Jtom94
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2010
- Posts
- 122
- Likes
- 19
I read the whole article and i disagree with almost everything said in that article.
I read the whole article and i disagree with almost everything said in that article.
I read the whole article and i disagree with almost everything said in that article.
Biasing an amp is a piece of cake. My MV-52 has to be biased and it's nothing. Turn a screw until a LED goes on, back off until it goes out. A five year-old can do it.
NOS tubes are overhyped. Yeah, some sound good. But so do a lot of reproduction tubes. I buy the reproductions and am happy with them. I only buy/build gear that uses popular reproduction tubes and ones where NOS is cheap and plentiful - then lay away a stockpile. Caps and resistors will always be around.
Take a look at the burn-in section, there he simply states that once wires and components in many electrical items are made they are 'set' and will not alter, well if that were true then these items would presumably never fail and work forever, which of course they do not, therefore the electrical circuitry and components must physically change, and it's to easy believe that in the first few hours of use that this is when they would change the fastest and thus 'burn-in'.
They usually fail because a solder joint has broken. It has nothing to do with the amount of usage besides how they're flexed/abused. Only other thoughts would be oxidation. With interconnects oxidation isn't a large concern, and honestly I'd say it's probably small with speaker wire too.
As it goes with cables, it is all about transferring the most amount of available electrons presented from a source to the next component, now it is not debatable as to whether a purer cable would be able to transport more electrons, if a cable has impurities within it this would create a resistance that would reduce the electron numbers. Now it is debatable whether that can be heard or not, there is no doubt that its not having an effect, just if it is an audible effect, now if somebody wants to spend more money to make sure they are getting everything out of their equipment then they shouldn't be stopped or frowned upon, it's up to them if they can hear the difference, even if the difference is in their head so what? whether it was physical or psychological their equipment now sounds better than before.
Because salesmen use it to scam customers out of legitimate upgrades that do make a physical difference. I could sell you a ritualistic dance pattern to do before listening to music for $1K and make vague claims all day -- but in the end it would be dishonest marketing diatribe I've made up. Dishonesty shouldn't be rewarded, and they should be called out on it. There's nothing showing that audiophile cables make an audible difference, and until there is it's perfectly apt to say the claims made are lies which is why they're on the article.
I personally would not dish out for the top end cables, i would probably make my own for less but i don't have an 'issue' with other people doing it.
Some of us dislike con-artists. Magnets on fuel lines, rocks on amps, a battery operated clock with a dot on it . . . the voodoo tweako audiophile junk is helping kill the hobby. Sane people look, roll their eyes, and use it as an example and justification to discredit the hobby.
jmb777 continues:
now if somebody wants to spend more money to make sure they are getting everything out of their equipment then they shouldn't be stopped or frowned upon, it's up to them if they can hear the difference, even if the difference is in their head so what? whether it was physical or psychological their equipment now sounds better than before.I personally would not dish out for the top end cables, i would probably make my own for less but i don't have an 'issue' with other people doing it.
I agree with you that if people want to spend money on these things then that is their right, as far as I am concerned people can do whatever they like with their money.
However in the audio world we see these people making these claims but they do not provide any scientific evidence. Although they often look down upon those of us who wish for scientific evidence, they use pseudo science as the basis for their claims, just as you are doing.
Unfortunately now very many people are spending a great deal of money on the advice of these "gurus" with their pseudo-science for things that have no scientific basis whatsoever and are with current scientific knowledge considered rather unlikely.
So are the audiophile "gurus" going to start demonstrating scientifically that their pseudo-science has some basis in reality?
With regard to ascertaining audibility well conducted blind ABX testing is, I think, a very good way to do this. Surely the advocates of all these wonders, the components and wires that change in nature over a couple of hours and the amazing claims for differences in various audio cables, can show us clearly that all these changes/differences take place and that they are audible in blind ABX tests?
Personally I've been waiting for these demonstrations for over 30 years.
As it goes with cables, it is all about transferring the most amount of available electrons presented from a source to the next component, now it is not debatable as to whether a purer cable would be able to transport more electrons, if a cable has impurities within it this would create a resistance that would reduce the electron numbers.