Rok2id, I've been where you are, done what you have, in that I tried to argue the unarguable on the Audiogon cable forum. You are absolutely, positively correct, and it won't make slightest bit of difference to those who are convinced they can hear differences attributable to anything from cryo-treated electrical outlets to USB cables. I think it was in 2006 I amused myself with a few posts, and finally walked away, sated from the arguments. You can't win. You should come over to Audioholics, where more reasonable discussions prevail.
The Cable Lie, as Peter Aczel called it, is the most pernicious of all of the myths in audio, mostly meant to separate people from their money. I should emphasize that I don't want to demean high quality materials and good workmanship. A well-made, beautiful cable, that's solidly built with great connectors can have the same sort of intrinsic value advantage that a Breitling watch has over a plastic electronic thing. Most of us would rather have the Breitling, though they both tell time equally well. Aesthetic value is still value. But the notion that two properly designed and constructed cables for a particular application will sound different is just plain wrong.
You can argue with the true believers until your wear our your keyboard and it won't change anything. |
Why does it matter so much to non-believers, that some of us believe? For two reasons: 1. It gives technically astute people, who many of us admire and value the opinions of, a negative view of those of people active in high-end audio. The cable lie reflects poorly on all of us. 2. Active recruitment of new disciples into the cable cult tempts us to argue, to prevent others from swallowing the lie. |
Are "properly designed" and "given application" escape clauses? No, not at all. I'm just stating this caveat because you *can* improperly design a cable and make it sound different. You can make speakers cables that have too small a gauge for a given speaker's impedance, or the required cable length. You can make interconnects that have improper impedance, bad shields, poor insulators, or some weird geometry that increases inductance or capacitance beyond some reasonable trade-off of values. For example, a speaker with a minimum impedance of less than 2 ohms that needs a twenty-five foot cable run is not going to be best served by 16 gauge cables - a 16 gauge cable in that scenario may indeed cause audible differences, and there won't be any mystery why. It'll be measurable. |
Nonoise, I will openly admit that I'm only discussing this with you because I'm avoiding a task that I really to need to accomplish, a very difficult and arduous task, and arguing with someone who believes he can hear the difference between terminations distracts and amuses me. It is so ridiculous, so implausible, that I can't respond with anything you would call civility. Open-mindedness does not mean being open to silliness.
I want to thank you, however, for convincing me that I need to stop avoiding what I know I need to do, get to work, and stop this useless posting.
Talk to you in another six years or so. |
Nonoise, your post is nonsensical. (BTW, it's Romex, not Nomex.) Why is it that you true believers are allowed to insult the intelligence and the veracity of us cable atheists, yet when someone like me answers you with the same sort of demeaning comments, we're derided?
As for your what's fixed and what's variable baloney, what you are implying is that a cable can somehow transform and improve the signal it carries. I have news for you, all a passive conductor can do is insert loss and distortion.
If you can hear it, and the differences are so night and day, why can't they be measured? Let me guess, there's some unknown factor in electrical theory we haven't discovered yet, that allows a passive cable to act as a positive transformation device? |
These are the ones with clear shrink wrap and all copper conductor. I believe 1st generation ... I use speaker cables like that, but I can't remember the brand offhand. Carolco? 10 gauge. Flat bass, great highs. Not congested. Awesome sound. |
That is an interesting twist you used there Irv. I've always associated the cable non-believers with the flat earth scientist. Since they are the ones who limit their minds to the boundries of what present day science can explain. Cable believers are more like those who thought the earth to be round before science could catch up and prove it. Your association of people who do not believe the cable lie with those who believe in a flat earth runs contrary to how the term evolved. So-called flat-earthers are people who believe that the earth must be flat because they observe it to be, regardless of what the objective evidence reveals. In this regard, Jmcgrogan2, you are asserting that cables sound different because that is your perception, so by analogy you are indeed a flat-earther. What I see as more... unattractive, is that you folks are so proud of your anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-logic stance, while you type away on a device that wouldn't exist if the understanding of circuit design was so lacking. Which do you think is a more challenging electrical design problem, the design of a cable for audio frequencies, or the microchips we are having this discussion courtesy of? |
Al, I always enjoy your posts. You're a classy guy. I understand your position, that classical theory tells you shouldn't hear cable differences, but in a system context you feel you still do. I can take leaps of faith for audibility with active components, but cables? At least with active components there are measured differences, and it's a matter of argument over what's audible. Even then most of us fail the blinded tests. Amplifiers, especially, can be load-sensitive, but cables aren't, and there's just nowhere to stand. How do you reconcile that? Or do you just give in to your whatever your mind desires? ;-) (A position, incidentally, that I understand completely, as long as one is honest about what's happening.) |
Why don't we all just agree to disagree and go on to better/other things? Because there are no better issues for cables. |
I've disagreed with you but never mentioned your maturity or experience. I simply doubt you or your systems aural acuity as there are cables laying about my place that all sound different And here you go again. My hearing or my system is called into doubt. There are only two possibilities. One possibility is that these cables do measure differently, in terms of the frequency response in your system, and in that case one or more of them is poorly designed. The other possibility is that they all measure the same and you're just imagining the differences. |
Al, I of course agree, and called out cables needing to be application-appropriate earlier (only to have Nonoise twist my words around), but you know full well that's not what many of these folks are arguing for. They're arguing that two cables that measure alike can sound different. That even connectors can sound different.
To everyone else, regarding what we can and can't measure, I've got news for the non-technical among us, the level of design sophistication that goes in audio system cables, the frequency range and the voltages involved, are just so much child's play in modern electrical engineering. If you've got a new Intel-based PC you have 8 giga-transfer per conductor signals in it, using some incredibly complex signaling techniques. Just coming us with the design rules for circuitry like that takes years of research. Audio cables are first or second year BSEE stuff.
The only thing underlying the controversy with cables, IMO, is that one can interchange them. I don't hear anyone pondering audible differences in circuit board materials, single versus double-sided circuit boards, or the gauge or type of internal wiring, and I think that's only because you can't interchange them. Otherwise I think I would see posts about low-loss versus FR-4 circuit boards. |
Measurements do prove differences in cabling exists. There has been some real research done with things like current bunching & skin effect. Also characteristic impedance of cabling which involves series resistance and series inductance, shunt capacitance, shunt conductance, etc. Learn about the latest cable research if ya need some cable science so badly. Baloney. Current bunching? Skin effect is irrelevant at audio frequencies. You seem to be learning "science" from cable product marketing material. |
So we are all the same, we all hear what we choose to believe. Believe you will hear differences, and you will hear differences. Believe that you will not hear differences, and you will not hear differences. Sort of, though you're turning up the contrast a bit much. I don't know about the "we're all the same" part. I think that expectations can play a significant role when the differences are subtle or . Of course, I understand that some of you believe these differences aren't subtle. |
Thanks, Al. I missed that "10", and if those are 20KHz square waves, that's yet another example of presenting what is tantamount to nearly worthless information and representing it as relevant.
For those who don't understand square waves, their reproduction a particularly difficult test of bandwidth, because to get one to be really square, with nice flats tops and right-angle rises and falls, you need a very high degree of linearity at multiple harmonics around the fundamental frequency. So when Al posits that those are 20KHz square waves, that means that whatever is being tested needs to have great linearity in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and so on harmonics. The second harmonic of a 20KHz fundamental is 40KHz. See what I mean? For audio performance a 2KHz square wave test would tell you so much more, but the problem is that the 12 gauge stranded Cu wire would probably look just awesome in such a test too, so they're probably not going to show you the results at 2KHz.
Even with the bogus skin depth calculations, and they appear to be using the right formulae, they aren't telling you that their calculation applies only to solid core conductors. The stranded wire case is more complex, and tends to reduce skin effect even further, which, as I pointed out, is largely irrelevant even for a solid conductor.
So while I agree with Al that Analysis Plus is at least using recognized criteria in their arguments, I just can't give them much credit for it, because they're misusing the information to mislead people, and that's inexcusable, IMHO. How would you like it if your plumber did that? Or your dentist? Or perhaps your accountant?
There are cable vendors around who accurately present information and produce high quality products. These products are worth paying for, and I do it. I use Blue Jeans Cables because I like their quality and service. BJC products aren't the cheapest alternatives available by any means; I like good-looking, high quality products that feel good just as much as anyone else. If people want luxury cables that look and feel like fire hose jewelry, cool. Even pure silver, if that's what rings their bell. What I can't understand is why anyone would want to tolerate a vendor of anything that openly tries to mislead them. |
They do run deep and cold... |
That explains why the world is free of hunger and disease. Thanks to these wonderful, all-knowing men of medicine and science, no one has to fear cancer or any affliction anymore. LOL!!!
What a tool!!! Well, you do live a lot longer than your great grandparents probably would have, and some cancers are cured daily. And seven billion people are pretty well fed, overall, and the US is going to be energy self-sufficient in a few years, and I can type this response from my iPhone, a technical miracle by comparison to anything that goes on in an audio cable. I'm not sure what your point is, but whatever it is it still mystifies me how people like yourself can argue about the validity of science and engineering via a medium that would not exist without a very deep understanding of the science and engineering you claim is so inadequate. |
On amplifiers, he does say that amplifiers of a similar design, matched in levels and run below clipping are indistinguishable from each other in listening tests. He never said that all amps - tube and solid state, set and push-pull, all sound the same. That's sort of true, but Aczel did assert that if tube and SS amps measure alike they will sound alike. I believe that too. With amps I wonder if things are a little more complicated than Aczel asserts, but, to be honest, I'd rather be on his side of the argument than one asserting differences between amplifiers. A lot of good amps these days don't have a single measurable artifact of noise or distortion above 80db below 1W of output. How any differences could be audible even in the quietest room on an awesome speaker system is difficult to imagine. Other than more power for higher clipping limits, or more stable performance into very complex loads, you begin to wonder about what could possibly improve? |
The implication being that no believers are technically astute. Clearly, not the case. How does one explain the many clearly "technically astute " individuals who are believers. It is true that there is a lot of hype; but that, in no way, suggests that it is ALL hype. To suggest otherwise is the worst example of lack of astuteness. It is ALL hype. If two cables are appropriately designed for a given application there isn't any audible difference between them. Any technically astute person knows that frequency response is unaffected to within a tenth of a db and there's no added distortion. One can design cables improperly, and those cables may sound different because they are ineptly done, but that's not the case you're making, is it. THe case you're making is that two cables that transmit exactly the same signal by any measurement we can make sound different. That's irrational. For example, how does an analog interconnect affect frequency response or distortion? Better yet, how does it affect sound-stage or how "clean" highs are? There aren't even theories for how this might occur. I suppose if you design in some sort of impedance mismatch, or perhaps specifically design a cable to have excessive capacitance this could happen, but that's inept design, and that's not what Rok2id or I am discussing. There is no academic argument about this. There's no debate at all, because there is no basis for the cables-sound-different argument other than someone says so. The very same principles that underlie the design of our equipment are the same principles that are used for the case that all properly designed cables sound the same. |
Well said. I think I detected a little Aczelian influence.
Last night I reread his review of the Parasound A21 power amp. How refreshing to read a real review. I really miss his input. he was the last of a kind. The only thing between truth and the charlatans.
He quit his 'hip-boots' articles because he said the ENTIRE audio media industry was now corrupt, so there was no need to point of the voodoo priests, since they are all now selling snake oil. I enjoy some of Aczel's writing immensely. Some of his writing, like the Biggest Lies, or the Zais-Atkinson article, are perhaps the best examples of writing in the audio press. I think Azcel's focus on science and engineering is very admirable. On the other hand, I'm not an unqualified follower of his. I think he is prone to unsupported assertions on points where *there are* measurable differences, or where personal opinions are indeed involved, and I think he could stand to improve in those areas. Like, for example, his assertion that the Linkwitz Orion is the best speaker one can buy, period. I've heard the Orion, it's a good speaker, a very good speaker, but I've heard better, and I think for Aczel to assert it's better than anything else is no more excusable based on his opinion than someone here saying their Audioquest speaker cable sounds better than 10ga stranded copper. |
One set of cables are designed to "fit" the requirements of an amp and a pair of speakers.
Said cable will not work as well with other amps and speakers since they are of different design and needs.
No one cable is good enough for all applications?
Did we just come full circle? No, no, no! That isn't what I said. Either you're foolish or just being difficult, I'm going to assume the latter. In the case of the example I made for speakers, any 10 gauge stranded copper cable will work for any speaker, in any reasonable length (like, less than 100 feet). 12 gauge wire works just fine for many, many cases. I was just pointing out that you can screw up speaker cable by going to too small a gauge. I was not at all trying to say that every speaker needed a different set of cable parameters. Any properly designed RCA-terminated interconnect will work indistinguishably from another, no matter what the length. For lengths over, I dunno, fifteen feet, you might want to consider balanced cables (XLR-terminated) to take advantage of common mode rejection, but there won't be audible differences between cables. In the case of XLR cables, anything you pick up in a music store for mics or amps will do fine. We did not come full circle. Stop it! |
03-07-13: Knghifi
These forums are a great place to learn but one needs an OPEN mind. It's possible rok2id upgraded from his Yugo with a new perspective? A friend of mine sent me an email, saying I should peek back in here, and see what turmoil I've helped to wrought. I'm glad I did, because I didn't see Bander's reply before I left. It is seldom I am called intelligent and an ass in one reply. I enjoyed that. As for Knghifi, Waxwaves, and Audiolabyrinth, all of you are waiting for some sort of entertaining debate so you can sit around and pat each other on the back for hearing what no one else can, while accusing those more interested in science and fact of being close-minded - you guys are seriously deluding yourselves. As I said before, being open-minded does not mean being open to silliness. Let's ignore science for a moment, let's stick just to logic, something even you flat earthers can understand. I don't care what the cable is for, whether it's an interconnect, a speaker cable, or a power cable, the case for any one of these fails a basic test, which is why a cable that is only a single segment of a much longer signal path affects sound quality as much as you guys claim it does. In the case of an interconnect, once you get inside of almost any modern component the signal is going to trace on a circuit board. Even if it isn't trace, it's probably some cheap hook-up wire. Why are the trace and solder joints so much less important? Or speaker cables, where most speakers are wired, again, with simple hook-up wire. And if not the cabling inside of speakers, the wire on voice coils, which is often aluminum, or the trace on some crossover boards, not to mention all of the simple bare copper wire in massive air-core inductors? I fail to understand why speaker cables are so much more important than these wires, which are in the same signal path. There is no logic to this. Of course, the most massive failure of logic has to be in power cables and outlets, what with tens of feet of Romex in your house. And power cables aren't even in the signal path. So while you guys are figuratively sitting here, all smug in your pathetic delusions, telling yourselves in posts how the rest of us are just close-minded and half-deaf because we can't hear the differences you all claim are so critical to a great system, think about these questions. Why does a speaker cable make so much difference when there's just plain-old copper wire in that inductor? Or some nice trace on fiberglass in the way? |
Irv, to say I believe in differences is not an insult but for you to hear it is?.
That's rich. Oh come now, Nonoise, I'm not talking about the discussion of possible differences being bandied about, I was referring to the insults and negativity, which you true believers seem to want to reserve for yourselves. Let's see, I've been called immature, that I lack experience, that I lack listening ability, that I'm closed-minded, and that's just you. And, of course, I'm an ass, according to my new friend Bandy. (Well, that might be true.) And what is the net of your argument, that you and other believers say so? And that some of them design amplifiers and speakers? This is evidence? All this is evidence of is mass delusion, or perhaps just some people saying what sells in some cases. Anyone that builds amps using hook-up wire you buy by the spool knows that the signal on that cheap-o wire, the wire that's just stranded copper with some teflon wrapped around it, is carrying the same signal as that special geometry, proprietary mix of various vintages of copper and silver, with four layers of some special insulation, and perhaps a battery-powered dielectric. Believe me they know. So do the speaker guys. They're building crossovers, and they know too. Oh yeah, they're choosing all of this so carefully. Especially the tube amp guys with their steel-pinned tubes and sockets that have mechanical play in them. Why is it that the cable fallacy soldiers on when there is not one valid theory about why such differences exist, or even one test case that shows anyone was able to tell the difference between cables, no less which one is actually better, any more than one would expect by random chance? Yet we have people who claim that not only are there differences, but that they can design cables to sound a certain way. Which is more likely, that cable vendors know some secrets no one else does, or that they just make stuff up that markets well, like funny geometries or some special mix of conductor materials, and says whatever it takes to make the sale? |
Well you speak of these 'men' as if they were 'gods' Rok. As if they know all that there is to know. As in 'turn out the lights, there is nothing more that we can learn/understand'.
IMHO, science is ever-evolving. As the human mind grows, so does science. Science cannot explain everything yet, however, folks like you and Irv do not realize that. You feel that everything there is to know is already known. Maybe that is why many here feel that naysayers are close-minded.
Science is a wonderful tool for all of mankind, forgive me if I do not worship at the foot of the altar or become a member of your cult of scientology.
Just because science cannot explain why folks hear differences in 2013, does not mean science will not have a better understanding of human hearing in 2113.
Have some faith in the human mind Rok! You may not believe it, but we will continue to gain knowledge of our world and universe as time marches on.
Pass the popcorn please.... Well, this post takes the cake. Rock2id and I don't understand that science is evolving? We think everything is already known? And whatever we said about science and engineering has anything to do with Scientology? This has nothing to do with human hearing, this has everything to do with the signals at the opposite end of two properly design cables being identical. Are you seriously saying that two identical signals can produce different sounds out of the same amp or speaker? Seriously? (I'll concede that my use of the term "cure" may have been mostly incorrect, though some cancers are indeed cured by surgery, most do more properly go into remission. My apologies for being imprecise.) Jmc... , you're really reaching. Neither one of us said or implied any of that malarky you're spewing, and I think you know it. I'll also concede that this discussion is no longer entertaining. You've worn me out. I had forgotten what it was like to have a discussion with people who fervently believe the cable lie. Thanks for the reminder. |
Oftentimes, when trying to understand a posters point of view, I find value in looking for patterns in a poster's over-all posting history. As with most things, not just audio, I like to read between the lines. This approach is hardly "scientific" and not applicable in all cases; but still, it can tell me a lot about a poster's priorities and viewpoint.
I have been trying very hard to understand Irv's stubbornness re the position of the overwhelming majority of posters in this thread on the subject of cables. While his stance is fairly clear, there are also some inconsistencies and a convenient "out" when he leans on the idea that his premise is based on the "fact" that cables that are "properly designed for a given application" will sound the same. But, I don't want to revisit all that. In looking at his posting history, I notice two significant things. For me, one in particular speakes volumes about where a person's head is at.
-This is far from Irv's only thread where he has taken the minority position of trying to debunk others' opinions about the audibility of differences in cables, and tweaks in general.
- Even more importantly (for me) is that unlike the posting history of the overwhelming majority of other contributors to this discussion, he has not made a single contribution nor comment on the subject of music; not a one.
Draw your own conclusions. My stubbornness? If I were in a room full of creationists, who argued that evolution was incorrect and had holes it, and couldn't explain everything, would you expect me to bend to the opinion of the majority and surrender my position? I hope not. This discussion is very similar to my example; I feel like I'm in a room full of creationists. The part about me not posting about music is irrelevant in a cable forum, sort of like bringing up that I've not posted on spiritual matters in a discussion about creationism. As for my motivations, Frogman, I can make things absolutely clear for you, there's no guessing required. I find this whole cable controversy to be a pox on a hobby I've been involved with for decades, and every so often I entertain myself and break the monotony of whatever I'm working on by putting up the objective point of view and letting the dogs bark, so to speak. I find argument fun, and apparently so do many of you, because you're here arguing with me, and bringing popcorn. |
Hi Irv, actually, I am not arguing. Arguing, discussing; whatever. I truly am trying to understand the other side of the argument; which, frankly, I don't see a lot of evidence of on your part. But, for the record, my reference to posting history was for ALL posting history. Yes, this thread is about cables, but this forum is about much more than cables; including music. See, from my vantage point it is almost impossible (pointless) to discuss any aspect of this hobby without, at least, some reference to music. I think that this is the core difference between the two mind-sets. My evidence is that these cables measure identically in terms of the audio signal they output, that they follow well-understood mathematical models. Don't get confused by this discussion of capacitance and inductance, even if those parameters vary a bit it doesn't mean that the audio signal that comes out the other end of the cable is modified in some significant way - that's a different matter, and depends on the designs of the electronics or speakers being discussed. As for the rest of your post, it is completely analogous to the discussion of spirituality when discussing evolution. Music and cables are orthogonal. The cables only know about electrical signals, not about music. You are simply obfuscating the issues here. You are not trying at all to understand the other side of the argument. It is disingenuous to present yourself that way. If you tried to understand how the technology worked that makes your audio avocation possible you would understand the illogic of the position that cables can have audible signatures. Like I've said, the only way to make an audio cable have an audible signature is to purposely design it to abuse some simple parameter of conduction. |
What cables have you guys used in your systems? I have several friends in the audio world who believe as you do, and have brought over Audioquest, Cardas, and Nordost cables. They all claim to have heard huge differences in my system, before and after. I couldn't tell the difference. Of course I wasn't expecting any differences, they all were. Funny how that worked out. |
It seems that every one missed my post!3-10-13 @chayro,the main part of the post was directed @ rok2id,whatever!I will say my facts again that is the forum buster for non believers,Hi Irvrobinson,I believe you hear just fine!,you have after market high-end audio cables on your system,obviously you had to hear a difference with the cables you have versus lowes hardware store brand cables,I believe this,you bought the high-end cables you have!,The samething can be said about Rok2id,He has the Beldin Blue jean cables,HE hears fine as well!again,Obviously he had to hear a difference between the Blue jean beldin cables versus lowes hardware store brand of cables,again,I believe this!,He bought the blue jean beldin cables,It does not take science to see between the lines here!,they hear cable sound differences just fine!however,I believe they take the stance that they do, is they do not agree with the high cost of cables such as mine!,believe me when I say this,I do not agree with the high cost of cables myself!,Irv and rok,unfortunally I had to pay the cost of admission!the pay off is incredible to say the very least!,no not all high priced cables are worth the money,I agree!the same can be said about componets,lord knows I have seen my share of modest priced componets,speakers,cables,etc..blow the doors off of some multi thousands of dollar equipment out there,its not common,but it happens,to tell you two gentlemen the truth,I got very lucky that my cables are in the few out there that are the best available,I am blessed from God above to have a system period that I have, and I thank him daily for what he has given me!,the synergy between the system and the cables I have,to me of course,Is flawless!,I know the both of you gentlemen do not want to believe what I am about to say next,My sound would not be possible without the cables I have!,very emotional,chills running rampid all over a listeners body with tears of joy flying about,The music is so real sounding!IMHO!,the reason I expressed this to you gentlemen is I have never had eanybody over my house after the listening experience of my system that believe cables do not make a difference!A toast to all,cheers! You might consider reducing your caffeine intake. :-) |
Irvrobinson, you might consider reducing your intake of Haterade! I bet that if scientific proof were under your nose, you would probably dismiss it as product marketing. Current bunching causes resistance and that is not efficient. The research has been done and companies like Analysis Plus, Tara Labs, and more have created cables that allow your sound system to perform better sonically. I've read the Analysis Plus web site. Hollow oval cables. Technical-looking prose, complete with formulae and footnotes. Still unconvincing. Bringing up skin effect is the first indicator of something being off-color. Even at 20KHz skin effect is just not a significant calculated or measured factor in cable performance. Bringing up cable design issues that are relevant in conductors that carry gigahertz frequencies, and then just extrapolate them downward to audio frequencies, where those effects in reality are irrelevant, isn't presenting information honestly. For example, look at Figure 3 on their white paper (981) page. Read closely. That chart is in milliohms per 100 feet of cable. So let's assume for a moment that chart is accurate, how many of us are running 100 feet of speaker cable? And they have to go to milliohms to make the differences apparent? (I'll assume the chart is accurate, though I wonder about how they arrived at those 12 gauge cable figures. Whatever.) Then they keep going to a discussion, complete with a chart with numbers in it, showing how speakers don't have a constant impedance across the frequency range. How quaint. Did you notice their choice of speakers in that chart? The Bose 901, JBL TI250... well, they made me chuckle. I wonder how many Bose 901 customers buy expensive cables? Doesn't this make anyone wonder what their point is? Yes, all speakers have impedance curves that vary by frequency, sometimes by a lot. So what? And then my favorite part, bringing up EMI effects on speaker cables. They even throw in some technical-looking square wave figures, without telling you the frequency of the square waves. 100KHz? 1MHz? Who knows? Speaker cables have such a low impedance and carry high enough voltages that EMI isn't a relevant factor; that's why speaker cables aren't shielded like interconnects. Analysis Plus is taking some technical factors relevant for cables carrying signals well beyond the range of audio signals and trying to convince people they are relevant for audio cables. It's not what I would call true snake oil, but it's not being open with their customers either. And I'm not trying to pick on Analysis Plus, you just brought them up. Audioquest has published worse. |
