>>So often flaws in sound can be discovered only in hindsight.<<
I have no problem with this concept. I just find it curious when I see a cable
review where a cable is deemed to be "that much better" than a
previous one, yet the poster rises to the defense of his old cable and
professes that it is not inferior in any way to the new one. If one suspects, as
I do, that there is some magical thinking involved in some of these cable
testimonials, this is the type of thing that feeds this suspicion. Go to the
manufacturer's web site and find marketing hype in something that is
supposed to be a "technical paper" and now you've got a two
course meal.
>>I have the impression that so many times the audible virtues of an
interconnect or other component -- even when real -- exist for reasons other
than those advertised by the manufacturer.<<
Even when real? I gather you are saying that many times these "
virtues" are not "real."
>>even engineers may not yet fully understand the obscure physics behind
their designs,<<
Let's not forget the possibility of a placebo effect.
If you read Lee's "technical paper," he admits that the physics are not obscure
-- strip away the marketing hype and his cable designs are based on good
old inductance, capacitance, and resistance. Only problem -- he starts from
these facts, then goes on to the "marketing hype" and neglects to publish any
data or back-up. I question publishing such a thing and calling it a "technical
paper." Further, no cable designer would buy wire without knowing these
measurements, yet Lee provides no back up for his prospective customers.
He depends on a customer base that will not investigate and has no interest
in the science. Lo and behold, I ask one of his customers about the science
behind the cable and he admits he made no inquiry whatsoever.
>>Doesn't this remind you of the alchemists of old?<<
Yes. The alchemists claimed they could turn lead into gold. Cable
manufacturers claim they take a few dollars worth of material and turn it into
$2,500 speaker cables. Lee makes claims about his "metalurgy," but even he
doesn't have the cheek to actually suggest that he is doing metalurgy in his
plant. I would guess this is because they are really just cable assemblers.
They buy the wire from the small collection of companies that manufacture
this stuff, they put it together and wrap it in a sheath. Something has been
obscured, but it isn't physics.
>>I can only thank TJ for sharing his personal insight and experience in the
matter.<<
Me, too. He provided the basis for a lively discussion.
.
I have no problem with this concept. I just find it curious when I see a cable
review where a cable is deemed to be "that much better" than a
previous one, yet the poster rises to the defense of his old cable and
professes that it is not inferior in any way to the new one. If one suspects, as
I do, that there is some magical thinking involved in some of these cable
testimonials, this is the type of thing that feeds this suspicion. Go to the
manufacturer's web site and find marketing hype in something that is
supposed to be a "technical paper" and now you've got a two
course meal.
>>I have the impression that so many times the audible virtues of an
interconnect or other component -- even when real -- exist for reasons other
than those advertised by the manufacturer.<<
Even when real? I gather you are saying that many times these "
virtues" are not "real."
>>even engineers may not yet fully understand the obscure physics behind
their designs,<<
Let's not forget the possibility of a placebo effect.
If you read Lee's "technical paper," he admits that the physics are not obscure
-- strip away the marketing hype and his cable designs are based on good
old inductance, capacitance, and resistance. Only problem -- he starts from
these facts, then goes on to the "marketing hype" and neglects to publish any
data or back-up. I question publishing such a thing and calling it a "technical
paper." Further, no cable designer would buy wire without knowing these
measurements, yet Lee provides no back up for his prospective customers.
He depends on a customer base that will not investigate and has no interest
in the science. Lo and behold, I ask one of his customers about the science
behind the cable and he admits he made no inquiry whatsoever.
>>Doesn't this remind you of the alchemists of old?<<
Yes. The alchemists claimed they could turn lead into gold. Cable
manufacturers claim they take a few dollars worth of material and turn it into
$2,500 speaker cables. Lee makes claims about his "metalurgy," but even he
doesn't have the cheek to actually suggest that he is doing metalurgy in his
plant. I would guess this is because they are really just cable assemblers.
They buy the wire from the small collection of companies that manufacture
this stuff, they put it together and wrap it in a sheath. Something has been
obscured, but it isn't physics.
>>I can only thank TJ for sharing his personal insight and experience in the
matter.<<
Me, too. He provided the basis for a lively discussion.
.