Stereophile and Audio Cables

[Axo1989]

By definition, an intelligent and honestly mistaken person will change their opinion/beliefs when presented with clear evidence that they were mistaken.

You know this isn't necessarily so. In another thread, you advocated summary justice. When another poster responded with a compelling historical counter-example, you didn't blink (by which I mean acknowledge at all, much less consider/discuss any possible flaw in your position). Does that mean you are stupid/dishonest/crazy? Or does it indicate, as we well know, that people may resist—or not comprehend—facts that don't fit their construct of reality, without necessarily being any of those three things?

 

[CleanSound]

JA ended with this:

"Some, none, or all of these factors may play a role in cable "sound." What I don't understand is why someone would dismiss any of them out of hand. What I hope is that an engineer who cares about sound quality might want to investigate cables further."

He is not making any claims and I have no issues with investigating.

But this is what I have an issue with: This statement assumed that there are some cables made today by these cables companies that possibly have somehow cracked the science and engineering and therefore they are producing cables that results in audible difference.

Well. . .we know there are no cable companies has achieved this. Why do I say that? Because (1) none of these cable companies are able to explain what real science was employed in their cables. . . because there were no science (2) how do you build something if you can't measure it? How do you know how much X to add to get more "air" if you don't know what X is and how to measure it?

 

[Beave]

JA ended with this:

"Some, none, or all of these factors may play a role in cable "sound." What I don't understand is why someone would dismiss any of them out of hand. What I hope is that an engineer who cares about sound quality might want to investigate cables further."

But engineers, real engineers, and hundreds if not thousands of them, have investigated cables and understand that even cheap cables do not degrade audio signals in any audible way. They understand that cables simply can not IMPROVE a recorded signal, only degrade it, and that even cheap cables don't degrade it enough to matter.

What's more, I would rewrite his sentence to be "What I don't understand is why someone would believe any of them (cable claims) out of hand. What I hope is that a magazine who cares about sound quality might want to investigate these beliefs further."

 

[MattHooper]

Audiophile journalists lying for the money? Seems like a low yield racket

The proposition of the average audio reviewer getting in to the profession to make a quick buck does make me laugh.

Not a get-rich profession. To say the least.

 

[Beave]

The proposition of the average audio reviewer getting in to the profession to make a quick buck does make me laugh.

Not a get-rich profession. To say the least.

True, definitely not a get rich profession. But a fun way to make a little money on the side while getting sent lots of gear (some to return, some to keep) and writing reviews for your hobby.

That is, as long as you play along with the rules of the game and don't offend advertisers.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The proposition of the average audio reviewer getting in to the profession to make a quick buck does make me laugh.

Not a get-rich profession. To say the least.

Reminds me of the early TAS staff. HP was not poor. Most of his reviewers had PhD's in something, and were not poor. Most of the others had careers that meant they were fairly wealthy and well educated. I think it delusional to think even wealthy, intelligent, well educated people are because of any of this immune or even greatly resistant to all the same traps that befall humans in general. We all are susceptible to things when in one business or another. One needs a very sheltered life not to have encountered that. We need to be gentle with each other, but keep each other honest.

Have a hard time giving JA too hard a time. Because of him and his magazine I learned about all kinds of good gear. And on a bad day I can get pretty upset with him.

I think we should move on from JA, and discuss cables and their issues or lack thereof. Give it a rest on JA.

 

[Doodski]

Reminds me of the early TAS staff. HP was not poor. Most of his reviewers had PhD's in something, and were not poor. Most of the others had careers that meant they were fairly wealthy and well educated. I think it delusional to think even wealthy, intelligent, well educated people are because of any of this immune or even greatly resistant to all the same traps that befall humans in general. We all are susceptible to things when in one business or another. One needs a very sheltered life not to have encountered that. We need to be gentle with each other, but keep each other honest.

Have a hard time giving JA too hard a time. Because of him and his magazine I learned about all kinds of good gear. And on a bad day I can get pretty upset with him.

I think we should move on from JA, and discuss cables and their issues or lack thereof. Give it a rest on JA.

Yes, I was having a blast with the rapid fire rate of this thread but after some hours I had to go out for a long walk. I feel better now. Great chatter for sure.

 

[Brian Hall]

You know this isn't necessarily so. In another thread, you advocated summary justice. When another poster responded with a compelling historical counter-example, you didn't blink (by which I mean acknowledge at all, much less consider/discuss any possible flaw in your position).

I don't know which thread you are talking about. I would not have ignored a counter example so must have missed it.

Edited to add: I can't find whatever thread/message you are referring to.

 

[Sal1950]

But what can they do now ? Most of the old subjective audio magazines have thier finger in the same cookie jar they have co created this crazy culture together with the market and the brands building products for it

How do they back out of this one gracefully ? They cant so they must then also take on the cable craze in some way that not rock the boat ? They are to deep into it .

It (they) can't and won't. My hope is that the objective side of the "hobby, I hate that term" will once more gain
prominence in the field as it mostly held during Hi Fi's beginning decades, 1900s thru 1980s. In those times it was glaringly
obvious that all the rungs on the ladder had easily identifiable failings and nearly each step up could be audibly and measurably
shown. As we got to points that the rungs became "solved" problems, the review industry lost their value and then had to invent
things to once again make them important. They have even gone so far now to declare transparency and accuracy no longer the
goal of Hi Fi and put personal preferences at the top. WTF is Hi Fi if it's not Hi Fi? How can that ever be a obtainable goal if it only has real value and can be applied to that one person in the chair?
So we've ended up with in a position where the "circle of confusion" has become a "circle of collusion" and looked at from various
legal views should/could be considered illegal.

 

[Blumlein 88]

It (they) can't and won't. My hope is that the objective side of the "hobby, I hate that term" will once more gain
prominence in the field as it mostly held during Hi Fi's beginning decades, 1900s thru 1980s. In those times it was glaringly
obvious that all the rungs on the ladder had easily identifiable failings and nearly each step up could be audibly and measurably
shown. As we got to points that the rungs became "solved" problems, the review industry lost their value and then had to invent
things to once again make them important. They have even gone so far now to declare transparency and accuracy no longer the
goal of Hi Fi and put personal preferences at the top. WTF is Hi Fi if it's not Hi Fi? How can that ever be a obtainable goal if it only has real value and can be applied to that one person in the chair?
So we've ended up with in a position where the "circle of confusion" has become a "circle of collusion" and looked at from various
legal views should/could be considered illegal.

This is pretty much a perfect description of what happened. Seemed to me High End rather than High Fidelity really took off once the CD was out. Soon after that the only thing really meaningful were your speakers and how to place them. For those not alive then, Stereophile and TAS were a sometimes published often late, expensive, small magazines with an even smaller subscription base. I think Stereophile when JGH sold it only had 4800 subscribers and was bigger than the Absolute Sound. Stereo Review, Audio and High Fidelity mags in the USA were huge. No one would have thought the little subjectivist press would eventually outlast and eliminate those others.

 

[Doodski]

once the CD was out. Soon after that the only thing really meaningful were your speakers and how to place them.

That's correct and like I have said many times here it was all about selling speakers /upselling speakers in order to compete in the marketplace. He who had the best selection of speakers controlled all the sales.

 

[Sal1950]

What's more, I would rewrite his sentence to be "What I don't understand is why someone would believe any of them (cable claims) out of hand. What I hope is that a magazine who cares about sound quality might want to investigate these beliefs further."

Magazines as referenced above are obsolete but there are many good things going on.
Having been here since only a few days after Amir put ASR online, I have to say I've been amazed in a
very good way at how fast the site has grown and brought wider attention to the objective side of audio.
But it's not just here either, from the list of growing good guys like Archimago, Audioholics, all the work and online
tutorials for FREE measurement software like REW, there's so much more to list and CRS is killing me right now.
But yea, I do believe the rational voice of the objective audio approach is growing stronger each day and I'm hopeful we
will no longer get kicked around as has been the practice of the $$$ dominated subjective community over the last few decades.

 

[JaMaSt]

As an example, I find it difficult to create new music without first indulging in a bit of pot.

I think I can explain the pterodactyl....

 

[Axo1989]

I don't know which thread you are talking about. I would not have ignored a counter example so must have missed it.

Edited to add: I can't find whatever thread/message you are referring to.

In other words, not because you are stupid/dishonest/crazy? You must be getting the point by now.

 

[JaMaSt]

There are numerous posts in this thread making allusions to "bias studies" - as though bias studies are (somehow) able to transcend "bias" and present an un-biased scientific fact.

It's science, don'cha know.

"Bias studies" are just a (passing) fad in psychology.

It's Behaviorism 2.0.

 

[Mnyb]

It (they) can't and won't. My hope is that the objective side of the "hobby, I hate that term" will once more gain
prominence in the field as it mostly held during Hi Fi's beginning decades, 1900s thru 1980s. In those times it was glaringly
obvious that all the rungs on the ladder had easily identifiable failings and nearly each step up could be audibly and measurably
shown. As we got to points that the rungs became "solved" problems, the review industry lost their value and then had to invent
things to once again make them important. They have even gone so far now to declare transparency and accuracy no longer the
goal of Hi Fi and put personal preferences at the top. WTF is Hi Fi if it's not Hi Fi? How can that ever be a obtainable goal if it only has real value and can be applied to that one person in the chair?
So we've ended up with in a position where the "circle of confusion" has become a "circle of collusion" and looked at from various
legal views should/could be considered illegal.

Wonder if they understood what a monster they created and when it got to big and snowballed away downhill and got bigger and bigger

 

[MattHooper]

There are numerous posts in this thread making allusions to "bias studies" - as though bias studies are (somehow) able to transcend "bias" and present an un-biased scientific fact.

It's science, don'cha know.

"Bias studies" are just a (passing) fad in psychology.

It's Behaviorism 2.0.

*long draw on bong*

I think that should be, like, your thesis, man!

 

[Rednaxela]

I think we should move on from JA, and discuss cables and their issues or lack thereof. Give it a rest on JA.

But then we’d have an ordinary cable discussion that we could just as well continue here:

Do Fancy Audio Cables Make a Difference? (video)

There were requests in youtube to do a video on high-end audio cables. So I did one based on the review of audioquest Wind cable. If you have already read the text review, there is little new information in there but for the rest of you, this is one you can watch or listen to instead of...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Isn’t it the Stereophile bit that sets this thread apart?

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

JA ended with this:

"Some, none, or all of these factors may play a role in cable "sound." What I don't understand is why someone would dismiss any of them out of hand. What I hope is that an engineer who cares about sound quality might want to investigate cables further."

He is not making any claims and I have no issues with investigating.

But this is what I have an issue with: This statement assumed that there are some cables made today by these cables companies that possibly have somehow cracked the science and engineering and therefore they are producing cables that results in audible difference.

Well. . .we know there are no cable companies has achieved this. Why do I say that? Because (1) none of these cable companies are able to explain what real science was employed in their cables. . . because there were no science (2) how do you build something if you can't measure it? How do you know how much X to add to get more "air" if you don't know what X is and how to measure it?

I agree with you.

But I would take the argument further. I would offer JA two hi res files. One an original high res vinyl rip and the other a third generation copy that I made using my RME DAC, Old Tascam digital recorder , Mac Mini and Mogabi cables all powered by stock power cords. And ask him to distinguish them in and ABX test. The copy file was run through 6 sets of Mogabi cables two DACs and two ADCs using 6 components all powered with stock power cords.

If all of these things individually are coloring the sound to such a high degree that we can write such flowery prose for their 5 figured high end counterparts and justify the price tags surely the third generation copy would be so colored that any wife could hear it from the kitchen.

Should easy as **** to reliably identify in an ABX test

 

[Purité Audio]

I abhor the subjective nonsense, but I do have some sympathy for JA he is caught between a rock and a hard place, he seems a nice guy and before Amir I wasn’t aware of that many accessible sources of measurement aside from Stereophile.
Keith