I’ve mentioned before "earning on foolish and ez way of living".
Therefore I’m here in USA and I like that type of earning (hey dontcha as well huh?) and making living and use it every day except nights weekends and vacations and so is lots of high-end manufacturers on something people go crazy and spend foolishly.
The foolish at the same time, having no other brains but anger and aggression thirst (similar to our future leaders hey personally don’t give a truck which one) goes onto someone else’s lands and dwellings and takes away the wealth by force to support economy (or tell me what else y’all know). Identically to audiophile industry brainwash, to justify such imperialistic actions, mass media works efficient to convince foolish to believe that it’s for their security and protection. It seems that the "goal-finale" is to have small number of people dominate large number of people by depleting knowledge sources and education so they can more easily believe to nonsense and brainwash globally at this point of time... There’s a lot evidence to it and ones that don’t notice global national retardation (xk’uz my French), is either ignorant or indeed foolish.
Therefore we’re in constant conflict between war and peace.
|
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?
|
Then the proper statement would be" you've misunderstood what I meant"
not
"l don't appreciate having words put in my mouth"
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?
|
Geoff I quoted your statement word for word.... How is that putting words in your mouth?? |
I think cables do make a difference from personal testing, but the guys over at AVS forum are ruthless to defend that a 5 dollar copper cable sounds the same as a 1000 dollars speaker cable.
From personal testing this is not true, the difference is not so dramatic but there are clear differences. I am start to wander now each forum has a set level of thinking. Audiogon forum loves the high end cables reasonably priced. AVS forum either cant afford it so they dismiss it or dont have clean enough ears to make a sound judgement. Audio shark forum goes all out and buys what ever they feel they want. Audio circle forum has alot of decent price cables users. Gearslut forum does not believe in cable differences.
I think one of the cheaper price Purist audio design are well built and good sounding cables. Never tried there anniversary but the commanding price is the same as a secondhand decent sports car.
Once you go past the 1000-1500 dollar mark its Law of Diminishing Return playing in at a 100 fold. Anything above this budget to me starts to get bit too silly.
Same applies to power cords and interconnects. Anything above 1000 dollars is ridiculous.
I think Neotech is by far the best value in the cable business. |
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?
|
and the markup on hangars can be outrageous, yet people buy them... |
there are many expensive cables I do not like and many inexpensive ones I like very much, but I have never heard a $2k cable that didn't sound better than a coat hangar, regardless of metal used in the hangar... |
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.
|
Indeed it envelops everything.
Al is AudioGod. |
I think @almarg summed it up best in his post on 6-03-2016, referencing a post of his on another thread from 3-15-2016. As Al so eloquently put it:
Can everyone agree on most or all of the following, and then perhaps this less than constructive discussion can be concluded:
1)Wires
sound different, to a greater or lesser degree depending not only on
the wire but on the technical characteristics of what they are
connecting, their lengths, the AC voltage and noise characteristics at
the particular location in the case of power cords (at least), the
system, the room, the recording, and the listener.
2)For many
reasons, including synergy with the aforementioned variables, the
correlation between cable price and cable performance is significantly
less than 1.0 (i.e., significantly less than perfect).
3)Based in
part on a substantial body of anecdotal evidence that has accumulated
over the years, the correlation between cable price and cable
performance is significantly greater than 0.0 (i.e., significantly
greater than none).
4)It seems evident that some cables are
overpriced, one reason among several being that their prices are
determined in part based on what the market will bear. And it seems
evident that SOME segment of the market assumes a higher degree of
correlation between cable price and cable performance than is actually
the case, and that segment of the market will therefore pay higher
prices to achieve results that may (with sufficient experimentation) be
achievable at lower prices in their particular cases.
5)Additional
reasons that cables may in many cases be overpriced relative to the
benefit they are likely to provide (I’m quoting from myself in the
following thread from a couple of years ago; and pardon the redundancy
with some of the points mentioned above):
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/small-cable-companies-making-preposterous-claims
(a)As seems to be generally agreed by most audiophiles, cable performance is highly system dependent.
(b)From
a technical standpoint, it can be expected that cable performance will
vary significantly depending on the technical characteristics of the
components that are being connected, such as impedances. Even to the
point of a comparison between two cables yielding exactly opposite
results depending on what they are connecting. In past threads, such as this one,
I have cited examples of situations in which exactly that can be
expected to occur. [See especially both of the paragraphs in my post in
that thread dated 12-15-2012 which begin with "one interesting
example"].
(c)It seems to be generally agreed by most audiophiles
that cable performance cannot be either fully explained or fully
predicted based on generally recognized science. It follows from that,
however, that the cable designers have no way to accurately predict the
point of demarcation between optimization of a given cable parameter or
design characteristic and what may be overkill of that parameter or
design characteristic, which will accomplish nothing in most or all
applications. Therefore it can be expected that what is likely to be a
significant driver of the cost of many very expensive cables is overkill
of some or all of their design parameters and characteristics, which
will accomplish nothing in most or all applications.
6)It
can be expected that if SOME audiophiles whose cable experience has
focused disproportionately on the higher part of the price spectrum were
to give equal opportunity to a variety of cables at lower price points,
and experiment with such cables as extensively as they do with higher
priced cables, there is a significant chance that they may be able to
achieve performance comparable to what they have achieved at those
higher price points at significantly lower price points. A substantial
body of anecdotal evidence that has been reported here and elsewhere
supports that conclusion, for example the threads about vintage Western
Electric wires.
7)It can be expected that if SOME audiophiles
whose cable experience has focused disproportionately or entirely on the
lower part of the price spectrum were to focus on the higher part of
the price spectrum they might in some cases, depending in part on their
equipment, be surprised at how good the results are. A substantial body
of anecdotal evidence that has been reported here and elsewhere supports
that conclusion
8)Some audiophiles care more than others about
achieving the last 5 or 10 or 20% of the performance their components
are capable of. Some are satisfied with 80% and just want to listen to
music. Both approaches are equally valid.
9)Assertions that wire is just wire are erroneous, and that belief should not be promulgated.
10)Assertions
that more expensive necessarily = better are also erroneous, and that
belief should not be promulgated, by implication or otherwise.
11)Just
as not all audible differences are measurable, not all measurable
differences are audible. I say that in connection with measurable
differences that are presented in some marketing literature.
12)An
assertion that spending more on cables rather than less increases the
**probability** of achieving optimal results is arguably correct, but
pronouncements to that effect are not gospel. And opinions to the
contrary, if presented in a respectful manner, can and should be
discussed in a respectful manner.
Regards,
-- Al
Nothing more really needs to be said. It pretty much covers every cable debate, every time. |
At best, you could say that the thread:
-helped us recognize that many cables are perceived to be overpriced
-acknowledged (I think) that there are sonic differences among cables, but
-the high priced spread isn't necessarily always "the best" for some people.
It also helped us see that
-the subject of cables is a seemingly endless controversy, and one that won't likely be resolved soon, by this thread or otherwise, owing in part to the fact that the perceived results among cable seems to vary, depending on listener and system;
-that some folks who have higher priced cable that have chimed in here (not necessarily a good, representative sample of anything) don't feel ripped off by spending money on cables to achieve synergy with their systems, whereas
Dracula and perhaps a few others (I didn't have the energy to wade through it all again) have used "fancy" cable and concluded that they get better results from less expensive cable products.
There have been a few attempts to describe the science, but I'm not sure it adequately describes why different cables sound different or work more synergistically with some equipment than others.
Frankly, I'm always interested in opposing views. The sniping gets in the way of productive discussion, in my estimation. |
dracule1 - why don't you contact the cable manufacturers whose products you find disagreeable & ask them to justify their prices...? Then you can post the response...
One more thing, why give a s**t what some manufacturers charge...? There are plenty of items in this world that I feel are over-priced so I don’t buy them & can still find items that I feel are reasonably priced.
Also, having sex takes the edge off everything. |
What a mindf**k all this has become. What if it is a real purpose of some participants here? |
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. |
Dracula Playbook Step 1) Bash the wealthy by any means available. Step 2) Add the appearance of credibility to your positions, by doing so in an arena where facts are complex and subjectivity hides true intent. Step 3) If someone figures out your purpose, revert to a higher level of personal insult in hopes of driving them from the conversation. Step 4) Repeat.
Step 3 is happening all over the place. Drac, If you can’t respect others at least get a little self respect.
|
Watts, are you for real?
"Operators capable of raising capital must set pricing on the products the capital is used to produce at a level that maximizes the net-present-value of all future cash flows generated by that capital (as determined using a discount rate equal to the operator’s cost of capital) which in turn must maximize the rate-of-return on each dollar of the capital raised.
Those who employ capital must make such pricing decisions by assessing the price elasticity for the product in question and the incumbent capital required to meet the demand for any given price point. The cost to produce any particular product is only used to determine the floor for pricing to determine a go-no-go decision on the capital project.
Failure to employ rate-of-return maximizing corporate finance principals will quickly undermine the operator’s ability to raise capital as such capital will alternatively flow to those who understand these concepts.
What you describe harkens back to a Soviet style centrally planned economy where the cost of manufacturing is used to determine pricing. Maybe this is one small part of the disconnect so many have with your approach to things.
Regarding your comment 4, I must confess I oscillate between whether I think you really believe the things you say about cables (and as such simply need enlightenment as a scientific matter) or you understand how ill founded your positions are but nonetheless use them within the nebulas nature of the subject to berate those who’s success you deplore. All things considered, (i.e., your clear venom toward the affluent, juvenile treatment toward anyone who logically challenges you, and the weakness of your positions) I continue to lean toward the latter.
Take the corollary of your position into consideration. In my experience I have generally found the correlation coefficient between intelligence and economic success to be greater the zero. On its face, your position argues that the most successful of the successful have happened upon their economic position in spite of the fact that you claim a correlation coefficient of less than zero. A pretty illogical proposition in my opinion.
I strongly encourage you to spend some time with the brain trust you purport to maintain to understand how inductance and capacitance not only impact current availability but influence bandwidth in analog cables; why skin effect is so critical in speaker cables (why I prefer Nordost btw); etc.etc.etc. The mere existence of snake oil is not justification for dismissal of all sound scientific principals. That behavior wreaks of an agenda.
As I pointed out (and you chose to mock rather than acknowledge) there are 70,000 people in the USA alone who’s time is valued to such a degree that it makes no economic sense for them to sort through the low priced cables to achieve the performance they desire. Such an endeavor would actually be more expensive not less expensive than going to a cable company with sound engineering and paying for their services. I refuse to believe you are incapable of grasping this concept but choose to ignore it because it stands in the way of your purpose here."
--You’re now an economist and political scientist in addition to being an "engineer" and "psychoanalyst". It’s really hard for me to take you seriously at this point. I was hoping you would be elucidating instead of being just weird. At least Geoff makes specific points, although unfounded. You hide behind your words and have added nothing useful. BTW, yes skin effect, capacitance, inductance, and resistance. They're real and measurable and are the bases for all sensibly constructed cables. Again you have added nothing new or elucidating.
|
Geoff, I have to shake my head at this one again.
"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."
In my earlier posts, I specifically stated what room treatments I use. They are all GIK Acoustics products, probably the most affordable and effective room treatment I’ve come across. All their products are based on proven acoustic principles and physics. They are nothing like the "tiny little bowl acoustic resonators, the Synergistic Research stuff, the Audio Magic stuff, Shakti Hallographs, SteinMusic Harmonizer". 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. I have combination of diffusors and absorbers to tame room resonances, slap echos, comb filtering, etc. It took me several years to fine tune my room after multiple consultations with the proprietor of GIK Acoustics. My listening room has no windows and is double dry wall construction. So no, I don’t think room treatment involves simply puttng up a couple of squares of SONEX. Obviously, you have no idea what room treatment involves. Like all your attacks, it's based on your own imagination. |
Geoff,
"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."
--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.
"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."
--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.
"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."
--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.
Perhaps you should just take your own advice. "This is just a hobby." You're losing your cool.
|
DNM Reson satisfied all my IC needs.
One could take a look at their minimalist design and think they are overpriced as well for what they are.
But thing is I tried them specifically because of their unique minimalist approach (something clearly much different than the norm just by appearance) and have found them to sound best overall especially in regards to coherency top to bottom. So I have dropped a few hundred into these wires that appear to not be much different than your run of the mill 300ohm dipole wire antenna you paid $5 bucks or so for a t Radio Shack in years past and no longer have any real interest in others unless they provide something truly unique for a comparable price.
Well, they are single strand I believe and some come with beefed up connectors so I suppose that gotta cost something.
|
I felt it would be a tragic waste of my awesome Dali Speakers and Pass Amp to not get the best sounding cable I could afford, and that would have good resale value...I never thought about what the cables I auditioned cost to develop, manufacture, market and distribute... |
I love the Mapleshade Double Golden Helix Plus, still use my pair, but found in my main system that Transparent Super MM2 sounded much better...don't know that they sound 400% better though... |
Stevecham,
"I too went down the expensive cables/IC rabbit hole for a few years (Synergistic, Tara, Audioquest, Van Den Hul, Harmonic Technologies and several others) and then found Mapleshade and Anti Cables, the latter brand being what I currently enjoy and for the past two years, have felt zero inclination to "improve."
Precisely my point. There are plenty of affordable cables that will compete with and sound better than these over marketed expensive brands. |
Yes xti16 you are correct about Soulution/Raidho but you must be careful. If you use these types of instruments with properly designed isolated power, an MSB Diamond Dac V and a purpose built room you might start hearing differences in cables. This sort of thing can be hazardous to your health in these parts. |
@wattsperchannel
Soulution amps sound great with Raidho's.
|
almarg6,477 posts06-20-2016 4:13pm....... identifying the root cause (or causes) of a sonic shortcoming can often be sufficiently difficult to make adhering to those philosophies problematical. To a greater or lesser degree, of course, depending on the particular issue and the particular audiophile. That difficulty can also be compounded in many cases by unavailability of meaningful technical information about the products that are involved.
I agree completely. Complex root cause analysis, particularly when void of relevant third party data, is often even more complex than the initial design, but that can also be the fun part. What drives me crazy is when a component choice (like a cable for instance) is made without regard to best practices regarding system design and then a conclusion is drawn about that particular component in a vacuum. It is like throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks and then blaming the spaghetti for bad behavior.
Finally, while as I say I completely agree with your philosophy, it’s interesting to consider that it would seem likely in a lot of situations to come into conflict with the "trust your ears" mantra that many and probably most high end audiophiles seem to subscribe to.
A conflict indeed. I say engineer first to give the system as a whole its best chance to excel, then trust your ears. Otherwise your ears can draw the wrong conclusion about any particular component if the system makeup is not logical (ergo my example about the coat hanger sounding better than the Nordost interconnect between components approaching a parity impedance match). This approach does NOT mean trust measurements over your ears. Use your brain first to give your ears the best view of the system (or component’s) true capability.
Regarding the mention of voltage drops in one of your prior posts, I would not discount the possibility that there may be a goodly number of circumstances in which a slightly larger voltage drop in the house wiring may produce results that are preferable to a slightly smaller voltage drop.
Interesting point that I will do some additional thinking about. I have typically not been concerned about anything beyond the +/- 5 volts my Torus automatically regulates. I run pretty consistently between 120 and 123 and my Soulution amps seem to behave well at this level but I definitely take your point. Thanks for your thoughts.
|
That seems like a cumbersome arrangement! And what makes you qualified to be the final arbiter of value? 1st math; 2nds facts; 3rd if there are facts why being arbiter after all? http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/nordost-launches-odin-2-at-high-end-2015/ If you can’t handle freedom, move to another country with more regulations and ONE choice. Freedom?? I like freedom to earn on foolish. I bet and you can call or fold or visa versa and that’s freedom. |
czarivey
High-end
home audio industry is BIG part of such methods to convince to spend
fortune on something that maybe worth not more than 10...15% of actual
sale price.
I don't understand. You mean it's up to you to establish whether something is worth the sale price, rather than the actual customer who is spending his own money?
That seems like a cumbersome arrangement! And what makes you qualified to be the final arbiter of value? |
Wattsperchannel 6-19-2016 11:48 pm EDT Al,
I understand your points. I guess I was presuming if a person was going to take the step of using a wire with superior properties (capacitance, inductance et. al.) they would take the steps to engineer the system holistically.
Taking things one point at a time....
Wattsperchannel, thanks for the comprehensive and, if I may say so, the quite intelligent response to my previous post. You make a number of good points. I would just note the following:
1)While I completely agree with the desirability of "engineering the system holistically," and I share your belief in the desirability of "taking sound engineering steps to improve the performance of one aspect of a system" while also taking steps to correct (rather than compensate for) issues that improvement might reveal elsewhere in the system, identifying the root cause (or causes) of a sonic shortcoming can often be sufficiently difficult to make adhering to those philosophies problematical. To a greater or lesser degree, of course, depending on the particular issue and the particular audiophile. That difficulty can also be compounded in many cases by unavailability of meaningful technical information about the products that are involved.
Finally, while as I say I completely agree with your philosophy, it’s interesting to consider that it would seem likely in a lot of situations to come into conflict with the "trust your ears" mantra that many and probably most high end audiophiles seem to subscribe to.
2)Regarding the mention of voltage drops in one of your prior posts, I would not discount the possibility that there may be a goodly number of circumstances in which a slightly larger voltage drop in the house wiring may produce results that are preferable to a slightly smaller voltage drop. As you are probably aware USA voltages can range from 114V to 126V and still be in spec, and as confirmed in a number of past threads here numbers in the area of 124 volts or so are not at all uncommon. And presumably equipment used in the USA and other 120V countries has most often been designed to perform best and to reach optimal internal temperatures at 120V. Although of course the sensitivity of different components to variations in that voltage can be expected to differ greatly. I would imagine that power amps, which in most cases do not incorporate internal voltage regulation (at least for their power stage), would be among those components that would tend to be most affected by that variation.
In any event, thanks again for your well stated response, which as I say I am in essential agreement with.
Regards,
-- Al
|
|
I was talking about golf turnament not making general statement about social-economic order or defining fair play. |
High-end home audio industry is BIG part of such methods to convince to spend fortune on something that maybe worth not more than 10...15% of actual sale price. It's an established mechanism that made casual wealthy consumers to spend fortune without knowing what they actually have to spend to achieve same level of performance. Moreover, it makes many go nuts on constant upgrades, mods, tweaks.
What you need, BIG BROTHER to protect you? Can't handle life in the BIG city? Ever heard of personal responsibility? If you can't handle freedom, move to another country with more regulations and ONE choice. |
inna1,970 posts06-20-2016 2:50pmI would propose - the winner takes it all.
It's VERY GOOD phrase! I praise ones who can convince someone to give rather than stealing. Often they're called scammers, but to me, they only deserve respect for being smarter than others. High-end home audio industry is BIG part of such methods to convince to spend fortune on something that maybe worth not more than 10...15% of actual sale price. It's an established mechanism that made casual wealthy consumers to spend fortune without knowing what they actually have to spend to achieve same level of performance. Moreover, it makes many go nuts on constant upgrades, mods, tweaks. If Geofkait has a customers lineup buying his products and making money or maybe fortune, it only deserves respect. Winner takes it all after all and it's correct! |
Geoff, I couldn't agree more. Value is what we're talking about, as perceived by the consumer, and that is often intangible and highly variable.
I too went down the expensive cables/IC rabbit hole for a few years (Synergistic, Tara, Audioquest, Van Den Hul, Harmonic Technologies and several others) and then found Mapleshade and Anti Cables, the latter brand being what I currently enjoy and for the past two years, have felt zero inclination to "improve." |
Darn it, where's my green Sharpie? |
I would propose - the winner takes it all. |
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.
|
stevecham2,273 posts06-19-2016 3:47pmWhat troubles me more than any price that someone can sell something and the price for which someone is willing to pay for something, is the reality that there are two sets of rules in our current so-called, but in reality no longer, capitalist society. One set of rules is for those of us who may complain about prices from time to time, but by and large play by a set of rules that is fair. We call ’em as we see ’em and expect a fair deal and quality.
Then there’s the set of rules that I’ll bet none-to-very-few-of-us has access to. Who here can buy a credit default swap for 7 figures or higher and gain from someone else’s failure? Who here can sequester $Ms in off-shore tax-free havens? Who here is able to buy or sell equities on secondary markets with nanosecond transactions? I have to place a bid and then wait hours before it is denied or confirmed, all the while the market shifts and moves out of my purview. High prices, companies are ripping us off ... In order to support the high prices, there has to be demand. The problem is staring at you in the mirror. Your disposable income is not keeping up with the JONES so priced out of the market. Instead of complaining, try improving your financial situation if goods are important enough or just content with what you can afford. Don't want to get political but last 8 years has increased the gap between the rich and poor due to Quantitative Easing and No/Low interest rates. Creating a bubble in hard assets that includes audio. Many companies are doing well, Magico, VAC .... Magico introduces a new version every 3 years and can't keep up with demand. Same with access to financial incentives. Is your account balance large enough to enjoy the special benefits?
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.
It's basically rewarding results that will drive innovation, efficiency ... and eventually lower prices and a superior products for the end consumer. For example in US Open golf tournament, winner gets $1,800,000. 3 tied for 2nd that gets $745,270 each ... So players will work to improve their game to win the grand prize if that's their goal. What do you propose, pie gets evenly divided between all the players? Then why bother improving their game if there's no EXTRA incentive to win? A Bernie Sander's tournament????? |
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. |
Drac,
Regarding your comments 1,2, 3, and 5 you seem to lack an appreciation for how things work in a free market economy.
Operators capable of raising capital must set pricing on the products the capital is used to produce at a level that maximizes the net-present-value of all future cash flows generated by that capital (as determined using a discount rate equal to the operator's cost of capital) which in turn must maximize the rate-of-return on each dollar of the capital raised.
Those who employ capital must make such pricing decisions by assessing the price elasticity for the product in question and the incumbent capital required to meet the demand for any given price point. The cost to produce any particular product is only used to determine the floor for pricing to determine a go-no-go decision on the capital project.
Failure to employ rate-of-return maximizing corporate finance principals will quickly undermine the operator's ability to raise capital as such capital will alternatively flow to those who understand these concepts.
What you describe harkens back to a Soviet style centrally planned economy where the cost of manufacturing is used to determine pricing. Maybe this is one small part of the disconnect so many have with your approach to things.
Regarding your comment 4, I must confess I oscillate between whether I think you really believe the things you say about cables (and as such simply need enlightenment as a scientific matter) or you understand how ill founded your positions are but nonetheless use them within the nebulas nature of the subject to berate those who's success you deplore. All things considered, (i.e., your clear venom toward the affluent, juvenile treatment toward anyone who logically challenges you, and the weakness of your positions) I continue to lean toward the latter.
Take the corollary of your position into consideration. In my experience I have generally found the correlation coefficient between intelligence and economic success to be greater the zero. On its face, your position argues that the most successful of the successful have happened upon their economic position in spite of the fact that you claim a correlation coefficient of less than zero. A pretty illogical proposition in my opinion.
I strongly encourage you to spend some time with the brain trust you purport to maintain to understand how inductance and capacitance not only impact current availability but influence bandwidth in analog cables; why skin effect is so critical in speaker cables (why I prefer Nordost btw); etc.etc.etc. The mere existence of snake oil is not justification for dismissal of all sound scientific principals. That behavior wreaks of an agenda.
I nor anyone I have seen on this thread has argued the lack of existence of extremes in the distribution of outcomes for cables (Al articulated this most clearly). Some high priced cables are poor performers and low priced cables are exceptional. Further, some high priced cables company's are indeed selling snake oil and bling. This reality, however, by no means negates the fact that other high-end cables are engineered and manufactured to very high standards and perform accordingly.
As I pointed out (and you chose to mock rather than acknowledge) there are 70,000 people in the USA alone who's time is valued to such a degree that it makes no economic sense for them to sort through the low priced cables to achieve the performance they desire. Such an endeavor would actually be more expensive not less expensive than going to a cable company with sound engineering and paying for their services. I refuse to believe you are incapable of grasping this concept but choose to ignore it because it stands in the way of your purpose here.
It is your refusal to embrace alternative thought and the absolute nature of your claims--that people who buy expensive cables are fools, retarded, etc.--that is the problem so many have with you and this thread.
|
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.
|
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
|
Instead of going off subject, why don't we get back on track. Earlier I posted a list of why I think megaexpensive cables are not worth their price. I hear nothing but silence from those who oppose my views. It's irrelevant what people pay for watches, cars, Gulf Stream jets, etc. That wasn't the subject of my original post. If you feel justified paying for mega expensive cables because they sound good to you despite my contention there are cheaper alternatives, then you don't have to respond. You've made up your mind so happy listening. However, if someone can justify the issues I have with expensive cables (listed below), I would sincerely like to hear your views. No more personal attacks, smart ass remarks, and psychoanalysis from either side.
First, the raw materials needed for expensive cables are easily obtained, are cheap in the quantities needed, and are only few, namely metal wire, connector, and dielectric. How expensive is copper or even silver wire that goes into an expensive 1 meter of IC or 8’ feet of speaker cable? Cost of most dielectric and shielding is almost nothing.
Second, the engineering of expensive audio cables is not sophisticated compared to amplifiers, DACs, speakers, although cable manufacturers will claim otherwise. I'm not talking about cables used in some components of high energy physics particle colliders (eg, CERN) that my physicist friends have told me about. They do require sophisticated engineering and manufacturing and are probably expensive for a reason.
Third, markup of expensive audio cable is probably the highest in the industry for no good reason. If you can provide a good reason, please let us know.
Fourth, there is no consistent evidence published or otherwise that expensive cables sound better than inexpensive ones, coat hangers excluded. I with other audiophiles have conducted blinded AB testing, and there has never been consistent preference for expensive cables ($5k+ speaker cables and ICs) over relatively inexpensive ones ($300-$2k). I do find differences in sound among cables, but price has never been the consistent factor. If you contend blinded AB testing is flawed, then provide an alternative.
Fifth, manufacturing of these expensive, highly marketed audio cables is cheap compared to most high end gear. As far as I know, there is no cable geometry that a machine can't wind. And cables can be made tens of thousands of feet easily by machines. Actually, I think some of the more boutique, one man operations spend more time hand making his wire (hand polishing the wire, making and applying the dielectric by hand, etc).
I would love to hear your responses.
|
Al,
I understand your points. I guess I was presuming if a person was going to take the step of using a wire with superior properties (capacitance, inductance et. al.) they would take the steps to engineer the system holistically.
Taking things one point at a time.
1) Ground Loops-- The key to avoiding ground loops is ensuring equal electrical potential at each receptacle ground. The concept that the emi rejection method of a premium spec wire (be it twisting or otherwise) would cause a variation in potential, I suppose is possible, but to me that would indicate the wire by definition was not premium spec. to begin with. Certainly there are wires with tighter geometric tolerances than romex that would quickly render this concern moot as far as the pursuit of improved overall performance is concerned. (As an aside I use a furutech star ground harness which runs directly from my 5 neutrals 3 feet behind my listening wall to a 1" solid copper 8' grounding rod. It does the trick.)
2) RFI/EMI Filtering-- Of course romex has higher inductance and of course inductance cleans up high frequencies but that would be a blunt (backwards) approach to addressing the problem. I would much prefer wire with both inductance and capacitance thereby maximizing current delivery and clean things up with a purpose built device. ( I use a 75 amp Torus ahead of my 20' 10 gauge Furutech lines. It cleans things up with precision as opposed to hoping my wire is long enough and poorly engineered enough to solve the problem.)
3) Bad is Good Rationalization-- Regarding Steve's stuff, the arguement that taking sound engineering steps to improve the performance of one aspect of a system is a bad idea because it might display the other areas of the system that need improvement has never made any sense to me as it relates to audio or system design generally. How does one ever make progress employing such a mindset?
4) Analog Signals and LCR Tuning-- Yes lots can be done to dial in bandwidth and noise on analog signals to taste. That is why I specifically referred to AC wires in my question.
5) System Predictability-- I would agree predictability is low if system inputs are somewhat randomly assembled, but I would argue results become far more linear (and in fact measurable) when proper science is used in the initial system specification. Again, this holds true in audio as well as system design generally.
|
Hmm, I can spend one million for a watch no bigger than a silver dollar.
How about $50M for a Gulfstream Jet? Are these worth it?? Maybe but quality always costs
Why all the fuss, If it offends you, that is your problem. You can say these are a rip off however that is to denigrate all the hardworking engineers and metallurgists who do the science to extract the most out of these cables.
|
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.
|
Wattsperchannel 6-19-2016 5:34 pm EDT
I can’t think of a scenario where a combination of the variables you list would make well designed AC wires perform worse than romex (save for an extreme example of a reduced voltage drop leaving voltage above the component spec which, frankly, is hard for me to conceive).... Can you be specific with a scenario I am missing. One example would involve ground loops, which as I’m sure you realize can cause or contribute to high frequency noise as well as low frequency hum, and in digital applications can cause or contribute to jitter. See pages 31 to 35 of the following paper, by Bill Whitlock of Jensen Transformers: https://centralindianaaes.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/indy-aes-2012-seminar-w-notes-v1-0.pdfAs you’ll see, he explains that "what drives 99% of all ground loops" is imperfect cancellation at the safety ground conductor of the magnetic fields surrounding the hot and neutral conductors, resulting in voltages being induced in the safety ground conductor. As he indicates, Romex is particularly good in that regard, because of its uniform geometry. The $24/foot wire is described as having noise-rejecting geometry, which would seem to suggest that the hot and neutral are twisted or interwoven in some manner. Will that geometry be as good as Romex in terms of the uniformity across its length of the physical relationship between the two current conductors and the safety ground conductor? Who knows, but it certainly seems questionable. Also, I recall seeing numbers on the inductance of Romex, which were somewhat highish. And the twisted or interwoven geometry of the expensive wire would seem to suggest that it has significantly lower inductance. While that geometry can be expected to be advantageous to the high priced wire with respect to pickup of radiated RFI, might the higher inductance of Romex be advantageous with respect to filtering of high frequency noise that may be present on the incoming AC? Again, who knows? But as I’m sure you realize, higher inductance means progressively higher impedance at progressively higher frequencies, and therefore more opposition to the flow of high frequency noise currents. How this tradeoff may net out in any particular application could very conceivably depend on the particular spectral characteristics (frequency distribution) of the noise and RFI that may be present. And perhaps also on the unknown capacitances of the two kinds of wire. On the other hand, though, higher inductance means more opposition to abrupt changes in demand for current, such as may occur in power amplifiers to a greater or lesser degree depending on their bias class. How much significance the presumably higher inductance of Romex may have in that regard, if any, figures to be highly dependent on the bias class of the particular amp. As well as on the length of the wiring, since inductance is proportional to length. And of course different components will differ in their susceptibility to ground loop issues, in part due to how and through what impedance their internal circuit ground and chassis/AC safety ground are interconnected. And in part due to whether a given component is interconnected to other components via balanced or unbalanced connections, and if the connections are balanced whether the shield of the interconnect cable is connected to the circuit ground or chassis/AC safety ground in each of the interconnected components. And beyond all that is the possibility that results that are "better" from an objective standpoint may not be preferable subjectively. For example, relative to digital applications see this paper by Steve Nugent of Empirical Audio, in which he states: Another interesting thing about audibility of jitter is it’s ability to mask other sibilance in a system. Sometimes, when the jitter is reduced in a system, other component sibilance is now obvious and even more objectionable than the original jitter was. And with regard to analog applications I have seen it said by a number of writers that low level high frequency noise can from a subjective standpoint sometimes result in improved perception of hall ambience, and an increased perception of "air." The bottom line, as I said earlier: It’s all very unpredictable, and figures to be very system, location, and listener dependent. Regards, -- Al |
"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.
Geoff, I wasn’t constructing any cases, absurd or otherwise. And I wasn’t addressing cables or fuses. My point in mentioning all of those variables was to convey the thought that the results provided by expensive in-wall wiring in comparison with Romex are (a)unlikely to have much if any predictability, and (b)are unlikely to have much if any consistency among different systems and installations.
Regards,
-- Al"
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.
|
