a great take on big$ cables

As an over-50 year old male, I'd have to say that, even though I notice my hearing deteriorates with time, I NEVER have any trouble telling that it's my equipment playing a Beethoven quartet and not the Emerson Q somehow getting into my listening room just to fool me. They know enough not to even try.

Referencing anything Stereo Review printed regarding sound is not a plus IMO. In fact, putting that out there potentially removes credibility from the poster. I leaned first hand (not via heresay or in a magazine) that the reviewer at Stereo Review was either 1 - lying, 2 - had substantial hearing loss, or 3 - his setup was so convoluted that the sonic differences between Bose 601s and Wilson Sohias would be inaudible. Stereo Review was a joke, and a likely token for the various manufacturers, not a source for any real, credible information.

Pmotz.

i have a question for you,what are you talking about when you say " this goes against everything audiophiles strive for" isnt better sound what audiophiles strive for & how does an enginer's finding's done in blind listening test's go against anything ? its nothing more than information,use it if you like or dont its of no matter to me but i would love to know what goes against all that that is hifi.

what i find odd is you choose to fixate on useless information like stereo review & aes instead of the real information in the article which was the results of blind listening tests set up in such a way that there was no time lapse between the changing of wires not what some stupid mag had to say.

if you want to stress a point atleast come up with a response that has merit to it instead of refering to how many people buy exotic wires & cables,that's like saying that bose sells more speakers than anybody else so they cant be wrong.

when i read the page at no time did i take the the parts about stereo review or aes as a reference nor do i think they were intended as such, i think they were included to show just how fast these mag's & reviewers changed their tune, he even admited to his own company reversing its own findings on wire's & cables as to not hurt dealer sales.

to tell the truth i was hoping that someone would comment on the published results of the listening tests instead of focusing on trivial issues such as the honesty of audio mags or reviewer's,as far as i know this type of testing is the most precise way to present different cable's & wire's to test subject's without corupting the test's with visual's of wire's being changed or a prolonged break in the music.

mike.

mr russell doesn't say that all interconnects and speaker wire sound the same. he merely points out that there is very little difference between them. this is the point where i say "the audiophile is better off with tone controls on a preamp than exotic cables", and everyone comes out with both guns a-blazin. if there IS a cable company out there, who can change 'copper'and 'silver' into something other than 'copper'and 'silver', i would hope they would be using that knowledge for some greater purpose than practicing alchemy. 'faith' is the 'biggest' difference in wire upgrades.

According to the article there’s been $15,000 challenges that haven’t been taken by these experts. The dumbing-down of audio. Read one unnamed magazine’s recent attempt (not Stereo Review)at describing why they won’t do double blind testing a few months ago– it’s hilarious, and total and complete nonsense.

There's plenty of these experts here, stand by for the typical obfuscation regarding why you can’t and don't want to do blind testing. Even better are the power cord (or chord as some insist on calling them) claims. Some cords are apparently "soundstage champs" - Okey doke, sure. Let’s see a statistically repetitive go at that one.

A fool and his money are easily parted.