newnameman
Platinum Member
- Nov 20, 2002
- 2,219
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: JackBurton
Not true. Try routing low grade cables through a wired management system. Pain in the ass! I tried it with some cheap Monoprice cables and it sucked, and it actually put more strain (tight angle) on the HDMI ports than I would have liked. That's when I switched to BJC cables. MUCH better IMO, and they are the same price as the m1000 Monster cables (~$28 for 8'). So it's really a no brainer for me, m1000 or 1000hd all the way. And really, is $10-$15 extra for a cable that big of a deal? You do get a better quality product, so it's not like you are paying extra for nothing. But then again, if a cheap $5 cable fits your needs, I'm not going to argue with you. Knock yourself out.
And yes, I care how the back of my equipment looks like. One thing I can't stand is a rats nest of wires behind an entertainment center. Just sloppy looking and a pain in the ass to work with. Nice high end flexible cables help me keep everything nice and tidy. Presentation and performance both matter to me, that's why I pay a little extra for HDMI cables.
And if you think $28 is overpaying for HDMI cables, you don't want to know what I'm thinking about spending on speaker cables. And they aren't Monster cables.
You do know that Monoprice has various levels of cables, right? Not just $5 cheapies...
Elcs
Diamond Member
- Apr 27, 2002
- 6,278
- 6
- 81
Over a standard cable, I would probably pay 10% extra for the quality afforded by Monster. They look and feel more substantial plus I have never heard any negative comments about the quality.
Their business practices are well documented as being rather... not good but should they reduce their prices to what I would deem "an appropriate price" for their cables then I would not hesitate to support them in that area.
Their business practices are well documented as being rather... not good but should they reduce their prices to what I would deem "an appropriate price" for their cables then I would not hesitate to support them in that area.
Originally posted by: mshan
And the earth is still flat!
Blah blah blah.
What kind of wire is used inside your amp and speakers?
Just because some people fall for cable voodoo doesn't mean the signal coming through is any different. If it was different, then we could measure it - like was being done in the HDMI cables to show that only long runs present a problem for most cables.
Spend your money however you want. Just don't pretend everyone hears your ghost whisperer cables.
Originally posted by: mshan
And the earth is still flat!
Regarding the Million Dollar Challenge, article said Michel Fremer and that man couldn't come to terms on details of the test, not that he wasn't willing to take challenge.
Chain of components would, for results to be valid, have to have sufficient genuine transparency and resolution to delineate subtle differences between speaker wires, if they exist. Using some mass market mid-fi speakers as test speakers doesn't necessarily prove anything because they may be so opaque that, as long as you feed them a decent, intact signal and use an amp that can drive the speakers appropriately, they will always sound the same.
I've heard Wilson speakers at audio shows, but never owned them, so I don't know their characteristics intimately. I have read that Dave Wilson believes that speakers are most important part of chain (vs. Ivor Tifenbrun of Linn turntables, who believes source is most important), and I think he voices his speaker line that way. He even demonstrated at some audio show using an iPod as source for an otherwise rather expensive chain of components. I would guess that as long as he was producing clean signal path, and amp had sufficient power / current, etc. to drive Wilson speakers, predominant characteristic you would always hear is Wilson house sound.
That lady did hear a difference, though she may not been able to verbalize, in audiophile terminology, exactly what difference she perceived. Her comment about more spaciousness could refer to picking up more low level detail in terms of ambience cues ("air") of original recording space as encoded in recording, or, something a home theater fan with good chain of components and a really accurate sub that go really low may experience, spaciousness is recreating better sense of the space and scale of original recording (e. g. large church), where those very low frequencies, now being sent to speaker more cleanly, allow you, in your mind's eye, to "see" / sense / flesh out a more realistic scale of original recording space, to sense walls of church, to hear rumble of extraneous subway running underground at very low spl, etc. Speakers themselves obviously would have to be able to dig down into those very low bass frequencies accurately and without excess bloat, and speaker wires would have to be able to resolve such low level detail, if they were in original recording (the ridiculous price tag a cable manufacturer puts on his cables, including absurd prices of Shunyata products linked below, would be a totally different issue vs. whether or not all speaker wire sounds the same).
edit: As for electricity just being electricity, there are a lot of professional musicians and recording engineers who disagree, and have spent uber-bucks on snake oil interconnects, speaker wires, and yes, power cords and power line conditioning equipment:
What exactly were the terms that conflicted so much to prevent the man from trying to win a million dollars? If I recall from when I read the exchange of correspondence that occurred, the only term they couldn't agree on was whether a more expensive cable would truly provide a better sound. The "could not come to terms" rhetoric was nothing more than an excuse to not take the test so that people would not learn the truth as a result of a high publicity scientific test.
There are plenty of professional musicians who don't know anything about sound. "Professional musicians" generate much of the over-processed junk that the record industry markets to a public that often knows nothing about good sound. Professional musician in our age doesn't necessarily mean the person has any musical talent, only that the person is marketable.
Yes, there are plenty of musicians who spend "uber bucks" on high end cables. That's exactly the point being discussed. They are being duped! They don't have to spend the "uber bucks" to get the same sound.
You are quoting pages on the snake oil vendor's website to justify the efficacy of snake oil.
How can that test be truly "scientific" if the only term that they could not agree on beforehand was whether or not an expensive cable would truly provide a better (different?) sound?
And was that guy putting up the million dollars himself? I thought though am not sure that these million dollar challenges (golf hole in one for charity for example) were backed by someone buying an insurance policy and I am sure the insurance company just doesn't give their money away - they will want to make possibility as difficult as possible, so playback chain would most likely be unable to resolve subtle difference between (two carefully chosen, similar sounding) cables, if they exist. If that man and insurance company backing test were so sure that all cables sound the same, then they should have been happy to conduct the test using Michael Fremer's own hi-fi rig because of the fantastic pr it would create. Plus, just like original Monster speaker test, how can you extrapolate results of one test (one cable vs. one specific cable) and make the generalization that all cables sound the same?
I read that a lot of musicians hate high end audio because the extended bass of many speakers interacts with room to create beats that messes up timing for them; I think they often prefer simple 2-way monitors with limited bass response (40 - 60 hz?) and clean, articulate midrange. I also thought that some recording engineers may monitor and mix original recordings in very sophisticated studio with high end electronics, but that the may also downmix final radio mix to some standardized mass market type mini monitors which might more closely appropriate what recording will sound like through boom box or car radio.
And what would Caelin Gabriel (Shunyata Research) know about engineering, he was only the NSA's lead scientist in the field of low level signal emissions for 15 years...
And was that guy putting up the million dollars himself? I thought though am not sure that these million dollar challenges (golf hole in one for charity for example) were backed by someone buying an insurance policy and I am sure the insurance company just doesn't give their money away - they will want to make possibility as difficult as possible, so playback chain would most likely be unable to resolve subtle difference between (two carefully chosen, similar sounding) cables, if they exist. If that man and insurance company backing test were so sure that all cables sound the same, then they should have been happy to conduct the test using Michael Fremer's own hi-fi rig because of the fantastic pr it would create. Plus, just like original Monster speaker test, how can you extrapolate results of one test (one cable vs. one specific cable) and make the generalization that all cables sound the same?
I read that a lot of musicians hate high end audio because the extended bass of many speakers interacts with room to create beats that messes up timing for them; I think they often prefer simple 2-way monitors with limited bass response (40 - 60 hz?) and clean, articulate midrange. I also thought that some recording engineers may monitor and mix original recordings in very sophisticated studio with high end electronics, but that the may also downmix final radio mix to some standardized mass market type mini monitors which might more closely appropriate what recording will sound like through boom box or car radio.
And what would Caelin Gabriel (Shunyata Research) know about engineering, he was only the NSA's lead scientist in the field of low level signal emissions for 15 years...
So can we all agree to agree that fancy cables won't help with any audio system costing less than $30,000? I.e. the playback chain won't be good enough to let the uber-cables resolve the extra "air" or whatever?
I don't know what the "magic" system price point would be, but I am fairly certain it is well, well, well below that $30,000 price point.
In fact, I would speculate that it is more an issue with price-constrained, mid-fi type components where, say for example, drivers used in speaker, maybe just can't transduce very fine, but musically meaningful detail (e. g. very low level dynamic nuance and precise timing that may more convincingly convey a performer's original artistic intent more similar to as if you were listening to that same performer live), or just an insufficently damped speaker enclosure whose resonances just subtly smear and obscure everything it reproduces.
In fact, I would speculate that it is more an issue with price-constrained, mid-fi type components where, say for example, drivers used in speaker, maybe just can't transduce very fine, but musically meaningful detail (e. g. very low level dynamic nuance and precise timing that may more convincingly convey a performer's original artistic intent more similar to as if you were listening to that same performer live), or just an insufficently damped speaker enclosure whose resonances just subtly smear and obscure everything it reproduces.
First of all, the money is in a quickly negotiable, flexible, liquid bond account. The account is held by the JREF foundation with Goldman Sachs. You can contact Goldman Sachs at any time to verify the existance of the money and that it can be quickly cashed and paid out. Upon agreement of testing terms, the JREF foundation signs a BINDING contract with the person who is offering the claim to be tested that if the test proves the person is right, the million dollars will be paid out within 10 days. Anything else will be a breach of contract, and the JREF will be liable for 1 million dollars that the winner can then sue for. The contract would be no different than one I'd sign if I am building a new building for the JREF foundation for 1 million dollars. The only difference is that "my" side of the bargain is not a product or service, but proving my claim in a scientific test.
Your very first sentence doesn't make sense to me. If they are truly conducting a scientific test, it shouldn't be too hard to agree on terms. The disagreement SHOULD be only the hypothesis on the thing being tested. One side thinks it will work, the other doesn't. James Randi agreed to allow Fremer to use cables of his choosing. So, yes, if the claim is that a cable exists somewhere that sounds better than "standard" cables, the only way to win the million dollar prize is if the person making that claim knows -which- cable that is. James Randi doesn't have time to test a million different cables in hopes that one is different. Isn't the whole point of paying $1000+ for a cable so that the company selling them can go to the trouble of already having picked out which cables are worth the extra money?
And, it doesn't matter what qualifications Gabriel may have. The issue isn't whether he's smart or not, or whether he knows his stuff or not. The issue is that he is paid by a company that sells expensive cables. What's he going to do? Say there is no benefit to expensive cables?
I can't argue with your first two paragraphs*, except to clarify my first statement as how can a test be scientific if they have to agree on the conclusion before they can to proceed with study?
May I ask what James Rhandi said if Michael Fremer asked to use his own hi-fi rig in his own listening room (obviously double blinded to actual being auditioned at any given moment)? And is Mr. Rhandi demanding a b x instant switching, or can Michael Fremer listen to whatever cable happens to be in line at any time, for as long as he likes, using music of his own choosing? (since all cables sound the same, these details shouldn't be contentious points for Mr. Rhandi).
Gaelin Gabriel owns Shunyata Research; he isn't a spokesman. I mentioned his his status as former leading scientist at the NSA in the field of low level signal emissions to show that he just may know what he is saying from an engineering perspective:
Roger Russell used 50 ft. (!) of lamp cord and Monster Cable speaker wire in his "scientific" test. I'd say most people probably just had 2 channel audio system in the 80s, so 8 - 10 ft. of speaker wire would probably be a more accurate approximation of real world conditions (say up to 15 ft. or so if you put audio rack to side of speakers). It makes great PR to say we tested 50 ft. of Monster Cable and (still probably inferred by customers, when no shorter, real world speaker cable lengths were ever tested) couldn't hear a difference (thus no difference exists), when a more honest conclusion might be that 50 ft. of Monster Cable is probably just as lossy as 50 ft. of lamp cord.
* Just googled for JREF and found out it stands for James Rhandi Educational Foundation, so even if it is his own money, sticking point / fail-safe is always going to be upon agreeing to terms... He controls test conditions if challenge is to go forward. Kind of sounds like prize money is his foundation's principal, and organization runs off of interest payments from that principal amount. Which, to me, again strongly suggests that they are very unlikely to really put that money at any real risk by agreeing to terms that don't guarantee the outcome they want.
May I ask what James Rhandi said if Michael Fremer asked to use his own hi-fi rig in his own listening room (obviously double blinded to actual being auditioned at any given moment)? And is Mr. Rhandi demanding a b x instant switching, or can Michael Fremer listen to whatever cable happens to be in line at any time, for as long as he likes, using music of his own choosing? (since all cables sound the same, these details shouldn't be contentious points for Mr. Rhandi).
Gaelin Gabriel owns Shunyata Research; he isn't a spokesman. I mentioned his his status as former leading scientist at the NSA in the field of low level signal emissions to show that he just may know what he is saying from an engineering perspective:
vs. just saying that as long as speaker wire gauge is large enough, nothing else matters.
Roger Russell used 50 ft. (!) of lamp cord and Monster Cable speaker wire in his "scientific" test. I'd say most people probably just had 2 channel audio system in the 80s, so 8 - 10 ft. of speaker wire would probably be a more accurate approximation of real world conditions (say up to 15 ft. or so if you put audio rack to side of speakers). It makes great PR to say we tested 50 ft. of Monster Cable and (still probably inferred by customers, when no shorter, real world speaker cable lengths were ever tested) couldn't hear a difference (thus no difference exists), when a more honest conclusion might be that 50 ft. of Monster Cable is probably just as lossy as 50 ft. of lamp cord.
* Just googled for JREF and found out it stands for James Rhandi Educational Foundation, so even if it is his own money, sticking point / fail-safe is always going to be upon agreeing to terms... He controls test conditions if challenge is to go forward. Kind of sounds like prize money is his foundation's principal, and organization runs off of interest payments from that principal amount. Which, to me, again strongly suggests that they are very unlikely to really put that money at any real risk by agreeing to terms that don't guarantee the outcome they want.
The JREF has deep pockets, the 1 million dollars has been set aside to pay out as prize money if anyone wins the challenge. The challenge is not only for Fremer, but rather anyone who can show evidence towards an extraordinary claim.
I researched the issue a little further, and I think I've been a bit mistaken about the course of events. According to Zalbik on a thread on the JREF forums, what occured is as follows:
Originally Randi offered a $1million challenge to the manufacturers of Pear cables to prove that their were human detectable differences between their (very expensive) cables and standard Monster cables.
Michael Fremer expresses some interest in the challenge.
Pear backed out of the challenge
Fremer and Randi had some discussions over alternative cables, but no agreement was reached (as far as I can tell) as to any acceptable alternatives. One of the discussed alternatives was Opus MM cables.
Independently, Michael Lavigne decided to attempt his own ad-hoc blind test. He posted his intentions on these forums and on the AVS forums.
After the test, Michael Lavigne posted the results. They chose to halt the test partway through once it was obvious he could not detect the difference. It was quite interesting, as when doing sighted test, Michael was certain he could detect the difference.
Somebody found the AVS posting & forwarded it to Randi, assuming (mistakenly) that the Michael in question was Michael Fremer. As far as I know, Fremer has had no further contact with Randi after their inconclusive discussion of alternate cables.
Randi posted it, indicating that Fremer had done his own testing.
The mistake was realized & and apology issued.
As far as Gabriel and Shunyata Research, my point isn't whether he's an employee or an owner. He has a financial stake in the success of the company - a company that sells expensive cables. So, of course, he's going to say that there are advantages to them over "standard" cables.
I researched the issue a little further, and I think I've been a bit mistaken about the course of events. According to Zalbik on a thread on the JREF forums, what occured is as follows:
Originally Randi offered a $1million challenge to the manufacturers of Pear cables to prove that their were human detectable differences between their (very expensive) cables and standard Monster cables.
Michael Fremer expresses some interest in the challenge.
Pear backed out of the challenge
Fremer and Randi had some discussions over alternative cables, but no agreement was reached (as far as I can tell) as to any acceptable alternatives. One of the discussed alternatives was Opus MM cables.
Independently, Michael Lavigne decided to attempt his own ad-hoc blind test. He posted his intentions on these forums and on the AVS forums.
After the test, Michael Lavigne posted the results. They chose to halt the test partway through once it was obvious he could not detect the difference. It was quite interesting, as when doing sighted test, Michael was certain he could detect the difference.
Somebody found the AVS posting & forwarded it to Randi, assuming (mistakenly) that the Michael in question was Michael Fremer. As far as I know, Fremer has had no further contact with Randi after their inconclusive discussion of alternate cables.
Randi posted it, indicating that Fremer had done his own testing.
The mistake was realized & and apology issued.
As far as Gabriel and Shunyata Research, my point isn't whether he's an employee or an owner. He has a financial stake in the success of the company - a company that sells expensive cables. So, of course, he's going to say that there are advantages to them over "standard" cables.
JSt0rm
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 27,399
- 3,948
- 126
ohh no they mix down to the lowest octaves but the thing you kinda touched on is the room treatments and design to become a tuned space so you can accurately hear what is going on. They will always check the mix on different sources like a auratone full range 5.25" driver but the mastering engineer will also take his crack at it and he is listening on very high end speakers among others. It's all about trying to get it to sound as good as you can on as many systems as you can.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter