Are audiophiles still out of their minds?

mitch2
1,253 posts
06-04-2016 5:03pm
"Geoff said,
"For sale on Audiogon as we speak SR Black Fuse...(lots of stuff edited)....250v Slow-Blow $89.95"
Sorry for my sluggishness today but was there a point buried somewhere in the quoted post?"

You might consider asking Dracule. I bet he gets it. 

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica
advanced audio conceits

You aren’t getting any younger, dracule1. Have you had your ears candles recently? 🕯

note to brayeagle: better check your rear view mirror regularly. Immelmann coming soon.

Question. Would you rather have great sound or $10,000 of great massages plus all the great beer you can drink? 🙄

taiye
Julian Hirsch RIP. if you are old enough to know who he was and read his articles. Enough said

>>>>Wasn’t he the guy who couldn’t hear the difference between amplifiers? Wasn’t he the one guy proclaimed all amplifiers that measure about the same sound about the same?

People are still buying Lamborghinis too I understand. Actually more than ever. The most Lamborghinis sold in a single year in 2015 with 3245. 

Dracule1 wrote,

"Ricred1, I have auditioned cables in the $10k+ range. They make a difference in sound, but not necessarily for the better. Having speakers that are $40k+, I thought expensive cables should make a whole lot of improvement for that kind of money."

It’s not too difficult to imagine a scenario where someone auditions fresh new expensive cables without giving them the customary break in period of what at least 100 hours and having them lose out to cheaper cables that have been broken in. That wouldn’t surprise me at all. Any cable that's new or nearly new can sound miserable. Like anything else. $100K speakers can sound thin, lifeless and objectionable if they, the cables and/or the electronics are not broken in. Geez, cut me some slack.

Which is worse?

1. $24K interconnects

2. $102K turntable

3. $15K cartridge

4. $1.2M speakers

5. $12K power cord

6. $250K amplifier

7. $36K tonearm

8. None of the above

editor’s note: by contrast my entire system not including tweaks costs $20

For sale on Audiogon as we speak SR Black Fuse $120 and Audio Magic Beeswax Fuse $175. If I used fuses I image I’d probably get the Beeswax figuring it would probably get me in the ball park. ;-)

Acme Audio Silver Ceramic Fuse Cryogenic Treated with Special Sauce $16. Without Special Sauce $12. Cannot beat with stick.

From The Cable Company’s fuse page,

Showing Results for Fuses Records: 1 Through 27 of 27 Sort by Category, Brand or Retail Price

Category Brand Model Retail Price
Fuses Audio Magic Nano-Liquid Premium $69.00
Fuses Audio Magic Premier Bees Wax Super Fuse $175.00
Fuses Audio Magic Premier Super Fuse $135.00
Fuses Audio Magic The Super Fuse $105.00
Fuses Furutech T-13A (R) Fuse for UK 13A Connector $85.54
Fuses Furutech TF (5x20mm) $58.00
Fuses Furutech TF (6x32mm) $65.00
Fuses HIFi-Tuning 38mm Special (10.3x38mm) Fuses $49.95
Fuses HIFi-Tuning Supreme Large (6.3x32mm) Fast Blow (F) Type $89.95
Fuses HIFi-Tuning Supreme Large (6.3x32mm) Slow Blow (T) Type $89.95
Fuses HIFi-Tuning Supreme Small (20mm/.75) Fast Blow (F) Type $69.95
Fuses HIFi-Tuning Supreme Small (20mm/.75) Slow Blow (T) Type $69.95
Fuses HIFi-Tuning UK (25.4mm/ 1") Fuses $59.95
Fuses Isoclean Power Large (6 x 31.8mm) $49.00
Fuses Isoclean Power Small (5 x 20mm) $49.00
Fuses Synergistic Research Black Quantum Fuse Large (6.3x32mm) 500v Fast-Blo $129.95
Fuses Synergistic Research Black Quantum Fuse Large (6.3x32mm) 500v Slo-Blo $129.95
Fuses Synergistic Research Black Quantum Fuse Small (5x20mm) 250v Fast-Blow $119.95
Fuses Synergistic Research Black Quantum Fuse Small (5x20mm) 250v Slo-Blo $119.95
Fuses Synergistic Research Quantum Fuse Large (6.3x32mm) 500v Fast-Blo $69.95
Fuses Synergistic Research Quantum Fuse Large (6.3x32mm) 500v Slow-Blo $69.95
Fuses Synergistic Research Quantum Fuse Small (5x20mm) 250v Fast-Blo $59.95
Fuses Synergistic Research Quantum Fuse Small (5x20mm) 250v Slow-Blo $59.95
Fuses Synergistic Research Red Quantum Fuse Large (6.3x32mm) 500v Fast-Blo $99.95
Fuses Synergistic Research Red Quantum Fuse Large (6.3x32mm) 500v Slow-Blo $99.95
Fuses Synergistic Research Red Quantum Fuse Small (5x20mm) 250v Fast-Blow $89.95
Fuses Synergistic Research Red Quantum Fuse Small (5x20mm) 250v Slow-Blow $89.95

facten
542 posts
06-05-2016 11:28am
"If you are doing this you really need to get yourself into therapy"

Geoffkait: no more lying awake nights over imperfections in your fuse holder

I might need therapy but not for anything related to fuses or fuse holders as I don't use fuses or fuse holders. I don't bypass fuses. Heck, I don't even use the house AC. 

Tootles

jmcgrogan2
5,311 posts
06-05-2016 2:52pm
I’m wondering, why all of the hoopla over expensive wire/fuses? Why don’t we fuss over acoustic treatments more?

"Wires have been the low hanging fruit in this hobby for decades now for those that enjoy a good troll thread. Fuses are relatively new to the party."

That’s true. The cable controversy has been around what, since around the late 70s? I’m thinking of the Fulton Gold and Polk Audio cables, even Monster Cable. OK let’s say 1980, that’s 36 years ago. Fuses on the other hand have only been controversial for what, fifteen years? Anyway, they've proven themselves to be excellent conversation starters over the years. Directionality of wire? I’m guessing 25 years.

GK

Dracule wrote,

" I know cables can make a difference in sound quality of your system, but never dramatic like changing speakers, amplifiers, or even more importantly room treatment. Yes, I’ve evaluated many vaunted cables at dealers and at home over the years, but never heard dramatic effect that I would plunk $5000 for a cable. The most I’ve ever spent was $2700 for pair of speaker cables, and I kinda regret it to this day. So when I see cable manufacturers charging 5 figures for their latest and "greatest" speaker cables, PC, and ICs, I have to ask myself who buys this stuff."

Well, it all depends on how you look at it. If you bought a pair of speaker cables for $2700 twenty years ago, then taking into account inflation those same cables would sell for what in today’s dollars, more than $6,000? You ask, who buys this stuff? Apparently it’s folks like you. ;-)

A trolling we will go, a trolling we will go, high ho the dairy oh, a trolling we will go. One might as well wonder, hmmmm, how does Mercedes justify their prices? Or how does a pro basketball or baseball player justify his price? Or how does the military justify $339M for an F-22 Raptor?

analogluvr
217 posts
06-06-2016 8:11pm
"Geoffkait if you think those things are similar your not as smart as I gave you credit for.

And i I don't give you any credit, sorry...."

Every organ grinder has a monkey. - old audiophile expression

philipwu
149 posts
06-07-2016 9:23am
"If i have 100k to spend on that TV or any piece of audio gear, the most common sense thing for me to do is to invest that kind of money into my favourite recording stereo firm. Get them to upgrade their hardware, or employ a better sound engineer ect..
I guess the materials that they produce would certainly become more enjoyable, wouldn't that be the best bang for the buck?"

We could all sign a petition to stop the overly aggressive dynamic range compression that's been going on for the past 20 years or so. And it's not just CDs but SACDs, vinyl and even hi res downloads. Hel-looo! It's small wonder folks can't hear the difference in high end cables or whatever. 

Cheerios

dracule1 OP
890 posts
06-08-2016 10:13pm
"$100K TV is to a videophile as $100K speaker is to an audiophile. I know of no videophile who has spent more than couple of hundred on wires. At least videophiles know wire is wire."

On the other hand how many videophiles really care about sound quality? Not to mention how good does sound quality actually have to be for explosions and digital CGI effects?

Cheers,

geoff kait
machina dynamica

I’m pretty sure no self respecting audiophile pays retail. Not in this economy. I also suspect one reason why some audiophile products are priced so high is because of the cost of maintaining dealer networks. Like the $500 toilet seat it depends on how many of a particular thing one expects to sell or if each one is customized, etc. As well as developmental costs, cost of advertising, whatever. Not to mention whatever the market will bare.

Lots of notable people don’t believe in things like high end cables, or say wire directionality or aftermarket fuses or fuse directionality and other things that have been around like forever. But that in itself doesn’t mean they’re not true. That’s what we in the biz refer to as an Appeal to Authority, which as you probably know is a logical fallacy. You know, kind of like claiming because Einstein didn’t believe in quantum mechanics that quantum mechanics is not real. Besides, there are lots of other notable and legendary designers who DO believe in high end cables. Do you really think all legendary designers think alike?

How long has the cable controversy been around, gee, gotta be 35 years? I hate to judge before all the facts are in but I suspect the cable debate is not going to go away anytime real soon. Well, hopefully, anyway.

geoff kait
machina dramatica
no goats no glory

jl35
1,015 posts
06-12-2016 7:45am
"to get back to your original question. I think the people who buy $10k cables are the people who buy $100k amps, $100k digital gear, $100k analog, $100k speakers. my guess is very few $100k cables systems are ever sold. little time to worry about the expenditures of the ultra wealthy..."

Actually, that’s probably true. Dracule1 just happens to be an exception to the rule since he has, according to him, some very expensive equipment. It’s just expensive cables he has heartburn with.

dracule1 wrote,

"All jokes aside, from what I recall there have been several published blinded AB tests to test differences in sound between cables and even between amps. But as we know, the results are always the same and not in the favor of cable manufacturers. But that’s another whole can of worms."

Surprise, surprise. I figured it wouldn’t be too long before blind testing raised its ugly head. If you recall several published blinded AB tests that showed there are no differences among cables would it be asking too much to provide links to those published tests? I'm not exactly sure why but naysayers frequently claim there are some blind tests out there somewhere, who knows where, that prove that such and such controversial audiophile product is a scam. :-)

Dracule1 also wrote,

"Einstein and his refusal to accept quantum mechanics. You have a point there, but he was right about so many other things like gravity waves, space-time, black holes, photo-electric effect, etc. Who knows in the future some genius will turn quantum mechanics upside down and prove Einstein was right. 😏"

Exactly! Einstein was right about many things but not everything. And because some legendary audio designers made outstanding electronics or speakers doesn’t mean they’re correct on every subject. So using them as proof or even evidence that cables are a scam is an illogical argument.

From a logic standpoint, even if quantum mechanics is turned on it’s head at some far distant time, which is rather unlikely, you know, given that it has survived scrutiny for a hundred years, that would not be evidence or proof that cables are a scam.

cheere,

geoff kait
machina dynamica

Almarg wrote,

"While there are those who would consider an Appeal to Authority to be a logical fallacy, as I see it such an appeal is not at all illogical. Rather, it is simply less than conclusive, to SOME degree. The degree to which it is less than conclusive, and the persuasiveness of the appeal, comes down to a matter of judgment, taking into account the credibility and relevant background of the particular authority, the persuasiveness of conflicting evidence that may be available, the nature of the particular subject, and perhaps other factors. And as always, the judgments of different individuals will frequently differ."

OK, let’s look at this type of argument more closely, shall we?

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY

Argument from authority, also ad verecundiam and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy.[1]

In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.[2] The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:[3]

A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[4][5][6][7] as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.[8]

Forms
General
The argument from authority can take several forms. As a syllogism, the argument has the following basic structure:[5][9]

A says P about subject matter S.
A should be trusted about subject matter S.
Therefore, P is correct.
The second premise is not accepted as valid, as it amounts to an unfounded assertion that leads to circular reasoning able to define person or group A into inerrancy on any subject matter.[5][10]

Ergo, the claim that some legendary designs don’t believe in audiophile cables proves that there are no audible differences among cables is the VERY DEFINITION of an Appeal to Authority. Frustrating, ain’t it?It looks convincing only on the surface. But it fails to prove or even provide evidence of anythung. Any more than the argument that some blind test somewhere, who knows where, or the very threat of controlled blind tests, proves that there are no differences among cables. Hel-loo! For one thing some folks have axes to grind. So their opinions are unreliable. Besides, as I said previously, not all legendary designers think alike. For example John Curl DOES believe in audiophile cables. Ditto Lloyd Walker of Walker Audio, Lamm, von Schweikert. there’s a bunch. Trust me.

Cheers,

geoff kait
machina dynamica
advanced audio concepts

mitch2
1,257 posts
06-12-2016 12:42pm
Geoffkait: "I figured it wouldn’t be too long before blind testing raised its ugly head.
"ugly head?"

to which mitch2 replied,

"Geeze Geoff, you can be more creative than pulling that page from your well-worn playbook.

What I don’t understand is how you and others can support the miraculous effects of cables, fuses, wire direction and other minutia, by saying the differences can obviously be heard, but then discount a method that provides listeners the opportunity to judge what sounds best based on the differences they hear, in the absence of other sensory and social influences. When challenged, many say the DBT method is not perfect but then neither is dropping some expensive item, or the "latest and greatest" version of something, into your system and heralding the positive effects without considering cognitive bias, golden halo effects, social reality and other psychological phenomena that could have a larger effect on influencing listeners than the potential drawbacks to DBT."

Please Re-read what I wrote and try not to put words in my mouth. I didn’t discount blind tests. I actually have no problem with blind tests or any other type of tests. But what I’m saying is that naysayers don’t actually DO any blind tests themselves nor do they have any evidence that anyone else has actually done ANY blind tests for cables. Furthermore a blind test or any test is not conclusive of anythung. It’s just a data point. There are so many examples of bad tests, really bad and unscientific tests, that it’s a bit difficult to take seriously anyone who claims that (someone else’s) test proves this or that. And one step further, if the results of a particular test are negative, if differences between cables or whatever are not observed, the results are practically meaningless without context to other tests and can be throw out depending on results of (any) other tests. You know, just like naysayers will claim that the placebo effect or expectation bias MUST be the cause of positive results. ;-)

GK

dracule1 OP
914 posts
06-13-2016 11:04am
"Geoff, how many times have you stuck your foot in your mouth by not paying attention to my words or twisting my words to fit your argument? Now you’re changing the subject cuz you got nothing. Give it up. You’re boring me."

So, you’re mad because someone somewhere, at least according to you, spent $100K on cables, which I actually doubt. Your whole thesis is that it’s stupid to spend a lot of money on cables because there is no significant difference in sound quality between relatively inexpensive cables and super expensive cables. Yet you seem to be gracefully backing off that position by agreeing that there are, according to blind tests you provided, significant differences among cables, even when the "expensive" cables involved in the test are only $1K. You got some ’splainin’ to do.

I’m not twisting your words. Those are your words. I don’t have to twist them. They are what they are. This all appears to be nothing more than a bad case of buyer's remorse. Heck, you're complaining about $2K cables.  One can only imagine what this would be like if you had spent say $20K on the cables. Real scary. 

:-)

dracule1 OP
913 posts
06-13-2016 9:17am
"Geoffkait, no wiggling needed. You even quoted me, in which I clearly stated that I never claimed there is no difference in cable sound, and no test is perfect. I even stated cables can make a difference in sound in my original post. Was I not clear enough? And why only bring up the Minnesota test and not the others? Cherry picking are we?"

unless everyone agrees on terms such as "ridiculously expensive" and "significantly better" there will never we any resolution. Besides what percentage of audiophiles actually spend $100K or more on cables? What percentage spends $10K or more on cables? If you don't know say you don't know. Pardon me for saying so but your angst and disgust, if real, seems kind of like a tempest in a teapot.

geoff kait
machina dramatica

dracule1 OP
912 posts
06-13-2016 9:56am
"Geoff, I have no problem presenting both sides of the argument if need be. I put the link of the Minnesota test on purpose. I thought you would realize that. So much for trying to give you some credit."

Interesting strategy. Providing evidence that helps the other side. Hmmmmmm...

;-)

dracule1 OP
907 posts
06-12-2016 11:05pm
"Here are links to blinded tests. No test is perfect, but it’s better than just believing there’s a difference without evidence or even worse believing in the manufacturer claims. I never claimed there is no difference in cable sound. I just think the pricing has gone to the ridiculously extreme. The first link is the most comprehensive I’ve found. Eat your heart out Geoffkait."

Dracule, thanks for the links to blind testing of cables. But I’m a little confused since the summary of testing provided in the second link (see summary below) appears to clearly undermine your entire position. One wonders how in the world are you going to wiggle out of this one? Oh, I know, you’re going to say you actually thought there are significant differences in cables all along.

The following points of interest are from the Minnesota blind cable testing:

Points of Interest Regarding the Questionnaire:
- Seven listeners initially indicated that speaker cables do not make a significant difference, then changed their decision after the test.
- One listener initially indicated that speaker cables do make a significant difference, then changed that decision after the test.
- The term “significant difference” was left open for interpretation.

Tootles,

Geoff Kait
machina dynamica
we do artificial atoms right

This thread is off the hook. Mapman was asking the other dude, JMc, not facten. JMc was not quoting Mapman in the body of his post. Hel-loo!  Who’s on first? :-)

cheers,

Mapman wrote,

"I don’t see a problem. We know that everyone will never agree on exactly the same solution and that everyone wants the best sound possible that they can afford."

Pretty sure audiophiles don't think too much about affordability.  Any more than a rat in a crack experiment. But it's pretty to think so.

Whart wrote,

"For someone at home, striving to get the best sound obtainable-- that last 5% is often challenging and as I think Mike Lavigne said here somewhere, often makes the biggest difference once everything else is dialed in."

It’s highly probable that the remaining percentage is a long way from 5%, not to be too argumentative about it, but I’d put a number on closer to 50%. There are simply too many things out there these days that have the potential to double the performance. It all depends on where a particular system happens to lie in the overall scale of things. I know what you’re thinking, "But MY system has only 5% to go until the Absolute Sound." There are no absolutes.

Cheers

jl35
1,033 posts
06-15-2016 11:16am
nonetheless Geoff, it is either acceptable or not...

To my knowledge no audiophile ever thought his sound was unacceptable. Even when it sounds like cats being tortured.

Act-too-ally both 5 and 3 are real numbers in Czarivey’s example. The expression 3i is, however, an imaginary number. Thus the square of the imaginary number 3i is -9.

 
almarg
6,455 posts
06-15-2016 6:10pm
Wow! Let the record show that on 6-15-2016 at 5:26 pm EDT Geoff submitted a post that I actually agree with 100% :-)

Stick with me, Al. I'll take you to the top.

"It is either acceptable or not."

Compared to what?

cheers,

geoff kait
machina dynamica

czarivey
2,844 posts
06-15-2016 9:33am
Geoffkait: Compared to what?

"...compared to meal on your plate."

You're obviously unfamiliar with McDonalds' Two for $5 Menu.

tootles

wattsperchannel
102 posts
06-15-2016 8:29pm
geoffkait3,587 posts06-15-2016 12:00pmTo my knowledge no audiophile ever thought his sound was unacceptable. Even when it sounds like cats being tortured.

"or acceptable for that matter."

good catch.

"Currently there’s a pair of Nordost Valhalla 2’s for sale here asking $14,340 ($35,850 original price.) "
To which dracule1 replied,

"Guess what...if this person is one of those special Nordost dealers and selling it for $14,340, he is still making a healthy profit. If this person bought it for the original list price, you know my opinion on that."

"If" is the operative word here. Nobody pays retail. Hel-loo! And why the USED audiophile market is SO strong, particularly since the Big Short selling scandal. Geez, high end audiophile cables are probably the most recession proof audio product in the world. Much better than real estate or the stock? A clever fellow can actually make money buying and selling cables. Over here we can just borrow really expensive high end cables from the Cable Company at no charge. Kind of a no brainer, eh?

An ordinary man has no means of deliverance.

cheerios

Bringing up credentials, especially when they aren’t particularly relevant, such as chemistry in a physics debate or discussion, is what we refer to as Appeal to Authority, a particular form of logical fallacy. A recording engineer who might argue against cables making a difference in SQ cannot win the argument based ONLY on his credentials as a recording engineer. A chemistry major or even a EE cannot win any physics argument based on his credentials.

Repeat after me, "It’s only a hobby. It’s only a hobby." In terms of price spread high end audio is not really a whole lot different from say model railroading, mountain climbing or stamp collecting or even baseball card collecting. There will always be ridiculously high priced products in any hobby. Not every mountain climber can afford to climb Everest and of those that can most undoubtedly don’t want to. The Mickey Mantle baseball card from his rookie year is how much?! I suspect the the whole answer to the high priced audiophile cable debate is whether the SQ of very expensive cables is superior to inexpensive cables, generally speaking. I far don’t see any real evidence to the contrary, only a lot of who shot John. I can't help pointing out that inexpensive cables, say Radio Shack, might actually sound better than much more expensive cables if they're broken in and the expensive ones aren't, they're cryo'd and the expensive ones aren't and/or they're inserted with the correct directionality in mind while the expensive ones aren't.

Almarg wrote,

"However I also see no reason to rule out the possibility that depending on all of those variables the results that would be provided in many cases by the $24/foot wiring might be worse than ordinary Romex would provide, rather than better. Certainly from a subjective standpoint, at least."

Hey, Al, correct me if I’m wrong but the whole point of thorough and conscientious testing is to eliminate all those persnickety variables you refer to, or at least as many as you can. Not all of the variables will be known, if that’s what you mean I agree! Hey, that would make an excellent topic, how many variables are there? The same way you would for tests of any cables, fuses, or any product.

The easiest (only) way to solve three simultaneous equations in four unknowns is get rid of one of the unknowns. - old audiophile expression

g. kait
m. dynamica

almarg
6,473 posts
06-19-2016 3:39pm
Geoffkait: Hey, Al, correct me if I’m wrong but the whole point of thorough and conscientious testing is to eliminate all those persnickety variables you refer to, or at least as many as you can.

to which Al replied,

"Well, of course, Geoff. Not sure what your point is, though, with respect to my comment about expensive in-wall wiring vs. Romex. Obviously not many of us are going to do A/B comparisons of those alternatives. And I see little if any reason to expect the findings of those few people who may do such comparisons to be applicable to other systems and installations, considering all of the variables I cited."

My point is of course you can construct absurd cases where some generic wire might win in a shoot out with a superior wire due to some contrived assemblage of variables. But those case can be thrown out. They’re outliers. You cannot put the genie back n the bottle. Not with cables and wire, not with fuses. Simply saying we can’t easily perform an AB test doesn’t actually mean your argument is valid. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. One trusts wire directionality is one of your variables.

WPC wrote,

"geoff,

Ya but how about bringing up that "I know a guy" who works at NASA and he agrees with me? Now that pretty much clears up this whole topic."

But I am the guy that worked at NASA. Hel-looo!

;-)

Dracule1 wrote,

"Geoff, you really like to troll don’t you? Looking for fights where they don’t exist. This is your MO. Every time I’ve seen you argue with Al, you’ve come up short handed."

Your mixed metaphors roll off me like a duck out of water.

Just two things. Your negative or unsubstantial results actually don’t match what the majority of audiophiles experience with expensive cables, therefore your contention that expensive cables are not worth the price is unfounded. Two, your contention that blind tests reveal that all expensive cables are no better than cheap cables is either your own puffery and untrue or if you have been involved in a blind test, which BTW I actually doubt, that produced negative results I suggest it is simply an outlier and can be thrown out. Besides the tests you yourself (for some bizarre reason) linked earlier on this thread actually show the opposite - they show that there ARE significant differences among cables as heard by almost ALL listeners in the test. Hel-loo! Have you had your hearing checked recently?

cheers,

geoff kait
machina dynamica

Re your argument that for less money other alternative methods can provide more benefits with respect to sound quality than spending big bucks on super expensive cables, nobody said they couldn’t. However, if you wish to use room treatments as the alternative to expensive wires, a word of caution. Room treatments you know, like the tiny little bowl acoustic resonators, the Synergistic Research stuff, the Audio Magic stuff, Shakti Hallographs, SteinMusic Harmonizer, heck, even the ubiquitous Tube Traps ain't cheap, not by any means. I bet you think room treatment involves simply putting up a couple squares of SONEX.

stevecham
2,273 posts
06-20-2016 12:49pm
"The point is, if I make something for $0.01 and, based on whatever marketing or voodoo or apparent added value I effectively attach to my product, I am able to sell it for $1.0M, then exactly what is the problem here?

In my world, good for me and good for the buyer who thinks he/she got a good deal."

But the cost of materials is not the whole issue. Not by a long shot.  One ought to consider sound quality, quality of connectors, quality of welds, actual cost as used or discounted item, will it hold it's value, and physical appearance. If this is your first purchase of very expensive cables then I can certainly understand your angst.

dracule1 OP
957 posts
06-21-2016 1:13pm
Geoffkait: "Your negative or unsubstantial results actually don’t match what the majority of audiophiles experience with expensive cables, therefore your contention that expensive cables are not worth the price is unfounded."

to which dracule1 replied,

"--Says you. I know plenty who have had the opposite experience. It’s hard not to convince yourself that your mega expensive cables improved the sound of your system after spending so much money on fancy dressed copper wire. So your contention is unfounded."

I suggest you try to get a different circle of friends. Plus, as I’ve said previously, a thorough and careful experimenter will be able to isolate or control variables such as expectation bias and placebo effect.

Geoffkait: "Two, your contention that blind tests reveal that all expensive cables are no better than cheap cables is either your own puffery and untrue or if you have been involved in a blind test, which BTW I actually doubt, that produced negative results I suggest it is simply an outlier and can be thrown out."

to which dracule1 replied,

"--Not even sure how to even begin on this one. When did I ever claim blind tests reveal ALL expensive cables are no better than cheap cables? I said there is no correlation. Please look up the definition of correlation if I’ve confused you. So anything that goes against your belief is an "outlier"? You’re full of yourself."

Any single test should be considered just a data point. A single test doesn’t prove anything. When taken in the context of the totality of tests when most gave positive results the ones that gave negative results can be thrown out.

Geoffkait"Besides the tests you yourself (for some bizarre reason) linked earlier on this thread actually show the opposite - they show that there ARE significant differences among cables as heard by almost ALL listeners in the test."

to which dracule1 replied,

"--When did I ever claim there is no difference in sound among cables? I have repeatedly stated that I hear differences in cables. This shows you’re blinded by your own biases and not EVEN LISTENING to what I have been saying. First, I thought you’re just a troll. Now I know you’re not even a good troll."

I never said you did say there’s NO difference between cables. What you keep saying, though, is that there is NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE in sound quality between very expensive cables and inexpensive cables. And you yourself provided evidence to the contrary when you linked the blind test that showed otherwise. 

cheers,

geoff kait
machina dynamica

Dracule1 wrote,

"All in all, I’ve spent about $4k on the acoustic treatments, which is tens of thousands less than a pair of Odin speaker cables."

Well, of course you can find cables that are much more expensive than your $4K room treatment; however, $4K is much more than most audiophiles spend on cables. Besides, your $4K pales in comparison to what better heeled audiophiles spend on room treatments. Ergo, your contention that one can obtain better results for a lot less money (than expensive cables) by employing things like room treatments is patently false.

analogluvr
232 posts
06-22-2016 7:47am
"I love this one by Geoff,

Two, your contention that blind tests reveal that all expensive cables are no better than cheap cables is either your own puffery and untrue or if you have been involved in a blind test, which BTW I actually doubt, that produced negative results I suggest it is simply an outlier and can be thrown out.

Basically if if your test results aren't what I want them to be they are "an outlier" and can be thrown out. Too bad that doesn't work in court🙄
And by the way drac I don't think you should exclude coat hangers from your statement. They probably sound better than some 2k cables."

I don't appreciate having words put in my mouth.  That's not what I'm saying, not by a long shot. What I'm saying is when most blind tests are positive, you know, like the ones the OP posted, you can throw away the ones with negative results because they don't mean anything. They're just data points way off the curve. Follow?

analogluvr
233 posts
06-22-2016 10:15am
Geoff I quoted your statement word for word.... How is that putting words in your mouth??

Simple. It’s your misunderstanding or mischaracterization of what I meant obviously. Otherwise you would not have written, "Basically if if your test results aren't what I want them to be they are "an outlier" and can be thrown out." Follow?

When you wrote,

"Basically if if your test results aren’t what I want them to be they are "an outlier" and can be thrown out,"

you were putting words in my mouth. You were saying it as if I said it. Hel-looo! (Although I would not use two ifs in a row myself.) thus, you both misunderstood what I said and put words in my mouth.

capish?