How much money do you want to waste?


From everything I have read there is no proof that spending mega$$$$$ on cables does anything. A good place to start is WWW.sound.au.com. Go to the audio articles and read the cable article. From there pick up something(anything) by Lynn Olson and then do some digging. Ask your dealer for any study done by any manufacturer on how cables improve sound - good luck. The most hype and the most wasted money in audio is in cables these days. It's the bubble of the day in audio and , by the way, one of the big money makers for the industry. You might as well invest in tulip bulbs. Spend your audio buck where it counts.

I have a couple friends who make there own tube amps and they get better sound out of power systems that cost less then a lot of people blow on cables.


Craig
craigklomparens

Showing 3 responses by zaikesman

Here (definitly not HEAR) we go again. The first five words written by the poster are all anyone needs to glean of his "thoughts": "From everything I have read . . ." While audiophiles who aren't afraid to actually use their ears may also sympathize with his complaints about crazy prices and specious science, odds are most of their systems will sound better than his, too. Old, old story, my friend. Gain some listening experience, then come back and tell us something we can use - otherwise sit quietly and read to yourself!
Yes folks, once again another of these stoopid/tired posting wars has degenerated from the ridiculous to the sublime - and why is it always CABLES?! Is there something intrinsic to wire that prompts the unqualified to hold forth and theorize ad nauseum about why things just CAN'T be so? Could it merely be that wire appears so simple on the face of things that those who would be rightly abashed about such postulating when it comes to say, amplification or digitalia, suddenly feel no inhibitions to flaunting their ignorance? (Check out the above post about voice-coil wire, the function of which [in conjuction with magnets, natch] is the transduction of an electrical signal into mechanical motion - where is the analogy to speaker cables in that?!) Look, (most of) you and I aren't EE's, seasoned audio designers, theoretical physicists, acousticians, philosophers, professional musicians, stereo store owners, magazine reviewers, etc. This means that we lack some measure of both technical expertise and observational experience (not to mention writing skills - geesh, didja ever see such a bunch of inelegant drivel? Makes wading through it all a real chore), so all of this hoo-ha is basically one big masturbatory geekfest, something for which we audiophiles are admittedly well-qualified. But none of the foregoing handicaps should prevent any of us from having an opinion, of course (just don't believe your own hype), so here's mine: Anyone who pays too much for cables, or any other component, relative to the resulting sound of their system AND their ability to pay to play, whether because of status climbing, sales pressure, advertising, neuroses, tin ears, penis envy, whatever, gets exactly what he or she deserves. This ain't the news of the world, people - ever hear the phrase "caveat emptor"? Or "there's one born every minute"? Please, save us from people who would save us from ourselves. Additionally, anyone who thinks that they will avoid these pitfalls AND build a great-sounding system on the cheap because of something they've read or "reasoned" without bothering to LISTEN and DEVELOP an EAR for MUSIC and its reproduction will also get what they deserve, namely bad sound. I personally will never spend "mega-bucks" on cables, or any other part of my system, for the damn good reason that I don't have that kind of scratch. But I'm not so arrogant, or insecure, as to want to think that mine will sound just as good as those that are "over-priced", either. (Rather, I take my consolation in the fact that many of the rich guys actually have no taste in music, and only have goofy "audiophile" software with which to listen to their mega-systems . . . he who laughs last . . .)
Good gosh amighty!! It just refuses to die!! Alright, alright, I give up - I solemnly swear I will never call for a geekfest to end ever again! And to prove it, I submit the following thought:

Sticking with the example of cables, I have never understood why the "objectivist" position is self-represented as being inconsistent with the notion that there could be audible differences between even competently designed and manufactured wires. Why couldn't, and indeed why wouldn't, there be? After all, different cables are physically just that - different. On the level of a thought experiment, where the "objectivists" seem to enjoy operating, there should be no argument that any change, however small, in the physical configuration and composition of any part of the entire circuit (including wires, of course) and its environment will effect some corresponding change, again however small, upon the electrical properties of that circuit. Objectively this will even be true of, for instance, multiple examples of the very same piece of gear, for no two individual things will ever be totally identical to each other, or occupy identical positions within the universe. Therefore, objectively speaking, any change to any part of any stereo system and the environment it operates within will produce some change on the signal it passes, period. Whether that change can be perceived by a person, whether by measurement or by hearing, is a separate question, and one that immediately begins to bring subjective criteria into the equation. But when it comes to something like cables, it seems to me that the "objectivist's" theoretical position can only be, "Differently configured and composed wires will always pass a given signal differently than one another, and it is possible that where a difference exists, it might be heard." So where's the problem?