First, thanks, TBG. I have seen your posts and they are thoughtful and introspective. In short, they are HELPFUL, which is the highest compliment that can be paid in this forum.
As for Shadorne, thank you for your post, too. Do you seriously contend that any of my assertions regarding cables and perception are inaccurate? Please provide some evidentiary basis and inferential logic to establish your contentions, whatever they actually are. You acknowledged previously in this thread that differences in cable design will lead to differences in measurable performance, although not audible in most systems. I agree 100% with your assertion there. Thusly you have refuted the 'Amazing Randi'. Your logic destroys Randi's position completely. There ARE differences in cables, just not big enough for most people's systems (or ears) to appreciate. You've nailed it beautifully! If you can't hear those differences, don't buy it. I don't know why you feel we are at odds in any way on this.
As to your second point, I must say, however, that just because someone has big bucks (and a dealer who knows how to spend it!), doesn't mean they have great ears. Money and taste don't always go hand in hand. Most people simply can't process enough information aurally to discern these differences (visually is a different story), and so should not be bullied or shamed into wasting their money on stuff they can't appreciate (except for bragging rights, I guess.) I thought we agreed on this, as well.
Do you seriously contend that just because someone has a megabuck system and a reputation as a stereo big shot, means they have ears we should trust? That's faulty logic. This supposed 'famous' audiophile's ability to hear is not in evidence, and has not been proven. Just because another big buck stereo-addict can't hear shit doesn't mean everyone else who claims different is a fraud. And it certainly doesn't mean the "Emperor has no clothes", as you put it.
I stand by what I said: most of this anti-high end stuff is jealousy, pure and simple. And I further stand by my simple solution: if you don't hear a difference, DON'T BUY IT!
I thought someone like you might agree with that ultimate conclusion, i.e., don't waste your money if you don't hear a difference, Shadorne. I am sorry if you don't.
And BTW: I use DIY cables myself. They sound better most of the time, and you just can't beat the price-performance ratio. I am not a guy who thinks expensive is better. Never have, never will. In fact, I just listened to three different $200k-plus systems in the top audiophile salons in LA. My second-tier redbook CD playback easily bested every system, and by a wide margin, even including a $100k analog rig that has been receiving rave reviews. (Names will NOT be provided! No burning of any bridges here!) Cost of my Sony CDP? Used, only $425 ($825 new, hyper-modified by Ric @ EVS; original retail price on the Sony was a whopping $225.00!). My amps? Hyper-modified ARC Classic 150s. I've got $12k in them, including the $6k purchase price (used, bought around end of 1990) and $6k in mods (by Musical Fidelity-USA, 1991-1992.) Speakers? Cabasse Baltic IIs and Thor IIs, unmodified. My cost? $7k (retail was $14k or so, at the time.) And various ancillary stuff like a few Vibraplanes, a battery power supply for the CDP (from Ric at EVS, again), etc., all worth around $5k. So, I've got around $25k in my system, over a nearly 20 year period. And it's annihilating NEW systems ten times the price? I guess you could say I shun high priced gear and go for quality, quality, quality on the cheap, then modify the snot out of it. THAT'S how to get great sound relatively inexpensively (well, very 'relatively'.) As long as you can hear the difference, that is.
But thanks for the response! It keeps the debate lively. I respect your opinion and I am glad you shared it.
As for Shadorne, thank you for your post, too. Do you seriously contend that any of my assertions regarding cables and perception are inaccurate? Please provide some evidentiary basis and inferential logic to establish your contentions, whatever they actually are. You acknowledged previously in this thread that differences in cable design will lead to differences in measurable performance, although not audible in most systems. I agree 100% with your assertion there. Thusly you have refuted the 'Amazing Randi'. Your logic destroys Randi's position completely. There ARE differences in cables, just not big enough for most people's systems (or ears) to appreciate. You've nailed it beautifully! If you can't hear those differences, don't buy it. I don't know why you feel we are at odds in any way on this.
As to your second point, I must say, however, that just because someone has big bucks (and a dealer who knows how to spend it!), doesn't mean they have great ears. Money and taste don't always go hand in hand. Most people simply can't process enough information aurally to discern these differences (visually is a different story), and so should not be bullied or shamed into wasting their money on stuff they can't appreciate (except for bragging rights, I guess.) I thought we agreed on this, as well.
Do you seriously contend that just because someone has a megabuck system and a reputation as a stereo big shot, means they have ears we should trust? That's faulty logic. This supposed 'famous' audiophile's ability to hear is not in evidence, and has not been proven. Just because another big buck stereo-addict can't hear shit doesn't mean everyone else who claims different is a fraud. And it certainly doesn't mean the "Emperor has no clothes", as you put it.
I stand by what I said: most of this anti-high end stuff is jealousy, pure and simple. And I further stand by my simple solution: if you don't hear a difference, DON'T BUY IT!
I thought someone like you might agree with that ultimate conclusion, i.e., don't waste your money if you don't hear a difference, Shadorne. I am sorry if you don't.
And BTW: I use DIY cables myself. They sound better most of the time, and you just can't beat the price-performance ratio. I am not a guy who thinks expensive is better. Never have, never will. In fact, I just listened to three different $200k-plus systems in the top audiophile salons in LA. My second-tier redbook CD playback easily bested every system, and by a wide margin, even including a $100k analog rig that has been receiving rave reviews. (Names will NOT be provided! No burning of any bridges here!) Cost of my Sony CDP? Used, only $425 ($825 new, hyper-modified by Ric @ EVS; original retail price on the Sony was a whopping $225.00!). My amps? Hyper-modified ARC Classic 150s. I've got $12k in them, including the $6k purchase price (used, bought around end of 1990) and $6k in mods (by Musical Fidelity-USA, 1991-1992.) Speakers? Cabasse Baltic IIs and Thor IIs, unmodified. My cost? $7k (retail was $14k or so, at the time.) And various ancillary stuff like a few Vibraplanes, a battery power supply for the CDP (from Ric at EVS, again), etc., all worth around $5k. So, I've got around $25k in my system, over a nearly 20 year period. And it's annihilating NEW systems ten times the price? I guess you could say I shun high priced gear and go for quality, quality, quality on the cheap, then modify the snot out of it. THAT'S how to get great sound relatively inexpensively (well, very 'relatively'.) As long as you can hear the difference, that is.
But thanks for the response! It keeps the debate lively. I respect your opinion and I am glad you shared it.
