why do people feel the need to buy expensive cable
10-29-15: Mapman " ... in some cases, a power cord might serve a shielding function against RFi and/or EMI noise, but neither of those are necessarily a problem to start with in all cases." I think Mapman hit a bullseye with this remark, which I think applies to all cables, not just PCs. And it accounts for why the same cable can sound different in different systems or, even, different in differing places in the same system. |
11-29-15: Taters "They will send you all the cables you want if you are willing to pay the 5 percent of the retail price of the cable plus shipping. They don't provide this service for free." That's not quite correct. The Cable Co. requires a 5 percent deposit, but its website says it "will be applied in full against purchases (cable or non-cable products) from The Cable Company, Usedcable.com, or our Ultra Systems affiliate." |
chrshanl3703-21-2016 1:45pm " ... I was only pointing out that the comparison cannot be made as the differences between the cars can easily be measured from a performance standpoint and therefore a logical conclusion can be drawn as to which one is a better car ..." No, preference is just an opinion. Some people will think the less expensive car is the better car, or the car with more trunk space, or the car with greater torque, or the faster car is the better car. Some people will judge a car based on color. It’s all just opinion. |
dynaquest4 .... for products of like quality (durability, performance, appearance, etc), the one with the lowest cost represents the best value. Everybody understands that ...No, everybody doesn't understand that, and not everyone accepts your definition of "value." It's certainly fine for you to adopt this as your personal definition of value, but it's a subjective assessment, and others will differ. |
dynaquest4 ... I forgot to mention that there are consumers who blindly (or is that double-blindly) use a product's price as a measure of the product's quality.Your definition of value: "products of like quality (durability, performance, appearance, etc), the one with the lowest cost represents the best value" is subjective and, frankly, simplistic. It omits other elements of a purchase that could be included in assessing value. As Oscar Wilde opined, the definition of a cynic is one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. |
dynaquest4m For almost all purchases, my equation is accurate.Your equation is subjective. ["products of like quality (durability, performance, appearance, etc), the one with the lowest cost represents the best value" ] So naturally, some will agree with your equation, and some will not. |
Establishing value is a subjective exercise. The only exception to this is when you're valuing a true commodity such as oil, natural gas, or gold. That's part of what makes those items a commodity. Consider that many people think spending $2,000 on a disc player is absurd. Some people think spending $200 on a disc player is absurd. Some people think spending any amount on a disc player is absurd when streaming is an option. None of them are mistaken. |
chrshanl37 If I audition two components in my system and like the sound of both equally, I like how they look, both have a reputation for being of high quality and durability. But component A is $300 more than Component B. Which one represents the better value? For what reason(other than potential re-sale value further down the road if I decide to sell) would I choose to spend the extra $300?There could be any one of a number of reasons. For example, service before and after the sale may be important. Did the dealer offer guidance before the sale that might prevent "buyer’s remorse" or the churning of equipment? Does the dealer of one product offer onsite service that might speed response time and save shipping costs? Does one dealer offer free loaners, will he buy me lunch when I visit, do I pay for parking at his store or is it free? To attempt to reduce a value judgment to a rigid formula, e.g."products of like quality (durability, performance, appearance, etc), the one with the lowest cost represents the best value" is simplistic. Or conversely, were it as simplistic as this poster absolutely insists, more of us would be drinking the same beer, using the same amplifiers and buying the same dishwashers. Attempts to reduce human behavior to rigid formulas are sure to disappoint. A formula is no better than a guideline, a "rule of thumb." In this instance, we have an argumentative participant. Note that he wrote earlier: for almost all purchases, my equation is accurate. End of my participation in this issue.Now he’s saying: I suspect part of my apparent inability to gain acceptance from some ... is that these guys know me from other forum threadsThis thread is: " why do people feel the need to buy expensive cable?" The answer is: because they have decided that it is a good value for them. And of course, "expensive," as with "value," is subjective. |
bar81 ... I decided that $30k ish was my upper limit for any amp. Then I heard the D’Agostino M400 and decided that it would increase my personal enjoyment of my system to such a degree, that although I still deemed the price ridiculous, it would be money well spent. Here I am a couple of months later and I now feel that it was a "bargain" ...I understand completely and I think many audiophiles can relate to this. My introduction to the high end of audio was an ARC D76A amplifier that a friend of mine bought used for $600 back around 1980. I thought that was crazy-money for a 60 watt amp - until he let me try it in my system. Then I saw the light. Adjusted for inflation, that $600 would be about $1,900 today. That now seems to me a rather modest price for an audiophile amp. |
dynaquest403-15-2018 9:21am I think exotic/expensive audio cables and the misleading advertising about them have not gotten much (legal) attention because so few people actually buy them.There is actually a whole industry base on high-end cables - pick up any audio magazine and you'll see the expensive ads. Some of the critics of this industry have even called it a "lucrative" business. So I think the reason that it hasn't attracted legal attention is that the critics have no case, or a very weak case. |
dynaquest4 cleeds says: "There is actually a whole industry base on high-end cables - pick up any audio magazine and you’ll see the expensive ads. "Actually, I don’t think you know anything about the cables I use, or what they cost me. And I had a pretty good idea of cable pricing structure well before I pointed out to you the cable ads common to audio magazines. So, when are you going to file that lawsuit against the deceptive marketers?? |
folkfreak The BBB comparison is not quite fair as the ASA is a statutory body (ie a government agency), more like the FDA ruling on a drug claimSorry, but ASA is not a "statutory body" or government agency at all, but a self-regulatory agency very much like the BBB. According to its own website, it was first established by the advertising industry as the Committee of Advertising Practice, which then created the ASA in 1962. |
willemj Not court cases, but effectively with the power of a court ... So, aside from the technicalities that I had not remembered quite correctly, society has acted against these crooks.Given that you cite this action as having "the power of a court," why don't you use this decision as a precedent and file your own suit? Think of the riches you'll collect. |
willemj I think I let them continue to rip off people like you. I have better things to do, and unlike in the US, there are no damages to be had.So sue them in the US! If your case is so sound - based on the legal precedent you cite - it should be a slam-dunk. And the US is filled with lawyers! You won't have any trouble finding one, I can assure you. I've never been "ripped off" by a cable manufacturer, by the way. But don't get me started on banks and cable/Internet providers. |
twoleftears ... I don't understand why people get so worked up about pricing of components (cables) and--other thread--double-blind testing ... I don't think the people raising those issues are sincere. If they were, they'd do something about it, rather than resurrect the same few tired arguments here over and over and over again. |
dynaquest4 ... the "subtle" (positive) changes that exotic cables may or may not be able to achieve, are reported as "jawdropping," dramatic," "night and day," etc. If switching out a cable can make those kinds of improvements, you would have had to have been previously using metallic thread.Not exactly. What you're describing are subjective impressions, so naturally they will vary from person to person. I've eaten burritos that I thought were much too hot, yet my wife thought they were just hot enough. Get it? |
gdhal What I stated is untrue is Geoff's statement that all manufactured wire is directional.Why prove it offline? Why not submit your "proof" to the scrutiny of the group? |
gdhal ... proving that there is or isn't apparently cannot be done with written words to the satisfaction of the forum ...What does that mean? Users here are free to discuss the results of listening tests, including blind tests. So it isn't clear why you'd want such discussions held offline, unless you're promoting your phony $25,000 challenge again. Is that what you're up to, gdhal? |
gdhal Only thing phony comes from those who state they can do the impossible.Why wouldn't you want details about the listening test you propose - and the testing itself - to be done in public? What's with the secrecy? Just to be clear, I'm not stating whether I think wire directionality is audible or not, and neither am I a big proponent of blind testing for audio in general. Certainly, no one here owes anyone any proof at all about anything. But if we're going to discuss some kind of blind test on this forum, it's absurd to then shuffle it entirely offline at some early stage. Unless, that is, you're promoting your funny $25,000 listening challenge again. If you want to keep your "challenge" offline, why do keep raising it in this public forum? |
gdhal It's obvious - to me anyway - you haven't understood my previous posts in this regard ...Please feel free to correct me. My understanding is that you've proposed testing the audibility of wire directionality, but whenever anyone expresses interest in such a test, you direct the conversation offline. What part of that do I have wrong? |
gdhal I'm *NOT* proposing testing the audibility of wire directionality. I'm proposing *YOUR ABILITY TO HEAR IT* with the naked ear using mutually agreed objective testing ..."Hearing" is something that can only be accomplished offline, true?It sounds like we're talking about the same thing here, so let's discuss what would constitute a valid objective test. There's no reason to discuss that in secret, is there? I'm not sure what you mean by "the naked ear." Is that supposed to be amusing, or do you mean you'd not allow use of headphones for your listening test? Using headphones in tests such as this can eliminate some variables and be very useful, and would certainly be my preference here. As for the test itself - perhaps that's something that could be done in public, such as at a dealer, or audio society meeting. We could resolve those details later, after we've designed the test first. Meanwhile, I hope you find a way to fix that CAPS LOCK key.. |
gdhal0 ^ Headphones would be fine. I’ve previously posted my test scenario. That was rejected for invalid reasons.As I recall, you suggested having a friend disconnect and reconnect the cables while changing the cable’s direction. That kind of test has two flaws for our purpose here: It’s not double-blind, and it doesn’t allow for quick switching between the two orientations. It just wouldn't be an objective test. While I think abx tests using an abx comparator have potential flaws and aren’t always useful for detecting differences in audio equipment, they do address the need for double-blind and quick switching. Would you consider that kind of test? In any case cleeds, *YOU* (there goes that nasty caps lock key again) cannot hear a difference when ordinary speaker wire is reversed.I don’t know if that’s true, or not. Isn’t that the purpose of the test? And what do you mean by "ordinary speaker wire?" Zip chord? You also didn’t answer whether you’d be willing to conduct the test in public, such as at a dealer or audio society meeting. I already gave you my permission to spend whatever you like on cables.I’m not sure what your point is there. I obviously don’t need your permission for anything. |
gdhal The fiction or ruse as you indicate belongs to those who believe and/or state the impossible. You know, that YOU can hear an audible difference...I never made that claim - I just agreed to participate in the "mutually agreed objective testing" that you said you’d pursue. As it turns out, you’re not interested in such a test, but only a rigged test that you seek to pursue privately. |
@gdhal, just let me know if you ever have an interest in an objective listening test, such as a double-blind abx test that would be held in public - perhaps at an audio store or audiophile society meeting - and whose protocol could be discussed first here in public. It could be interesting, and we could get others to participate. After all, it was you who proposed the test in the first place. |
gdhal ^ Unable to discuss anything cleeds as my posts get deleted. Sorry.I'm not a moderator - just a member here like you. I can't delete your posts. I think the posts of yours that get deleted are when you try to move the conversation offline so that you can resume your $25K "listening test" hustle. There's no problem as long as the conversation remains here. |
gdhal No, you’re superman, capable of the impossible, and who purportedly can hear the difference when ordinary speaker wire is reversed.You’re either be silly, or just argumentative - I never made any such claim. Never. I did express an interest in testing the audible differences between cables - including directionality - in what would be an objective, scientific test. But I never speculated on the outcome of such a test. Please get your facts straight. |
gdhal If you are now admitting that you *cannot* hear the difference when ordinary speaker wire is reversed, then you and I have nothing to discuss/communicate on or offlineI never stated I could hear such a difference. If you believe otherwise, please feel free to quote from the relevant post. (Hint: You won't be able to locate such a quote, because I never said it.) I did express an interest in testing the audibility of cable differences - including directionality - in an objective, scientifically valid test. After first expressing an interest in that, you then tried to move the conversation offline. When you attempt that, the moderators step in. |
cleeds - ...I did express an interest in testing the audibility of cable differences - including directionality - in an objective, scientifically valid test...gdhal As did I, with the inclusion of what is typically found in ones back pocket. To this extent, you declined.I remain willing to discuss in public an objective, scientifically valid listening test that would be held in public. You want to shuttle that conversation offline for very dubious purposes. If you change your mind and develop a sincere interest in this testing, just let me know. But of course, the discussion and test will have to be in public, so that others can offer suggestions and participate, if they choose. |
gdhal Try and detect/hear the difference between ordinary speaker wire and the most expensive/exotic there is in a blind test. That’ll end the debate.No, it won’t, because naysayers such as yourself will perpetuate the debate. One cable manufacturer has offered its own comparator for exactly this sort of evaluation. Why do you think Wireworld does that? Because there are differences. And they are audible. But - and this is a big "but" - you won’t know about these differences until you actually conduct some listening experiments. That seems to be something you and others in the "hear no difference"crowd seem unwilling to do. You prefer to be an armchair theorist. |
