Hello, Tim. I went ahead and took the liberty to fix this for you. Believe it or not.
Tom
Cables and the Peter Principle
- Thread starter Lefisc
- Start date
Hello, Tim. I went ahead and took the liberty to fix this for you. Believe it or not.
Tom
Controversial. The "best" needn't correlate with price, it seems to me as it can be just as much to do with clever design mass-produced. The clever design is as worthy of discussion as 'high end' materials. And the people who are saying that some low cost gear is as functional as so-called high end may be perfectly able to afford anything you can, but they're arguing from principle rather than just trying to annoy you.
I liked the earlier point from Phelonius (I would put Tim but it would seem a bit too familiar on my part as he doesn't know me from Adam, and I don't sign off with my real name) that the apparently common sense analogy between cables and tyres may be less valid than an analogy between cables and car fuel lines. The audio business seems to be based on 'common sense' analogies that don't necessarily hold water :-d. This thread is based on an analogy between audio systems and chains, for example. From these analogies spring the 'common sense' high end requirements of overblown aesthetics, exaggerated size, exaggerated price when none of these may contribute anything to the final performance. Digital audio is almost un-analogizable, being almost from another dimension and beyond most people's comprehension. The idea that a $5 IC (mounted on a board with a few other commodity parts) may produce a quality of output that surpasses a huge tape recorder or massive turntable simply 'does not compute' for most people. The only answer is to mount that very same IC in a huge machined-from-solid enclosure with a 500W linear power supply and charge $10,000 for it. But the act of doing that is not passive - it asserts that the cheaper devices that use the same IC and perform identically are inferior, and implies that the users (rich or not, ultra-intelligent or not) of such devices are experiencing inferior quality and are guilty of philistinism.
Perhaps most importantly it asserts that nothing can ever be entirely democratic even if it comes from another dimension, like digital audio, and must be layered into the 'natural' hierarchy based on money (rather than intelligence) even if no one can actually show that it is justified.
Hello, Tim. I went ahead and took the liberty to fix this for you. Believe it or not.
Tom
Thanks, Tom. Given that perceiving and experiencing are often one in the same, that's probably a good edit with this one small change:
But I notice that even in your version, you allow that the audiophile seems to believe he knows more than the audio designer. That's interesting. Oversight?
Tim
It's ok John...water off a duck's back. I understand that there are better systems than mine, better systems than I will ever own. I figured that one out, and accepted it long ago. That's not what my posts are about, in this thread or any other. They're about what is good, what is better, and how we can approach those questions realistically.
I suspect mep knows that. He's probably just offering us a diversion, a small entertainment, while he collects his wealth of independent resources supporting the position that precise impedance matching of electronic components is audible in modern audio equipment.
Killer post, Groucho, and Tim is fine. Early in my membership here, my positions, which some here find challenging, caused some members to question my honesty. They thought I was "hiding" behind a handle. I don't know who they thought I was, behind Phelonious, but I've been Tim here, ever since.
Tim
Last edited:
Controversial. The "best" needn't correlate with price, it seems to me as it can be just as much to do with clever design mass-produced. The clever design is as worthy of discussion as 'high end' materials. And the people who are saying that some low cost gear is as functional as so-called high end may be perfectly able to afford anything you can, but they're arguing from principle rather than just trying to annoy you.
I liked the earlier point from Phelonius (I would put Tim but it would seem a bit too familiar on my part as he doesn't know me from Adam, and I don't sign off with my real name) that the apparently common sense analogy between cables and tyres may be less valid than an analogy between cables and car fuel lines. The audio business seems to be based on 'common sense' analogies that don't necessarily hold water :-d. This thread is based on an analogy between audio systems and chains, for example. From these analogies spring the 'common sense' high end requirements of overblown aesthetics, exaggerated size, exaggerated price when none of these may contribute anything to the final performance. Digital audio is almost un-analogizable, being almost from another dimension and beyond most people's comprehension. The idea that a $5 IC (mounted on a board with a few other commodity parts) may produce a quality of output that surpasses a huge tape recorder or massive turntable simply 'does not compute' for most people. The only answer is to mount that very same IC in a huge machined-from-solid enclosure with a 500W linear power supply and charge $10,000 for it. But the act of doing that is not passive - it asserts that the cheaper devices that use the same IC and perform identically are inferior, and implies that the users (rich or not, ultra-intelligent or not) of such devices are experiencing inferior quality and are guilty of philistinism.
Perhaps most importantly it asserts that nothing can ever be entirely democratic even if it comes from another dimension, like digital audio, and must be layered into the 'natural' hierarchy based on money (rather than intelligence) even if no one can actually show that it is justified.
Superb Post! One that I am certain would annoy more than one.
It has come to this: The more expensive the product the more likely it is to be lauded and bestowed "best" or "superior". That is what the High End Audio has become. To remain on Topics: The more expensive the cable for example the "better" it is .. it doesn't matter that when knowledge of said cables price, brand , reputation is removed even their owners can't distinguish them from run-of-the-mill electrically adequate cable.. On this and just for laugh one cable company makes a largely above $1000 ($5000??!!??) Ethernet cable!!! And of course, once in a system, the system had more "focus", "tighter" bass and the always, ever expanding soundstage ...
Superb Post! One that I am certain would annoy more than one.
It has come to this: The more expensive the product the more likely it is to be lauded and bestowed "best" or "superior". That is what the High End Audio has become. To remain on Topics: The more expensive the cable for example the "better" it is .. it doesn't matter that when knowledge of said cables price, brand , reputation is removed even their owners can't distinguish them from run-of-the-mill electrically adequate cable.. On this and just for laugh one cable company makes a largely above $1000 ($5000??!!??) Ethernet cable!!! And of course, once in a system, the system had more "focus", "tighter" bass and the always, ever expanding soundstage ...
Can soundstages expand any farther? Audiophile walls must be exploding!
Tim
Controversial. The "best" needn't correlate with price, it seems to me as it can be just as much to do with clever design mass-produced. The clever design is as worthy of discussion as 'high end' materials. And the people who are saying that some low cost gear is as functional as so-called high end may be perfectly able to afford anything you can, but they're arguing from principle rather than just trying to annoy you.
Surely quality is not only a function of price. But if you have more resources and can target at an higher price usually you can develop a better product. Using the few incognito exceptions to this rule to feed the principles has been the main line of argumentation of some skeptical people. It is why they post a lot on cables and very little on amplifier threads.
These analogies just introduce noise in the debates, as they try to compare commodities that are very different as they have very different aims. IMHO cars, jewels and wine are nice to fill posts when do not have nothing else to add or are not able to understand or do not accept the usual perspective of sound reproduction in high-end.
You love the principles, but completely ignore the implementations and seem not to be familiar with the high-end reality. The 20k DAC I was listening last weekend with some friends uses the standard BurrBrown DACs. Some manufacturers develop their own DACs. What counts is the final result.
Digital audio is even less democratic than analog. I have top analog systems - a Studer A80 RC that I bought cheap and refurbished myself with a Bottlehaed tube tape preamplifier that I assembled myself and an excellent turntable that I got also used. In order to have an equivalent quality digital player I would have to spend much more.
I do think some cable manufacturers shoot themselves in the foot on this, and create a subset of audio enthusiasts who feel very wary about all high-end cable because of the pronouncements of a few.
Today I received the mail order catalogue of a UK distributor/retailer of, amongst other things, one of the leading and long-established US high-end cable manufacturers. Now, if you had read this about one of their interconnect cables, costing about £700 for a stereo pair, what would you think:
"The cable was less detailed and less rich, with a dirtier bass and a sourer treble. ... the cable added a layer of grain, making us further from the music. ... the sound seemed more tense and much less enjoyable to listen to."
Of course, they did not write this literally, but they did effectively, because they said exactly the reverse about their modified variant of the interconnect cable, at £1,350, when compared to the non-modified cable at £700.
On top of all this, the catalogue claims you can fit in-line modifiers from the same US manufacturer, and without them "... the sound is less detailed, less dynamic, with a less musical bass and dirtier treble." A snip at £125.
I couldn't be further from buying anything from this outfit.
Today I received the mail order catalogue of a UK distributor/retailer of, amongst other things, one of the leading and long-established US high-end cable manufacturers. Now, if you had read this about one of their interconnect cables, costing about £700 for a stereo pair, what would you think:
"The cable was less detailed and less rich, with a dirtier bass and a sourer treble. ... the cable added a layer of grain, making us further from the music. ... the sound seemed more tense and much less enjoyable to listen to."
Of course, they did not write this literally, but they did effectively, because they said exactly the reverse about their modified variant of the interconnect cable, at £1,350, when compared to the non-modified cable at £700.
On top of all this, the catalogue claims you can fit in-line modifiers from the same US manufacturer, and without them "... the sound is less detailed, less dynamic, with a less musical bass and dirtier treble." A snip at £125.
I couldn't be further from buying anything from this outfit.
John-It's not conjecture, there are people that believe that. The biggest "myth buster" on this forum owns a Pioneer receiver. It's certainly not elitism on my part because I can't afford to go out and buy anything I want. Most of my gear was bought used. Some people on this forum have more invested in their power cords than what I have in my entire system. It's all relative my friend. For most audiophiles (I believe), this hobby is not a destination, it's a journey. We strive within our means to make our systems better over time and it's a blast every time we make a meaningful improvement. The reward is that all of your music sounds better and for most people that equates to more enjoyment.
If I decided to climb a small hill and gave up half way up the small hill because I declared my view was good enough, I shouldn't be yelling up to the guy who climbed a huge mountain and tell him he is not seeing anything I'm not seeing and he just wasted his time because my view is just as good as his. That's my point John.
Superb Post! One that I am certain would annoy more than one.
It has come to this: The more expensive the product the more likely it is to be lauded and bestowed "best" or "superior". That is what the High End Audio has become. To remain on Topics: The more expensive the cable for example the "better" it is .. it doesn't matter that when knowledge of said cables price, brand , reputation is removed even their owners can't distinguish them from run-of-the-mill electrically adequate cable.. On this and just for laugh one cable company makes a largely above $1000 ($5000??!!??) Ethernet cable!!! And of course, once in a system, the system had more "focus", "tighter" bass and the always, ever expanding soundstage ...
Just to repeat the idea I wrote before - pointing the exceptional extreme cases to get applause from the mob is an old rule of success, but does not bring anything new to the debate. IMHO this type of products exist because there is a market for them and the generally true rule of higher cost means more quality helps to sell them.
Many people have tried to quantify the law of diminishing returns in sound reproduction equipment but failed. Introducing the discontinuities created by products using new technologies is even more difficult. But this is the critical aspect.
Frank, since we are debating items with extreme cost, did you manage to listen to the DCS Vivaldi stack playing CDs? I would appreciate to have your views on this system.
Tim,
What do you mean by "precise impedance matching of electronic components"? BTW, Mep does not need to look too long - many preamplfier reviews include distortion spectra showing significant differences versus load.
Surely quality is not only a function of price. But if you have more resources and can target at an higher price usually you can develop a better product. Using the few incognito exceptions to this rule to feed the principles has been the main line of argumentation of some skeptical people. It is why they post a lot on cables and very little on amplifier threads.
Surely you're not arguing that boutique "high-end" or even the bigger "high-end" manufacturers have "more resources?" Really? If this were true, the best high-end equipment, and the highest prices, would come from Sony, Pioneer and particularly HK International. Well, until Apple or the U.S. government gets into the business
. And as if that is not nonsensical enough, "incognito exceptions?" "Main line of argumentation?" What on earth are you talking about? I'll give you this much, micro; you're entertaining. Where is that ROTFLMAO smiley when you need it most?
Tim
There seems to be a belief here that very careful, precise compatibility between the output of one device in a system and the load of the next seems to be the key to heaven. Or have I misunderstood?
More micro --
There is nothing new to bring to this debate. The "mob" has brought, logic, engineering and data. You're brought your perceptions. There is no debating perceptions. The debate will never end.
Are we still talking about cable? That market exists because Monster created it.
Tim
And it really doesn't pertain to Tim anyway because his speakers contain his amplifiers and his D/A converter. All he has to do is plug his laptop into his speakers. If anyone has read the measurements of electronics for any length of time in SP, you would understand via the warnings that JA has given about different pieces of gear that you don't just assume any two pieces of gear will work perfectly with each other. If you are into analog, you really have to pay attention to what you are doing. The phono preamp has to be *right* for whatever cartridge you want to use with it. It has to have enough gain and the ability to load the cartridge where it needs to be. The output of the phono section has to be matched to the line stage it's hooked to.
I think it's time for lunch. The Pad Thai from my local restaurant is wonderful. It doesn't quite match the description on the menu that I read on one of the more "in" restaurants in town, but heck....at one-fifth the price I'm in! Surely I remain equally satisfied.
Yes, you have misunderstood. It's not the key to heaven, it's the key to electrical compatibility and nothing more.
Does it matter who created it or does it matter that it exists?
My brunch this morning is leftover Thai food from last night. I love Thai food and eat it every week. We have at least 4 Thai restaurants in Bloomington and none of them are expensive. I know which one is the best though.
Fantastic - you go on hiding your technical indifference ( I am being kind
) answering questions with questions ... BTW the mob did not bring engineering and data - the only one who did it until now is Ethan, that bravely stays with his numbers and extreme, but coherent positions. Most others just say small, minimal and never quote an electrical or time unit, and do not compromise technically with any side.
Anyway it seems you fail to understand that many of us manage and love to debate perceptions. We debate, we agree, we disagree and we learn.
Monster created the market, but long before them audiophiles from all over the world were making experiences with cables.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |