Atlas amp, better with wood or cat

>From this weeks online stereophile:

quite warmish. Also, while the Atlas has five rubber feet, which damp
the underside of its chassis fairly well, I discovered that it
benefited from aftermarket footers--I cycled through brass cones, DH
Labs ceramic cones, and ultimately settled on Ayre's blocks of myrtle
wood. If you feel an $8000 amp shouldn't require aftermarket mods,
you're welcome to skip them, but I found the Ayres added a touch more,
um, air (or, alternatively, eliminated a slight amount of chassis
ringing). I also scattered a few myrtle blocks on the amp's top plate,
a conceit that amused my cats, who would sweep them off before settling
down for a heated nap. (Cats, too, do a good job of damping the top
plate, but they're unreliable suckers.)

Oh, poleese. All this problem could have been avoided if the wire was
raised off the floor with little towers, or cats but they are so
unreliable..

If the electrons were properly aligned before reaching the amp, no such
vibration would occur.

In severe cases if the latter solutions don't work, well placed foil
stickers would provide the finishing touches.

Cones? Never never cones, they only serve to focus the vibration and
annoy the cats. A better consideration given proper geometry goes a long
way. The geometry of the old style Lincoln logs are the thing as they
spread the caustic counter sonic products so much better.

The results you ask. A warm forward chocolate sound with fewer peanut
briddle highs. Of course the problem of cats licking the amp can be a bit
of a problem.

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 03:23:49 -0800, wrote
(in article >):

>> From this weeks online stereophile:
>
> quite warmish. Also, while the Atlas has five rubber feet, which damp
> the underside of its chassis fairly well, I discovered that it
> benefited from aftermarket footers--I cycled through brass cones, DH
> Labs ceramic cones, and ultimately settled on Ayre's blocks of myrtle
> wood. If you feel an $8000 amp shouldn't require aftermarket mods,
> you're welcome to skip them, but I found the Ayres added a touch more,
> um, air (or, alternatively, eliminated a slight amount of chassis
> ringing). I also scattered a few myrtle blocks on the amp's top plate,
> a conceit that amused my cats, who would sweep them off before settling
> down for a heated nap. (Cats, too, do a good job of damping the top
> plate, but they're unreliable suckers.)
>
> Oh, poleese. All this problem could have been avoided if the wire was
> raised off the floor with little towers, or cats but they are so
> unreliable..
>
> If the electrons were properly aligned before reaching the amp, no such
> vibration would occur.
>
> In severe cases if the latter solutions don't work, well placed foil
> stickers would provide the finishing touches.
>
> Cones? Never never cones, they only serve to focus the vibration and
> annoy the cats. A better consideration given proper geometry goes a long
> way. The geometry of the old style Lincoln logs are the thing as they
> spread the caustic counter sonic products so much better.
>
> The results you ask. A warm forward chocolate sound with fewer peanut
> briddle highs. Of course the problem of cats licking the amp can be a bit
> of a problem.
>

I find that such vibration can be most effectively damped if the listener
wears an aluminum foil hat and cod piece (I'd be careful with the latter,
were I you).

Yes, it is silly, isn't it? And the same magazines which promote this
insanity are also constantly publishing angst-filled editorials about the
"dying hobby" of high-fi. "Why don't we have new, young people coming into
the hobby?", they ask. Why indeed. Do these magazines like Stereophile and
TAS honestly think that they can bring new blood into the hobby by reviewing
$25,000 amplifiers, $60,000 CD players and $200,000 speaker systems? Do they
really believe that they can get people interested in a hobby that promotes
interconnects and speaker cables as actually having a sound? Do they also
think that people (other than audio crazies and Stereophile's current ilk of
reviewers - notice that Atkinson doesn't try to "measure" these claims like
he does speakers, amps, and CD Players) are naive enough to actually believe
that myrtlewood blocks and raised speaker cable can change the sound? These
Voodoo tweaks have been double-blind tested hundreds of times, all over the
world, and the results are always the same. The ability to tell the
difference between the cheapest, throw-away cables and the most expensive
cables or to tell when the speaker cable is up on lifts, or when a myrtlewood
block is used or not, has never exceeded the level of blind chance. In other
words, as any sufficiently knowledgeable and intelligent person would expect,
this stuff is more useless than patent medicine (at least most of that stuff
could get the user drunk - and that's a more positive outcome than installing
a set of $4000 interconnects in one's stereo system!). And they wonder why
the world at large laughs at the audio hobby and why most young people have
more sense than to get involved with this nonsense in the first place.

On Jan 20, 4:03=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> Do these magazines like Stereophile and
> TAS honestly think that they can bring new blood into the hobby by review=
ing
> $25,000 amplifiers, $60,000 CD players and $200,000 speaker systems? Do t=
hey
> really believe that they can get people interested in a hobby that promot=
es
> interconnects and speaker cables as actually having a sound? =A0Do they a=
lso
> think that people (other than audio crazies and Stereophile's current ilk=
of
> reviewers - notice that Atkinson doesn't try to "measure" these claims li=
ke
> he does speakers, amps, and CD Players) are naive enough to actually beli=
eve
> that myrtlewood blocks =A0and raised speaker cable can change the sound?

To the last point, yes, they do think their readers are willing to
believe in this magic. That's how their business model works. The
editorial copy sells the dream, and the advertisers get to associate
their products with the dream.

The magazine wins, the advertisers win, and two out of three ain't
bad.

bob

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:53:26 -0800, bob wrote
(in article >):

> On Jan 20, 4:03=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> Do these magazines like Stereophile and
>> TAS honestly think that they can bring new blood into the hobby by review=
> ing
>> $25,000 amplifiers, $60,000 CD players and $200,000 speaker systems? Do t=
> hey
>> really believe that they can get people interested in a hobby that promot=
> es
>> interconnects and speaker cables as actually having a sound? =A0Do they a=
> lso
>> think that people (other than audio crazies and Stereophile's current ilk=
> of
>> reviewers - notice that Atkinson doesn't try to "measure" these claims li=
> ke
>> he does speakers, amps, and CD Players) are naive enough to actually beli=
> eve
>> that myrtlewood blocks =A0and raised speaker cable can change the sound?
>
> To the last point, yes, they do think their readers are willing to
> believe in this magic. That's how their business model works. The
> editorial copy sells the dream, and the advertisers get to associate
> their products with the dream.
>
> The magazine wins, the advertisers win, and two out of three ain't
> bad.
>
> bob

Obviously, SOME portion of their readership believes in this nonsense (I take
both TAS and Stereophile, and while I'm entertained by both magazines, I do
not buy the audio voodoo). But that's not the question. The question is
whether or not these magazines believe that that such editorial policies
bring "new blood" into the hobby.

On Jan 21, 6:45=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:

> Obviously, SOME portion of their readership believes in this nonsense (I =
take
> both TAS and Stereophile, and while I'm entertained by both magazines, I =
do
> not buy the audio voodoo). =A0But that's not the question. The question i=
s
> whether or not these magazines believe that that such editorial policies
> bring "new blood" into the hobby.

What makes you think that bringing "new blood" to the hobby is even
part of their agenda? Magazines don't try to get people interested in
their subject matter in order to sell subscriptions to them. Magazines
seek out people who are already interested in their subject matter and
try to sell subscriptions to them.

I don't think the people who run S-phile know very much about audio,
but I do think they know something about the magazine business. If
changing the editorial content would bring in new readers, I'm pretty
sure they would do that.

Besides, what you're proposing is that they *narrow* their editorial
content. How does that help them (or the hobby, for that matter)? Stop
promoting the snake-oil tweaks, and you lose the readers who believe
in that stuff. Stop reviewing the $20,000 CD transports, and you lose
the readers who want to lust for the things they cannot have. That's
no way to run a magazine.

bob

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:37:05 -0800, bob wrote
(in article >):

> On Jan 21, 6:45=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> Obviously, SOME portion of their readership believes in this nonsense (I =
> take
>> both TAS and Stereophile, and while I'm entertained by both magazines, I =
> do
>> not buy the audio voodoo). =A0But that's not the question. The question i=
> s
>> whether or not these magazines believe that that such editorial policies
>> bring "new blood" into the hobby.
>
> What makes you think that bringing "new blood" to the hobby is even
> part of their agenda?

Two reasons:

1) They are always moaning about this in their editorials, so I suspect that
there is at least some concern.

2) As older audiophiles die-off (and as a hobby, we are aging), if new ones
don't "fill the pipeline", then potential readership for these magazines
shrinks.


> Magazines don't try to get people interested in
> their subject matter in order to sell subscriptions to them. Magazines
> seek out people who are already interested in their subject matter and
> try to sell subscriptions to them.

But if there are no neophytes coming into the hobby, who's going to buy their
magazines? Use your head, man!
>
> I don't think the people who run S-phile know very much about audio,
> but I do think they know something about the magazine business. If
> changing the editorial content would bring in new readers, I'm pretty
> sure they would do that.

I'm not so sure. I know some of these people and one of their outstanding
characteristics is a certain arrogance.
>
> Besides, what you're proposing is that they *narrow* their editorial
> content. How does that help them (or the hobby, for that matter)? Stop
> promoting the snake-oil tweaks, and you lose the readers who believe
> in that stuff. Stop reviewing the $20,000 CD transports, and you lose
> the readers who want to lust for the things they cannot have. That's
> no way to run a magazine.

It is a difficult tight-wire walk, I'll admit. But they can't, on the one
hand, give casually interested readers the impression that audio is a hobby
for millionaires and in the same issue lament that young people don't seem to
be attracted to the hobby like they once were. Truth to tell, the largest
majority of audiophiles are not well-off and the mega-buck systems are sold
in relatively low numbers, mostly to people who want, and can afford, the
best of everything. They likely are not audio hobbyists, but rather just rich
people who want to brag about how much their stereo system (that they never
listen to) costs. This buying segment is also unlikely to be repeat buyers
and never play the "up-grade game". Selling expensive equipment to this
market is a one shot deal. It's lucrative to the manufacturers who indulge in
this end of the market, and admittedly, these rich people allow manufacturers
to experiment with and build pie-in-the-sky products that they could not
build were there not at least a small market for them. And, as with
everything else, features and technologies employed in these "flagship"
products do, eventually, work their way down to more reasonably priced
models. I guess what I am saying is that if one, as a magazine publisher, is
going to indulge in focusing on high-ticket items and cater to the gullible
snake-oil buyers that seemingly infest this hobby, then they ought not be
surprised or chagrined by the fact that these editorial policies repel those
neophytes who might otherwise find themselves interested in audio.

On Jan 21, 8:56=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:

> It is a difficult tight-wire walk, I'll admit. But they can't, on the one
> hand, give casually interested readers the impression that audio is a hob=
by
> for millionaires and in the same issue lament that young people don't see=
m to
> be attracted to the hobby like they once were. Truth to tell, the largest
> majority of audiophiles are not well-off and the mega-buck systems are so=
ld
> in relatively low numbers, mostly to people who want, and can afford, the
> best of everything. They likely are not audio hobbyists, but rather just =
rich
> people who want to brag about how much their stereo system (that they nev=
er
> listen to) costs. This buying segment is also unlikely to be repeat buyer=
s
> and never play the "up-grade game".

I think you're making a false assumption here=97that people buy S-phile
to read reviews of products they might actually buy. if that were
really the case, their editorial approach would be nuts.

I think most people buy S-phile to read about products they dream of
owning, even if they never will. And there's enough Class C/D stuff
covered (if not formally reviewed) to give them some ideas about what
to look for in their price range.

> I guess what I am saying is that if one, as a magazine publisher, is
> going to indulge in focusing on high-ticket items and cater to the gullib=
le
> snake-oil buyers that seemingly infest this hobby, then they ought not be
> surprised or chagrined by the fact that these editorial policies repel th=
ose
> neophytes who might otherwise find themselves interested in audio.

I don't think this is the main reason why audiophilia is a dying
hobby. I think it's really losing out to the competition. When I was a
lad, a "stereo" was the coolest, most high-tech thing you could own.
So it's what we all wanted to own, and a few of us retained a lifelong
interest in audio. But today, there are computers and video games and
iPods and cellphones with more functions than a Swiss Army knife. My
16-year-old nephew has no more interest in audio than I did in hula
hoops. His music is on his iPod which, given his tastes, is plenty
good enough for his needs.

bob

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message


> Do these magazines
> like Stereophile and TAS honestly think that they can
> bring new blood into the hobby by reviewing $25,000
> amplifiers, $60,000 CD players and $200,000 speaker
> systems?

Read their magazines, they apparently do think as you say. For a long time
this situation has made a kind of warped sense to me on several grounds:

(1) Ads for $25,000 amplifiers, $60,000 CD players and $200,000 speaker
systems generate at least as much revenue for these magazines per square
inch as ads for products that actually make sense, but are more likely to
run more square inches. These publications are primarily about selling ads,
since by most accounts subscriber and newsstand revenue are secondary. :-(

(2) These magazines serve the Audio Voyeur market. A goodly number of people
get a positive emotional reaction from reading about $25,000 amplifiers,
$60,000 CD players and $200,000 speaker systems and looking at their
pictures. Articles about $60 optical players? Not so much. About the only
way to get a rise out of an article about a $600 or $60 optical player is to
point out that it sounds the same as the $60,000 model, and may even be
sitting inside its fancy, milled from solid-billet unobtanium case. Oppo and
Pioneer versus..., anybody?

(3) Articles about $25,000 amplifiers, $60,000 CD players and $200,000
speaker systems help people convince themselves that spending $2,500 on
amplifiers, $6,000 on CD players and $20,000 on speaker systems is actually
an economical thing to do. In many cases even the cheaper alternatives I
just mentioned are vastly overpriced. You can often get just as good
objective SQ with $250 amplifiers, $60 CD players and $200 speaker
systems.

> Do they really believe that they can get people
> interested in a hobby that promotes interconnects and
> speaker cables as actually having a sound?

>From the standpoint of the people who write and edit this stuff, the proof
is in the advertising revenues and the profitability of their advertisers.
The basic logic makes a sort of intuitive sense to the uniformed. If you
want a better stereo, then everything in it has to be better, right? That of
course must include the cables, etc. If a $200 amplifier sounds better than
a $20 amplifier, then a $2,000 amplifier must sound better than a $200
amplifier and so on up to the $200,000 model. :-(

There are many situations in life where the premium-priced product is at
least somewhat better. Would I trade my V6 Milan for a similar specification
BMW or Mercedes if someone else was paying the bills? Of course! And by all
subjective and objective accounts, either of those cars would in fact be
better cars. Why can't the same principle apply to power amps or optical
disc players? :-(

> Do they also
> think that people (other than audio crazies and
> Stereophile's current ilk of reviewers - notice that
> Atkinson doesn't try to "measure" these claims like he
> does speakers, amps, and CD Players)

Speaks to the high end writer's technical skills and mental energy. They've
never even shown proficiency at handling the full gamut of more conventional
electronics. Consider for example their long history of non-performance
vis-a-vis relatively simple challenges like bias-controlled testing of power
amps. :-(

> are naive enough to
> actually believe that myrtlewood blocks and raised
> speaker cable can change the sound?

Being the leader of the review staff of high end ragazines seems like quite
a challenging and diverse experience. Consider having say, a Kal Rubinson, a
Larry Greenhill and a Michael Fremer in the same room with you. Kal's
probably wondering how someone's brain can wired to act like that and still
drink coffee without spilling it, and Larry is thinking about how what he is
hearing sounds like what he hears (heard) in his (old?) day job at the
mental hospital. Yet there has to be a veneer of respect because in the
advertising revenue and strategic senses, they are all equally productive.
:-(

> These Voodoo tweaks
> have been double-blind tested hundreds of times, all over
> the world, and the results are always the same.

There is some evidence that God runs an orderly universe much of the time.
;-)

> The
> ability to tell the difference between the cheapest,
> throw-away cables and the most expensive cables or to
> tell when the speaker cable is up on lifts, or when a
> myrtlewood block is used or not, has never exceeded the
> level of blind chance.

Why let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of meeting the income side
of your advertising budget? :-(

> In other words, as any
> sufficiently knowledgeable and intelligent person would
> expect, this stuff is more useless than patent medicine
> (at least most of that stuff could get the user drunk -
> and that's a more positive outcome than installing a set
> of $4000 interconnects in one's stereo system!).

Trust me, Joe six pack has no clue. I personally know of any number of
degreed engineers, MDs and PhDs that have bought into this junk, and they
are supposed to be smarter and better-educated than Joe. Best buy sells $70+
HDMI cables that are electrically identical to those that are being sold
elsewhere for $7 or less, and has no alternatives under $35. :-(

> And they
> wonder why the world at large laughs at the audio hobby
> and why most young people have more sense than to get
> involved with this nonsense in the first place.

At this point High End Audio is a subculture, with dimensions of being an
organized religion. Time to stop talking about "Audio High Priests", what we
now have is a college of cardinals and wannabee popes. ;-)

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:39:23 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Do these magazines
>> like Stereophile and TAS honestly think that they can
>> bring new blood into the hobby by reviewing $25,000
>> amplifiers, $60,000 CD players and $200,000 speaker
>> systems?
>
> Read their magazines, they apparently do think as you say. For a long time
> this situation has made a kind of warped sense to me on several grounds:
>
> (1) Ads for $25,000 amplifiers, $60,000 CD players and $200,000 speaker
> systems generate at least as much revenue for these magazines per square
> inch as ads for products that actually make sense, but are more likely to
> run more square inches. These publications are primarily about selling ads,
> since by most accounts subscriber and newsstand revenue are secondary. :-(
>
> (2) These magazines serve the Audio Voyeur market. A goodly number of people
> get a positive emotional reaction from reading about $25,000 amplifiers,
> $60,000 CD players and $200,000 speaker systems and looking at their
> pictures. Articles about $60 optical players? Not so much. About the only
> way to get a rise out of an article about a $600 or $60 optical player is to
> point out that it sounds the same as the $60,000 model, and may even be
> sitting inside its fancy, milled from solid-billet unobtanium case. Oppo and
> Pioneer versus..., anybody?
>
> (3) Articles about $25,000 amplifiers, $60,000 CD players and $200,000
> speaker systems help people convince themselves that spending $2,500 on
> amplifiers, $6,000 on CD players and $20,000 on speaker systems is actually
> an economical thing to do. In many cases even the cheaper alternatives I
> just mentioned are vastly overpriced. You can often get just as good
> objective SQ with $250 amplifiers, $60 CD players and $200 speaker
> systems.
>
>> Do they really believe that they can get people
>> interested in a hobby that promotes interconnects and
>> speaker cables as actually having a sound?
>
>> From the standpoint of the people who write and edit this stuff, the proof
> is in the advertising revenues and the profitability of their advertisers.
> The basic logic makes a sort of intuitive sense to the uniformed. If you
> want a better stereo, then everything in it has to be better, right? That of
> course must include the cables, etc. If a $200 amplifier sounds better than
> a $20 amplifier, then a $2,000 amplifier must sound better than a $200
> amplifier and so on up to the $200,000 model. :-(
>
> There are many situations in life where the premium-priced product is at
> least somewhat better. Would I trade my V6 Milan for a similar specification
> BMW or Mercedes if someone else was paying the bills? Of course! And by all
> subjective and objective accounts, either of those cars would in fact be
> better cars. Why can't the same principle apply to power amps or optical
> disc players? :-(

There is, of course, "the pride of ownership" factor. An expensive car is
more impressive looking than a cheap one, even though in most practical ways,
the cheap car is often better (I'll guarantee you, for instance, that a
Hyundai is more reliable and has lower maintenance costs and a lower
frequency of repair than a BMW). In audio, expensive products are impressive
looking and there is no doubt that "bling" sells. If one has a very large
disposable income, why not buy the equipment that looks the best? Much of
this modern "high-end" equipment is extremely handsome and well made. Some of
it is even sonically superior to the cheap stuff (but usually not as much as
the price delta might indicate).
>
>> Do they also
>> think that people (other than audio crazies and
>> Stereophile's current ilk of reviewers - notice that
>> Atkinson doesn't try to "measure" these claims like he
>> does speakers, amps, and CD Players)
>
> Speaks to the high end writer's technical skills and mental energy. They've
> never even shown proficiency at handling the full gamut of more conventional
> electronics. Consider for example their long history of non-performance
> vis-a-vis relatively simple challenges like bias-controlled testing of power
> amps. :-(

In all fairness, the long-term listening test methodology (as opposed to
blind or double-blind testing) arose because setting up a valid, blind or
double-blind test is difficult and usually requires more than one person to
accomplish. The perception that many people have of an audio magazine being
located in this large building with offices for all of the writers and labs
for testing and listening rooms for doing sonic evaluations and a general
business-like atmosphere reminiscent of a scene from some hollywood movie
about the newspaper business, is, of course, quite incorrect. Most high-end
audio publications consist of small offices with just a few people like the
editor and the business/advertising management (if that). The writers are
reviewers constitute a disparate lot, scattered all over the country, working
in isolation, often never physically meeting their fellow writers
face-to-face and often never even meeting their editors (except on the
phone). This isolation makes it very difficult to set-up meaningful blind or
double-blind tests (which are difficult and exacting under the best of
circumstances if a meaningful result is to be expected). Also, one has to
take into account that a "buff" magazine's (be it audio, automobiles, model
railroading, motorcycles, etc) primary responsibility to the READER is to be
entertaining. If reviews of equipment were relegated to an explanation of the
double-blind set-up procedure and a statistical analysis of the results, it
would make for pretty boring reading. Also, your assertion that advertising
is important and not offending advertisers is even more important, is a valid
point. Double-blind testing would show that $4000 cables were worthless and
myrtlewood blocks were doubly so. That wouldn't do.
>
>> are naive enough to
>> actually believe that myrtlewood blocks and raised
>> speaker cable can change the sound?
>
> Being the leader of the review staff of high end ragazines seems like quite
> a challenging and diverse experience. Consider having say, a Kal Rubinson, a
> Larry Greenhill and a Michael Fremer in the same room with you. Kal's
> probably wondering how someone's brain can wired to act like that and still
> drink coffee without spilling it, and Larry is thinking about how what he is
> hearing sounds like what he hears (heard) in his (old?) day job at the
> mental hospital. Yet there has to be a veneer of respect because in the
> advertising revenue and strategic senses, they are all equally productive.
>> -(
>
>> These Voodoo tweaks
>> have been double-blind tested hundreds of times, all over
>> the world, and the results are always the same.
>
> There is some evidence that God runs an orderly universe much of the time.
> ;-)
>
>> The
>> ability to tell the difference between the cheapest,
>> throw-away cables and the most expensive cables or to
>> tell when the speaker cable is up on lifts, or when a
>> myrtlewood block is used or not, has never exceeded the
>> level of blind chance.
>
> Why let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of meeting the income side
> of your advertising budget? :-(

Well advertising is always the bottom line in publishing, but I don't think
that this audio voodoo is that cynical. I'm more than reasonably sure that
these magazine reviewers (and other acolytes to the "tweak" mentality) are
sincere in their beliefs that this stuff actually works. If you bring-up the
fact that double-blind testing shows conclusively and consistently that
properly designed cables (interconnects, speaker cables, and AC line cords)
add nothing and detract nothing from the sound, and that myrtlewood blocks do
nothing, and that the effects of speaker cable lifts are a figment of Enid
Lumley's imagination, They will tell you that one has to listen long-term to
hear these differences, and that they won't be revealed in a double-blind A/B
test. Of course, the truth of the matter is that all long-term listening
tests do is allow the listener to become accustomed to any component's
shortcomings (and therefore become more, rather than less forgiving of any
sonic anomalies) and give them time to imagine a cable/wood block/cable-lift
sound.
>
>> In other words, as any
>> sufficiently knowledgeable and intelligent person would
>> expect, this stuff is more useless than patent medicine
>> (at least most of that stuff could get the user drunk -
>> and that's a more positive outcome than installing a set
>> of $4000 interconnects in one's stereo system!).
>
> Trust me, Joe six pack has no clue. I personally know of any number of
> degreed engineers, MDs and PhDs that have bought into this junk, and they
> are supposed to be smarter and better-educated than Joe. Best buy sells $70+
> HDMI cables that are electrically identical to those that are being sold
> elsewhere for $7 or less, and has no alternatives under $35. :-(

Amen there. I buy from an online source called mycablemart, very high-quality
TOSLINK cables which are gorgeously made (glass fiber, machined aluminum
ferrules on each end, high-quality braided jackets, etc) They are also
incredibly cheap with a 1-meter cable costing a bit more than six bucks and a
25 ft for less than $15. Audio Advisor sells this exact same one meter cable
(obviously made in the same factory) for more than FIVE TIMES the price I pay
online! The difference? The Audio Advisor cable's jacket is purple and the
ones I buy are gray.

>> And they
>> wonder why the world at large laughs at the audio hobby
>> and why most young people have more sense than to get
>> involved with this nonsense in the first place.
>
> At this point High End Audio is a subculture, with dimensions of being an
> organized religion. Time to stop talking about "Audio High Priests", what we
> now have is a college of cardinals and wannabee popes. ;-)

While you're doubtless correct about this, it is a shame. High-quality audio
used to be a great value. I remember when one could buy a pair of Dynaco 60
Watt tube amps for about $100 (kit), a preamp for about $60 and a pair of AR
3a speakers for about $500 and add one of a dozen turntables and arm combos
for $60-$100 and one had a state-of-the-art audio system. Looked at the
price of a Linn Sondeck LP12 lately? This knockoff of Edgar Villchur's $60 AR
table can set you back more than $4000! Admittedly, the Linn arm is much
better than the AR's, but still....

Yet as interesting as your points are (and good conversation "fodder"), the
fact remains that the audio publishing world's actions and what they say is a
desired result are wildly out of step. My entire point in this thread is that
hi-fi publications cannot lament, on the one hand, that the market for audio
equipment is dwindling while on the other hand, continue to promote products,
methodologies, and attitudes that exude elitism to their readerships. Yes,
much like many people who could never afford one like to read about Ferraris,
we all like to fantasize to a certain extent about unobtainable audio gear
(I'd love to have a pair of Martin Logan CLXs, for instance), and that's fun.
But it's not going to be of much interest to the college or high-school kid
who finds that his love for the sound of music is driving him toward becoming
an audio hobbyist. He wants to see that there is a reasonable starting place
and that he has somewhere to go with his hobby that doesn't include second
mortgages on homes he hasn't even bought yet.

On 1/22/2010 10:31 AM, Audio Empire wrote:

> In all fairness, the long-term listening test methodology (as opposed to
> blind or double-blind testing) arose because setting up a valid, blind or
> double-blind test is difficult and usually requires more than one person to
> accomplish. The perception that many people have of an audio magazine being
> located in this large building with offices for all of the writers and labs
> for testing and listening rooms for doing sonic evaluations and a general
> business-like atmosphere reminiscent of a scene from some hollywood movie
> about the newspaper business, is, of course, quite incorrect. Most high-end
> audio publications consist of small offices with just a few people like the
> editor and the business/advertising management (if that). The writers are
> reviewers constitute a disparate lot, scattered all over the country, working
> in isolation, often never physically meeting their fellow writers
> face-to-face and often never even meeting their editors (except on the
> phone). This isolation makes it very difficult to set-up meaningful blind or
> double-blind tests (which are difficult and exacting under the best of
> circumstances if a meaningful result is to be expected). Also, one has to
> take into account that a "buff" magazine's (be it audio, automobiles, model
> railroading, motorcycles, etc) primary responsibility to the READER is to be
> entertaining. If reviews of equipment were relegated to an explanation of the
> double-blind set-up procedure and a statistical analysis of the results, it
> would make for pretty boring reading. Also, your assertion that advertising
> is important and not offending advertisers is even more important, is a valid
> point. Double-blind testing would show that $4000 cables were worthless and
> myrtlewood blocks were doubly so. That wouldn't do.

I'm in complete agreement that today's audio magazines are mostly fluff
and full of nonsense. However, I would subscribe to and enjoy a magazine
that did more to analyze the equipment designs themselves and discuss
the tradeoffs in various approaches. The Audio Critic used to do this
and I found it quite informative. While it may be difficult to
distinguish the sound of a "high end" amplifier from a mass market amp,
there are often definite circuit differences that the designers have
chosen for a reason.

I wish there was a magazine that pulled the covers off the equipment and
did a design review. In the cell phone market, for example, there are
several review sites that completely disassemble a phone, discuss the
design and even estimate the cost to produce. Now THAT would be
interesting in the audio market!