[shifuimam]

I just went to Amazon to see what's on my Secret Santa buddy's wishlist, and on the front page of Amazon.com was this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...pf_rd_i=507846

A thousand dollars. For a pair of flipping computer speakers.

Apparently this is for the person who has everything and has already bought all the fantasy items from the annual Neiman-Marcus Christmas catalog.

[SSharon]

but it ships free!

[Laminar]

I think they're made of diamond.

[shifuimam]

Perfect to pair with some $7500 speaker cable.

I mean, if you have a grand to spend on something like this, why not buy some good $200 speakers and give the other $800 to a starving kid in Darfur or something?

Seriously.

[brassplayersrock²]

^ That's insane!

[- - e r i k - -]

Hahaha! It's like my Soundsticks got left out in the sun for too long

[dcmacdaddy]

Yeah, those are teh ghey.

Who would pay that much money for a set of computer speakers? Someone with more money than brains if you ask me.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Perfect to pair with some $7500 speaker cable.

I mean, if you have a grand to spend on something like this, why not buy some good $200 speakers and give the other $800 to a starving kid in Darfur or something?

Seriously.

Geez?!? Audiophile weirdness really is incomprehensible to me. Didn't we have a thread about this kind of stuff a while back? I remember reading about these pear cable folks and their crazy high-priced products. Whose got that kind of money for cables???

At my old job where we had a $40K Meyer Sound portable PA system we didn't spend thousands on cabling, we spent several hundred and the system worked fine for everything from speaking events to small concerts. I just don't get spending that kind of money on speaker cables.

[- - e r i k - -]

It's useless. Preys on the gullibilities of these audiotards.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I mean, if you have a grand to spend on something like this, why not buy some good $200 speakers and give the other $800 to a starving kid in Darfur or something?

...because $200 computer speakers almost certainly won't sound as good, and will definitely be less of a conversation piece?

Seriously, you could say this about most "nice things" people buy. I could've bought a shitty snowboard, but I bought a nice snowboard. I could've saved $200 and bought a cheaper one that probably would've been just as serviceable, but I didn't. Why? Because I wanted the nicer one that will make people say "ooOOooo" when I blow by them.

If we humans had to get what would merely "suit our needs" or is "most practical", it would be a very different world out there. Some would say better. Some would say boring.

greg

[besson3c]

I bet that companies that make products that prey on naive or not-so-practical customers are in collusion with the credit card companies.

[zro]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

...because $200 computer speakers almost certainly won't sound as good, and will definitely be less of a conversation piece?

Seriously, you could say this about most "nice things" people buy. I could've bought a shitty snowboard, but I bought a nice snowboard. I could've saved $200 and bought a cheaper one that probably would've been just as serviceable, but I didn't. Why? Because I wanted the nicer one that will make people say "ooOOooo" when I blow by them.

Right. The conversation that starts, "Geez, he paid a grand for those? What a ****in' dope! *guffaws*" as soon as you're out of earshot.

I tend to side with practicality or value. Although some people stroke their own egos with practicality instead of with fluff.

[Tomchu]

I love the bullshit hyperbole that these audiophile reviewer types just *love* to shovel. Take a look at this testimonial about the Pear cables:

"In extended listening sessions, I found the cables' greatest strength to be its PRAT. Simply put these are very danceable cables. Music playing through them results in the proverbial foot-tapping scene with the need or desire to get up and move. Great swing and pace—these cables smack that right on the nose big time."

- Dave Clark, Editor Positive Feedback Online"

... Because my cheap, $0.80/foot copper cabling will change the swing or pace of a song? "Danceable cables"? Honestly? :-|

[moep]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Hahaha! It's like my Soundsticks got left out in the sun for too long

You might be on to something there.

[…] Harman Kardon then takes this material and puts it through an annealing process. This includes baking each enclosure at 80 degree C for 4 hours.

[mattyb]

Listen to some of the figures that these guys spent :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs1aUws0Lrs

[Maflynn]

I find that in this economy that some companies still don't get it. It was absurd in a good economy to buy those speakers its absolutely ludicrous in a recession.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

...because $200 computer speakers almost certainly won't sound as good, and will definitely be less of a conversation piece?

Seriously, you could say this about most "nice things" people buy. I could've bought a shitty snowboard, but I bought a nice snowboard. I could've saved $200 and bought a cheaper one that probably would've been just as serviceable, but I didn't. Why? Because I wanted the nicer one that will make people say "ooOOooo" when I blow by them.

If we humans had to get what would merely "suit our needs" or is "most practical", it would be a very different world out there. Some would say better. Some would say boring.

greg

I buy nice things too. I want good quality and such.

But the fact is, there's a 99% chance that there are other speakers with the same quality as these for a fraction of the price.

Status symbol products are never worth their ticket price. It's the same with any other luxury item. You have the great quality stuff, and then you have the midrange or great quality stuff that is so overpriced because it's very obviously designed to help people show everyone how wealthy they are.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I just went to Amazon to see what's on my Secret Santa buddy's wishlist, and on the front page of Amazon.com was this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...pf_rd_i=507846

A thousand dollars. For a pair of flipping computer speakers.

Apparently this is for the person who has everything and has already bought all the fantasy items from the annual Neiman-Marcus Christmas catalog.

It's more idiotic when you see that they're an Amazon exclusive. Or when you consider that most computer users' sound systems make your cell phone sound symphonic.

Speaking of which, let's look at something that's REALLY for the person who has everything: a $20,000 cell phone. Their least expensive model is $5,100. It does come with concierge service, worldwide quad-band operation, and a fancy polishing cloth...

[brassplayersrock²]

doesn't the word prat refer to ones "buttocks"?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

I find that in this economy that some companies still don't get it. It was absurd in a good economy to buy those speakers its absolutely ludicrous in a recession.

Someone skipped out on economy 101.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

It's useless. Preys on the gullibilities of these audiotards.

*sigh*

No, it's not.

Cable quality makes a surprising difference - however, results are *much* more noticeable the lower the signal level is.

I.e., spending $500 on a phono cable is going to make a huge difference, spending the same amount on a line-level component cable somewhat less so, and on a speaker cable, even less.

As always in audio, however, there is a law of diminishing returns - above a certain point, the amount of money you can spend increases inversely proportionally as the "amount" of quality gain decreases.


I have no doubt whatsoever that there are bound to be much better speakers available than those Harman kardons at a $1,000 price point. However, it is equally true that it is possible to spend $1,000 on speakers that are complete **** - and I doubt that those hk's are.


As for "why spend $1,000 on COMPUTER speakers?" - that's kind of a silly question in the year 2008, where computers tend to be entertainment systems.
I don't even have a stand-alone CD player around, anymore.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

At my old job where we had a $40K Meyer Sound portable PA system we didn't spend thousands on cabling, we spent several hundred and the system worked fine for everything from speaking events to small concerts. I just don't get spending that kind of money on speaker cables.

Yeah, but you spend hundreds, and not tens of dollars, so there was obviously merit in buying some sensible cable.

Nobody in the PA rental business is EVER going to buy high-end "audiophile" cabling, primarily due to the fact that for anyone travelling with any kind of musical/PA equipment, cables are the NUMBER ONE "lost" item - followed closely by power strips. But if anybody claims that there's no difference between a 50¢ twisted pair doorbell wire and even a decent $20 cable, then he has no business whatsoever dealing with PA equipment, except perhaps stacking/loading the cases in a warehouse.

If you were setting up a high-end mastering studio, chances are quite high that you'd have four figures sunk into cabling, and with good reason.*

As always, "good enough" for what you're doing is good enough.




*) NB: the "Monster" label does not qualify as "good reason".

[ShortcutToMoncton]

*guh*

Edit: SH beat me to the punch re: "why spend $1000 on speakers."

The bottom line is, the people buying these have more money than most of you, and if they can afford to drop a grand on crazy little HK speakers that sound pretty good – then why shouldn't they??

It's the same line of reasoning as saying a decked-out Chrysler 300 is just as good as a Rolls, and anyone who buys a Rolls instead of that Chrysler are just "retarded." Silly silly silly.

greg

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

*sigh*

No, it's not.

Cable quality makes a surprising difference - however, results are *much* more noticeable the lower the signal level is.

I.e., spending $500 on a phono cable is going to make a huge difference, spending the same amount on a line-level component cable somewhat less so, and on a speaker cable, even less.

As always in audio, however, there is a law of diminishing returns - above a certain point, the amount of money you can spend increases inversely proportionally as the "amount" of quality gain decreases.


I have no doubt whatsoever that there are bound to be much better speakers available than those Harman kardons at a $1,000 price point. However, it is equally true that it is possible to spend $1,000 on speakers that are complete **** - and I doubt that those hk's are.


As for "why spend $1,000 on COMPUTER speakers?" - that's kind of a silly question in the year 2008, where computers tend to be entertainment systems.
I don't even have a stand-alone CD player around, anymore.

That's just it. These are little speakers. If you want to spend a grand, get something with some oomph to it. I'm going to guess that these aren't too swell on carrying good bass.

I don't buy this high end audio cable BS. The average person is not going to notice a difference. Perhaps if you have extraordinarily good hearing or are in a tightly controlled soundproof environment where you are carefully listening for specific differences, you'll be able to tell. However, someone just listening to music or watching a movie for enjoyment is likely going to be unable to notice an actual difference. Video cable is much the same way - I have some mid-grade cables for my DVD player, and I have yet to actually notice a difference between those and the stock cables that came with the thing.

Sure, you can show graphs and diagnostics that prove a difference, but if you as a human being can't tell, it doesn't really matter.

Now, I am aware that really crappy cabling is going to have quality issues with long lengths. However, your average consumer has their DVD player in furniture directly below their television. The difference between overpriced and standard cabling when it's only 5' long is going to be negligible.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

That's just it. These are little speakers. If you want to spend a grand, get something with some oomph to it. I'm going to guess that these aren't too swell on carrying good bass.

So what if they're "little speakers?" How is that not a good thing, if the sound quality doesn't significantly suffer as a result? According to the review the bass is a little light at volume, but otherwise perfectly acceptable.

Most computer speaker systems overcompensate by pairing cheap, weak treble and midrange with booming, overcompensating bass. It might sound good for games or movies or crappy music, but I'm sure there's people who want serious, balanced audio coming out of their computer, while looking like Teh Future™ just came down and turned into a speaker system.

average person

I don't think anyone's talking about the "average person" here. That person is going to go buy some cheapass Logitech computer speakers and be happy as a clam. These speakers aren't in that market.

greg

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

That's just it. These are little speakers. If you want to spend a grand, get something with some oomph to it. I'm going to guess that these aren't too swell on carrying good bass.

massive bass != good sound.

In the vast majority of cases, the complete opposite is true.

Audio FIDELITY has to do with truthfulness to the source material, not with damaging the surrounding architecture.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I don't buy this high end audio cable BS. The average person is not going to notice a difference. Perhaps if you have extraordinarily good hearing or are in a tightly controlled soundproof environment where you are carefully listening for specific differences, you'll be able to tell. However, someone just listening to music or watching a movie for enjoyment is likely going to be unable to notice an actual difference. Video cable is much the same way - I have some mid-grade cables for my DVD player, and I have yet to actually notice a difference between those and the stock cables that came with the thing.

Sure, you can show graphs and diagnostics that prove a difference, but if you as a human being can't tell, it doesn't really matter.

You are completely, utterly, totally wrong.

Your ears are *much* more sensitive than graphs and diagnostics! That's why so much complete **** is sold - because customers (and in stunningly many cases, the engineers who build the crap) don't *listen*.

Anybody can tell - if the difference is big enough, it will be obvious. On things like speaker cables, the difference will be more subtle (depending on the rest of the components and the source), and yes, you will need to know what to listen for - before it bugs the hell out of you.

High-end audio is kind of like food - "good enough" is good enough, but once you've had a fresh, home-grown tomato from your neighbor's garden, you can't "un-taste" that, and while your daily veggies may not be up to that level (due to cost, availability, or "good enough" factor), you probably wouldn't ever discount the difference.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Most computer speaker systems overcompensate by pairing cheap, weak treble and midrange with booming, overcompensating bass.

You rang?



Uh-huh.

[NobleMatt]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Listen to some of the figures that these guys spent :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs1aUws0Lrs

tbh with the same kinda money they are spending there, i would buy my self a Ferrari and sit and listen to that, because the noise of that would top anything you can play on a stereo and u can take it to the shops

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by crazyreaper 

tbh with the same kinda money they are spending there, i would buy my self a Ferrari and sit and listen to that, because the noise of that would top anything you can play on a stereo and u can take it to the shops

And pick up women.

[NobleMatt]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

And pick up women.

hell yer, didnt think of that one

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Anybody can tell - if the difference is big enough, it will be obvious. On things like speaker cables, the difference will be more subtle (depending on the rest of the components and the source), and yes, you will need to know what to listen for - before it bugs the hell out of you.

Then do you agree that the noted audio cables are "very danceable"?



greg

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Audio FIDELITY has to do with truthfulness to the source material, not with damaging the surrounding architecture.

Hear, hear!

But is fidelity the goal, really? Audio recording is to music what photography is to a real scene. In photography, it's widely accepted that accurate color fidelity is not necessarily the same as pleasant color. For example, we tend to like our photos more saturated that the original scene was. (And there are even cultural norms -- Nikon cameras sold in Asia output less-saturated skin tones than the same models sold in the Americas and Europe, because they prefer paler skin.)

I don't understand why audio can't accept a similar model.

What I do believe is that audio gear should introduce few artifacts, like hiss, distortion or clipping, etc.

Your ears are *much* more sensitive than graphs and diagnostics! That's why so much complete **** is sold - because customers (and in stunningly many cases, the engineers who build the crap) don't *listen*.

...

High-end audio is kind of like food - "good enough" is good enough, but once you've had a fresh, home-grown tomato from your neighbor's garden, you can't "un-taste" that, and while your daily veggies may not be up to that level (due to cost, availability, or "good enough" factor), you probably wouldn't ever discount the difference.

I think the problem with audiophiles is that the adjectives used to describe components are ridiculous. They are so vague as to mean anything, and therefore mean nothing at all.

I also believe that the point of listening is to enjoy the music -- and that's not predicated on sound quality. Do I love listening to music on great headphones? Absolutely. But if I'm in the car, and the music has to compete against road noise, I still enjoy the songs.

And with that said -- with the goal of music (or movie) enjoyment in mind -- I believe that you can build a 100% solution for 5% of the price of some of the wildest audiophile gear.

Am I suggesting a Wal-Mart HTiB? No, most of those suck. But $2000 can get you a very pleasant system that lets you enjoy your music and movies just as much as a $50,000 gig.

[tooki]

And I'd also like to bring up something about cables: while a well-designed cable is certainly a necessity for analog connections, with digital it's a bit different. I am NOT agreeing with the absurd claims that with digital, cable quality makes no difference. That's utter nonsense, as anyone who's tried to run Fast Ethernet over cheap silver-satin wire could tell you.

But with digital, there's a clear line below which you have data loss, and above which your signal is reproduced accurately. So as long as your cable meets that minimum standard, going beyond it is useless. (Where this imaginary line lies has to do with what type of signal is being sent, what frequency it runs at, and how long the cable run is.) You can see this visually with HDMI cables -- at 6 feet, basically any HDMI cable is fine for any resolution, with no flaws. But if you start looking at long cables (e.g. 30 or 75 feet) the cable quality becomes very important. Too cheap, you start getting sparkles (bad bits of data) and if you take it farther, even complete signal sync loss.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Your ears are *much* more sensitive than graphs and diagnostics! That's why so much complete **** is sold - because customers (and in stunningly many cases, the engineers who build the crap) don't *listen*.

Yes, your ears can hear frequency beyond physics! Measurements? Pfft!

Seriously though, your brain makes you hear what you want to hear. If $1000 placebo-cables makes you think that the sound is better then good for you. You are at least stimulating the economy.

[imitchellg5]

You think that stuff's expensive? How about this. Yours for $148,000. Or you could get a fully stocked Audi R8 with a Bang and Olufsen sound system that probably sounds just as good.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Yes, your ears can hear frequency beyond physics! Measurements? Pfft!

Seriously though, your brain makes you hear what you want to hear. If $1000 placebo-cables makes you think that the sound is better then good for you. You are at least stimulating the economy.

Specifications are kind of useless if you're specifying the wrong things, you know?

PMPO? Wattage? I love how every shitty little earphone blister pack has the frequency response on there, as if that meant *anything*!

Ooo...these $20 earphones go from 15 Hz to 22 kHz, so they must be better than those $70 ones, since they only go from 22 Hz to 18 kHz - what stupid moron would buy those!

I thought you had a clue about this stuff!

Some things are very, VERY difficult to accurately measure - and precision measuring equipment is EXTREMELY expensive.

So at realistic levels, it's a trade-off.

Want to measure frequencies accurately? Lose accuracy in transient response measurement.

Bass response (amplitude, not phase and transient response), in particular, is incredibly difficult to measure - increasingly so the deeper you go. You actually have to play that one by ear - and by taste.


Heavy-gauge speaker wire changes the electrical connection between the speaker and the amp. Note that not only does the amp move the membrane, but the membrane's magnet also has inertia, so its impulse response actually *measurably* influences the load response of the power amplifier during transients. This stuff isn't magic.
And because the membranes of two-(or more-)way speakers have different transient response times, i.e. different inertia resulting in slower or faster impulse responses, the membranes will affect the signal load and thus the sound of the other membrane. This is why bi-wiring two-way speakers makes a noticeable difference. Bi-amping them makes a HUGE difference.


Your ears and brain are far more responsive than most measuring gear.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Your ears and brain are far more responsive than most measuring gear.

The opposite is in fact true, your ears and brain are far LESS responsive than most measuring gear.

These deficiencies are what defines the individual subjective listening experience. Over a certain quality level it is a matter of what you perceive. Those perceptions are easily influenced by your expectations - much more than the expensive voodoo that is thrust upon the gullible masses with so much pseudo science you'd think it was a new age fair.

To put it bluntly: It is a matter of taste.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by tooki 

Hear, hear!

But is fidelity the goal, really? Audio recording is to music what photography is to a real scene. In photography, it's widely accepted that accurate color fidelity is not necessarily the same as pleasant color. For example, we tend to like our photos more saturated that the original scene was. (And there are even cultural norms -- Nikon cameras sold in Asia output less-saturated skin tones than the same models sold in the Americas and Europe, because they prefer paler skin.)

I don't understand why audio can't accept a similar model.

What I do believe is that audio gear should introduce few artifacts, like hiss, distortion or clipping, etc.

So you're saying that the audio should be distorted in different ways for different markets, but should not distort?

Adding more bass into the mix IS frequency distortion. Poorly-built systems and multi-way speakers will ALWAYS add phase shifting - another form of distortion.

People will spend tens of thousands of dollars on Burmester tube amplifiers BECAUSE they introduce distortion.

"Coloration" is just another word for distortion, except that it happens to distort in a way that people find pleasant.

I have absolutely no problem with this, and I agree with you. In fact that IS the way the market operates. I am absolutely in favor of people purchasing audio gear according to their personal tastes, and that what they like and consider "good enough".


But I do not appreciate being called a gullible nincompoop for believing that there is a difference between speaker cables, let alone being able to TELL.

(I never did hear back from TETENAL after describing to him in detail the differences I heard between two tracks, one of which was an mp3, and one of which was lossless...)


And while consumer cameras may be shipped with different color calibrations to different markets, I DARE you to suggest to a photographer with his $40,000 Hasselblad that he's an idiot because there's a Chinese knock-off with the same specs at a tenth the price.

Originally Posted by tooki 

I think the problem with audiophiles is that the adjectives used to describe components are ridiculous. They are so vague as to mean anything, and therefore mean nothing at all.

I think this is a problem with the people who AREN'T audiophiles, rather than the ones who are.

Listen to two sommeliers talk about wine for fifteen minutes and tell me that what they're saying means anything beyond vague metaphors and allusions.

Originally Posted by tooki 

And with that said -- with the goal of music (or movie) enjoyment in mind -- I believe that you can build a 100% solution for 5% of the price of some of the wildest audiophile gear.

Am I suggesting a Wal-Mart HTiB? No, most of those suck. But $2000 can get you a very pleasant system that lets you enjoy your music and movies just as much as a $50,000 gig.

You swing back and forth between understanding and completely nonsensical statements.

That up there is just stupid, sorry.

OF COURSE somebody who doesn't care is going to enjoy a movie just as much on a well-chosen $2000 stereo.

But to suggest, in one fell swoop, that this is true for everybody is just...aw man. Just no.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

To put it bluntly: It is a matter of taste.

"Taste" implies perceptible differences.

And since we were talking about speaker cables: Those differences I talked about *are* measurable.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

"Taste" implies perceptible differences.

And since we were talking about speaker cables: Those differences I talked about *are* measurable.

It's amazing what you can do by using 14 gauge, plain-jane speaker cables instead of $200, custom built, gold plated, "high end" 20 gauge cables. This too is measurable. Know what you're doing and what your components need, and you can both save money and get good sound. Like keeping the breather holes in a speaker cabinet clean, and keeping the actual speaker baskets properly fastened to their mounting, just using good, solid electrical connections with enough wire for the signal you're pushing can make a huge difference.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

It's amazing what you can do by using 14 gauge, plain-jane speaker cables instead of $200, custom built, gold plated, "high end" 20 gauge cables. This too is measurable. Know what you're doing and what your components need, and you can both save money and get good sound. Like keeping the breather holes in a speaker cabinet clean, and keeping the actual speaker baskets properly fastened to their mounting, just using good, solid electrical connections with enough wire for the signal you're pushing can make a huge difference.

Oh, absolutely.

I've seen plenty of cases where vanilla components actually produced BETTER results than super-expensive audiophile solutions.

See, the way I see it, there's the people who get stuff because it's expensive, and there's the people who get stuff because it sounds better, *even though* it's expensive...but will gladly opt for cheaper stuff if it gives pleasing results.

[ghporter]

For a basic three speaker (2.1) system in a basic apartment, 14 or 16 gauge speaker wire from Radio Shack should be fine. For more complex systems, as long as you're not setting up in some huge space, that same spool of wire should work fine all the way to a 7.2 and beyond system. Increase the distance to the speakers beyond about 25 feet, or the power to each speaker beyond about 100W and then you need heavier wire. But good wire is all you really need. 'Course understanding AC and frequency response of unshielded parallel conductor wire helps a whole lot too...

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

So you're saying that the audio should be distorted in different ways for different markets, but should not distort?

Adding more bass into the mix IS frequency distortion. Poorly-built systems and multi-way speakers will ALWAYS add phase shifting - another form of distortion.

People will spend tens of thousands of dollars on Burmester tube amplifiers BECAUSE they introduce distortion.

"Coloration" is just another word for distortion, except that it happens to distort in a way that people find pleasant.

Well, again, what's the goal? A scientifically "perfect" reproduction, or one that's pleasing?

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I have absolutely no problem with this, and I agree with you. In fact that IS the way the market operates. I am absolutely in favor of people purchasing audio gear according to their personal tastes, and that what they like and consider "good enough".

Well good. But I do strongly feel that diminishing returns set in pretty quickly in audio. $2000 speaker cables are in no way 200 times better than $10 cables.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

But I do not appreciate being called a gullible nincompoop for believing that there is a difference between speaker cables, let alone being able to TELL.

(I never did hear back from TETENAL after describing to him in detail the differences I heard between two tracks, one of which was an mp3, and one of which was lossless...)

I hope you're not talking about me! I didn't call you anything!

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

And while consumer cameras may be shipped with different color calibrations to different markets, I DARE you to suggest to a photographer with his $40,000 Hasselblad that he's an idiot because there's a Chinese knock-off with the same specs at a tenth the price.

I don't recall calling anyone an idiot. Are you attributing someone else's posts to me?

Anyway, that's would I would tell Leica fans, who spend 10x as much on their cameras as they would on a comparable top-grade Japanese camera.

Since there's no Chinese equivalent of a $40K Hasselblad digital back, I'm not sure what point you wanted to make. But even so, to the average Joe, a photo from a $200 point and shoot can be just as pleasant as one from a $10K DSLR setup. Are they technically comparable? No, of course not. But they are each the right tool in different situations. And the outcome -- a photo that captures the essence of a moment -- is more dependent on the photographer than his gear. And in many ways, audio is the same way. A soulful recording will still move you if it's playing out of a crappy stereo.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I think this is a problem with the people who AREN'T audiophiles, rather than the ones who are.
Listen to two sommeliers talk about wine for fifteen minutes and tell me that what they're saying means anything beyond vague metaphors and allusions.

Wine descriptions make sense. Anyone can readily relate those words (which are all basically flavors) and match them up. (In fact, sommeliers don't taste a wine and then come up with a list of flavors they think they find -- instead, they taste the wine and go down a mental list of flavors and see whether they find that flavor in that wine or not.)

Audiophile terms like "warmth" are borrowed from other senses, and don't really relate to anything intuitively.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

You swing back and forth between understanding and completely nonsensical statements.

That up there is just stupid, sorry.

No, I think it's just a very pragmatic way of looking at it.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

OF COURSE somebody who doesn't care is going to enjoy a movie just as much on a well-chosen $2000 stereo.

But to suggest, in one fell swoop, that this is true for everybody is just...aw man. Just no.

But even people who do care should be able to assemble a pleasant system for $2K. Could you tell a difference between it and the bigger system? Sure, if you compare them. But if you sit down to listen, and just listen to the music instead of the gear, you'd probably forget about the gear and just enjoy it fine.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by tooki 

Audiophile terms like "warmth" are borrowed from other senses, and don't really relate to anything intuitively.

That's because it's a descriptive word for something that's hard to describe. Hence you use terms that might sound ambiguous to someone who doesn't understand what you're talking about.

For example, I've certainly been able to identify what "warmth" sounds like coming out of an audio system. I compared by 1977 Sony STR-6800SD receiver to a similar-era Yamaha CR-1000, and mine definitely "colours" the sound somewhat, giving it a warmer tone; the Yammie sounds colder, almost sterile in comparison.

See? I just used "colour," "warm," "cold" and "sterile" when describing the differences between two audio systems. If you didn't know what I was talking about you might think that sounds silly. But I imagine someone else who's also heard similar differences systems would might recognize what I heard.

greg

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by tooki 

And the outcome -- a photo that captures the essence of a moment -- is more dependent on the photographer than his gear. And in many ways, audio is the same way. A soulful recording will still move you if it's playing out of a crappy stereo.

The same limitations apply, though.

A crappy reproduction may, but just as well may NOT, get across what the creator has tried to capture.

Shifting the art metaphor slightly:
The broad brush will come across, but so much art lives off the subtleties and nuances of expression.

Music already has the fundamental problem that once it's banned onto a medium, it's the equivalent of a print of a painting, if you will. A crappy reproduction of a van Gogh will still be moving, but if the colors are off, you're missing much of what actually makes it great, and if the reproduction is good enough, you'll at least get an idea of the texture you're missing. But in fact, if you view all your art through the arts channel on a black and white TV, there's an awful lot of stuff you won't ever recognize as "soulful" or great, at all.

There's much love in the details.

[TheWOAT]

Alot of warmth in this thread. Other MacNN threads tend to be dull, but to their credit lack brightness.

In an Audio-video forum a member did blind testing with expensive cable set up in one room, and coat hanger wire in another... Most testers (self proclaimed audiophiles) could NOT tell the difference.

[NobleMatt]

tbh i just use bargain bin quality cables and a crappy stereo to run my music from my imac, dont have a problem with it, you can get the feel of a song from a lot of modern mobile phone speakers the quality at which you play a song doesnt make it a better song.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by crazyreaper 

you can get the feel of a song from a lot of modern mobile phone speakers the quality at which you play a song doesnt make it a better song.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by crazyreaper 

tbh i just use bargain bin quality cables and a crappy stereo to run my music from my imac, dont have a problem with it, you can get the feel of a song from a lot of modern mobile phone speakers the quality at which you play a song doesnt make it a better song.

So as long as you can hear the "feel" of a song, you're okay? You can pick out the tune pretty well, so that's good enough?

greg

[Spheric Harlot]

No wonder it doesn't matter whether people can actually sing or not.

If you're really gonna argue that cellphone speakers are adequate for reproducing music, I'm out of here. Sure, the song is still "the same", but the idea of actual artistry is reduced ad absurdum.

That's like claiming the song doesn't get any better when the Beatles play it vs. when some shitty party bar band plays it: Technically, that's true - it's the same song.

In fact, arguably, the enjoyment of music is a LOT greater when a horde of drunk partygoers hollers the chorus to "Hey Jude" along with the out of tune guitar player and the tone-deaf singer with the speech impediment.

And it's fine if that's how people want to enjoy songs.


Music can be a HELL of a lot more than a sheet of notation and a handful of lyrics, though.