First of all, one must agree that no cables in the world can make your system sound better. You pick the cable that can least degrade the sound coming out of your system.
On that basis, different cable design should sound differently in your system. How well you like each difference is entirely judge by your taste of sound, like cooking, some like it sweeter, some like it more salty. Since all cables are subject to electrical reactions, the same cable can sound different in your systems than in another system. Try connecting the same interconnects in different positions in your system, you will appreciate what I have just said. If you hear no difference at all, then, you are one of the luckiers ones who don't need to spend or shouldn't be spending anything on cables ! |
hmmm... the argurment I previously posted wasn't mine. It's Asa's arguement in simplified form.
I never really attempted to reduce human technology from a linear progressism to a circular attachment. I rather think the two goes hand in hand. On the same note, I deduce it's impossible for people such as audiogon members to listen to hi-fi without their objective goggles on: this isn't a symptom of technological attachment, but it is their intrinsic want to improve their system to result in a no objective goggle-needed enjoyment so long as hi-fi is limited and inferior to reality.
Asa seems to bring up many intersting points tho, not just about audio, but about the overall faults in human nature as concluded by the Buddha and Lao Tzu: Buddha claims human cause pain to themselves when they require attachment to materialism, and Lao Tzu wants us to reduce our objectivity to nothing, wu-wei.
I often thought audio is some sort of western technology meets eastern philosphy type of soup. |
Note: There is a difference between the validity of objective evidence - the continuum of "technology" from Homo habilis, reaching for a bone and rearranging its matter by carving, to the rearrangement of silicon, etc on a computer chip - and the ATTACHMENT to that cognitive ability, or an attachment to the products of that attachment, namely, the rearranged matter. These are two entirely different kettle of fish. Scientific-derived knowledge is valid for its purposes as a discipline; the exclusive attachment to it by the individual mind is irrational.
When I go deeply into the music and the force of my thinking fades as I let go of my habit of objectifying things I want to see and manipulate, in that state absent objectfying cognition, have I ceased perceiving? Is a perception absent objectifying valid?
An objectivist always believes that when you challenge the validity of an ATTACHMENT to scientific objectivism that you are attacking the validity of scientific knowledge itself and in its entirety. What I am challeging is peoples' minds' attachment to scientific knowlege as exclusive knowledge, its partiality, not its validity in whole. It gives great knowledege about matter, but the listening to stereo is not just about equipment, or producing a stereo soundfield populated with detailed sound sources that "look" like things, but about the mind's ability to seep deeper into the music by transcending the attachment to objectifying sound into a thing. This deepening - and I challenge any objectivist - is characterized by the "letting go" of the attachment to thinking, namely, objective thinking.
Viggens response reveals an interesting bias.
Whenever you say something about the limitations of objective knowledge, those ATTACHED to scientific materialist assumptions claim that you are saying that objective knowledge itself is invalid/irrational in whole. I'm not saying that: I'm saying that the mind's attachment to it is irrational because it denies all perception beyond itself.
Sympotomatically, Viggen, you say that "rearranged matter results from technology", as if "technology" was a thing separate from the matter. "Technology" is not a thing; it is an abstraction. I am saying that "Technology" IS ONLY rearranged matter and the objectivists making it into a thing, as their totem to pray to, is symptomatic of the irrationality described above.
To go deeper into the Music, you must let go of your attachemnt to control the music through your objectifying mind. No objectivist-attached mind who listens to music can deny the validity of this dynamic of the listening mind because he/she is performing the experiment UPON themselves!
And this is why I find the Hi fi microcosm so interesting: because the scientific-attached are finally performing an experiment on their own mind where they have to admit that their attachment to objective knowledge is partial. There does exist perceptive knowledge beyond thinking and the listening experience proves this, empirically, even to the thinking-attached.
So, here's the big question: if even the objectivists must admit that value exists in the non-thinking spaces of their listening mind as they deeply listen to music, then why, when they stop listening and start thinking and talking, are they suddenly once more arguing that nothing exists beyond that thinking? Answer: its the ATTACHMENT. |
1.machines, audio gear, are examples of rearranged materials, resulting from technology.
2.anti-megabuck cable buyers claim cables and electronics that are equal in monetary costs are not equal monetary and intrinsic values.
3.people in arguement two are objectivists who claim there are absolutes in terms of matter arrangements.
therefore,
4.objectionist are irrational.
I think this arguement is irrational.
Sorry, just stirring the pot. |
|
ASA, where did you get the panama red from? must be good :) All kidding aside you have an interesting point of view. |
If I put a watch into the ground, in a thousand years it may be "priceless." I have a beer can at home that is "worth" $5K. Is it worth it to me? Yes. To my girlfriend? No, she thinks its insane.
Now, here's the interesting thing: in all technology what we are taling about is the rearrangement of matter into various forms, by bending, carving, heating, slicing, dicing, etc. And, our "machines" are only these pieces of rearranged matter rearranged together. This may seem "out there", but its actually the simplist way to cut through the abstraction that we pray to, namely, "Technology".
The second interesting thing: What these guys who decry price are really saying is that the given rearrangement that people are paying for is not justified because its not a complicated enough rearrangement. In other words, if it looked more like a complicated "machine", as opposed to a wire that doesn't move like a machine (or amp), then they would be more comfortable with the price.
Is Van Gogh's 'Night Sky' uncomplicated because it is not "technological", even though, it too, is only a rearrangement of matter?
But hold it. The objectivists who say that we should look at only a circuit tracing to determine if sound is "good" are the same guys saying that the rearrangement isn't complicated enough. In other words, if you believe that science is right and we should only look to the interactions of matter to see our truth, then why are these same guys saying that one given rearrangement of matter is "better" than another?
Rearrangement is rearrangement is rearrangement.
Scientific people who are attached to one type of rearrangement over another? Hmmm, now who is irrational?
Question: How can a mind attached to the concept that the manipulation of matter (and the observation of that interaction, er, "scientific method")will give us all truth also say that one type of rearrangement (and the manipulation that leads to it) is intrinsically better than another (in a value-laden way)?
Now, bite your lip, but here's the psychological current repressed beneath all of this: If you want to argue that we should not be using our relative wealth to buy expensive rearranged pieces of matter when people in sub-Saharan Africa do not possess enough edible matter to sustain the matter of their bodies, well, then that's another argument. An interestingly point -and symptomatically, I would say - that has not been delved into, especially by minds that like "Science" that produces "Technology" that makes wonderful matter-products, that we, in our post modern western capitalistic world, consume (consume like matter...)
Now, that should stir the pot!! (Now, did I use the word "Now" too much..? |
To further Sean above: IMO we're soul-searching to justify the prices we pay for our equips. In doing so, many of us (myself included) invariably relate the market price of a product with the cost of producing said product. Under this premise, many cables can be termed outrageously expensive: the *apparent* production cost is only remotely related to the asking price. So, how can we justify it? Now if it were a beefy amp, heavy and packed with capacitors...
Nevertheless, some people do purchase expensive cables and, in doing so, do set a market price -- as with Sean's Daytona example.
For that matter, how does the price of an expensive amp compare to the price of an automobile -- construction cost-wise? As far as I, for one, can judge-- no comparison! My amp costs more than a small car and a car seems far more complicated (and expensive) to produce than my amp. Yet, the amp is sitting in my room and playing right now (stupid me, I know).
Happy, safe, and musical holidays to all, regardless of the brand of our wires! |
What something is worth is set by market value and what people are willing to pay. In other words, even though someone might think that a mint condition 1967 Shelby Daytona Coupe with full documentation is worth $5,000, there are collectors that would easily pay 100 times that amount for such a vehicle. Obviously, the person selling it would not deny the buyer that was willing to pay such a fee, so the value would remain at $500,000. Is the vehicle worth that amount ? Obviously it was to the buyer and his insurance company. Sean
> |
Bomarc you are correct and the main point is you dont need to spend big money to get big sound.
People spending big bucks on cables are free to.Just dont propogate the lie that they are worth the money and someone who does not cant possibly have a good system. |
Cable companies have a right to charge whatever they want, and consumers who can afford such extravagances are free to indulge. Some who can afford it but understand why it is that cables sound different will choose to spend their money in other ways. Those who can't afford it may choose to console themselves in the same way. Unfortunately, some people who want to spend big bucks on cable feel the need to rationalize this by denying the fact that most of these products are produced for pennies on the dollar. |
End the geekfest? Might as well shut down Audiogon right now:
Cables are lots of fun because they are very mysterious, a cognitive black box...
Since the first day I hooked up some $100 cables to my system oh so many years ago, I was simply amazed by how much it improved the sound quality and how different cable designs and materials can alter the sonic characteristics of a system.
Even 'til this day, my amazement with cables hasn't died. As Neitzche says, "There is no original text," I believe there is no perfect cable. And like every novel, each cable has something different to offer, so, as long as people are enjoying their audio hobby, it is intrinsic for us to audition all types of cables with an open "ear," mega-buck or not.
Yah, cables are heavily over-priced, but so are everything else that isn't mass produced and are high quality.
Another thought, should we boycott all mega-bucks cables until they charge less? = D |
ZAIKESMAN SPOKE MY MIND!
Folks, most of us KNOW cables make difference.
Most of us know that the effect is system dependent regardless of price.
Cable cos have every right to charge high prices for what they believe is their state of art cables.
Because there are people who have DEEP pockets( or there is one born every minute)
For thoes who bitch about high prices of these cables-its is case of sour grapes.
Most of these people will line up for these SOTA cables if they were to win a jack pot.
THE LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND WORKS FOR CABLES TOO.
Lets us end the GEEKFEST right now! |
I love these cable threads. If you don't, then don't read them. I also like playing with cheap stuff and have even found a $40 per pair (actually sold as singles) interconnect that I prefer to Nordost Blue Heaven and Kimber Silver Steak (and above that $200 retail price point I won't go). You've never heard of the interconnects I use, and won't hear of them from me either.
Now, I've tried that Radio Shack Gold A/V cable that John Dunlavy wrote about a long time ago. I always thought it was a good bet for an inexpensive system, but maybe not.
I recently bought a Radio Shack $25 phono preamp out of curiosity, and figured what better to use with it than the Radio Shack interconnect? The sound? Well, a lot of groove noise and grain, forget about dynamic range. So then I connected a pair of Audioquest Ruby 2's. Much better, a lot less grain, almost listenable. I've always thought the AQ Ruby was sort of dull, designed to roll off edgy transistory highs from low cost cdps and amps.
So here's the question: Is the Radio Shack cable better than the Ruby because it reveals the true nature of the Little Rat phono preamp or is the Ruby better at carrying a signal? I have a hard time believing that the Radio Shack cable is the source of the coarse and grainy sound from Little Rat. How would a cable add grain? |
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 . . .) |
Alan, when you make conclusions, you must state reasons for your conclusions and, specifically, which conclusions you are referring to. It is important that when you reject something - and claim that the arguments made are insufficient - that you say WHY they are insufficient. Otherwise, you are contributing nothing other than your own unsubstantiated charges - which then, of course, become part of the tired-ness that you supposedly decry. |
......of all the numerous, overly-simplistic and tired posts I've read on cable pricing, this is one of them. Sheesh, again.
alan m. kafton |
Excellent point, Mvwine. Looking to objective evidence does not make you an objectivist; the attachment to the assumption that objective observations are the only way to validly derive truth makes you an objectivist. Interestingly, it are not only his assumptions that the objectivist is attached to (specifically, these assumptions derive from Bacon [knowledge of matter = truth], Galileo [knowledge of matter can be enhanced by seeing reality as a mathematical machine, or linear matix, decribed by quantifiable data, ie size, etc.] and Descartes [reducing matter into progressively smaller parts gives greater truth]. Rather, the objectivist is also attached to his fear of his assumptions absense, or a denial of knowledge that is beyond scientific thinking (labeled with the abstraction "ratio-empiric, hypothetico-deductive formal operational cognition", presently recognized by psychology as the end-point in cognitive development). This is why science categorizes all knowledge that is not "scientific" as irrational; it must be, otherwise, science would be forced to examine its own premises, and why traditional psychology, allied as a rubber stamp for science, denies any level of cognition beyond the abstraction above (even though 5 million years of progressive cognitive development argues, empirically, the opposite future potential...). It is the attachment to the assumptions outlined above, and the recoil from a possibilty beyond them, that makes someone an "objectivist" (which, at its base, is an attachment to matter, or objects).
I would point out to you, however, that your assumption that more quantitative data necessarily will reveal greater truth is based upon the above assumptions. In this century - and something, characteristically, objectivists don't know, or choose to ignore - is that these assumptions have been thoroughly deconstructed. That's another discussion if someone wants to have it. |
Natalie, as far as Harmonic Technology is concerned, I can assure you they do not get stock cable from anywhere else, the single crystal wire is made in California for them exclusively using a proprietary process. I'm not 100% sure, but I think the same can be said of Acoustic Zen. |
Steve and Sean re Electrostatic Speakers
I have built a dozen or so conventional speakers and make no claim to have expertise with ESLs but from what I understand speaker wire is critical with ESLs.
Generally the load presented to an amplifier is completely different for an ESL. ESLs act more like a capacitor in the line while traditional magnetic speakers act like a resistor/inductor.
All cables have inductance, capacitance and impedance and, of course, the amount can be changed by design of the wire. An ESL is driven by a high voltage step up transformer INSIDE THE SPEAKER and it "leaks" inductance. This interacts with the capacitance of the ESL to form what is called L/C (inductance/capacitance) resonant circuit and this will cause a high frequency peak if it is not controlled(kept out of the hearing frequency). They spend a lot of time trying to build great transformers that do not "leak" much. Because inductance is such a big problem due to the L/C problem it is especially important that cables have low inductance too.
To sum it up: If your ESLs' seem to have an unattractive peak in the highs (are "bright") one thing to look at is the design of the cables.
This may seem to some to contradict my prior posts but it does not because well designed cables for ESL's can be had or made for chump change once you know what you are looking for.
as noted, I'm not a big ESL person and if my understanding is off base please give me an e-mail.
CK |
They 99.9% even the one's you mention badge stock.
Dont let the money they spend on full page adds fool you.Your paying for the adds. |
i'm not real sure but i believe the purpose of coils is to create and collapse magnetic fields and is not to carry signals per se.
as far as cables, or for that matter, any other hardware go, the whole stereo trip is about looks and hype. you find the look and the hype that jives with your stereo sense and you indulge yourself...then sit back and enjoy the music you like to play. upgrades occur when new looks and new hype create sufficient insecurity in the status quo to prompt change. assuming unlimited funds, how much you wanna spend equals how insecure you have been in your pleasure. the best discovery is yourself. great post craigklomparens! |
Steve, you forgot that E-stat's use step up transformers. Since a transformer is ( typically ) a coil of wire, you've once again got the same type of situation to deal with.
Other than that, your train of thought is completely logical. Even though anybody with reasonable hearing will probably disagree with you, you must be right according to the laws of common sense.
Too bad life ( and audio ) aren't that easy. Sean
> |
The finest drivers typically use aluminum wire in their voice coils. This wire is small and there is a lot of it. Wire used in the voice coil is solid and sometimes rectangular to pack the most volumn into the available space. The voice coil is in series with the speaker cable. If cheapo wire has an effect there should be a substantial signal degradation from the considerable amount of aluminum voice coil wire. Any higher quality wire in series with it would be wasted (if there were such a thing).
Additionally, there is relatively speaking, substantial inductance (compared to any conceivable speaker wire geometry) in the voice coil/motor assembly of the speaker.
And so, my point is that if you like the sound of your speakers then you like the sound of solid aluminum wire. For those who care, solid aluminum wire is even cheaper than cheap copper zip cord.
If you have electrostatic speakers, well, I suppose you could use this argument to explain why they are inherently better. |
Let's get something straight here: having worked with test and measurement equipment for 10 years, I can assure you that differences in cables CAN (easily) be measured! Take a variable frequency LCR bridge and measure at 20Hz and 20KHz. Also, just recently someone posted a repeatably measurable difference with a sound meter. You can argue that the measured differences shouldn't have any effect if you'd like, but MY ears say otherwise. |
I invite anyone who can expose the imposters who mainly badge stock wire to do so, and support those companies with proprietary technology like Acoustic Zen, Harmonic Technology, Synergistic Research or whatever brand anyone might like to mention. |
Pawlup $ spent has nothing to do with sound means you can spend 25K and have a system that sounds better than one that costs 75K which might consist of overpriced Krell-Wilson Speaker and Nordost cable.The point I am trying to make is that you can get a cable for 300.00 that sounds as good as a 3K cable.
The problem is that to many people buy for ego and prestige.
Let your ears make the choice regarless of price.
Sorry my 25K retail system is in Canadian Dollars.Thats about 15K US bought everything on the used market so I have about 7K US invested.
And yes Belden is belden.Nost MFGS stick it inside of a fat tube then they put a fancy jacket on it.Total cost about 2/3 bucks a foot and charge 150.00 a foot for it.Cut it open and you will be sick to find out whats in it/Stuff like belden 19634 in a fancy wrap sold at 449.00 for a 6
foot power cord.Not that there is anything wrong with the Belden just how bad you got screwed.The stuff is less than 1.00 a foot in Bulk.
Do you have the guts to cut in and look at whats inside of your 1500.00cable .You would get the I just got rapped feeeling.
|
Craig (Garfish, that is), re: mid-range wires. My experience is similar to yours regarding price/performance ratios with "mega" brands. Nordost is a good example: blue-heaven, spm, I have found to be good performers.
On the other hand, Valhalla easily outperforms all their other cables -- and most bank accounts. I heard a small Micromega (minium?) system sing beautifully with Valhalla cables... and no, the system was NOT (IMO) a giant killer by any stretch of the imagination, but euphonic all the same!
Re: cables. I have interacted with cable manufacturers in the past, so I can report the following regarding hi-end cables (audio, or otherwise). Some are standard industrial designs with proprietary matls made to (our well-known brand's) order by one of the large cable producers. Some are more complicated proprietary designs with asymmetric geometries and VERY expensive even in large lengths, again made to order.
Pricing: replacement cost is a factor ofcourse. BUT, a cable geometry that "performs" like $1000 will be invariably priced 900-1100 regardless of production cost. This is the norm, so many exceptions (super kits, smaller audio specialists, even known brands, etc) exist ofcourse and confirm the rule IMO.
DIY cables have been a solution for many of us who are handy -- unfortunately, I'm not handy enough...
Verdict: many (most? all?) giga$ cables perform well. On mega resolution systems. Prices are outrageous; vs. electronics, IMO, the next outrageous price/performance link: no comparison. Electronics are cheapo by comparison.
It's a vicious circle: we have components that can "play" only if they're connected by wire.. what a conundrum! |
Craig K; I guess there's still a lot of life left in this subject, probably because there are always new people coming into the Forum. So far there have been 36 posts to this thread-- the most in a long time. So, my apologies if my first post was sort of jaded.
My own observations and experience is that the "best value" in wires lies in the middle of a wire companies range of products, eg I use mid-priced Syn. Res. wires with excellent results. These wires (ICs, spkr cables, and power cords) fit my budget, and have proven to make my stereo system sound better.
The mid-range cost wires are not a "cost is no object statement product" where the retail price has to be really high to cover the cost of the relatively few that will be sold. Mid and low priced wires have the advantage of "economy of scale", and IMO they can offer most of the performance of the "top of the line" wires, while still using top quality materials and manufacturing techniques. Cheers. Craig G. |
Some equipment are more sensitive to cable changes then others and everyone's price point is different. I will not make a general statment of one way or the other. I suggest you try to borrow some cables and listen for youself. If you like the result then look at the price and ask youself if you are willing to pay for it. Some people are willing to pay a lot for small changes and some will not. To me, my equipment are very sensitive to cables and I like the sound and the price of Harmonic Tech cables. I am now looking for a pair of Pro Silway MK II 4M XLR interconnect. Anyone has a pair for sell? |
yeah you gotta get into cables man!!!
i had audioquests on my linn rigg $60 a shot,then a friend told me bout nordost blue heavens and they are $160 a shot and i tell you my system sounded like 5 blankets had been taken off the speakers--i had transparancy,balls,depth,detail-before i had a flat muffled sound---in comparisum what i had before.........
think of it as resistance--like a tap slightly on, slowly(dribbles) then open it up and all the water gushes out.......put that into a sound version......
also different frequencys travel differently on various materials like copper and silver....
it really makes or brakes a system-----
why spend a $1000 on a cd player and cheap out on a cable makes no sense to me--you was prepared to spend that amount in the first place.so do it justice--let all the sound out of it... |
To T southworth and Friends,
What is the resonant frequency of your tulip bulbs and can you e-mail a notch filter to to take care of it.
Thanks
Stay cool
CK |
As a self-labelled "quasi-objectivist" I would like to say that admitting a difference in cables because of the empirical evidence of your own ears even when measurements don't show differences is not necessarily an non-objectivist act. It merely means we are measuring the wrong things. Our ears may be the only measuring device we have right now that can tell the difference. We may develop other measuring devices that will confirm what our ears tell us or we may decide if we can hear the difference, what else do we need?
BTW, Asa is correct. A cable is not "overpriced" if someone is willing to pay that price for it. |
I guess I agree with you Paul. While that Quattro Fil would have been worth it for me even at $1600, I would not have paid that for a new one. The rest of my interconnects are all under $350 at new prices (Siltech, MAS and Van Den Hul). |
Well, Craig you seem to have given everyone a lot to talk about. |
Sugarbrie, I drive a sports car for fun. It's almost 30 years old and I havent bothered to restore it, so I'm sure I don't look "cool" in it. But, people do choose their cars for reasons other than transport functionality; comfort, handling, convenience, easy of parking, gas mileage, storage capacity, or the pleasure of shifting through a close ratio gearbox. And people buy clothes for the way they feel and look. That's the purpose of clothing, otherwise we would just go around in burlap.
But what purpose does an audio cable have other than the function of carrying a signal?
So, Asa, I think CK (nice guy) was saying "mega-priced" cables are irrationally overpriced based on their functionality. And you say the price is based on market demand. I wonder if there is a market for a $10,000 interconnect? If they build it, who will come?
Since I cant afford the Valhalla, my world view is happiest if I believe that the Valhalla is no better than a $10 Radio Shack cable. (I would be ecstatic if I believed that I could get the same sound quality out of a $1,000 budget system as someone else's $100,000 system.) In fact, since you and I are both "subjectivists" (in that we make decisions based on our own hearing rather than a set of measurements, I guess), you can't prove to me that the Valhalla is better than The RS Gold. I imagine it probably is, since I think my interconnects are better than the RS Gold, but I'll never know for sure. Irrationally overpriced? I guess it depends on how much money you have.
Paul |
Yup, Craig and others, I sold my cables and replaced them with tulip bulbs. I find the sound more colorful with better bloom, but, in the winter, much more recessed.
Thanks for playing the straight man... ;-)
Todd |
I will admit one of my favorite brand cables is home made (not my home). If anyone remembers MAS (Music and Sound) which was once pushed by Wadia, sold by The Cable Company and recommended by Soundstage. The designer Stu Wein now makes them out of his home in Florida and sells them direct for the same price he use to charge dealers which is about 1/3 retail. His various interconnects, speaker cable and power cables are a great value at that price. He sells them on eBay also. Stu can be contacted at Audioparts@aol.com |
Yea, admittedly we subjectivists have our own little buttons. FYI: CK sent me a gratious message. Now, THAT's the self-esteem that makes dialogue possible and FUN (!). Boy, is it refreshing. Dialogue, while pointed and confident in its given position, should always maintain some sense of play, I think. Maybe I'm wrong. As I told him, he was just a foil here, albeit a necessary one, IMHO now and then (for the reasons I stated above). |
Craig:
I've sold cables on the amount of $$$ and downgraded to a simple van den hul wires that is being used on highly priced cables.
The result was increadible + I upgraded my cartridge for the difference to Lyra Helikon from Benz M.09 |
Reply from Author
To the "Regulars" and whoever:
Whew! Sorry if I offended anybody.
"Cant we all just get along", Rodney King.
It has been a while since I have been criticized for "reading" about audio (as opposed to listening to it.)
I do not want to go on to long because apparently everybody has had enough of this topic( I am new to this forum- Sorry)
I would like to say two things for the record. 1)My original post concerned spending "mega$$$$" on cables. I did not say that there is no difference in cables or that you cannot hear a difference in cables. Anyone who knows the first thing about current or voltage (much less audio electronics) knows that. 2) My point was simply that they are grossly overpriced and over-hyped. If you are willing to read a little I suggest (in addition to the sites listed in the original post) Allen Wright's book "Supercables Cookbook." (Available at Vacuumstate.com) There is no state secret or propritary information involved and a comparatively cheap and well designed cable will do everything you need. If you are not into DIY a look at Wright's book will at least offer some protection from your local audio salesman. In fact cables are probably the simplist link in the chain. If you have the dexterity to butter toast you can put together your own for a few cents on the dollar. Being a relative newcomer to audiogone I figured that if you are at this site you are interested in stretching your $$$ and like to avoid the pernicious effect of retail pricing, and glossy advertising budgets.
My Best to everyone!
CK
|
First, KEEP ON POSTIN'! What's repetitive to some "old timers" on Audiogon is new to others! Second, I use the analogy of building an audio system to that of building a race car/ street rod. The parts should match the level of performance expected. A simple example...old muscle cars from the '60's NEEDED 100+ octane to run properly. If you could find it, this high octane gas would be a total WASTE for today's low compression engines. Cables are a little trickier. I consider that they are the tires of an audio system. And as any change of tires effects the handling of the car, so too will most cables effect the sound of an "audiophile system". The higher the performance of the audio system, the higher the degree of effect by the cables. Think of it! Many people actually use cables as a sort of tone control to correct deficiencies of their systems (whether they'll admit it or not!) Third, with that being said, I finally had a chance to audition Nordost Valhalla speaker cables against their own SPM cable. I don't know which is worse...the obscenely expensive price or the fact that the Valhallas ARE WORTH EVERY PENNY! Auditioning on a preamp/amp/speaker system of UNDER $20K the Valhalla's differences were NOT subtle! As a matter of fact going from the SPM to Valhalla then back to the SPM I just couldn't listen to the SPM any more! It's like playing a guitar with dead strings. As my dealer said, if you think of quality cables as an audio component instead of just wires, the price gets easier to justify. The Valhalla is now the standard AT ANY PRICE, and everyone else is just going to have to play catch up! |
I hate to do this, but lets get straight on this relative price argument that objectivists are always using to bolster, inauthentically, their arguments. In each of these arguments we always see the phrase, "its over-priced" (and then they say, because its over-priced, its irrationally over-priced, so anyone of the opposing position is per se irrational, so, therefore, they don't need to be listened to. You see how the cascade of logic irrationally goes?). Implied in this position, however, is a denial of market forces and the assumptions of our economic system. Capitalism assumes infinite self-interest that translates into "whatever the market will bear". So, what actually is the problem that these people have with "over-priced" cable (that, nonetheless, is supported by the market): that they don't actually believe in the infinite assumption of our capitalist system? Or, is it really what I've been saying: that their reaction actually stems from their assumptions on objective grounds and they only mix in these arguments when its convenient and because they have that right air of political correct-ness that will keep anyone from saying something about it? You see, here's the thing I don't really understand: have you EVER really seen a scientific, materialist attached, yellow ribbon-tying objectivist who is in favor of changing the capitalist assumption of infinite greed? |
Paulwp (and others) you are on to something. There are many kinds of people. Some drive a sports car because they love to drive; some just to look cool. I know people who buy expensive audio equipment to look cool. The sound is secondary. |
Paulwp: I don't think I am giving comfort to the enemy. I assumed Craig does not shop at KMart for all his clothes, so using his logic (not mine) he is wasting his money. I did not buy my system to show off to the neighbors. I do not own an expensive car and probably never will. It does not matter to me. I get no buzz out of driving. But if someone gets a lot of enjoyment out of an expensive Hi-Tech sports car, then they have spent their money fine by me. Go for it!! |
You can't tell a blind person about the color purple; he/she lacks a point of reference. And, as all good objectivists know, our thought processes are dualistically-based and require a point of reference to have any validity, logically speaking. The best analogy I can think of is to imagine yourself in a plane flying at a certain altitude. You look down and the coast line appears as a jagged line. Then you go higher and the coast appears more smooth. Its still the same coastline, but you are seeing it from different symmetries of perspective. The person traveling higher has seen both views, but any person traveling below, and always staying there, their assumptions about reality bounding them to that altitude, don't believe that a higher, more inclusive and expansive worldview exists. They are conformist to those assumptions ("...from what I've been told.")and that box of assumptions is a comfortable place for them to live without the introspective trauma of examining their world independant of others' formulations ("they be dragons over the horizon..."). Applying this to the issue at hand, we can say that some people hear at a particular symmetry and others at deeper symmetries. Those listening minds attached to the shallower perspective MUST deny the deeper levels as if they don't exist because, otherwise, their assumptions (always in these discussions, scientific materialist biases)would have to be reflected upon. This is why, psychologically, such assertions from such people are so dogmatic and rigid. You can not have a reasoned dialogue with them because, in doing so, you threaten their world. Or rather, what they desperately want the world to be. This was the case when the mediaval world view that resisted the Cartesian, and it is now happening as the Cartesian resists the next paradigm. Its evolution. Its just that in high end audio, because it concentrates opposing worldviews in the experience that neither can escape from (music listening), we see the butting of heads easier, and more often.
Of course, that doesn't mean that to ME - maybe not to a Czar - that a particular piece of technology is not "over-priced", but again, that is a different discussion as to whether differing perceptive symmetries exist (I own a NBS IC and still think its over-priced, even relatively speaking, but the subjective listener in me loves the altitudes). |
My most expensive cable in my main system is the preamp to power amp link (Nordost Quattro Fil). In that position it affects and greatly improves the sound of every component running through my system. Now divide the cost of that cable among all my components in front of it: CD, Phono, Tape, Tuner, Preamp. I did buy it used for $800. So that is $160 per component. I could not have spent $160 more (each) for a better CD, Tuner, etc, etc and gotten such a large improvement. From this perspective it was an incredible bargain. The same would be true if I had paid the $1600 list price ($320 per component). |
Sugarbrie, you have actually given comfort to the enemy here. Consumer marketing is all about convincing people that they will feel better about themselves of they buy the right products. The more desirable the car, the more desirable the man. Fashionable clothes, good looking popular guy. Craig K and the wire is wire crowd are saying the same about cables, that people are wasting money on cable in order to feel good about themselves, to feel they are among the cognoscenti, to feel that they are one step ahead of the next guy in getting good sound.
Of course, some of the wire is wire crowd believe that cheap cable is just the same as the expensive stuff because it supports their self image of being smarter than the average audiophile.
I am an agnostic. I hear differences in cables but (1) will never spend a lot knowing that my room and the furniture in it make more of a difference than any cable could, and (2) I may be delusional - the differences I hear may not be real at all.
"Natalie," here are 2 quotes from your post above:
"$ spent have nothing to do with sound Quality, Period"
vs.
"My system retails for 25K so it does have the resolution to distingish"
Think about it |
I have been using the high end Monster cables , & kimbers and they do make a suttle improvement. More noticable with higher end gear. My friend bought a $ 40,000 used Krell system The Seller was a real knowledgable guy and he was using the $ 800.00 Monster 2.4 s with his $ 20,000 speakers and they sounded great ! Good cables do sound better with quieter backgrounds and a cleaner better detailed presentation , and they look cool too. |
For the record, scientists solved the bumblebee mystery years ago. And a Yugo is not functionally identical to a Mercedes. But a Belden cable dressed up to look like Brand X is going to sound the same as a Belden cable dressed up to look like Brand Y. And that's what you're buying, folks. |
