I have had the pleasure of working with several audio design engineers. Audio has been both a hobby and occupation for them. I know the engineer that taught Bob Carver how a transistor works. He keeps a file on silly HiFi fads. He like my other friends considers exotic speaker wire to be non-sense. What do you think? Does anyone have any nummeric or even theoretical information that defends the position that speaker wires sound different? I'm talking real science not just saying buzz words like dialectric, skin effect capacitance or inductance.
No Money - I know no one writing here is going to pay any attention to what I say. And I have said my piece - your right, not much point in saying it over and over again. I just thought there might be a few readers out there who have not accepted the religion yet and that I could save them a few bucks.
You asked for and I finally found it(it took a while for me to find but I knew I had it). A scientific study that proves not only that there are MEASUREABLE differences between ALL cables, read it and weap. Check out Hi-Fi News & Record Review Febuary 1997 there is a very impressive camparsion of 11 cables (including generic PVC insulated 1mmsquared CSA stranded, 'tinned' copper wire which is a twisted pair. In the test the measure R-L-C data, audio precision DSCT3RES compared to frequency response and dynamic suppression error at various frequencies; I hope that is enough "Scientific" proof for you. Get a hold of Hi-Fi News at 1-800-875-2997 or write to: Hi-Fi News & Record Review PO Box 3000 Denville NJ 07834 or you may even try getting a hold of Kimber Kable seeing as there cable 'won' the comparison they may have a copy or two lieing around. Now I hope this is enough proof that cables do sound different Stevemj so stop preaching zip cord fables and look at the facts and not audio myth. Feel free to ask any question about the article you would like I have it right in front of me, it took me a while to find it but it is out there. That's that :>)TIREGUY I RULE!!!!!
I have stayed out of this thread for the sole reason that it can not be concluded. I just read through all of the above posts and as always find it quite fun to see the holes we dig. If anyone can say with a straight face they here no difference between cables and wires on a high definition system then I believe they are deaf or liars. If you require the scientific proof, first in my opinion that alone makes for a sad audiophile but secondly means the enjoyment of audio is in the numbers and not the listening. If you must have proof, please read my post from 03/08/01 in "Blind Listening Tests???? I believe this is indeed proof of this unsolvable problem and a good description of how seriously I tend to take the scientific proof offered on this site. High end audio for me is about the quality of sound reproduction, not the science of audio! Thank-you and have a good read, J.D.
tireguy - What gauge wire were they using, how long was it and what roughly was the db variation in frquency response? Was it mostly in the high frequencies or in the mid and lows as well? Thanks.
It is hard to say what gauge wire because this magizine comes from the UK and they use mm2 to determine what we call gauge. Most of the wires used it does not tell gauge and also it is hard to make out how long the cables where(it is shown in a smallish box entitled Fig. (3) Test Set up) but if I had to guess on what I can see I would say 5.6m. Most of the cables sort of spiked at 1.00k or so and sort of tapered off toward 11.0k some nearly vanishing off of the graph before the 11.0k mark and some had wierd peaks and valleys. I hope this answers your question a little bit also there are some references listed you may be interested in looking into them: 1.)"The Essex Echo" by Malcolm Hawksford found HFN/RR, Aug '85, Oct '86 and Feb '87 2.)"Speaker cables: Case proven" by Ben Duncan, Proc. Institute of Acoustics, Nov 1995 Also published in Studio Sound (UK) and Stereophile (USA), Dec 1995 3.)"Effects of cable, loudspeaker and amplifier interactions", By Fred E Davies, JAES June 1991 4.)"Black Box" by Ben Duncan, HFN/RR, March 1996 5.)The Genesis Report, QED. tel 01276 451166 this document is low on rigour and is filled with punctuation and spelling errors, but contain creative ideas on demonstrating cable effects.
I hope this will help you on your quest for the "Truth"
tireguy - I ordered the article, however, they are saying 3 to 4 weeks, ugh. I am, of course, naturally suspicious. I have never heard the term "dynamic suppression".
I am gathering test gear for a speaker project I have in mind and I realized something this morning. With just an amp, a scope and an audio generator I can do a very accurate measurement of wire. I will go down to Radio Shack and get some of the wire everyone hates and I always use - their cheapest 14 guage speaker wire. Using 10ft of this vile stuff, I will connect it to a speaker placed on the test bench. The audio generator will drive the amp, of course. The scope is a dual trace and I will display the voltage at the amp on one trace and the voltage at the speaker on the other trace. The traces can the be position directly over each other on the scope. The beauty of this simple setup is that it is not dependent on the frequency response of the generator or the amplifier. All I have to do is to find a difference. I can even test the scope by switching leads. If I do find a difference, well, I have my wife's 38 revolver here so I can do the honorable thing. What do you think?
Jostler3 - you are dragging me off point into an irrelevancy. I am not interested in whose ***** is bigger, just trying to make a simple point that you are failing to comprehend. What kind of scientist are you if you have no powers of observation? I am NOT claiming Nyq'ies maths are wrong. I am NOT claiming that push-pull amps do not show lower measured distortion that single-ended. I am NOT claiming that transistor amps do not have lower measured distortion than valves. What I am saying is that it is notable that most significant scientific breakthroughs in this area in the last 40 to 50 years have seemed to many of us to take us down unmusical paths, and that recently people have appreciated this to the extent that you can put together a system based on the vinyl LP, single-ended valve amplification, and high sensitivity and high impedence speakers that is at least as truthful to the music as any CD, SS amp, inefficient low impedence speaker system. I am a scientist and believe in the scientific method. But it dismays me when scientists have such blind faith in the theories they understand as to deny experienced phenomena - such as Stevenmj's engineer friend who believes all speaker cables sound the same. That is the topic of this thread. My point is that we have seen this closed-minded approach from scientists for years - ie. "digital interconnects cannot sound different". I am suggesting their closed-minded views based on a meagre understanding of what goes on in an audio system are not worth listening to. Their universe is too small a place to have the debate in. Though your ego drives you to prove I am ignorant and you are a scientific guru, and so you have chosen to misinterpret my post to your satisfaction - I do not care. I do not propose to feed your ego any further by continuing to explain my first post to you, or respond to your irrelevant challenges.
Redkiwi: Either you've now stated your position more clearly, or I misunderstood the point you were trying to make earlier (or, probably, a little of both). From my perspective, of course, it's not the scientists who are closed-minded. They'll consider any evidence available. It's the subjectivists who seem closed-minded, because they refuse to consider any evidence that conflicts with their own observations (including, particularly, evidence suggesting that their own observations may be unreliable).
Don't worry stevemj this thread will be going strong when the magizine arives but it may be hard to find my posts because in 3-4 weeks there is likely to be 3000 responses. Best of luck on your quest for the truth, Tim
Redkiwi - You seem to be saying that you and others prefer things that have demonstrably higher distortion. Maybe higher distortion lends a more "musical" quality for some listners. It's not all that farfetched.
Stevemj, I prefer a sound that is closer to what I hear at live events. As it happens, I have so far needed valve amplification (but not necessarily single-ended), and good cables (amongst other things your engineer mate (and my engineer mates too) would laugh at) to get that. Whether these items are preserving something that solid state and standard cables do not, or whether they are adding an artificial version is a matter of opinion. But the acid test is our ears (and perhaps our souls), not the test instruments that you apparently believe in. If my system was adding distortions then I would presumably hear it as a persistent coloration. I can tell you I abhor persistent colorations as they irritate me intensely over time, and therefore reduce my enjoyment of the music. But the distortions introduced by solid state (excepting a few hideously expensive products) and by bad cables are observed by me as persistent and highly unmusical. So in my version of reality, it is my dislike of the distortions introduced by solid state and bad cables that are the reason why I prefer valves and good cables. Your suggestion that it might be the reverse suggests an unwarranted faith in the measurement tools in common use. Just to add a caveat, I am not a rampant valve nut, I have never been happy with any valve preamp I have heard, but just do not get on with solid state power amps. So here's the point Stevemj, try listening with your soul (to the music and how it moves you) with some different cables. Since this is the objective (ie. the effect of music on your soul), why accept the opinion of your engineer mate when you can hear the real deal for yourself. I am sure the science helps someone designing gear (but as stated above, it may hinder as well). But, if you are like me and the issue is selecting what to buy, put all the scientific claims to one side, and just listen. Your experience may be different from mine, but I have found the scientific claims (not just from the manufacturer, but also from the engineer mates) have little, if any, correlation with what works. This must frustrate those that would prefer to talk about the science behind the equipment rather than the music experience, but count me out of that pointless exercise.
Excellant post Red, I hope steve is able to hear you. It might be better if you sent it via moris code, then his insturments would tell him what you said.
Red, I've been following the above arguments for quite a while now and I am clearly on your side of the fence. In reading the above threads I began to wonder, if any member of the "honorable opposition" ever went to live concerts REGULARLY. But then, as you suggest, they are probably mainly concerned with the science behind the equipment,less with the musical event as such. They deride us as believers and do not see, that it is they who are also caught in beliefs, beliefs in a model of the world, which they mistakingly take for the world itself. They may be bright, well trained and knowledgeable, but as far as I can see, they seem to care little about epistemology and the inherent limits to anything we know. This is probably, why the "twain will never meet". Since we on our side of the fence seem rather on a quest for a musical experience, which would come as close as possible to that elusive goal of the "absolute sound", we are always on unsure ground in as far, as that we inherently will feel, what sounds right and what not, but we will never be able to "prove" this to a critical mind, who wants facts, which would fit into a MODEL of reality. ( That in many aspects this model is real enough, is obvious, without it we could not even switch on our systems, if there were any at all)But his model falls short of all possible experience. Its just a model not the world. We also have a model, which paradoxically is as subjective (none of us hears probably absolutely alike, both in measurable, as in qualitative terms) as it is psychologically objective ( the inner quest for that elusive absolute, which we all share ). To sit in the middle of a paradox is generally a painful experience, for how will you know what is "real" and what is "imagined." On the other hand, this dilemma will keep you aurally on your toes. It hones your listening acuity, trapped between the drive for "better sound" and the flints of doubt. Our often feeble attempts to translate what we expierience into "science", must sound to a trained scientific mind like the phantasmas of the Alchemists to post-Newtonian physics. And yet, if you remove the materialistic trappings from that, what the Alchemists were after, their efforts made sense in a spritial-transcendental way. To me here lies the hint of a parallel to what we are after. The Alchemist's substrate were base materials, and they of course knew nothing of the real chemical, physical changes they effected in their retorts. They developed a highly complex descriptive terminology to what they percieved, which sounds like ghibberish to modern science. Their actual goal, apart from those charlatans, who pretended to make gold from crap, seems to have been rather the quest for an elusive absolute, like in that lovely Zen story of the Ox and the Herdsman, where the quest is more important than the goal. We are on home ground here, deeply paradoxical indeed, because without that elusive goal, there would be no quest. We are like that famous donkey, with a carrot dangling in front of its nose. We'll never get it, but we are on the move. I prefer that state to that which identifies with whatever system, in order to have a nice warm place "behind the stove".
I've just read your post and have found your argument persuasive. Since you've stated you are a scientist, it's tacitly understood you are a proponent of measurements and repeatability. That notwithstanding, you've also expressed a willingness to trust the sensory apparatus you've been endowed with ( your ears ) even when the graphs and meters are sending conflicting messages. That is what any advocate of the scientific method should practice - an open mind and a willingness (nay, eagerness) to look at things even when you haven't yet found the way to quantify them. That may come someday. To dismiss things out of hand when the meters or the instruments can't measure them is not good science. There is still a staggering amount of research to be conducted before anyone can say with definitive proof that how people perceive sound and especially music has been mapped, tested and catalogued.
Isn't there an old tale, perhaps apocryphal, of the aerodynamic engineer who proved on paper that a bumblebee can't fly? His proof was replete with equations and techno stuff, all seemingly compelling. However, the bee, being the illiterate creature it is, still kept on flying.
I don't share your aversion to SS amps but do understand how you can prefer "valves". (I find tube amps a bit, shall we say, generous in what they do to certain parts of the audible spectrum.) Some folks just perceive things differently. Witness the Krell vs Levinson thread elsewhere here to get an idea of the intensity with which people hold convictions. BTW, how are things in New Zealand? (Guessing that you're such, based on your nom de plume.)
When I compare wires, I notice sometimes that although I cant articulate a reason, I prefer one over another. That is to say, I dont decide, this one is best, I just enjoy whatever Im listening to more so that I forget to stop after the short selection that Im using for the comparison and let the piece play all the way through. Now, if you have 2 wires, and with one you have no trouble cutting songs short to analyze the effect of the wire, but with the other you cant stand to interrupt a song you like, isnt that a very good reason to prefer one over the other?
Detlof: "I began to wonder, if any member of the 'honorable opposition' ever went to live concerts" is what is known as an ad hominem attack. It's also quite false. The last time I went to Carnegie Hall, I didn't hear any of the effects of out-of-phase rumble, nor did I notice an excessive amount of inner groove distortion. Those two effects, among others, are endemic to vinyl reproduction. By the way, they are not endemic to analog, since they aren't evident on analog master tapes. That's why it's known as distortion. Some audiophiles may like the sound of that distortion, just as they may like the way a SET amp clips or the way a cable rolls off the high end. But that's not because it's "closer to real music." It's just closer to what you like. And it's perfectly okay to like it (hell, I like some of it myself), but let's not make of it more than it is.
Jostler, apaologies, I did not mean to be offensive, I wondered that was all and I was proved to be wrong. Besides often enough you seem not to mince words either, remember those clicking of heels to consequently hear better. Mind you, that was witty, but not without its own mischief. I can live very well with the rest of your above post, in fact I liked it, as you can see.
It seems to me that we are all scientists in our different approaches. We observe, and we theorise, we test our theories, in order to achieve something. But I sometimes wonder if we are trying to achieve the same thing. It seems that some wish to just prove they are erudite, or that their beliefs are irrefutable. What I see happening is this: I report that I hear differences between something eg. cables, or that I find this valve amplifier sounds more like the real thing than that SS amplifier. This is my observation, I use this forum to share it and to benefit from the observations that others report. I am interested in those reports that are different from my own experience, because it causes me to listen again. I have my own theories, but keep the theorising alive because I believe there is still much to be learnt (is that not the essence of a scientist?). I am comfortable with this. But then I see posters that do not report their observations, they report their beliefs, and then claim the scientific high ground - eg. "I know lots of audio engineers and they tell me that cables are BS - so you are a poor sad fool that is being repeatedly fleeced by the marketers." So how am I meant to interpret this? Let's consider three plausible possibilities. The first is to assume that this is the sort of scientist that wishes to ridicule others' reported observations, rather than report their own. The second is that these scientists have found a theory that fits all the facts - just by adding one more theory to the existing scientific knowledge ie. that anything not explained by existing theory and measurement is delusion. How convenient - we can wrap up the whole audio science into a neat little parcel and then condescendingly dump it on the audio forums on the net. So this is the sort of scientist that is very uncomfortable with anything that cannot be explained by existing theory, and cannot bear the thought that this might mean that existing theory is flawed or inadequate. Therefore reported experiences that do not fit their belief have to be ridiculed, lest the unthinkable becomes plausible. The third possibility is that these posters are so sure of their beliefs that they altruistically wish to save me from the horrendous costs of my delusions. Being quite so sure about a subject like audio does not fit terribly well with my concept of science, but if I were to be charitable and assume the last of the three is true, then my answer is simply "thanks, but no thanks - your theories do not explain my reality, and so they are inadequate for me - and I do not share your need for an argument over existing scientific theory". But, in any case, my money is on number 2, with number 1 a close second and number 3 a distant last.
Adamanteus - because we export a lot of meat and we are one of a diminishing number of countries that have healthy livestock, we are doing just fine right now - thanks for asking. But in the longer term it is difficult to see how a tiny isolated country like ours can keep its best talent at home. It is hard to see how we can progress beyond being a big farm and a tourist spot. On the bright side we are clean, green and healthy - and the power supply to the stereo is pretty unpolluted too. Shame about the scarcity of high-end audio gear and our lower disposable incomes.
Would it mean anything to anyone here if I test speaker wire and see what happens? The test is simple. I have a dual trace scope on order. I will monitor the amp output on one trace and the speaker input on the other. I can display the difference. I will test with sinewaves and with music. I'm not sure yet just how small a deviation I will be able to resolve.
I don't mind if people claim that their asperations are such that science is too narrow minded and limiting. It makes me twitch a little when the asparations are sought with what is basically scientific apparatus.
It might be helpful to remmember how sciences works. Science accepts as probably true only things which can be verified by others. Science is only interested in theories that are falsifiable - that is, that there is some test the theory can be put to that it has a chance of failing. The types of claims made here are not falsifiable. So what, I guess, who cares, but let's not call opinions about how something sounded to someone science.
Stevemj, you're killing me. You decided to spend money on a dual trace scope, in an attempt to find something that you yourself have claimed "can't be measured", instead of sinking some money into a set of good, used cables? Maybe even one of those PCs that can't possibly change the sound of the system because it isn't in the signal path?
My suggestion, which isn't much different than most other's here is to leave the science to the scientists and designers, and just listen for yourself. I would guarantee that the acceptance factor for your revelations, whether they be favorable or not, would be held in much higher regard than whatever your test results prove. To your ears, it might not matter, but there are boatload of cumulative listening years in the folks that have written on this very post that would indicate that you might. Just do it!
Great post Redkiwi. Steve; as I remember it, the decibel is defined as a "just noticeable difference" (JND) in loudness between two sounds. And that sound pressure level (SPL) or decibels is commonly called "volume" in popular terminology. In other words it totally relies on human hearing and perception. If a sound characteristic as simple and basic as volume is based on human hearing and perception, as opposed to measurement, do you not think that there may be many more-- as yet undefined or quantified characteristis of music (as opposed to just sound). I don't know what they are. Do you? Are you holding out on us? But I come down solidly in the camp that says "there is much to be learned". And until that time comes, like so many other "audiophiles", I intend to trust my own senses. You must trust your senses when you listen to music-- no? Cheers. Craig
........yes, I know that the decibel can now be routinely be measured with simple meters, but my point is that it is based on human hearing and hearing perception. Well, this suggests to me that maybe you should trust more in your senses-- but still be a scientist. Craig
Steve and anyone else who is interested, I just posted a new thread refering to an artical I read. Please read it befor you simple test the responces of wire. The thread is "Attention Scientists, Engineers and Na-sayers!"
Redkiwi: You try out a new set of cables that sound different than your old set, and you report that here. A scientist sees your post and says, well, there are two possible explanations: 1) The new cable does something to the electrical signal passing through it that affects the sound in an audible way. 2) The new cable's impact on the signal is minimal, but you have imagined such a change in sound anyway. Both explanations are possible (and well-documented). If the first is true, then we might expect that others will notice the same effect. If the second is true, however, then your experience won't be generalizable (except to the extent that their expectations and perceptions are influenced by the same non-sonic factors that influenced yours). How does a reader know which is the case? Well, one possible clue might lie in whether there's a sound scientific explanation for why such a cable would sound that way. If you switched from 12- to 18-gauge cables and reported that this improved the treble, I'd say you were imagining things. If you said it diminished the treble, then I'd be much more likely to agree that you heard a physical change in the sound.
Now, you might reply that, well, the best way for others to find out if I'm right is to try the new cable themselves. That's true, assuming they can do so without being influenced by non-sonic factors (which include your post suggesting to them what they should expect). But none of us have time to test everything. So what should we test, of the hundreds of products mentioned on Audiogon each week? I'd suggest concentrating on the ones whose claims are the most plausible. But to do that, you need to understand something about the science that underlies the electronics. And that's why some of us waste our breath on discussions like these.
Jostler-- re: what to test. I know what I need-- say it's a pre-amp, I narrow the list by price, features, tube vs SS maybe even appearance (or other things, eg maybe some dealers I like), and Viola' I've got a "short list". This is pretty quick and easy to do-- in fact you come across as a pretty intelligent person, so I feel sure you've done it-- many times too. I wouldn't even want to test every pre-amp available as that would make it a job. About ICs, I called The Cable Co., they made some recommendations, considered what I knew and what I wanted and sent me five different ICs to audition. Maybe I was lucky, but I found ones I liked with the first batch. I certainly did hear differences among similarily priced ICs, and they were all name brands and I had no reason to prefer one over another. I just want good satisfying music. It doesn't have to be as complicated as you seem to be trying to make it. But if you're a "scientist and just want to ferret out the absolute truth of the issue, well don't let audiophiles take the fun out of it for you. Investigate all you want-- and enjoy yourself. I just want good music. Craig.
Jostler - the issue for me is that 20 years of experimentation in this hobby tells me the reliance on measurement such as Stevemj suggests above is just ludicrous. I am not saying you should just accept what I say, and only wish to put my view forward. But I don't agree with you that someone expressing their opinions on this forum is adding a lot of value by presenting scientific evidence to support it. For example, I could argue that Cardas cables are the best, and that this is because of the scientific theory that supports the use of insulating every strand and using strands of different thickness. I could equally argue that Harmonic Technology cables are the best because the purity of the copper used is higher than that used by Cardas. Stevemj might argue that they are both the same because his oscilloscope cannot tell the difference between them. All of the above is meaningless while we do not have a unified theory that explains audio. You may think we do have a unified theory and Stevemj may think that the unified theory is utterly encompassed by what he can measure, but my experience leads me to think we do not. So in my opinion, argument based on sub-sets of a unified theory, as in my examples on cables above, cannot tell a complete enough story to support anything at all. More likely they will be used to justify an opinion already held. On one of your other points, we all have expectations before we listen to something, even in a blind test. But with 20 years of trying countless components, cables and tweaks there are too many surprises - sounds heard that do not match the expectations at all - to believe for a moment that it is all imagined. It also tells me that any suggestion that cables all sound the same is just ridiculous. So it is my opinion that the instruments and theories espoused by the nay-sayers are inadequate to the task. How come you have more trust in the existing science than the evidence of your own ears? How does Stevmj know that his instruments are not the audio equivalent of a black and white camera - pretty accurate in many respects, but failing to measure something that is quite important about the real thing ie. color in this analogy. A key difference between you and me is that my experience and my take on that experience says there is more going on than Stevemj is comprehending. So why don't I just leave this issue as a difference of opinion? Why do I feel the need to argue with people like Stevemj? Why do I find it necessary to indulge in this discussion when I do not believe the likes of Stevemj have anything valuable to contribute? I will tell you the answer. It is because I have observed the likes of Stevemj and others of his ilk on this forum and on others, continuously contributing nothing positive at all, and instead apparently getting their jollies by side-tracking debates onto their private agenda to ridicule anything that does not match their belief-set, and to pander to their feeble egos. The beligerent, monotonous rantings that the science they learnt at prep school says something cannot be so is hard to explain any other way. These opinions from the likes of Stevemj are not presented as observations but as condescending jibes at those with other opinions. It is hard to conclude that these people are much more than attention-seeking children unleashed with an adult's rights. It is hard to accept them as scientists when they apparently have minds like steel traps - once they have read a couple of science books, nothing else exists.
On your final point, I think it is the right of any poster to figure out their strategy for discerning which recommendations to take notice of. I think I have explained why I would not rely on a "scientific" explanation as the basis that I use, but understand that is what you wish to do. But I don't think that your arguments warrants the kind of "put up or shut up" attacks that posters get from the "scientists". If we don't put up scientific explanations then you have every right to ignore our opinions, but I object to the ridicule that goes on and cannot believe it is motivated in the way you describe.
Funny, there are three or four posts going here, all with Jostler as the minority, I mean alone. Does that mean anything to him? I'm starting to get the feeling we have another one here guys, but hey, some great input on all threads. Thanks Jostler for continuing to live in your little tinny box, it's made for a good read. Have you even looked to see if it has a lid, or is that scientificly impossible?
Redkiwi, a most erudite, well considered post and a joy to read. Wished I had written it. A sincere thanks..and Jadem, though Jostler surely is able to defend himself, I think you are doing him an injustice. I love this forum, because all my conscious life I have not only been fascinated with audio, but also with the ways how people think, reason , percieve and argue. Whenever I've tried to cross swords with Jostler, I've not found him narrow minded nor basically intolerant about different points of view. Rather, within the precepts of what you might call a positivist philosophy,( which is a legitimate set of premises of what we can know, and what not), he seems to me on a crusade against sloppy thinking, twisted logic and muddled asumptions. He's excellent at picking out the weak spot of an argument and he aims well. I don't share his precepts, but I think I know a good mind, when I see one. I sincerely hope, he'll not get bored with us, nor we with him, even though sometimes his arguments might sting. Even if I don't agree, I find his astuteness helps to fine hone my own reasonings and to clarify better where I actually am. How can I grow in knowledge or in perceptive powers, if everyone would agree with me. I'd just become complacent and lazy. People like Jostler keep me on my toes.
Jademo6, I think your last post contained a rather unfair ad hominem snide in the direction of Jostler3. Even though he often doesn't mince words either, he seems generally careful in avoiding an ad personam argument. Hence my negative vote to this your post and this in spite of the fact, that I tend to be more at home in your way of thinking.
I apologise to first Jostler and then to Katharine. I was indeed out of line and I too hope the discussions grow. it was my lack of perspective and that's all I will say. Please forgive me Jostler for my assult, I will try to stay out of this one for now. J.D.
First of all, thanks to my defenders. Apologies heartily accepted, JD, and don't stay out of it. We all cross over the line occasionally, because it's inevitable in forums like this. I am, however, growing tired of this thread.
I have a wonderful friend with whom I went to high-school long ago. He is now a Geneticist teaching and researching in Switzerland. Although he has quite a distinguishing science career, when we talk like old friends he is able to put that aside and be real. He tells me there is no "proof" God exists, and I ask him to prove God does not exist, he stops, and thinks about it. While listening to my system last year, he noticed and commented on the "huge" speaker cables. Then he said..."I don't know what you have done or why, but I want my music at home to sound as good as yours. What should I get first?" I made the wire his last priority: If I start with the wire I can't hear the difference until I remove it. To DTITTLE in answer to your response of 3/08...Rotel vs levinson amps. I tried that and it did not work. I had a Levinson 383 100W in my wife,s listening area. Took it out, put in a good Classe Cap 150 , more power; and tried the levinson in my office system. When she came home, I had left her favorite music running...the amp NOT visible. An hour later she mentioned there was something wrong with the stereo. Like what? I asked. She said she was not sure, but that the body and soul of the music seemed to be missing. The fullness was gone. So I told her I would check into it later. Our eleven year old son also mentioned it. Because all they were changing was the CDs, they never noticed the Integrated amp switch until later. When my wife saw the Classe and asked a few questions.... you can guess the rest. " I want the Levinson Back ASAP!" My 20 year old son is my usual guinea-pig. He never knows what I have done or if I did anything at all. I just ask him if he hears any difference. Since he has nothing to gain or loose, his answers always help. The problem I have with blind tests is I WANT to hear a difference, my family does not care. They just know what a good system sounds like and they could care less why. My wife plays the piano and knows good sound. Although she would love for us to spend our money elsewhere, once she has listened to a better sounding piece of equipment...there is no going back. Dtittle, if you can't hear the difference, consider yourself lucky and spend that money on something else. My scientist friend has the same problem now with his family...and he can't go back either. I bugs him because he can't see the scientific proof, but he accepts it as truth. We all love our sound don't we?
Now that we are into apologies - I wish to thank the kind words of my supporters here and apologise for my perhaps over-passionate response to what I felt was an unwarranted attack from Jostler. I keep getting suckered into these debates whenever I see the so-called scientists getting on their high horse when they seem to have little to be proud of in respect of their contribution to the audio field for the last few decades. I have seen how sites like Audioreview get bogged down in this stuff due to the likes of Mtrycraft. Perhaps I stupidly think that I can stop that nonsense destroying this site if I pounce on it fast. Perhaps I should take Dekay's advice and just ignore posts like Stevemj's. As for you Jostler, I merely disagree, and I really don't have a problem with that.
Come on Redkiwi, don't you apologise, don't be more Brits than those "back home" and please don't continue now with an "understatingingly"- polite attitude. Your posts are wonderfully written and argued and the underlying passion ( a passion we all share, be it in different shades and hues ) makes it all alive and vibrant. ( Yes this ad ad hominem with a greeting to down under )
Thanks Detlof, and your post means a lot to me. Being not in control of my passion I often feel a bit of regret when it lets loose and I am left hoping people recognise it for what it is and tolerate it. This is not me feigning humility, just explaining that my emotional outbursts are often followed by sheepishness (no sheep jokes please).
I must agree with some of your comments here. I think you can tell the difference between a $1 and a $350 cable. However, the value of diminishing returns kicks in rapidly has the more expensive the cables get. My best friend used to work for a company that manufactures cables for Cardas about 8 months ago. Cardas would send the connectors and her company would provide the cable and the assembly. Dealers charges about $750 per meter for golden cross. She told me that her company normally pays only $7 per meter (without connectors of course) and her company would then charges Cardas ~$21 a meter. If you do the math, that's a hell of a margin for Cardas. Bottom line is that cables do make a difference, but what I don't understand why is it that cable company decide to charge so much? $5000, $10,000, what's the basis for that? Perhaps cables is 10% science and 90% snake oil. As the some cable prices continue to sky rocket, wouldn't it be cheaper to go down to your local jewelery store and pick up a meter of 24 karat gold chain? Why have gold plated, when you can have the real thing! Just be sure to wrap your 24 karat gold chain in electrical tape so no one gets shock!
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
