[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif in general the more money you spend the better product you get.

That was the case in the 1940s and 50s, but I don't see that in most audio equipment. I don't think they teach "build a better mousetrap" in business school any more. It's all cost vs markup and marketing now.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's because there's much more to cost than Audio Quality. There's Build Quality, Research Costs (something which people often neglect when claiming audio products are overpriced), and Supply/Demand.

Build quality has more to do with the longevity of a component than it does sound quality, research may or may not result in better sound- but the consumer is going to foot the bill for it either way, and supply and demand have no effect on sound quality.

I think you're absolutely right, but along with marketing, these are the are the things that are being substituted for an increase in sound quality in expensive equipment.

But all of this aside, speakers are probably the most likely to sound much better for more money, particularly at low end to upper midrange prices. CD players are the least likely. They're a much better example of how price doesn't necessarily equate to sound quality.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif i'm not so sure i would go with or recommend a straight 50/50 division between gear and other related components, but i think the article does try to impress upon people the idea that things like power, proper stabilization, and quality cables are important

Everything is relative. The important thing in building a good sound system is to have some sense of proportion and balance... from balancing the frequency response, to understanding what the audible difference is between one number and another, to spending your money on things that make the biggest improvement before spending it on things that make the least. Anyone can say "everything is important" and come up with some sort of diagram to tell you everything is as important as everything else, but that isn't particularly helpful to people who want to make the most of their resources.

See ya
Steve

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's because there's much more to cost than Audio Quality. There's Build Quality, Research Costs (something which people often neglect when claiming audio products are overpriced), and Supply/Demand.

With cables, the claim is generally that their performance cannot be measured with traditional electronic test equipment. That the differences are such that they can only be heard by ear, not measured with an O-Scope or a DMM.

Alright. Let's accept that premise as true.

If you cannot measure the difference in cables, then how do you do any research and development? If you come up with two different designs, how do you compare them? How do you judge one better than another? How do you improve on your designs if there is no way to prove it?

If there is science behind it, why don't the manufacturers tell us about it? How come they don't use their research and figures to differentiate their products from competitors? If you do extensive and expensive research, why not put it in an ad to prove your product is better than the competition?

For that matter, some have called cables snakeoil for years. Certainly, the manufacturers have heard these claims. They know there are people out there calling their product, their livelihood, complete and utter BS. So, why not get out the research and kick some skeptic ass? Why not prove the skeptics wrong on their own terms?

There are a number of cable manufacturers out there, yet not one uses their research to get a leg up on the competition. Funny, isn't it? Look at Intel or AMD. Ford, Toyota, Honda, Mercedes... they all do significant research. And they regularly advertise with their research to demonstrate why their products are better.

My point being that it seems that there isn't much, if any, R&D from cable manufacturers. They are, apparently, not spending money on research. For one, there is no evidence of that. Second, they say it is impossible to apply traditional scientific methods to their products, thereby making it impossible to do research in the first place.

That leaves us with the cost of raw materials, manufacturing, payroll taxes, shipping, and the other overhead. And the markup. For the life of me, I can't see where the wide margin goes, other than profit.

Nothing wrong with capitalism and charging what the market will bear, but that doesn't mean you get equivalent performance.

 

[chesebert]

I reject the idea that cable can't be measured; I accept the idea that cable cannot be measured by Oscope or DMM. e.g. Oscope or DMM can not possibly measure effects of electron deposition

 

[kpeezy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif First and foremost, always keep focused on the music. That's what really matters. Spend more on software than you do on hardware. You aren't listening to wires, you're listening to music.

Just wondering about this. Don't get me wrong, this is the way I personally view things. However, is it really wrong to enjoy the equipment more than the music or is it just deviance?

 

[OverlordXenu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpeezy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just wondering about this. Don't get me wrong, this is the way I personally view things. However, is it really wrong to enjoy the equipment more than the music or is it just deviance?

An audiophile would care more about the music than anything. A "techno/gadgetphile" would care more about the equipment than the music.

We should be listening to the music, not the equipment.

I'd call myself a gadget lover, but I always try and find the "best-for-the-least" when I'm looking for a gadget I "need." (Ie. amp, dac, GPS, pdaphone, computer parts/peripherals, etc.)

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpeezy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just wondering about this. Don't get me wrong, this is the way I personally view things. However, is it really wrong to enjoy the equipment more than the music or is it just deviance?

Music is an artform. Stereo equipment is stuff you plug in the wall. I imagine there are people who make a fetish out of equipment, but all you can do is look at them and shake your head. There's nothing to be learned from them.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu /img/forum/go_quote.gif An audiophile would care more about the music than anything. A "techno/gadgetphile" would care more about the equipment than the music.

This is about photography, but it applies to music as well...

Seven Levels of Photographers © 2005 KenRockwell.com

And here's one that shows that magical thinking is alive and well in photography as well...

Pixel Peepers

See ya
Steve

 

[kpeezy]

Sure there are things to be learned from them. But, I'm in the same boat as all of you so I'll leave the topic alone.

 

[yotacowboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, why not get out the research and kick some skeptic ass? Why not prove the skeptics wrong on their own terms?

Cause the "skeptics" likely won't be swayed no matter what "research" is presented?

Or, cause the skeptics represent a minority market share which is already within a niche?

Or, cause skeptics wouldn't buy the cables even if there was absolute proof?

Or, cause the skeptics are cheap?

Or, cause the skeptics don't really care?

Or, cause the cable companies don't like you?

These are not my opinions, but just some ideas to keep in mind... if the issue boils down to marketing, thes are likely things that "marketers" have thought of.

 

[yotacowboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just look at it like this, take several pair from many brands that cost 2000$, you will quickly find some sound quite a large amount better. Even though the cost the same. You will even find some of them perform on par with some speakers that cost half as much, and some perform on par with speakers that cost twice as much.

Or maybe the engineers at each company have different priorities? Maybe they've heard a "perfectly flat" speaker, and they didn't like how it sounded? Perhaps there were different parts used in each speaker?

As an aside: how many (and which) $2000 speakers have you actually listened to? How many $1000 speakers have you listened to? How many $4000 speakers have you listened to? Which one sounded best? Which one measured best? What measurements? Conducted under what circumstances and conditions? With what gear? I'm skeptical of your claims, so provide some objective proof!

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yotacowboy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Cause the "skeptics" likely won't be swayed no matter what "research" is presented?

<spit take>

Are you just goofing here? You can't be serious.

See ya
Steve

 

[yotacowboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif <spit take> Are you just goofing here? You can't be serious. See ya Steve

I dunno, ask someone in marketing.

 

[LawnGnome]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yotacowboy /img/forum/go_quote.gif I dunno, ask someone in marketing.

You seem to be trying to antagonize people into a flame war.

You post ridiculous things, and then just give sideways and often backhanded answers when you are asked questions.

In fact you make many baseless claims in your last few posts.

Quote:

Or, cause skeptics wouldn't buy the cables even if there was absolute proof? Or, cause the skeptics are cheap? Or, cause the skeptics don't really care? Or, cause the cable companies don't like you?

That is just garbage posted to draw attention away from the real issue, which is the claims for cables cannot be proven, and the physics they propose to "prove" their ideas are false.