Whoa! This-here thread got away from me in a hurry. I don't know whether to apologize or thank you, so I'll do both.
Being an "outsider" again with old but somewhat fresh eyes for the jargon, I've got two observations to make that some of you may not see because you've kept up with the literature since I dropped out.
First, the WONDERFUL spoof on fishing line actually hooked me. That's really scary. It means somewhere in the dark recesses of my slowly withering pea-brain, cable claims from a decade ago are still lodged and producing a Pavlovian response in my subconscious. Driving to work, I found myself actually wondering if $3,000 fishing line might work -- I'm not kidding! -- even while my conscious, semi-professional self was screaming "If you think that ridiculous thought one more time, I'm driving this car off the next bridge!"
Second, why hasn't the industry put its efforts into figuring out "why" one piece of wire works better than another? I mean, designing a really great amp, tuner, speaker or CD player takes a bit of effort and some genuine smarts. Hasn't anyone wanted to design an active component or an ability within existing components that would give you exactly the same great sound as the most expensive cable using any conductor of electricity? It's got to be easier (and cheaper!) than buying and testing high-end cables until you find something that sort of works better than something else. This isn't rocket science folks (and even if it were, you can hire rocket scientists in Russia full-time these days for about $1200 a month each).
I would think that speaker and component manufacturers would be interested in being the first to claim their units didn't need fussy, expensive cables to sound great.
By the way, yes, yes, I do have about $600 (used) in speaker cables in my system. I'm not a complete Luddite, OK?
You all are the most intelligent, funny and sensible audiophiles (by and large) that I've ever encountered. Thank you for the great entertainment and information!
Respectfully,
Mark Hubbard
Being an "outsider" again with old but somewhat fresh eyes for the jargon, I've got two observations to make that some of you may not see because you've kept up with the literature since I dropped out.
First, the WONDERFUL spoof on fishing line actually hooked me. That's really scary. It means somewhere in the dark recesses of my slowly withering pea-brain, cable claims from a decade ago are still lodged and producing a Pavlovian response in my subconscious. Driving to work, I found myself actually wondering if $3,000 fishing line might work -- I'm not kidding! -- even while my conscious, semi-professional self was screaming "If you think that ridiculous thought one more time, I'm driving this car off the next bridge!"
Second, why hasn't the industry put its efforts into figuring out "why" one piece of wire works better than another? I mean, designing a really great amp, tuner, speaker or CD player takes a bit of effort and some genuine smarts. Hasn't anyone wanted to design an active component or an ability within existing components that would give you exactly the same great sound as the most expensive cable using any conductor of electricity? It's got to be easier (and cheaper!) than buying and testing high-end cables until you find something that sort of works better than something else. This isn't rocket science folks (and even if it were, you can hire rocket scientists in Russia full-time these days for about $1200 a month each).
I would think that speaker and component manufacturers would be interested in being the first to claim their units didn't need fussy, expensive cables to sound great.
By the way, yes, yes, I do have about $600 (used) in speaker cables in my system. I'm not a complete Luddite, OK?
You all are the most intelligent, funny and sensible audiophiles (by and large) that I've ever encountered. Thank you for the great entertainment and information!
Respectfully,
Mark Hubbard