grm- don't take any of this personally. Hang in there.
Hype, Hyperbole and high price!
Okay, I understand that this site has to make money by having advertisers, but cheese and crackers, the claims that are made are just laughable if not down right criminal! Before I attended an engineering university I too was duped into buying expensive wires and such. Now, armed with an engineering and physics background, I can see through the BS claims made. I try and not let it get in the way of my enjoyment of good quality stereo equipment, but when a salesman tries to sell me something based on testimonials, hype and hyperbole, I tell him politely my background and then ask him a series of questions which leaves him dumbfounded.
Such crap as directional wires - (I used to work for both Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman) and trust me, if we had to test the miles of wires for directionality in every piece of equipment built...well you get the gist.
I have friends that are audio snobs and although they argue with me (Basically buyer's remorse) they know that what I say is true and end the conversation. Oh well, I suppose I will continue to get a headache when I read said claims.
Sigh!
Such crap as directional wires - (I used to work for both Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman) and trust me, if we had to test the miles of wires for directionality in every piece of equipment built...well you get the gist.
I have friends that are audio snobs and although they argue with me (Basically buyer's remorse) they know that what I say is true and end the conversation. Oh well, I suppose I will continue to get a headache when I read said claims.
Sigh!
142 responses Add your response
| Post removed |
For what it's worth (perhaps very little), this phenomenon is nothing new, and is not confined to the audio industry. I encounter it daily in my dealing with "customer support" (that's a euphemism), bad service in restaurants and I largely avoid flying, not because of airplanes but because of the whole airport "experience." It is also nothing new: Paul Fussell wrote "Bad: The Dumbing of America" at least 25 years ago. He wasn't just picking on Americans- we were on the front end of the large corporate middle finger; as Fussell explained, the difference between the "hype" and the "reality" was growing as indifference, cost cutting and profit drove things. I'm not going all political here--just pointing out that we've been suffering from this for decades. In some cases, you simply can't buy a quality product at any price now- everything is disposable. One of the things I like about this industry is that it is still made up of small, "cottage" type manufacturers. And, there's quality out there. Apologies for rant, but I thought it topical. bill hart |
Mapman wrote, "Geoff, those teletubbies would kick your invincible butt! Don’t think otherwise." My Teleportation Tweak eats Teletubbies for breakfast. What chance do you have? Look, let me give you some advice while we’re or least I am on the subject. If you want to be somebody and be a big star in the eyes of the Naysayers and Pseudo Skeptics and other assorted tweakaphobes, obviously something to which you aspire. Contact Better Business Bureau or Consumer Protection Agency or even AES or NASA or whoever you think the proper authorities are and report my Teleportation Tweak, the Super Intelligent Chip, Brilliant Pebbles, the Particle Accelerator, Dark Matter and/or the Quantum Temple Bell and explain to them how upset you are and that I’ve broken some unspoken rules of marketing or product naming conventions and that I’ve broken actual Laws of Science or Physics or whatever and that even though you’re not exactly sure what those laws are, there must certainly be some! Be sure and let us know how that works out for you. tootles |
Grm 5-6-2016No, you’re not in over your head at all, IMO. In fact your post struck me as as a very credible recitation of your experience, and as raising some particularly intelligent questions. Regarding "it’s a digital signal, should they not sound the same?," the reasons differences in digital cables can significantly affect the sonics of a system are technically explainable, and are well established. They relate primarily to small short-term random or pseudo-random fluctuations in the times at which the component receiving the signal detects the transitions that the signal makes between its two voltage states. That is referred to as "jitter," and will generally result to some degree in fluctuations in the timing of D/A conversion. Among different coax or other electrical cables, the amount of jitter that will result with a given cable in a given system, at the point where D/A conversion is performed within the DAC (which is where it matters) depends on a complex (and mostly unpredictable) set of relationships and interactions between the parameters of the cable, including length, impedance accuracy, shielding effectiveness, shield resistance, propagation velocity, bandwidth, etc., and the technical characteristics of the components it is connecting, including signal risetimes and falltimes, impedance accuracy, jitter rejection capability, ground loop susceptibility, etc. And with respect to optical cables, as you reported finding those can be beneficial due to their immunity to ground loop issues (which can significantly affect jitter, btw, as well as causing hum), but they also bring additional variables and unknowns into the mix, including the quality and various technical characteristics of the optical transducers in the two connected components. For more than you’ll ever want to know about the subject, see the following paper by a distinguished academician and researcher: http://www.scalatech.co.uk/papers/dunn_hawksford_1992.pdf Note, though, that this paper was written in 1992, and arguably the issues it raises about jitter are even more critical in many of today’s systems, due to the greater resolution many of today’s systems can be expected to provide, compared to many of those of earlier times. Good luck, and welcome to Audiogon! Not all threads here are as controversial as this one :-) -- Al |
I will never forget the day in 1979 that the “Head Monster” himself (Noel Lee) sauntered into our hi-fi store with this funny looking large gauge wire and of course donuts. What, that wire is going to “sound better” than our fabulous 18 gauge zip cord? We doubt it… It was a watershed moment/day for sure. |
’Look, let me give you some advice while we’re or least I am on the subject. If you want to be somebody and be a big star in the eyes of the Naysayers and Pseudo Skeptics and other assorted tweakaphobes, obviously something to which you aspire. Contact Better Business Bureau or Consumer Protection Agency or even AES or NASA or whoever you think the proper authorities are and report my Teleportation Tweak, the Super Intelligent Chip, Brilliant Pebbles, the Particle Accelerator, Dark Matter and/or the Quantum Temple Bell and explain to them how upset you are and that I’ve broken some unspoken rules of marketing or product naming conventions and that I’ve broken actual Laws of Science or Physics or whatever and that even though you’re not exactly sure what those laws are, there must certainly be some! Geoff hate to break the news but nobody really cares about your products as evidenced by the lack of buzz. Its simply not all about you. Now back on topic... |
In some cases, you simply can't buy a quality product at any price now- everything is disposable.Innovation and efficiency have contributed to more disposable commodity as price drops. Great example is computers. Saw an ad last wknd $499 for a HP laptop with all the bells and whistles. For me this is a positive for consumers. I don't agree 100% simply can't buy quality at any price. One of the things I like about this industry is that it is still made up of small, "cottage" type manufacturers. And, there's quality out there. The consequence is higher prices with low volume and low demand. |
knghifi- I didn’t mean it as a blanket indictment ("In some cases..."). And I agree, the commodification of some products, like TV and computers, has increased performance and lowered price. The modest Marantz AV processor in our den outperforms an old Meridian that was state of the art when it was introduced two decades before. But, I replace the outdoor motion sensor spotlight fixtures on our house approximately every two years- I suppose I could go to an industrial prison level lighting system, but when I checked, I couldn’t find much in the average, consumer products realm- all the same, crappy fixtures. Ditto- a lot of clothing, short of really high end or custom stuff- it is badly made and disposable. Apple, to me, is a prime example of hype v reality. Fashion statement, but I’m tired of the lackluster performance, the fact that the phones tank after 2 years and it really is about constantly upgrading and features I could care less about. I’m not drawing a direct parallel to hi-fi here, but my point about ’cottage industry’ is that you have a choice. In a lot of consumer products, I’m not sure you do. Then again I may just be a victim of fashion. regards, |
whart, Try clothes from LL Bean. I buy most of my daily wardrobe from them. I think it has a lifetime warranty. I also shop at Timberland, Bloomingdales and Barney's of New York. I've been using iPhone for years without any issues. I only upgraded to 6 Plus for larger screen and got $200 rebate for a 4s. Quality issues I encountered is with specific retailers. Sears is top of the list. Definitely not my father's Sears. |
| Post removed |
My take on the defense industry as I have dealt with LM: they are used to getting $$$ from the government, are highly inefficient, bureaucratic,... Look at their latest "achievement": F22 way over budget, way over the deadlines. Now, what is your definition of an hyperbole again? "I have friends that are audio snobs..." this is how you think of friends? Please look up the definition of friends. kenny928, look in a mirror once in a while helps! |
I have a serious question. First of all I respect higher education although I don't have any. If engineering expertise can be applied in a factual manner to audio, why does a company not dominate as a result? Seriously, I often read what doesn't work. But what does? I assume electrical engineers are designing at least some of the available equipment. Is it just the nature of audio that lends itself to this differing of application and result? I read and try to learn in these forums but it is very, very difficult to build a foundation of knowledge that isn't undermined or disputed by seemingly educated people. I'm happy with my system- or possibly too ignorant to know the difference. Ignorance is bliss in my case, but I am still curious as to the lack of consensus regarding scientific principles. Thanks, a neophyte. |
Uncledemp wrote, "I read and try to learn in these forums but it is very, very difficult to build a foundation of knowledge that isn’t undermined or disputed by seemingly educated people. I’m happy with my system- or possibly too ignorant to know the difference. Ignorance is bliss in my case, but I am still curious as to the lack of consensus regarding scientific principles." I suspect there actually isn’t so much argument over the scientific principles although there probably is some, but the real arguments are over why a thing would sound better than another thing when the measured scientific parameters are essential identical or perhaps even not as good. There are of course other arguments in these forums with regard to many controversial devices and tweaks that seem to defy scientific labeling or characterization or are otherwise mysterious as to operating mechanism. Thus, in the audio hobby, IMO, if one wishes to trace back and find the scientific explanation in a textbook why some things sound better than others or why certain audio techniques or innovations work might not be possible. And one cannot look even to NASA, Lockheed Martin, AES, MIT or the National Science Foundation to provide answers. |
Uncledemp- your post fascinated me, and after giving it some thought, my response would be something like: scientific or engineering training or any form of higher education for that matter, teaches methodology- how to approach an issue and ask the right questions, rather than knowing the answers; a lot of audio equipment is following tried and true science or engineering principles with variations and modest "improvements" that may or may not prove to be enduring or universally satisfying; innovation can come from anywhere- conception and development doesn't necessarily require massive expenditure or white lab coats- but the adoption of new formats requires industry consensus and re-tooling or broader manufacture that does involve clout and buy-in; many of these were utter failures in the marketplace; Why the divergence between pure science and engineering on the one hand, and the subjective audio experience on the other? It seems to me that we are, all of us, trying to recreate a sensory experience. The engineering and sciences involved are multi-disciplinary: electrical engineering, mechanical engineering and materials science, acoustics and psycho-acoustics, etc. But at the end, there is still a human, making design choices and a human making listening evaluations. There are people that say that two channel audio can never recreate the illusion of a musical performance, but that, and some forms of multi-channel sound, seem to be all we have to work with right now. I've always been intrigued by the history of ideas and invention; thus, my peculiar take on your post. Others may have a different view, but in my experience, I have heard very convincing sonic illusions created by the most mundane or antiquated gear or formats, and completely unconvincing (though sometimes impressive) sounds created by the most expensive, elaborate audio systems. I'm discounting source, room and placement, and dialing in or set up as well as the purely subjective aspects of listener preference. Not sure I "answered" your question, but perhaps gave the "why" some context. |
How ones mind in conjunction with the human condition by
use of five flawed senses using electrical impulses to engage an end point to a
perception of our own realities is something that goes way beyond just math and
science. We are all unique in how we come to any conscience conclusion in this
life using our limited use of sensory perception. In other words,what floats
your boat does not necessarily float mine because of how we perceive the things
around us.
This or that sounds better or worse for me than you because of what the mind equates with pleasure,musical or otherwise ...sort of like how dopamine in the brain engages the pleasure centers from within.How the human mind hears music through the sense of hearing is truly unique to each individual. Music is a spiritual condition...something science will never be able to measure with less than perfect human hands. |
Regardless how one feels about expensive cables and such and all the stated claims of audio nirvana (although I do find the Brilliant Pebbles appalling and amusing at the same time - how soon before we start seeing $100 plus 'audiophile' grade Scotch tape for attaching the pebbles (take a look at their website!!!) (Pet Rocks for the audio crowd!), such items pose major concern to our 'hobby.' For me the big issue with all these incredibly priced products is the impact they have on bringing new folks into the fold. I can't tell you how many folks, both young with good-paying jobs and older with disposable income, that just roll their eyes about investing in quality audio systems after browsing ads, magazines, and websites and seeing $1,000+ cables, $2,000 plus cartridges, $3,000K DACs and other such costly items. Between the ridiculous (at least to them) cost and claims, this completely turns many interested folks off to our hobby. To me this is the biggest problem with such items. Granted there are much less expensive but really good products out there, but that is not what the general public really gets exposed to. As many folks have said, trust your ears and spend your money as you feel appropriate for yourself and your ears. |
I believe that science, reason, isn't really being tested here with a proven theory, hypothesis are interesting but nobody works off of them expecting repeatable results. Additionally, the things that an individual may or may not hear in a system vary. Subjectivity is king here, if you dig the sound or want to experiment with high end upgrades cool. None of us would be here if we were worried about budget, we want to hear our music the way we want to. We share to assist other buyers with our experience. I'm glad manufacturers keep pushing forward, the good stuff remains, the not so good goes on eBay. Peace and high fidelity. FYI, my Cardas inner connects were expensive but they added really nice bass to my system. After comparing, I don't feel cheated, my old cheep monster cable that was basically lamp cord, couldn't keep up. 😊 |
ihor 16 posts 05-07-2016 9:41am "Regardless how one feels about expensive cables and such and all the stated claims of audio nirvana (although I do find the Brilliant Pebbles appalling and amusing at the same time - how soon before we start seeing $100 plus ’audiophile’ grade Scotch tape for attaching the pebbles (take a look at their website!!!) (Pet Rocks for the audio crowd!), such items pose major concern to our ’hobby.’" While I can certainly understand your angst and disquiet regarding Brilliant Pebbles as well as your well-meaning concern for our hobby, however I think it’s only fair to point out the success of Brilliant Pebbles in terms of sales over the ten or more years since it was introduced as well as the apparent fact that Brilliant Pebbles and similar audiophile products actually seem to have helped our hobby in a terms of improving the sound of audiophiles' systems and being excellent conversation starters and subjects for debate. For those unfamiliar, Brilliant Pebbles is the first and only audiophile mineral crystal based product to address a broad range of audiophile issues comprehensively. Brilliant Pebbles was introduced at the Hi Fi Show in London about 12 years ago. geoff kait machina dynamica Advanced Audio Concepts no goats no glory |
Uncledemp 5-7-2016There are a multitude of factors that are involved, some of which have been well stated in the previous responses to your question. I would say simply that as in many other technical fields, for example medicine, audio is an inexact science. And I’ll add that a good engineer is open-minded enough to recognize that while circuits and systems can be analyzed and measured, some things inherently have little or no predictability. One example, among countless others that could be cited, being the effects of electrical noise that may be coupled into a circuit. Or the effects involving digital cables that I referred to in my post near the top of this page. Also, just as in the case of, for example, an automobile, any design represents a unique combination of a vast number of tradeoffs. And as with automobiles, no matter how perfect the net result of those tradeoffs may be, no one company will dominate because different people have different tastes, different practical requirements, and different budgets. Regards, -- Al |
I would never claim that companies that design moon gear have no audio knowledge. Where do you guys think low noise electronics cam from? You know, they did send an analog signal to the moon and back. Just look at the number of audio engineers who immediately used these parts when they came available to us, in really good designs, and/or built their own companies: Julius Siksnius (Apollo rocket scientist, Audire), Mark Levinson, Stuart Taylor (Any electronics from several companies, including Adcom and Bryston, with a model number that begins with "ST"), John Curl (Any Mark Levinson gear with a model number beginning with (JC), etc. Let's us also not forget that the reason we have such great tubes/valves-for-the-aficionado, is that the USSR was so far behind us in electronics that they perfected their tubes for use in MIG radar. That is why tubes come from Russia and China. TRIVIA: When turning and firing their cannons, MIG pilots had to compensate for the gravitational forces on the stretching elements in the tube radar. |
For me the big issue with all these incredibly priced products is the impact they have on bringing new folks into the fold. I can't tell you how many folks, both young with good-paying jobs and older with disposable income, that just roll their eyes about investing in quality audio systems after browsing ads, magazines, and websites and seeing $1,000+ cables, $2,000 plus cartridges, $3,000K DACs and other such costly items. Between the ridiculous (at least to them) cost and claims, this completely turns many interested folks off to our hobby. To me this is the biggest problem with such items. Granted there are much less expensive but really good products out there, but that is not what the general public really gets exposed to. Super cars and mansions in magazines and TV shows don't prevent anyone from buying cars or homes. Just buy what you can afford? You can build a very nice system on a budget especially internet age. Used market or home base retailers with lower operating expenses. I don't buy the argument expensive components is the reason for lack of interest in the hobby. |
| Post removed |
Ihor wrote, "... that just roll their eyes about investing in quality audio systems after browsing ads, magazines, and websites and seeing $1,000+ cables, $2,000 plus cartridges, $3,000K DACs and other such costly items." Actually you are underestimating the high end prices enormously. If they just rolled their eyes at your prices one imagines their eyes would pop out of their heads entirely if they saw what the high offers the well heeled audiophile today: $24,000 interconnects, $15,000 cartridges, $30,000 DACs and $100,000 turntables. cheers |
People will spend money on what they want to spend it on, and if they choose not to spend it on audiophile equipment so be it. I really like to listen to music so over time I have repeatedly changed out equipment to try to improve my listening experience and will likely continue to do so to whatever limit I choose. By the same token, I am satisifed with having a 5 year old LCD TV and dvd player; I could switch them out to the latest curved screen tv and blu-ray player, but getting that "extra' from video isn't important to me. Freeedom of choice for me; as it is for how others spend their hard earned cash. |
Their is no such thing as sound in a audio cable, it's just voltage,. Voltage makes everything happen, how it is manipulated from the source to the speaker is what determines sound. The final product in the line that determines great sound is the speaker, crossover and cabinet itself, after that it's up to the room and your ears. You can argue the point until the cows come home and will always come back to your opinion is the right answer and everyone else is wrong that just can't see it your way. I would think the only thing that matters in a audio cable, is to have one that has as little resistance as possible, and a good tight electrical connection on both ends. Add in cable length only as long , straight and of the proper gage for the length of run to the speaker as necessary. Just my two cents, you sound like you are on the money Kenny. |
Ah, the tempest in the teacup rages on... I'd pay to watch a competitive cable flogging match. It'd be interesting to see which cable outlasted the others. Akin to seeing a golf tournament played with slingshots and pool cues...by the pros...just for 'comparison's sake'... Yes, I am jerking y'all's leashes...just because I like to watch the fur start to fly. The whole 'cable issue', regardless of application of same, is gone way out of proportion IMHO. It really starts to take on the vague status of 'male member proportions' and the importance of That. Really?! *Sigh* "My cable's better than yours Because...." Fine. Buy what you feel you need for whatever you feel you can afford to pay for it for whatever you think it does for you. A Lamborghini or an old VW 'bug' accomplish the same thing at the end of the day. The owner of either will have rationalizations as to why each is 'necessary'. And I'll go find some other forum to be a pest. *G* Hey, Kenny! Check this out....http://rynomotors.com/ People seem to smile more at this than an HD...just saying...;) |
Danvignau wrote, "Let’s us also not forget that the reason we have such great tubes/valves-for-the-aficionado, is that the USSR was so far behind us in electronics that they perfected their tubes for use in MIG radar. That is why tubes come from Russia and China. TRIVIA: When turning and firing their cannons, MIG pilots had to compensate for the gravitational forces on the stretching elements in the tube radar." For voice communication tubes are the cat’s meow. It actually wasn’t until the late ’80s that the pilot to controller radios in all the FAA centers were converted over from tube electronics to solid state since there was an availability issue. Unfortunately the advantages of Russian amd Chinese tubes don’t actually crossover to high end tube electronics you know do to the superiority of American and British NOS tubes. I will give the Russians props for using tubes in fighter aircraft, which employed tubes for the communication section, too, all the way up to the Mig-31, as tubes are certainly superior to solid state when it comes to withstanding high over pressures results from nuclear explosions. |
Well, this was really fun! What an entertaining thread. I had to read the whole thing, I just couldn't help myself. As well as LMAO, I did actually learn a thing or two, I think. I used to be in the motorcycle business--odd that motorcycles came into this discussion, but we use to have a little saying that used to prove itself out time and time again as we would buy and sell motorcycles that ranged from stock & custom Harley's, custom choppers, Japanese bikes, bikes in great condition or just plain disasters and everything in between, and that was; "there's a seat for every saddle". |
