New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

$1 Million Cable Challenge Is On - Page 21

post #301 of 581
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by earwicker7 View Post
Yes, I am arguing this. I don't think that it's possible for a $100 CD player to sound like a $10,000 CD player. Why? Because in a $100 CD player, the manufacturer is using the cheapest parts they can find; quality is not an issue.
The price of electronic parts doesn't relate to their quality. Most consumer CD players all use basically the same parts, which are manufactured in mass quantities to the same high specifications. The differences between CD players are how those parts are incorporated into a *design*, which balances sound quality, features and user interface issues.

There are super bargain basement discount brands that don't perform to spec or don't hold up under normal use, but that has more to do with the shortcuts taken in the way they're put together, not the quality of the electronic parts.

Cost is not a determiner of quality. Design is.

See ya
Steve
post #302 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by earwicker7 View Post
What gets me is that nobody would argue that you get a better car for the money you spend; no one would argue that you get a better house for the money you spend; nobody would argue that you get a better guitar for the money you spend. But somehow audio exists in a vacuum where everything that isn't at Best Buy prices is "snake oil".
You've forced me to dredge up Marx.

Cost does not == value. Market value (or Exchange-Value) does not directly derive from Use-Value. The Status boost for owning a product is essentially a specific type of Use-value (or can be argued as such), but is completely unrelated to the audio use-value.

Exchange-value, or what the going rate for an item may be on the market, has -nothing- to do with the labor-value involved in producing the product, and may also bear little relation to the use-value of the item.

A $10,000 cd player costs $10,000 primarily because people will pay it. This may or may not have anything to do with the extent to which it performs its primary task better than a $100 cd player.

This also leaves completely aside the issue of diminishing returns. What if in your comparison there was a $100 player, a $5000 player, a $10,000 player, and then a $200 player, $300, $400, $500... etc? Assuming all manufacturers are striving for neutrality, any differences will become increasingly difficult to discern as you climb the price chain (assuming there isn't any Exchange-value inflation through Use-value not directly tied to sound quality. Sexy casings or funky displays, for example).

Quote:
Originally Posted by earwicker7 View Post
Yes, I am arguing this.
...
High-end companies live or die by the quality of their product; they are NEVER going to ship a half-assed version of their flagship product to someone because of production quotas, "limited time only" sales at Best Buy, etc.
They live or die based on the perception of their product's quality. The actual quality of their product is irrelevant beyond this aspect. If purchasers feel like fools for admitting that after several months time (conveniently, after most return windows) they cannot determine a difference in sound quality then of course they will be reluctant to admit so.


Chuckle-inducing tidbit:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pear Cable's website

At Pear Cable Audio Cables we stand firmly behind the products that we offer. We are so confident in our audio cables that we encourage you to compare us to any of our competitors. A comprehensive list of cable companies is provided for your convenience. Feel free to look around; we’re sure you will be back.
Under the list of competitors, they mention Monster Cable.


This gear snobbery mirrors the music creation world so well it is sadly humorous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by earwicker7 View Post
Does this mean a $10,000 CD player automatically sounds better than a $5,000 CD player? No, but there is a pretty darn good chance that it does. Too many people here are paranoid about this... they assume every price mark-up is just trickery by "The evil corporations". No thought is given to the fact that maybe that extra $5,000 per CD player was used for research and development, better parts, and most importantly (and most often ignored) quality control.
Or the bulk of the difference could be spent on marketing and blinkenlights - essentially things that have nothing to do with the audio use-value of the product (but may have a great deal to do with the status use-value).
post #303 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
Cost is not a determiner of quality. Design is.
Sure, but good designs are expensive.
post #304 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by philodox View Post
Sure, but good designs are expensive.
I'm sure that was the mentality behind the committee-driven Space Shuttle design.
post #305 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by ph0rk View Post
You've forced me to dredge up Marx.
Yeah, how's that working out?

PS--Have you tried any high-end players, or do you just criticize them based on Communist philosophy?
post #306 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by earwicker7 View Post
Yeah, how's that working out?

PS--Have you tried any high-end players, or do you just criticize them based on Communist philosophy?
he doesn't have to try one because they, like cables, all sound the same. bits are bits. wire is wire.
post #307 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by earwicker7 View Post
Yeah, how's that working out?

PS--Have you tried any high-end players, or do you just criticize them based on Communist philosophy?
Would you have preferred Weber?

Marx's predictions were bunk (whose aren't?) but his analysis of political economy was superb.

But really, if the best you can come up with is to call me a communist, you'd best close the wikipedia window and call it a day. If, however, you'd like to address the substantive portions of my argument - I'll get to you eventually.

I have listened to many consumer grade pieces of audio gear, but tend to prefer pro audio equipment generally. I see no reason to purchase (or keep, anyway) a separate set of equipment solely to listen. The shiny bits just don't matter.
post #308 of 581
Are most arguing 'cable makes no difference' because their systems are actually pretty low-fi, or mid-fi at best?

Its rare to see someone stating 'he can't hear a difference in cable' when he is using his $10k speaker connected with another $10k worth of electronics.

There is really nothing wrong with using low-fi equipment and not being able to hear a difference in cable. IMO folks using low-end systems shouldn't concern themselves with cables, instead they should concentrate on getting better 'sound making' equipments.
post #309 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by ph0rk View Post
But really, if the best you can come up with is to call me a communist, you'd best close the wikipedia window and call it a day.
What??? You brought up Marx, the author of "THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO" in a discussion of equipment; I then asked if you based your impressions of equipment on Communist philosophy. Can you please explain what this has to do with wikipedia? If you are implying that I didn't know who Karl Marx is without consulting wikipedia, well... you are the one who cut and pasted his statements (possibly from wiki or some similar site) into your reply. Projection, anyone
post #310 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by philodox View Post
Sure, but good designs are expensive.
This mentality is what drives the consumer culture Very often in engineering the simplest and cheapest design is best. First example off the top of my head is the CFS integrated in Linux 2.6.23. It's incredibly simple compared to heuristic based schedulers, yet somehow manages to outperform most of them even though it has access to less information.
post #311 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu View Post
Very often in engineering the simplest and cheapest design is best.
This is a very popular thing to say lately, but based on the simple/cheap designs I've heard, it is rarely true.
post #312 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by earwicker7 View Post
What??? You brought up Marx, the author of "THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO" in a discussion of equipment; I then asked if you based your impressions of equipment on Communist philosophy. Can you please explain what this has to do with wikipedia? If you are implying that I didn't know who Karl Marx is without consulting wikipedia, well... you are the one who cut and pasted his statements (possibly from wiki or some similar site) into your reply. Projection, anyone
I brought up terms he introduced in Das Kapital, because it was easier than re-defining them. My mention that the ideas were originally Marx's was a courtesy. You are still ignoring my points by making another ad hominem argument.

That point is: retail price is not necessarily connected to audio quality.

Whether or not Marx is the devil himself has nothing to do with this. Why are you focusing on it? My mention of wikipedia was to imply that if the best response to my argument was to call me a communist that you know little more about what Marx said other than that he (with Engels) penned the manifesto. Your continued refusal to address those points seems to confirm this.

---------

Where, pray tell, did you first get the idea that cables in excess of $100 mattered? Did you read about it and then seek good-sounding cables, -or- come at the issue skeptically and come to your position after collecting sense data (as an empiricist - by testing cables)?
post #313 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu View Post
This mentality is what drives the consumer culture Very often in engineering the simplest and cheapest design is best. First example off the top of my head is the CFS integrated in Linux 2.6.23. It's incredibly simple compared to heuristic based schedulers, yet somehow manages to outperform most of them even though it has access to less information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by philodox View Post
This is a very popular thing to say lately, but based on the simple/cheap designs I've heard, it is rarely true.
I adhere to the principle of simpler is better for audio. BUT simple != cheap!! Many simple designs, e.g. SET, can get insanely expensive if the goal is to make the best sounding amplifier.

Opamp is very complex by nature; when was the last you looked at a opamp schematic? complex isn't it?? but its dirt cheap!
post #314 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by earwicker7 View Post
I am criticizing stuff that I actually own and use? You criticize stuff you haven't owned and may not have ever heard.
and this is why debate with these people is pointless.

Quote:
I own an iPod. I own a PC with a Sound Blaster X-FI. And I own a hi-fi system. Owning ALL THREE, I think I have a right to criticize them. There is no, read this, NO COMPARISON between the computer-as-source and the other setup.
this statement is obvious - a given - to anyone i have met who has experienced even an average amount of decent gear. from the ground up, no audiophile with a decent budget would ever consider constructing an audio setup using a computer as source. the idea is laughable.
post #315 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by chesebert View Post
Are most arguing 'cable makes no difference' because their systems are actually pretty low-fi, or mid-fi at best?

Its rare to see someone stating 'he can't hear a difference in cable' when he is using his $10k speaker connected with another $10k worth of electronics.

There is really nothing wrong with using low-fi equipment and not being able to hear a difference in cable. IMO folks using low-end systems shouldn't concern themselves with cables, instead they should concentrate on getting better 'sound making' equipments.
FI <> Price

High End = Expensive, not High Fidelity

High Fidelity is definable based on faithfulness to the original. For example when they tested the iPod Stereophile's measurements clearly indicate that it is at least as High Fidelity as many expensive CD players.

Several folks on this thread have already noted how with their relatively expensive systems they cannot detect a difference in speaker cables.

Low cost <> Low Fi. Perhaps you should read "Masters and Clark: Do All amplifiers sound the same ? " - some boutique amps were indistinguishable from $200 receivers.

Fi is Fi cost is cost.

Here is an interesting report of a blind test between a $3000 Transport/DAC player and a $600 all-in-one unit. The upshot was that the listener consistently preferred the cheaper unit.

http://www.goodsound.com/home.shtml

Or this low cost system vs high cost system...

http://www.matrixhifi.com/contenedor_ppec_eng.htm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: