Audiophiles should learn from people who created audio

dynaquest4 wrote,

"I’d like to see an opposing article (not written by someone "in the business" or a reviewer paid to do it) that lays out the science of how exotic cable works and why. Bet it doesn’t exist. And for good reason...there is no science....just perception."

Here’s an idea. Why don’t you contact NASA or AES or the Journal of Acoustics or MIT or whatever and see if they'd be interested in performing an evaluation of various cables and providing a peer reviewed article with their conclusions?

Just curious, why are you so sure an opposing view doesn’t exist. Have you looked? No need to to answer, it’s a rhetorical question.

Statistically average and mediocre are actually about the same but cable afficionados have terribly wooley thinking and wouldn’t grasp that. These folks get up from their chair and swap cables and sit down again repetitively until they hear the divine speaking to them. It never occurs to them that something might be wrong when their components can’t reliably deliver a signal over a piece of wire and eventually to a speaker.

Instead of a focused microscope on the source signal, they think high end gear is supposed to be shoddy and unreliable so that every piece of wire and extraneous factor (power cord etc) should dramatically affect the presentation.

dynaquest4 only believes and uses wire-bling if it’s given to him free, case in point Kimber speaker wires which he admitted to all of us in another thread :-)

And we all heard over and over how poorly designed our components are that requires constant band-aid fixes by using after market cables or fuses.

dynaquest4
OP’s referenced article by Mr. Russel is, in my opinion, a well written, well researched, fairly scientific based article. It is all about why basic cable, that meets appropriate impedance, length and connection requirements, is all you need and you can’t expect real improvements in audio quality regardless of how much you spend on "wire-bling."

>>>>No one said it wasn’t well written. So what? Lots of folks can write well. It would be a, you know, Strawman argument, to say that because an article is well written it's correct. Hel-loo! And "fairly scientific" is how it was written to appear to the casual reader. No offense intended. However, I suspect the intended audience is far from scientific OR sophisticated. Again, no offense.

But, like many of these anti-audiophile diatribes that are popping up all over the Internet, it’s not really a "scientific based article" insomuch as it wasn’t peer reviewed or publish per anywhere of any scientific importance other than the fellow’s blog. Hel-loo! But apparently it suffices to appease the insatiable appetite of the roiling natterers and naysayers and audiophile bashers.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

The term of art is " nattering nabobs of negativism."