless, paying $110 in the process. =A0She simply didn't want to be
bothered worrying about "risk". =A0 Now, this woman is not profligate
wit=
h her
money...in many ways she is quite frugal....every bit as much as I am. =
=A0But
she is risk adverse, and I have seen her spend money similarly in other
scenarios. =A0To her, "avoiding risk" is a major value. =A0To me, her
act=
ions
were just needlessly throwing away good money. =A0The difference between
=
us
was twofold: 1) she is risk adverse, and I am not, and 2) she has
substantial assets she can spend when she wants, and I must ponder my
financial decisions much more carefully.

Which is just fine....but I can't really correlate early replacement
of a wear item like a battery to being risk averse to buying audio
gear.

What risk is being avoided by spending more on audio gear than
necessary for solid performance? I'd say at some price points on some
gear the actual performance often declines as manufacturers seek to
differentiate audibly somehow which may actually lead to inferior
performance which is overcome with marketing hype. The risk goes up,
not down.

I needed a new cart recently and decided to pick up a Shure M97 as an
inexpensive short term option. This little jewel sounds great.
Yes carts sound different and to each their own for subjective
assessment.
But there is simply no price/performance guarantees in audio and you
surely won't see anyone in S'phile putting a Shure M97 up there as
potentially satisfying as many other carts out there at any price
point.

I see over the years more and more how the high-end seeks to denigrate
product that isn't at the price point (or markup) they want...or the
manufacturer that engages the mass market distribution channels
suddenly becomes a lower performer in the eyes of the high-end
press.
It appears to be far more about the money than the sound these days.


Face it. =A0There are many people buying high-end audio who can afford
it=
, and
who get pleasure and comfort from the transaction.

When did high-end audio become more about the transaction than the
sound the equipment provides?

=A0That you are not one of
them is of no consequence....you have your values and they have theirs.

This constant impugning of others motives
gets very tiresome, and suggests
that maybe a bit of self-examination is in order.

Harry....your comments are IMO, every bit as damning of the "high-
end" as any I've read in this thread.

ScottW

Let the dung fall where it may, Scott.

But I didn't mean for the "risk" scenario to be translated literally to
audio. I simply meant it as a reference to the fact that if one has
sufficient assets, one can indulge whatever values one holds, however
irrational that may seem to another person.

Do I like this turn in audio? No, I prefer the '50's-'60's-70's when
increases in audio quality were more perceivable with increases in the
amount spend. But don't kid yourself, except for this brief period where
getting the best possible stereo held sway (itself a status symbol of sorts,
don't you think) this has always been a wealthy persons game. My dad built
a chain of hi-fi showrooms/electronics parts stores in the 50's in
Pennsylvania. His audio clientele were almost all doctors, lawyers, and
other well-heeled professionals. They came from all over the Northeast to
buy brands like JBL (corner horns), Fisher (tuners), Newcomb (amplifiers),
Rek-O-Cut and Presto (turntables), ESL (cartridges and tonearms), etc. etc.
They paid for home delivery and setup. And they read Audio Engineering and
High Fidelity....they were hobbyists, who enjoyed music and could afford the
best sound possible.

Could you get more bang for your buck back then? Of course you could, and
most of us did. But the "High-End", then as now, was a bit of a world unto
itself. Only the specifics of the purchase and the size and composition of
the wealthy purchasing class have changed a bit. In a way, audio has
RETURNED to its '50's roots.

[Dave Cook]

On Dec 5, 1:54=A0pm, KH wrote:

I mean, really, "Danceable" cables? =A0Need one say more?

That cables have qualities like "PRaT"*, "transparency", "warmth",
"dynamics", "lean bass", "musicality", "resolution", etc. is now
completely standard doctrine in the high-end. Many people now treat
cables as if they were another component, and it's common to see
people asking for recommendations for a cable that will compensate for
a lean or fat bass, or a bright or dull treble, or otherwise "tune"
their system in some way. Only infidels think that all cables sound
the same.

Dave Cook

* "Pace, Rhythm & Timing"

[bob]

On Dec 6, 3:48=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

=A0In a way, audio has
RETURNED to its '50's roots.

With some notable differences. I suspect that if we could teleport
Arny back to your Dad's shop, he would find audible differences
between virtually every product in the place--and a pretty fair
correlation between cost and quality. Today, such differences are
small to nonexistent, and the well-heeled high-end customer is largely
buying something else.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 18:56:36 -0800, Dave Cook wrote
(in article ):

On Dec 5, 1:54=A0pm, KH wrote:

I mean, really, "Danceable" cables? =A0Need one say more?

That cables have qualities like "PRaT"*, "transparency", "warmth",
"dynamics", "lean bass", "musicality", "resolution", etc. is now
completely standard doctrine in the high-end. Many people now treat
cables as if they were another component, and it's common to see
people asking for recommendations for a cable that will compensate for
a lean or fat bass, or a bright or dull treble, or otherwise "tune"
their system in some way. Only infidels think that all cables sound
the same.

Dave Cook

* "Pace, Rhythm & Timing"


Actually, it is possible for cables to be made to "compensate for
a lean or fat bass, or a bright or dull treble, or otherwise "tune"
their system in some way." Unfortunately, these cables are no longer mere
conductors. They are now "fixed filters" with LRC components connected to
them (usually in metal, plastic or wood boxes that are part of the "cable".
This is even sillier than buying regular cables in the hopes of being able to
correct so real or imagined shortcoming in one's system. For a lot less money
than these fixed inline filters cost, one can buy a very effective active
equalizer.

[David[_22_]]

"August Karlstrom" wrote in message
...
I can of course sell it on the
second-hand market although it feels a bit dishonest now when I know the
truth about cables. ;-)


Look at the going rate on eBay for the cables, knock off a bit (say 20%) and
put a buy it now or best offer with Audio Emipes advertising suggestion :

"You've spent thousands on your high-end equipment, and it's beautiful.
With
it's machined, solid billet aluminum fascias, this expensive equipment has
its deserved pride of place in your audio system. Why then, do you let the
aesthetic appeal of this gorgeous equipment down with ordinary, cheap and
ugly interconnects and speaker cables when you can enhance your system's
visual appeal immeasurably with the elegant, high-tech look of Acme Cables?"

D

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message

On Dec 6, 3:48=A0pm, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

=A0In a way, audio has
RETURNED to its '50's roots.

With some notable differences. I suspect that if we could
teleport Arny back to your Dad's shop, he would find
audible differences between virtually every product in
the place--and a pretty fair correlation between cost and
quality.

That would appear to be revisionist history. ABX was invented in the
mid-1970s, and found many alleged audible differences from that time that
vanished when listener bias was properly managed. Many of the tests that
were done in the mid-1970s involved comparisons that included legacy
equipment such as the Dyna Mark series vacuum tube amplifiers, which were
introduced in 1960 or earlier. Thus, we had no problems finding imaginary
audible differences among equipment dating back into the entire 1960s.
Logically extending that into at least the later 1950s would have been just
a matter of doing the tests.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:37:29 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

Harry Lavo wrote:
Could you get more bang for your buck back then?

Well, it's I think easily arguable that you can get far more "bang"
today for any buck, but be that as it may.

Of course you could, and most of us did.

And a very sizeable portion of us didn't "get" it, we
"did" it. Which led, as I am sure you know, to an overall
higher level of technical savy amongst the owners than
you could ever muster now.

Very true. Audio was much more of a DIY hands-on hobby then. With the
popularity of kits and scratch built projects I'd say that a goodly portion
of the hi-fi community rolled their own at some level. Hell, I remember as a
teen building my own interconnects from Belden coax and tin-plated RCA plugs.
There was no cable industry in the early 'sixties (that I recall). And, of
course, we used lamp-cord for speaker wire, because that's all we had (oh,
yes, and flat TV "twin-lead" for going under carpets).

But the "High-End", then as now, was a bit of a world unto
itself. Only the specifics of the purchase and the size and
composition of
the wealthy purchasing class have changed a bit. In a way, audio has
RETURNED to its '50's roots.

Only in that way. Back in the '50's and '60's there were
other choices that simply aren't as remotely available now.
You had kits from Heathkit (you could buy AR3's as a kit
from Heath at one point), Dynaco, Eico, Lux (yes, there
was a LuxKit or two). People wit little or no technical
know-how could get a kit and actually start to learn something
useful in the process of getting a piece of operable
equipment that could range anywhere from middle-of-the-
road performance to quite impressive (for the time).

If I had a dollar for every Knight-kit, Eico, and Heath-kit that I built (my
dad and I even built a Heath-kit color TV!).

With the modern explosion in three areas: technical
sophistication and complexity, product comoditization
with astronomical economic entry barriers, and the
effective "dumbing down" of sicence, math and engineering
at least in the USA, it's fertile ground for the rampant
proliferation of what might seem cynical and abusive
marketing. And it's not limited to high-end audio: it's
pervasive throughout the culture. The Bernie Madoff's of
the world are simply at the top of that pyramid.

Unfortunately, you're all too right.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:37:16 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"bob" wrote in message

On Dec 6, 3:48=A0pm, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

=A0In a way, audio has
RETURNED to its '50's roots.

With some notable differences. I suspect that if we could
teleport Arny back to your Dad's shop, he would find
audible differences between virtually every product in
the place--and a pretty fair correlation between cost and
quality.

That would appear to be revisionist history. ABX was invented in the
mid-1970s, and found many alleged audible differences from that time that
vanished when listener bias was properly managed. Many of the tests that
were done in the mid-1970s involved comparisons that included legacy
equipment such as the Dyna Mark series vacuum tube amplifiers, which were
introduced in 1960 or earlier. Thus, we had no problems finding imaginary
audible differences among equipment dating back into the entire 1960s.
Logically extending that into at least the later 1950s would have been just
a matter of doing the tests.




Dyna tube stuff was very good. Simple circuits, good quality output
transformers for the power amps, etc. Replace the resistors with low-noise
metal films and the caps with good quality modern polypropylene and
polystyrene units and they still sound good today. Dyna's solid-state stuff
was a different story. Early ST-120s sounded awful with a visible crossover
notch and were very fragile (so was the later Harman Kardon Citation 12). The
output transistors (2N3055) had to be hand selected by Dynaco for Vceo as
most of them would self destruct in that application and if one went, the
other one went and both complementary driver transistors went as well.

Harman Kardon's Citation I and Citation II were excellent tube pre-amps and
amps for their day and still give OK sound. Again, if one undertakes to
upgrade them, they can sound excellent and very neutral. Marantz model 7 and
model 9 were likewise excellent equipment. Not to mention almost any McIntosh
tube amp you can name.

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 3:48=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

=A0In a way, audio has
RETURNED to its '50's roots.

With some notable differences. I suspect that if we could teleport
Arny back to your Dad's shop, he would find audible differences
between virtually every product in the place--and a pretty fair
correlation between cost and quality. Today, such differences are
small to nonexistent, and the well-heeled high-end customer is largely
buying something else.

bob

True, but they are also buying cars, cameras, beach houses, sailboats, and
vineyards the same way. Methinks the problem is with the problems of the
values of the wealthy being laid upon the audio industry as though it were
unique. It really isn't.

[Arny Krueger]

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"bob" wrote in message


On Dec 6, 3:48=A0pm, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:


=A0In a way, audio has
RETURNED to its '50's roots.

With some notable differences. I suspect that if we
could teleport Arny back to your Dad's shop, he would
find audible differences between virtually every
product in the place--and a pretty fair correlation
between cost and quality.


That would appear to be revisionist history. ABX was
invented in the mid-1970s,

Actually, I finished transcribing an original doctoral
thesis puplished in 1969 which culminated a couple of
years of research into the perceptibility of
spectrally-rotated spech signals that stated explicitly
its dependence on auditory ABX test methodology.

Unfortunately the Auditory ABX test and the audio ABX test are not exactly
the same. One major difference was that audio ABX testing allows the
listener to switch between A and B as often and whenever he wished to. That
could be a problem in some auditory experiments. Allowing only one
comparison could be a problem in equipment comparisons. The ABX test that is
used in many auditory experienments pre-existed the audio ABX test and was
known to us at the time.

[Doug McDonald[_4_]]

On 12/7/2010 11:17 PM, Harry Lavo wrote:

bob

True, but they are also buying cars, cameras, beach houses, sailboats, and
vineyards the same way.

Cameras are certainly not in the same category. There are real and truly
significant quality differences between models. Huge differences in fact.
True, there are some cameras that are "defeatured" subsets of full-featured
ones that indeed would take identical pictures (if the extra feature is not used)
but this is a different thing.

Even the absolute top of the line Canon and Nikon DSLRs produce easily
distinguishable images, and neither is competitive with much more
expensive products from Hasselblad and Leaf.

Doug McDonald

[Harry Lavo]

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 12/7/2010 11:17 PM, Harry Lavo wrote:

bob

True, but they are also buying cars, cameras, beach houses, sailboats,
and
vineyards the same way.

Cameras are certainly not in the same category. There are real and truly
significant quality differences between models. Huge differences in fact.
True, there are some cameras that are "defeatured" subsets of
full-featured
ones that indeed would take identical pictures (if the extra feature is
not used)
but this is a different thing.

Even the absolute top of the line Canon and Nikon DSLRs produce easily
distinguishable images, and neither is competitive with much more
expensive products from Hasselblad and Leaf.

Doug McDonald

I am a serious amateur photographer, using Nikon gear. I used to think that
the Nikon D3/D700 had much better picture quality than the DX gear.....until
I did several blind tests and found that up to about ISO 640 I couldn't tell
a D1X from a D50 from a D300 from a D700, when all converted to equivalent
pixel size...3600 x 2400....and viewed full size. I wasn't alone.

So yes, you get extra features, extra performance at the margin, extra build
quality, and whether sought or not, pride of ownership. I would argue most
high-end audio gear does the same for its owners. But most photographers
cannot afford D3's or D3s's or D3x's unless they use them for a living.
The people who can buy them and enjoy them, even though for 98% of their
work a camera 1/2 or 1/3 the price would do every bit as well. And then
there is Leica (equivalent to $100,000 speaker systems....no better sound,
but impressive nonetheless in size and design and pride of ownership).

Did you ever notice that folks who can afford their own recording studios do
not stock them with low cost gear? Even though much of the high-priced
studio gear can now be mimicked in a workstation, or matched with only a
slight quality drop by much less expensive gear? Do you not suppose build
quality and pride of ownerhip may have something to do with it?

I really think this usually just boils down to different values by different
folks, especially if their finances have practical limits.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 08:24:14 -0800, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article ):

On 12/7/2010 11:17 PM, Harry Lavo wrote:

bob

True, but they are also buying cars, cameras, beach houses, sailboats, and
vineyards the same way.

Cameras are certainly not in the same category. There are real and truly
significant quality differences between models. Huge differences in fact.
True, there are some cameras that are "defeatured" subsets of full-featured
ones that indeed would take identical pictures (if the extra feature is not
used)
but this is a different thing.

Even the absolute top of the line Canon and Nikon DSLRs produce easily
distinguishable images, and neither is competitive with much more
expensive products from Hasselblad and Leaf.

Absolutely. The Nikon D3X (for instance) at $8000 has twice the number of
pixels (24.5 megapixels) as does Nikon's top $1100 "pro-sumer" D90 (12
megapixels) and the sensor is 35 mm film frame size (and the "pro-sumer" and
consumer models have sensors which are only 75% the size of the 35mm frame).
The Leaf and Haselblad digital models are based on two-and-a-quarter formats
which have even bigger, and denser sensor arrays.

But Hi-Fi is different. First of all, speaker cable and Interconnects can do
no more than conduct electricity. One could argue that some cables and
interconnects might "conduct" a bit better than others, but any of them
conduct as well as they need to in order to insure that the difference
between brands and designs has no audible effect on electric current they
carry. Cameras OTOH, produce images that are wholly dependent upon the number
of pixels they have (all else like sensor alignment , being equal) and the
quality of the lenses. More pixels won't make up for poor or cheap lenses,
and the best lenses in the world won't allow a 2 megapixel camera to mimic
Ansel Adams' quality. When a rich person buys a Nikon D3X digital camera, for
instance, he is really getting a quality camera that takes truly superior
digital pictures and will do so for many years to come. As the owner of a
Nikon F4, I can attest to the timeless precision of cameras built to that
level. Cables? Build quality means little because cables are likely to be
connected and forgotten for long periods of time. They don't need to be
rugged, they just need to work and the work they do is "easy duty" for wire.
The most expensive of cables and interconnects will not produce any more
"easily distinguishable (sonic) images" than will cheap throw-away
interconnects and 14 GA lamp cord for the speakers.




Doug McDonald

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Did you ever notice that folks who can afford their own
recording studios do not stock them with low cost gear?

No such thing!

One of the busiest and most respected studios in this town uses their legacy
SSL console as a front-end for their *real* work-a-day mixer which is a DAW.
IOW, the SSL is pretty much just a cheap source of mic preamps. Cheap
because they already own it.

They make no bones about the fact that they do most of their work with
Perception brand microphones, which are AKG's low end line.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Did you ever notice that folks who can afford their own
recording studios do not stock them with low cost gear?

No such thing!

One of the busiest and most respected studios in this town uses their
legacy
SSL console as a front-end for their *real* work-a-day mixer which is a
DAW.
IOW, the SSL is pretty much just a cheap source of mic preamps. Cheap
because they already own it.

They make no bones about the fact that they do most of their work with
Perception brand microphones, which are AKG's low end line.


Arny, I am talking about individuals, not commercial studios. I am talking
about boutique studios. Not a working studio in one of the poorest cities
and states in the country.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:29:49 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Did you ever notice that folks who can afford their own
recording studios do not stock them with low cost gear?

No such thing!

One of the busiest and most respected studios in this town uses their
legacy
SSL console as a front-end for their *real* work-a-day mixer which is a
DAW.
IOW, the SSL is pretty much just a cheap source of mic preamps. Cheap
because they already own it.

They make no bones about the fact that they do most of their work with
Perception brand microphones, which are AKG's low end line.


Arny, I am talking about individuals, not commercial studios. I am talking
about boutique studios. Not a working studio in one of the poorest cities
and states in the country.


I am a semi-pro (because I often get paid for making recordings) and I do
location recording exclusively. My equipment is frankly, pretty cheap. I use
Behringer, Avantone (CK-40) and SM Microphones. I record either to a Mac
laptop using Audacity and a Alesis i/o26 or to a Korg MR-1 DSD recorder using
a Behringer 1832 FX mixer (I prefer the latter. More control, easier, to set
up, less things to remember to do at set-up). Oh, and I use a little Zoom H2
at 24/96 for a back-up in case of a computer crash or other untoward problem
with the recorder.

On the "production" end I use my Mac dual-processor tower, Audacity, A
program called "AudioGate" to translate the DSD master to LPCM at 24/192,
24/96, 24/48, 16/48, 16/44.1. and I use a program called "DiscWelder Bronze"
to burn DVD-As at 24/192 or 24/96 (mostly for my own use the "client" usually
gets Red Book CDs).

I don't think I have more than about three, four- grand in the entire set up
including microphone stands and cables. But the results I get are first rate.
Much better than anything that can be purchased commercially (the quality of
the performances notwithstanding). I can (and do) make truly spectacular
recordings with this modest set-up. I recently recorded a large symphonic
wind ensemble (over 100 pieces in this particular instance) playing Ottorino
Resphigi's "Pines of Rome" tone poem. If you know this work, you know that
the last movement, "The Pines of the Appian Way" is a long crescendo invoking
images of Caesar's Legions marching along the Appian Way into ancient Rome
for a triumphal procession. The crescendo builds to a climax of instrumental
colors and blaring brasses. Everyone who has heard the 24/192 DVD-A copy of
my master has been blown away by it. Talk about a hi-fi showpiece and lease
buster!

High-end recording equipment is no longer required for high-end results. I
remember in the 1970's and '80s when I used to make archive and broadcast
recordings for a major California symphony orchestra, my mixer (a Tapco) my
tape decks (a pair of half-track,15 ips Otari MX5050s) and my microphones
(pair of Sony C-37P, a pair of Sony C-500s, and a pair of AKG 440s) cost
almost three times what my current rig cost (and that was in 1980 dollars
too!) and yet, that stuff did not make anywhere NEAR as good recordings as I
routinely do now with an ensemble that will fit in the passenger seat of my
car and cost a fraction of what similar quality stuff cost then!

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Did you ever notice that folks who can afford their own
recording studios do not stock them with low cost gear?

No such thing!

One of the busiest and most respected studios in this
town uses their legacy
SSL console as a front-end for their *real* work-a-day
mixer which is a DAW.
IOW, the SSL is pretty much just a cheap source of mic
preamps. Cheap because they already own it.

They make no bones about the fact that they do most of
their work with Perception brand microphones, which are
AKG's low end line.

Arny, I am talking about individuals, not commercial
studios.

Well then, you are now talking a realm where cheap rules with an iron hand.
Compared to anmes like Nady and Behringer, Perception is way up the scale.
Behringer itself is far above the bottom end products sold in many stores
that cater to the personal studio market.

Perception brand microphones and SSL consoles of any age are very high end
compared to most home studios.

I am talking about boutique studios.

Boutique studios are pretty darn rare in this day and age.

Not a working studio in one of the poorest cities and states in
the country.

The studio in question is not in any such place. Michigan is about average
in terms of income, around 25th on most recent official lists. The studio
is in Oakland County, which is 26th on a recent list of the 100 richest
counties in the US.

Please don't confuse the upscale end of the Detroit area with the city of
Detroit, and don't confuse Detroit (and Flint) with the rest of Michigan.

[Bob F]

C. Leeds wrote:

I likewise feel it's my duty to tell people
less technically schooled than I am that fancy cables are snake oil,
and that they're wasting their money by buying them.

No, it would be a waste of money for you to buy them. Some others find
value in these products. That's their prerogative.

Just for reference, how many times have you bought yourself such cables at
multi-thousand dollar prices?

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:38:07 -0800, Bob F wrote
(in article ):

C. Leeds wrote:

I likewise feel it's my duty to tell people
less technically schooled than I am that fancy cables are snake oil,
and that they're wasting their money by buying them.

No, it would be a waste of money for you to buy them. Some others find
value in these products. That's their prerogative.

Just for reference, how many times have you bought yourself such cables at
multi-thousand dollar prices?



And, having spent thousands on these cables, do you even "feel" that you have
gotten your money's worth?

Mr. Leeds, you have gotten this question backwards. No one is saying that
people who find value in these products shouldn't spend their money any way
they wish.

Here's an analogy. You believe that you can jump off an ocean liner in
mid-ocean and walk on the water back to port. I tell you that what you
believe you can do is physically and mortally impossible. I feel that I'm
doing the right thing by issuing you this warning. It's really none of my
business whether you accept my warning or not. After all, I don't know you.
You listen to me, politely and decide to jump anyway and you drown. Now
THAT'S your prerogative!

This by no means diminishes the fact that I was still in the right to point
out to you that you shouldn't do it, and to explain to you WHY you shouldn't
jump.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Jan 17, 4:38=A0pm, "Bob F" wrote:
C. Leeds wrote:
Just for reference, how many times have you bought yourself such cables a=
t
multi-thousand dollar prices?

I would be happy to sell cables guaranteed to be audibly and
electrically equal or better and put through a special proprietary
process that I can guarantee would be and utterly unique and
completely undupliacatable by anyone else on earth, or indeed anywhere
else Does a million dollars a foot sound like a fair price? I will
even freely disclose the undupliacatable method for an extra million.

This is, of course, contingent on the seller of the originals be
willing to sell sufficient samples to me.

Ed Seedhouse

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 08:28:09 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On Jan 17, 4:38=A0pm, "Bob F" wrote:
C. Leeds wrote:
Just for reference, how many times have you bought yourself such cables a=
t
multi-thousand dollar prices?

I would be happy to sell cables guaranteed to be audibly and
electrically equal or better and put through a special proprietary
process that I can guarantee would be and utterly unique and
completely undupliacatable by anyone else on earth, or indeed anywhere
else Does a million dollars a foot sound like a fair price? I will
even freely disclose the undupliacatable method for an extra million.

This is, of course, contingent on the seller of the originals be
willing to sell sufficient samples to me.

Ed Seedhouse


Mr, Seedhouse, I have this elixir to sell you. It's a little expensive at
$1000 for a 12 ounce bottle, BUT, I guarantee that it cures catarrh, pimples,
women's complaints, pneumonia, cancer, lumbago, back-ache, infantile
paralysis, consumption, enlarged prostate, liver ailments, kidney disease,
dyspepsia, housewives knee and hangnail. It will also resolve domestic
conflicts, make credit card debt go away and promotes world peace.

Oh, yes, if you spread some on your connector contacts for your interconnects
and speaker cables, it will improve imaging, lower distortion, increase
resolution, improve soundstage presentation, making the soundstage wider,
deeper, and higher, and improve image specificity. So, you see, even though
it is expensive, it's certainly worth it. How many bottles do you want?