Phono cables WTF!

[Eagle]

Sure. But the audiophile world is full of brand loyality, placebo and not trusting your own ears. "If others say so, it must be true".
Add to this the "Look at my gorgeous home audio system!" effect.
I've been a witness of this happening quite sometimes.

Fair but only with idiots.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Fair but only with idiots.

Given that approximately 50% of the living human earth population (and that's a very friendly approximation already) are idiots in one way or another, chances are there's quite some of them to be found in the audiophile crowd.

 

[Eagle]

Ok, which exactly are the things you can't measure in an amp's "playing feel"?

It may be possible to develop tests for this but nobody involved in digital modelling wants to go beyond the things that make it look like their product is accurate.

 

[Eagle]

Given that approximately 50% of the living human earth population (and that's a very friendly approximation already) are idiots in one way or another, chances are there's quite some of them to be found in the audiophile crowd.

And all crowds but a £1k cable isn’t going to last long in the market if that’s all it’s got.

 

[newholland]

waterfall graphs are close to being able to measure feel, just not quite, and nobodys making them. but i also think somebody needs to want these things. id like them, but again- reading and interpreting them is different.

yet if they exist and are accurate... i want them for pickups. and for guitar speakers. and for cabinets. damn all the these lazy ass guitar gear manufacturers for being thieving con artist bastards trying to steal my accuracy away!

natch, i kid. sorta. its not my choice that the economics and sucker-making system works this way, it just does. its gross. but you haveta depend on your ears to a large extent, and you haveta do it in place in a known installation to get a sense of what actually occurs.

not backing up the methods at all.. im just saying why its there, and im no more a fan than you, beleeeeee me.

 

[Eagle]

Also quite a lot of stuff is different without really being better. In hifi I think you want a cable that is totally neutral and is capable of more band width than either of the things it’s connecting. Adding colour even if you prefer the effect is not what I want for this application. My system is nothing like needing a cable like this to do it justice.

 

[newholland]

Also quite a lot of stuff is different without really being better. In hifi I think you want a cable that is totally neutral and is capable of more band width than either of the things it’s connecting. Adding colour even if you prefer the effect is not what I want for this application. My system is nothing like needing a cable like this to do it justice.

i think theres something in the 'different' aspect- but less so the neutrality aspect in some instances. kinda like i was saying before- sometimes its about how it relates to the dynamic envelope, sometimes, its a contrasting tonal character to another thing in the chain. sometimes its just a sense of being timbrally right. id bet almost all of them measure dc to light outside some of the weirdo outliers with high capacitance or ferrites in them. they all conduct just fine, but hell if they sound like it sometimes. at some point really overbuilt power sections in devices for music and incredible resolution can add up to maximal ocd guitarists go there too. if youre both that and a hifi nerd.. god help you.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

What part of it costs £1k you test it on your own system at home and if you don’t think it’s worth it send it back for a full refund didn’t you understand? Do you think that business model would work if it doesn’t make an obvious difference?

Because people who spend £1k on a naff cable will want to convince themselves it’s doing something positive.

If it sounds better, then the sonic difference can be recorded and listened back to. Let’s hear it - there’s already comparisons of mogami/vovox/gotham/sommer etc online. If there is a difference with clarity, distortion, dynamics, tone then not only can it be heard in a recording of it, but it can be very easily tested. Why wouldn’t a company want to show these specs as a marketing tool if it exists? Would that not give them a distinct advantage over all the brands that aren’t able to prove their claims?

And blowing £1000 on a cable is a waste of £1000 when I could invest in more room treatment or another subwoofer or something that would actually help.

Btw, are you interested in buying a £1000 dream catcher, or some £1000k healing crystals? I guarantee they’ll work and change your life. Money back guarantee to prove it. Nothing to lose!

 

[MirrorProfiles]

waterfall graphs are close to being able to measure feel, just not quite, and nobodys making them. but i also think somebody needs to want these things. id like them, but again- reading and interpreting them is different.

There are MUCH better tools to measure a cable with than a waterfall plot. Consider what’s going on at NASA or CERN etc, or even a smart phone or modern computer. Do you think they need to rely on feel and perception or do you think they can do a bit better?

 

[Sascha Franck]

It may be possible to develop tests for this but nobody involved in digital modelling wants to go beyond the things that make it look like their product is accurate.

This isn't about modeling at all. It's about an "amp's feel" and the things you claim can't be measured. Which exactly are these things?

 

[Sascha Franck]

Because people who spend £1k on a naff cable will want to convince themselves it’s doing something positive.

Every bit this. Talk about perception bias, placebo and what not.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Fwiw, James Randi (the guy debunking several myths for decades, the moronic Uri Geller being one of his "victims") has once offered $1M for someone to actually prove the superiority of some incredibly expensive speaker cables by Monster Cable in an agreed upon ABX test. Needless to say, nobody ever showed up to take the test.

James Randi Offers $1 Million If Audiophiles Can Prove $7250 Speaker Cables Are Better

Click to viewOur rant about those $7,250 Pear Anjou speaker cables found its way to the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), and Randi offered $1

gizmodo.com

On a somewhat amusing note, here's what the owner of blue jeans cable had to say when Monster Cable tried to sue him:

Monster Cable Correspondence

Fwiw, they even tried to sue Disney for "Monster Inc."

 

[newholland]

There are MUCH better tools to measure a cable with than a waterfall plot. Consider what’s going on at NASA or CERN etc, or even a smart phone or modern computer. Do you think they need to rely on feel and perception or do you think they can do a bit better?

because the average audio guy has a CERN or NASA budget? and if these things exist, why arent they used quantifying every audio device? largely because nobody cares.

its fine man, engineers think everything is measurable and thats their take. but measurably perfect has, in my experience, has been worst sounding as long as ive been aware of 'measurably perfect'.

like i said- its not rational, and the whole rigamarole around it is loathe and reeks of dishonesty, and we're not arguing about that. but what im saying is that your assumption about it being placebo or that its somehow standardizably measurable and that manufacturers are going to somehow standardize that for consumer convenience and transparency is kinda massively misguided in any sense. thats just not how consumer capitalism works. to boot- your average consumer wouldnt even engage it. YOU would.. i would, just cause we're curious. but in the end, im gonna use my ears.

a- cables sound different for reasons that science can quantify

b- nobodys gonna do that cause too much money changes hands for it not to

c- its only a naff cable if you dont have access to it

and d

theres no guarantee a thousand pound cable is BETTER to your ears than a hundred pound one in any but a specific application- which is less of a function of the cable than the gear.

so the end result is listen. all im sayin. there isnt a better measure of quality to be found in your own system and theres zero reason to apologize to engineers if you LIKE it. whether you get racked getting there, we both agree that sucks.

 

[Eagle]

Because people who spend £1k on a naff cable will want to convince themselves it’s doing something positive.

If it sounds better, then the sonic difference can be recorded and listened back to. Let’s hear it - there’s already comparisons of mogami/vovox/gotham/sommer etc online. If there is a difference with clarity, distortion, dynamics, tone then not only can it be heard in a recording of it, but it can be very easily tested. Why wouldn’t a company want to show these specs as a marketing tool if it exists? Would that not give them a distinct advantage over all the brands that aren’t able to prove their claims?

And blowing £1000 on a cable is a waste of £1000 when I could invest in more room treatment or another subwoofer or something that would actually help.

Btw, are you interested in buying a £1000 dream catcher, or some £1000k healing crystals? I guarantee they’ll work and change your life. Money back guarantee to prove it. Nothing to lose!

It’s not my cable but I have a/b tested it .
This is the argument of someone who has never had the opportunity to try it out themselves.

 

[Eagle]

Every bit this. Talk about perception bias, placebo and what not.

You have this in reverse.

 

[Eagle]

The other thing people are mostly missing here is I said it’s a different design and not a coaxial.
It sounds quite different. I also said I don’t see the money intrinsically in it but it is better if your other gear can make the most of the difference.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

because the average audio guy has a CERN or NASA budget? and if these things exist, why arent they used quantifying every audio device? largely because nobody cares.

Nah. I'm just saying making a decent audio cable is relatively straightforward and well figured out compared to what's going on elsewhere in the world, where design spec can be extremely critical. The same methods to test and analyse and source products are the same.

engineers think everything is measurable and thats their take. but measurably perfect has, in my experience, has been worst sounding as long as ive been aware of 'measurably perfect'.

Doesn't even have to measure perfect. If you can hear a difference, then why couldn't a difference be measured too? Lots of stuff has a "sound" because it's actually performing pretty poorly, but has a "sound". But if there are claims of a cable having better dynamics, lower distortion, more headroom, "a more scooped sound", then even a user can easily test that stuff.

I don't disagree with the rest of your post as such. People fall for marketing, and if enough bold claims and non-sensible pseudo scientific waffle is thrown in to the description, people will fall for it and believe it. And If it makes people happier, cool. But it's essentially predatory behaviour targeting those who don't know any better. There is no reason for these cables to cost so much money, aside from the fact that there are people out there who are willing to pay for it.

It’s not my cable but I have a/b tested it .
This is the argument of someone who has never had the opportunity to try it out themselves.

Why not just record something through it and show is the improvement then? You thinking you can hear a difference doesn't even mean you CAN hear a difference, let alone there being any kind of difference.

The other thing people are mostly missing here is I said it’s a different design and not a coaxial.
It sounds quite different. I also said I don’t see the money intrinsically in it but it is better if your other gear can make the most of the difference.

As I said, let's hear it then. I'm firmly in the camp that believes cables can cause a difference in sound. More often than not, it's bad cables that have a sound, and once you hit a certain point, it's very hard to reliably hear a difference.

 

[Sascha Franck]

More often than not, it's bad cables that have a sound, and once you hit a certain point, it's very hard to reliably hear a difference.

Absolutely my experience as well. Especially once there's line level running through them, the differences become pretty small (if present at all), unless you start with really shitty cables.

 

[Eagle]

Nah. I'm just saying making a decent audio cable is relatively straightforward and well figured out compared to what's going on elsewhere in the world, where design spec can be extremely critical. The same methods to test and analyse and source products are the same.



Doesn't even have to measure perfect. If you can hear a difference, then why couldn't a difference be measured too? Lots of stuff has a "sound" because it's actually performing pretty poorly, but has a "sound". But if there are claims of a cable having better dynamics, lower distortion, more headroom, "a more scooped sound", then even a user can easily test that stuff.

I don't disagree with the rest of your post as such. People fall for marketing, and if enough bold claims and non-sensible pseudo scientific waffle is thrown in to the description, people will fall for it and believe it. And If it makes people happier, cool. But it's essentially predatory behaviour targeting those who don't know any better. There is no reason for these cables to cost so much money, aside from the fact that there are people out there who are willing to pay for it.


Why not just record something through it and show is the improvement then? You thinking you can hear a difference doesn't even mean you CAN hear a difference, let alone there being any kind of difference.


As I said, let's hear it then. I'm firmly in the camp that believes cables can cause a difference in sound. More often than not, it's bad cables that have a sound, and once you hit a certain point, it's very hard to reliably hear a difference.

I have given back to it's owner. You are just showing the fact that you have never tried equipment like this.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

I have given back to it's owner. You are just showing the fact that you have never tried equipment like this.

FWIW I've used VERY good cable. As it happens, CAT6 cable can be extremely good for running audio through and is significantly less expensive. I've used enough good cable to be very skeptical of those claiming to be good without backing it up. It's really not difficult to verify the claims with more substance than word of mouth. For whatever reason, you place a lot of value on non quantifiable methods of validation. A lot of salesmen's eyes light up at people like that.

I'm also listening on VERY good monitoring in a properly treated room for 10 hours a day. I'd fancy my chances at being able to hear these kinds of differences.