7500 for USED cables? Are they joking?

Charlie aka Danvetc brings up a good point. How many people posting to this thread have ever worked in or have intimate knowledge of the recording or pro sound reinforcement field ? I am not talking about boot-legging a concert with a portable Panasonic cassette deck and a Radio Shack mic or hauling your buddies guitar amp in the back of your van or truck either : )

For the record, i used to run a private pro-sound reinforcement company. From 1984 to 1986, i used to book concerts at a local venue here in Chicago. I was also the "soundman" at every show that was performed there during that period of time. I've recorded demo tapes on several different 24 track boards with a full array of effects for more than a few bands in several different locations. You can find my name on more than a few albums from local Chicago based bands and a few from Europe ( primarily the U.K.). I've also sold pro sound gear at the retail level as a profession. While i hated the gear that they had, it was a job : )

I currently have four very large PA "stacks" in my basement that i'm re-designing for a Chicago based band. These consist of two mains and two side-fills. In small clubs, the side-fills are large enough that they can be used as mains. These guys trust my ears and knowledge enough to put the entire sound of their band in my hands.

I tell you this not to brag, but to give you some idea as to where i'm coming from in terms of experience and exposure. As i've mentioned before, i try to keep my comments based on first hand experience. The only time that i will pass on other information is if it comes from a credible source that i am directly familiar with. I've got better things to do than sit here and spread rumours or pull people's chains.

Now let's hear from some of the others. This way we'll have a better idea as to why they made the comments that they did and how they arrived at those conclusions.

As to people using "coloured speakers", you show me a "flat" or "neutral" speaker and i'll show you a different room / acoustic environment : ) Sean
>

Bomarc, how can you prove something subjective? Measurement is objective. Each person on this planet has differences in their inner/outer ear "configuration" which implies no two people hear exactly the same. What has been shown recently is the old problem with double-blind testing and audio. Typically, a number of non-audiophile people are asked to detect differences in electronics, etc. The tallied results indicated that all systems sound the same and people detect small variations in loudness and tend to pick the louder system. When the loudness parameter is held constant, the results indicate there is no difference. Audiophiles (and others) are/can be trained to detect small variations in phase, loudness, frequency, etc. Which implies that double-blind testing can be used to prove there are audible differences we can’t measure but we can hear. A prime example is solid-state electronics. These units have measurable errors well below audibility, yet to trained ears there are characteristic signatures to various components and even manufacturers.

As far as what cannot be measured but eventually proves true, Van Allen hypothesized there should be radioactive belts surrounding the earth, and he was able to prove the hypothesis once the US launched its first spacecraft into orbit due to insufficient measurement tools based on the ground at the time.

Here we have a situation where there are clearly audible differences in wire, for whatever reason, but there is no physical measurement to support what we hear. I assume as do many others there is a measurable phenomenon to account for the differences. Either scientists are attempting to measure the wrong thing or we need an outside-the-box thought to devise the measurement needed.

Sean, I have been a musician in a hobby sense for 25 years although I have played in groups, jazz band, etc. I play guitar. I have been trained to be an Electrical Engineer, but I currently design and build computer networks. Part of my training in the EE realm included sound reinforcement since I really wanted to be a full-time musician or active in the industry. I have done my own recordings on 4 track devices for some time (15 years). I became an audiophile about 20 years ago. I am currently in my early 40s.

I have not doubted a single word you said. I attempted to clarify a staement about CAST and threw in a Wadia comment supporting your statement. There are many realities in music. The guy in the studio has one set of circumstances. The sound reinforcement guy has another set. The music aficionado has another goal.

I do agree the upfront (prerecording) process is very different from what one might assume. Sound reinforcement can assume numerous “faces” from quality to quantity. The audiophile’s goal (or mine anyway) is to accurately reproduce what ends up of the media no matter what happened during the process. The ultimate reference is unamplified music or natural sounds. Personally, I have never thought a mic (Shure SM-57 or whatever) sitting 12” in front of a single Greenback sounded like the real thing on recordings. Especially if the sound pressure was such that it deformed the mic’s membrane.

Acoustics are everything. Change the room, and the system’s reproduction characteristics will change period. This is measurable. Move the system in the room and the acoustics change. I do have my speaker’s anechoic measurements (Dunlavy); unfortunately I don’t listen to music in such an environment, so for my acoustic environment they are essentially invalid. I do believe DSP correction devices can help as long as the correction is in the digital domain.

Again, if you don’t hear it, don’t buy it, but most of all enjoy it regardless of the pieces.

If I can sell this whole hobby SHORT I would.

Lmb: Here's where we differ: We both agree that there are cables which sound different when compared sighted, but which are indistinguishable in a blind test. You conclude that there must be something wrong with the blind test. I, and the scientific community that studies such things, conclude that sighted information is a factor in the perceived difference in sound. You're entitled to your conclusion. And I'm entitled to point out that mine has some solid experimental work backing it up.

You ask scientists to come up with some measurement that will explain what you perceive. Don't hold your breath. They already have their explanation, you see.