If you do a search of past discussions you will find numerous threads about Roger Russell. Some of them date back to 2004, so apparently the "truth" can be handled.
Audiophiles should learn from people who created audio
The post linked below should be a mandatory reading for all those audiophiles who spend obscene amounts of money on wires. Can such audiophiles handle the truth?
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm
192 responses Add your response
@willemj +1 Absolutely. When a user reports a problem with their sound and an audible change happening with a change of wire. Instead of the dealer or salesman saying "Hang on, your high end gear is supposed to work properly and reliably with a variety of wires and it should not make a difference." The dealer or salesman turns it into an opportunity "obviously your equipment is so resolving you need to try these $1000 wires" or alternatively if the salesman sold the equipment originally for an astronomical price, "oh this is normal, you need to listen for at least 600 hours to break in" In some ways this industry is like the way some celebrities are addicted to plastic surgery - constant tweaks until it all ends up in a horrorshow mess and a totally alien lifeless face. |
Oh thank you, defiantboomerang, for saving us again from our own stupidity. Dude, why are you trying to be everyone’s mom? You come on here and immediately start posting stuff as though the rest of us have never read anything about audio and/or are too stupid to figure it out. How about this: you don’t hear a difference in cables? Great, go listen to music and leave us alone. I make my own cables. I hear differences with different materials, geometries and conductors. I discuss these ideas with others and we all refine our understanding. None of us go out there insisting that you should be using certain cables, we don’t post stuff telling the world how stupid people are who don’t use fancy cables.. we go about our business. Be secure enough in your beliefs and knowledge to find contentment. If you’re so psychologically fragile that you’re triggered by those who think differently, then that is sad. And unfortunately very common in our society at the moment. I realize that this post may come across as hypocritical, however I see it as a rebuttal to an attack. Wading into a cable discussion and calling us delusional is not. Discussing, amongst ourselves, something you don’t believe in is not an attack on you. It does not require a rebuttal. We have cable naysayers on here who can post their thoughts respectfully and leave it be. You, however, are a proselytizing fool lately. |
@nonoise +1 @geoffkait +1 @toddverrone +1 About the only thing I agree with the previous posts are that dealers love to upsell cables instead of paying attention to system synergy between components and listening to what the customer wants to accomplish. There are times where the $$$ silver cable is not going to be the right choice for a specific system. |
@toddvernone, Oh thank you, defiantboomerang, for saving us again from our own stupidity. Dude, why are you trying to be everyone’s mom? You come on here and immediately start posting stuff as though the rest of us have never read anything about audio and/or are too stupid to figure it out. Dear Sir, you don’t own this forum. Have I asked you or your pals to leave? No. What gives you the right to ask me to leave? The title of this forum is "cables". It is not "audiophile cables"; it is not "I make my own cables", nor "cables only for those who can hear the difference". This forum is about cables and my OP is about cables. I realize that this post may come across as hypocritical,Your words Sir, not mine. :)) |
Einstein said a bunch of smart things that seem like he was talking about audiophiles: “It is better to believe than to disbelieve; in doing you bring everything to the realm of possibility.” "Imagination is more important than knowledge." 'If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." That guy could explain anything! |
defiantboomerang The post linked below should be a mandatory reading ... It’s one thing to suggest that readers here do something. It’s another to be told we "should" do something. Who are you to declare what is "mandatory?" "Defiantboomerang." Your name says it all. |
@cleeds According to the Cambridge dictionary, you are quite wrong. This is what they have to say about "should". "We use should most commonly to talk about what is the ideal or best thing to do in a situation." And below is the link to the relevant page. You should follow it. :)) http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british -grammar/modals-and-modality/should But the key question remains: can cablephiles handle the truth? |
Many of Einstein’s quotes he never actually said. In fact I'd opine many of the quotes ascribed to him are rather dull witted. That being said, PT Barnum said a bunch of things relevant to audiophiles. "Generally speaking people would be much better off if they believed in too much rather than too little. “The noblest art is that of making others happy.” “Advertising is to a genuine article what manure is to land, - it largely increases the product.” “The great ambition should be to excel all others engaged in the same occupation.” “The greatest humbug of all is the man who believes—or pretends to believe—that everything and everybody are humbugs.” |
defiantboomerang According to the Cambridge dictionary, you are quite wrong. This is what they have to say about "should". You’re being selective with your quotation, which is no surprise coming from you. Here’s Merriam Webster: Definition of should 1 —used in auxiliary function to express condition
But the key question remains: can cablephiles handle the truth? Now you’re just being silly. Again, your name "defiantboomerang" pretty much says it all. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
I got a song that ain't no melody, I'm gonna sing it to my friends Will it go round in circles, will it fly high like a bird up in the sky I got a story ain't no moral, I let the bad guy win every once in a while Will it go round in circles, will it fly high like a bird up in the sky I got a dance that ain't got no steps, I'm gonna let the music move me around Will it go round in circles, will it fly high like a bird up in the sky Will it go round in circles, will it fly high like a bird up in the sky |
| Post removed |
I can hear differences even among cheap cables. When I set up my vintage system recently, using a pair of the original Quad ESLs and a restored pair of Quad II amps with real GEC KT 66s, my plan was no fancy cable. When I originally used the Quads, back in ’73, there was no such thing as fancy cable. So, I bought some decent quality 12 gauge copper stranded cable. It sounded fine. A friend who had more recent experience with the Quad (mine were stored for decades before being restored), suggested the Canare 4S11, which was cheap too (at least by "audiophile" standards of pricing). The Canare was less harsh than the generic 12 gauge copper. I’m not going to fuss over it any more than that, because it is contrary to the spirit of that system. As for all encompassing views on topics such as wire, digital v analog, tube or solid state or original pressings v remasters, I take it on a case by case basis--my system, my ears, my pocket book. I use high quality audiophile cable in my main system, but it hasn’t really changed for years--when I did studied comparisons in my room, on my gear, I chose the cable that performed the best for me with my components and my sonic preferences. With that settled, I focus on buying records. It’s a whole lot more interesting, opens new avenues of music, history, culture and the personal joy of discovery. |
A number of years ago, I asked Ray Kimber which of his cables would work best with a McIntosh amp and preamp. He suggested KCAG. Before I purchased a pair, I called McInosh and asked Chuck Hinton what the technicians at McIntosh thought about Kimber cables. He insisted after questioning that McIntosh believed that virtually all cables sounded the same including zip cord. He cited Russell’s work and talked about McIntosh’s relationship with Tributaries. Well, I purchased the KCAGs anyway which made a huge difference in sound--much better than my low level Stealths with my Mac tubes. Ever since then, sad to say because it has cost me much $, I have used many different cables all of which yield a different sound, sometimes as much of a difference as a component upgrade. That was the first time I came to the conclusion that I will always trust what I hear over science that says I should not hear it. |
+1 @gpgr4blu Excatly always trust what you hear and not what others says, once I went to my dealer and we made an experience we took Tellurium interconnect cables and change their cables to the same system we started with their cheapest one to the most expensive one the results were unambiguous the more expensive the cable is the better is the sound the improvement was unmistakable and obvious, I couldn't of course afford to buy the most expensive one but settled on their mid price interconnect for my system with astonishing improvement. |
| Post removed |
defiantboomerang.....fair question...but you didn't answer mine....i am a MCL Duke University grad with a degree in Health Science and a post grad degree as a Physician Assistant, practicing as the latter for ~42 years.I haven't heard a system i would trade for mine. Audio cables do not have to be expensive to significantly improve the sound of a system but in my 30+ years of experience the more expensive the cable,in a resolving system, the more improvement/change you will hear. I do not adhere to the 'full loom' of the same manufacturer theory as the best way to get the best sound as i have tried that on many occasions with very expensive cables. |
@calloway Thank you. Glad to answer your question. Well, I have more than one system. One is a quad va-one + a PC + Quad S1 speakers. The other s Benchmark DAC2+ Benchmark power amp + Focal Sopra 1. Another one one is a cheap tube cube amp and ELAC Debut 5 speakers. Another is a TEAC 501 integrates amplifier + wharfedale diamond 10.1 All stock cables, of course. Never paid a dime for audiophile cables and never will. |
@willemj Well, most of it is decent, some is excellent. The tube cube amp is used for measurements and testing. It is surprisingly bad, but you can learn a lot if you look at the signal on a scope. I mean, it is really bad. The THD is around 10% for low frequencies, it rolls off above 10kHz, the signal is extremely dirty -- contaminated by the switching power supply etc. But you can learn a lot by measuring this thing. |
And since we are at it, here are my systems: Main system Chromecast Audio/TV/BD player+Quad 33/606-2+Quad 2805+B&W PV1d/Antimode 8033 I still have a Quad FM3 tuner but it is no longer used (replaced by internet radio). Similarly, the Linn Sondek/SME combination sits idly, waiting to be sold off. Home office system PC+ODAC+Emotiva Control Freak+12 dB inline attenuators+Quad 405-2+Harbeth P3ESR. Mildly equalized with REW to cope with a slight bass hump from the proximity of the desktop. Bedroom Chromecast Audio/Ava Maestro 50/Wharfedale Diamond 9.0 The beauty of this system is that the tiny amplifier does not only have an optical input, but also an auto on/off. So it can sit out of sight in the wardrobe, turned on and off by the signal from the Chromecast. Finally, I have a Tivoli Radio 2 for in my university office, with a computer into a Behringer UCA 202 external usb DAC as its source. I also take it with me on my extended research trips abroad. I cannot live without good music, but institutional accommodation never has an audio system and this is the largest/heaviest that I can take. None of these use fancy cables. |
| Post removed |
OP’s referenced article by Mr. Russel is, in my opinion, a well written, well researched, fairly scientific based article. It is all about why basic cable, that meets appropriate impedance, length and connection requirements, is all you need and you can’t expect real improvements in audio quality regardless of how much you spend on "wire-bling." I’d like to see an opposing article (not written by someone "in the business" or a reviewer paid to do it) that lays out the science of how exotic cable works and why. Bet it doesn’t exist. And for good reason...there is no science....just perception. |
dynaquest4 wrote, "I’d like to see an opposing article (not written by someone "in the business" or a reviewer paid to do it) that lays out the science of how exotic cable works and why. Bet it doesn’t exist. And for good reason...there is no science....just perception." Here’s an idea. Why don’t you contact NASA or AES or the Journal of Acoustics or MIT or whatever and see if they'd be interested in performing an evaluation of various cables and providing a peer reviewed article with their conclusions? Just curious, why are you so sure an opposing view doesn’t exist. Have you looked? No need to to answer, it’s a rhetorical question. |
Statistically average and mediocre are actually about the same but cable afficionados have terribly wooley thinking and wouldn’t grasp that. These folks get up from their chair and swap cables and sit down again repetitively until they hear the divine speaking to them. It never occurs to them that something might be wrong when their components can’t reliably deliver a signal over a piece of wire and eventually to a speaker. Instead of a focused microscope on the source signal, they think high end gear is supposed to be shoddy and unreliable so that every piece of wire and extraneous factor (power cord etc) should dramatically affect the presentation. |
dynaquest4 only believes and uses wire-bling if it’s given to him free, case in point Kimber speaker wires which he admitted to all of us in another thread :-) And we all heard over and over how poorly designed our components are that requires constant band-aid fixes by using after market cables or fuses. |
dynaquest4 OP’s referenced article by Mr. Russel is, in my opinion, a well written, well researched, fairly scientific based article. It is all about why basic cable, that meets appropriate impedance, length and connection requirements, is all you need and you can’t expect real improvements in audio quality regardless of how much you spend on "wire-bling." >>>>No one said it wasn’t well written. So what? Lots of folks can write well. It would be a, you know, Strawman argument, to say that because an article is well written it's correct. Hel-loo! And "fairly scientific" is how it was written to appear to the casual reader. No offense intended. However, I suspect the intended audience is far from scientific OR sophisticated. Again, no offense. But, like many of these anti-audiophile diatribes that are popping up all over the Internet, it’s not really a "scientific based article" insomuch as it wasn’t peer reviewed or publish per anywhere of any scientific importance other than the fellow’s blog. Hel-loo! But apparently it suffices to appease the insatiable appetite of the roiling natterers and naysayers and audiophile bashers. Geoff Kait Machina Dramatica |
