[[email protected]]

If one wants a real hoot by which to start off the week read the
"audition" of MIT wire in the online stereophile. This one article could
alone serve as the poster child for all of what is wrong and a complete
waste of time in such "auditions". That is unless one wants some
amusement mixed with sadness that some people buy this stuff at up to 5
figure prices.

The author, at our editor's direct command, does a classic job. He hits
all the cliches expected but one. He fails to evoke the ultimate argument
stopper, the "my wife was passing from the kitchen and asked why the
stereo was sounding so good" test.

The science, scientism?, of the MIT wire gets my vote as the pinnacle of
the entire thing. Now why didn't I think of that, because someone is
getting the big bucks to dream this stuff up in the marketing department?
Here it is, enjoy:

http://www.stereophile.com/cables/1008mit/

"All of Bruce Brisson's current designs are based on MIT's [7mpole network
tec hnology. The theory is that standard cables have a very narrow
frequency range within which the cable is "articulating ideally," as
Brisson puts it. He refers to such a cable as a "single-pole" design.
Brisson adds network interfaces to his cables that increase the number of
articulation "poles," resulting in a broadening of the frequency range
within which that cable is "articulating ideally." The higher the number
of
poles, the more elaborate the network and the more expensive the
cable-MIT's Oracle biwire speaker cable has 75 poles and costs $24,900 per
8' pair.

The CVT Terminator 2 cable reviewed here has additional networks that
Brisson has integrated with the output networks found in the affordable
Terminator 2 and 3 cables, which, MIT claims, results in a wider
"articulation" bandwidth than older designs. However, in this "hybrid"
cable, MIT has also added the CVT Coupler input module, which was
previously found in its more expensive Reference products. The CVT input
module is designed to minimize the extent to which the cables reflect
energy back to the source component. The marriage of these two
technologies results in increasing the number of articulation poles
available at the price: 9 poles for the interconnect, 15 for the speaker
cable, and 16 for the biwire speaker cable."

[C. Leeds]

wrote (about MIT cables):

... amusement mixed with sadness that some people buy this stuff at up to 5
figure prices.

Why does it make you sad that some people - who can apparently afford it
- buy expensive cables such as MIT's?

Does it make you sad that some people buy expensive homes, or cars, or
jewelry, or wine?

[jwvm]

On Oct 21, 8:07*am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
wrote (about MIT cables):

... amusement mixed with sadness that some people buy this stuff at up to 5
figure prices.

Why does it make you sad that some people - who can apparently afford it
- buy expensive cables such as MIT's?

It is very sad that the marketers of such nonsense are becoming
wealthy by taking advantage of the technically illiterate. The claims
here about poles and articulation sound like there is a scientific
basis for justifying the ridiculous expense but actually are totally
fictitious. The FDA vigorously prosecutes companies selling health
care products with similarly bogus claims and IIRC, there have been
legal actions in the UK over speaker wire claims.


Does it make you sad that some people buy expensive homes, or cars, or
jewelry, or wine?

There is nothing wrong with people buying expensive products as long
as the perceived product value is based on valid information, prestige
or real scarcity. It may be stupid for people to spend outrageous
amounts of money on speaker cable because of the status provided but
as long as such purchases are based on real facts, there is no
problem.

[C. Leeds]

jwvm wrote (about MIT cables):

It is very sad that the marketers of such nonsense are becoming
wealthy by taking advantage of the technically illiterate.

This raises a few questions. First, are the marketers of MIT cables
getting wealthy from their efforts? Do you have any evidence to support
this claim?
Second, are those who buy MIT cables technically illiterate? (Or, is it
possible that they have their own reasons for buying the product?)

The claims
here about poles and articulation sound like there is a scientific
basis for justifying the ridiculous expense but actually are totally
fictitious. The FDA vigorously prosecutes companies selling health
care products with similarly bogus claims...

Are you suggesting that the purchase of MIT cables could result in some
sort of health problem?

There is nothing wrong with people buying expensive products as long
as the perceived product value is based on valid information, prestige
or real scarcity.

Do you mean that it is improper for people to buy expensive products
simply for their own reasons, such as because they can and they want to?

Really, people spend all sorts of money on all sorts of things for all
kinds of reasons. What's wrong with that? Especially in an ostensibly
high-end audio newsgroup, what's the objection to expensive product? Why
should anyone's buying criteria be first subject to your approval?

[bob]

On Oct 21, 11:49*am, "C. Leeds" wrote:

Second, are those who buy MIT cables technically illiterate?

Obviously the makers of MIT cables think so. Just read their marketing
copy. Who else could they be targeting?

And fortunately for the makers of MIT cables, Stereophile employs some
technically illiterate reviewers.

bob

[Peter Wieck]

On Oct 20, 7:49*pm, wrote:

If one wants a real hoot by which to start off the week read the
"audition" of MIT wire in the online stereophile. *This one article could
alone serve as the poster child for all of what is wrong and a complete
waste of time in such "auditions". *

Yeah, well.

Until someone explains to me how a one-meter, $XXXX.xx bit of line
cord can overcome hundreds of miles of transmission lines, half-a-
dozen transformations, household wiring and more...

Until someone explains to me how $XXXX.xx speaker cables that are
*not* spun from fine silver will sound or measure any better than same-
gauge plain copper fine-stranded THHN or THWN wire... And fine silver
is 'better' only because silver is a better conductor than copper -
not that it has any otherwise magical properties. After all, the issue
is audio frequencies at (relatively) low voltages. No big strain for
any conductor of sufficient gauge.

Until someone explains to me how $XXXX.xx patch cords are any better
than well-made basic patch cords length-for-length...

It all remains smoke-and-mirrors in an effort to steal (word chosen
deliberately) money from the gullible - exactly as Florida/Arizona
land salespeople, snake-oil salespeople and other scammers have done
as long as civilization has existed. It ain't nohow gonna change, and
publications such as Stereophile exist on the strength of it. Imagine
if they actually told the absolute and actual truth? They would be
'done' as of that issue. It would be refreshing though, however short-
lived.

Much as the Emperor's New Clothes, the system becomes self-supporting
and self-fulfilling. Imagine the fallout if all those owners of
$XXXX.xx interconnects (of any nature) woke up one morning and
realized that their investment was snake-oil? Entire industries would
die instantly. All those little cable catenaries, pet rocks, juju
beads, fancy wooden blocks, EMF suppression clocks - the mind boggles.
Another recession-in-the-making.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Peter Wieck]

On Oct 21, 8:07*am, "C. Leeds" wrote:

Why does it make you sad that some people - who can apparently afford it
- buy expensive cables such as MIT's?

Sad? Not me. Amused is more apt for my feelings. After all, even
scammers and snake-oil purveyors have to live.

Does it make you sad that some people buy expensive homes, or cars, or
jewelry, or wine?

Um... for the most part, houses (one cannot buy a "home"), cars,
jewelry and wine provide tangible benefits. That would be the
significant difference.

But, in the immortal words of David Hannum: There is a sucker born
every minute.

Sheep are for the shearing. With cooperative sheep, the process may be
repeated at regular intervals - and so many industries survive and
grow.

Sliding a little bit off-topic, the interchangeable use of "home" for
bricks and mortar (house/apartment/condo/whatever) is part-and-parcel
of the degrading of language that allows for such scammers to get away
with vague language, shaded misrepresentations and much worse. If
actual "truth in advertizing" were enforced in any substantial way
much of this stuff could (word chosen deliberately) not happen.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

wrote (about MIT cables):

... amusement mixed with sadness that some people buy
this stuff at up to 5 figure prices.

Why does it make you sad that some people - who can
apparently afford it - buy expensive cables such as MIT's?

Some of my best friends are millionaires - even deca-millionaires, perhaps a
centa-millionaire or two. I hate to see them get cheated.

Does it make you sad that some people buy expensive
homes, or cars, or jewelry, or wine?

When they do that, they generally get what they pay for. OK, so they have
all seen significant decreases in the values of their homes just lately, and
the cars and boats depreciate pretty fast. But, Bimmers and Mercers are
pretty nice cars, they do many things measurably better than what I drive.

[jwvm]

On Oct 21, 11:49*am, "C. Leeds" wrote:

snip

This raises a few questions. First, are the marketers of MIT cables
getting wealthy from their efforts? Do you have any evidence to support
this claim?

No. But if they are not getting rich, they are really poor business
people. How could cables realistically cost as much as they charge?

Second, are those who buy MIT cables technically illiterate? (Or, is it
possible that they have their own reasons for buying the product?)

If they believe the marketing claims, they are technically illiterate.


The claims
here about poles and articulation sound like there is a scientific
basis for justifying the ridiculous expense but actually are totally
fictitious. The FDA vigorously prosecutes companies selling health
care products with similarly bogus claims...

Are you suggesting that the purchase of MIT cables could result in some
sort of health problem?

No. What I am suggesting is that their marketing claims border on
fraud that in other markets can result in legal action.


There is nothing wrong with people buying expensive products as long
as the perceived product value is based on valid information, prestige
or real scarcity.

Do you mean that it is improper for people to buy expensive products
simply for their own reasons, such as because they can and they want to?

That is clearly not what I said.


Really, people spend all sorts of money on all sorts of things for all
kinds of reasons. What's wrong with that? Especially in an ostensibly
high-end audio newsgroup, what's the objection to expensive product? Why
should anyone's buying criteria be first subject to your approval?

I have no problem with people buying whatever they want as long as
their purchases are not due to fraudulent marketing. I have a big
problem when they purchase something based on completely bogus
technobable.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:48:59 -0700, jwvm wrote
(in article ):

On Oct 21, 8:07*am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
wrote (about MIT cables):

... amusement mixed with sadness that some people buy this stuff at up to 5
figure prices.

Why does it make you sad that some people - who can apparently afford it
- buy expensive cables such as MIT's?

It is very sad that the marketers of such nonsense are becoming
wealthy by taking advantage of the technically illiterate. The claims
here about poles and articulation sound like there is a scientific
basis for justifying the ridiculous expense but actually are totally
fictitious. The FDA vigorously prosecutes companies selling health
care products with similarly bogus claims and IIRC, there have been
legal actions in the UK over speaker wire claims.

It looks as if snake-oil salesmen will always be with us in one form or
another. Of course, it can be argued - successfully too, that expensive
cables do no harm. And if the rich buyer "thinks" that they improve his
system, then so be it. But of course, it doesn't stop there. Many working
class audiophiles save up their hard-earned pennies to buy expensive cables
thinking that these are going to improve their systems when the money would
be better spent on speakers (or music).

Does it make you sad that some people buy expensive homes, or cars, or
jewelry, or wine?

There is nothing wrong with people buying expensive products as long
as the perceived product value is based on valid information, prestige
or real scarcity. It may be stupid for people to spend outrageous
amounts of money on speaker cable because of the status provided but
as long as such purchases are based on real facts, there is no
problem.

Or, if the buyer has so much money that such a purchase will, in no way,
impact them financially, then let them buy what they will. Expensive cables
are like jewelry. They serve no real purpose, but they exude wealth and look
impressive.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:49:26 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

jwvm wrote (about MIT cables):

It is very sad that the marketers of such nonsense are becoming
wealthy by taking advantage of the technically illiterate.

This raises a few questions. First, are the marketers of MIT cables
getting wealthy from their efforts? Do you have any evidence to support
this claim?
Second, are those who buy MIT cables technically illiterate? (Or, is it
possible that they have their own reasons for buying the product?)

While I can't comment on the people at MIT, Bob Lowe, head of Audioquest
drives a fairly new Ferrari, I'm told. That should say that he's not doing
too badly...

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:16:14 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Oct 21, 11:49*am, "C. Leeds" wrote:

Second, are those who buy MIT cables technically illiterate?

Obviously the makers of MIT cables think so. Just read their marketing
copy. Who else could they be targeting?

And fortunately for the makers of MIT cables, Stereophile employs some
technically illiterate reviewers.

bob


Kind of makes you wonder. Cable makers are big advertisers in all of the
audio rags. Do you think that they would remain advertisers if Stereophile
(or TAS, or any other audio magazine) did a review of these cables and said,
straight-out: " This reviewer was unable to discern any difference between
the sound of the reference system when wired with (insert brand here) cables
and the system wired with Radio Shack molded cables at 1/100th the price." ?

I don't think so.

But Having said that, I must point out that I have written for most of these
magazines at one time or another, and I can say that NO editor has ever tried
to tell me what the outcome of my review must or even should be and mostly,
they have published my work as I have written it, and always I've had final
say. Of course, they have the right to not publish a review AT ALL, and in
fact might do so if they felt that a review is too negative. I've never had
it happen to me, but I have heard of it happening.

If they treat all of their reviewers that way, I'd have to say that either
these reviewers who wax rhapsodic about certain cables have their own
agendas, or they really believe that the cables change the sound of their
systems in some positive way. None that I know of, listen to cables
double-blind. If they did, I dare say that even the most dedicated believers
would change their tune.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 21, 3:12�pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Oct 21, 8:07�am, "C. Leeds" wrote:

Um... for the most part, houses (one cannot buy a "home"), cars,
jewelry and wine provide tangible benefits. That would be the
significant difference.


If someone enjoys listening to their system more as a result of using
these various cables and power chords how is that any less tangeble
than the pleasure derived from wearing a cut and pollished rock
wrapped in shiny metal? I understand the outrage against false
advertising but I don't understand the denial of user satisfaction.
Satisfaction is a state of mind.

[bob]

On Oct 21, 6:25*pm, Sonnova wrote:

Kind of makes you wonder. Cable makers are big advertisers in all of the
audio rags. Do you think that they would remain advertisers if Stereophile
(or TAS, or any other audio magazine) did a review of these cables and said,
straight-out: " This reviewer was unable to discern any difference between
the sound of the reference system when wired with (insert brand here) cables
and the system wired with Radio Shack molded cables at 1/100th the price." ?

I think the bigger and more immediate problem would be reader
abandonment. Stereophile feeds a fantasy: that there are subtle
differences among all these wonderful components, and you, dear
reader, can train yourself to hear those differences and become a
member of the in-club of audiophiles. Puncture that myth, and there's
nobody left to read the magazine but the people who appreciate
Atkinson's speaker measurements. And how many advertisers want to tell
to *them*?

bob

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:12:06 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

On Oct 21, 8:07*am, "C. Leeds" wrote:

Why does it make you sad that some people - who can apparently afford it
- buy expensive cables such as MIT's?

Sad? Not me. Amused is more apt for my feelings. After all, even
scammers and snake-oil purveyors have to live.

Does it make you sad that some people buy expensive homes, or cars, or
jewelry, or wine?

Um... for the most part, houses (one cannot buy a "home"), cars,
jewelry and wine provide tangible benefits. That would be the
significant difference.

But, in the immortal words of David Hannum: There is a sucker born
every minute.

Hmmm. I thought it was P.T. Barnum who coined that phrase!

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


If someone enjoys listening to their system more as a
result of using these various cables and power chords how
is that any less tangeble than the pleasure derived from
wearing a cut and pollished rock wrapped in shiny metal?

The rock and metal typically has established long-lasting, even appreciating
value. Diamonds and gold are good choices.

High end cables tend to depreciate pretty rapidly, if ebay and Audiogon are
any guide.

[C. Leeds]

jwvm wrote (about MIT cables):

It is very sad that the marketers of such nonsense are becoming
wealthy by taking advantage of the technically illiterate.

so I asked:
Why does it make you sad that some people - who can apparently afford it
- buy expensive cables such as MIT's?

Peter Wieck answers:

Sad? Not me. Amused is more apt for my feelings...

I also asked:
Does it make you sad that some people buy expensive homes, or cars, or
jewelry, or wine?

Peter Wieck answers;
Um... for the most part, houses (one cannot buy a "home"), cars,
jewelry and wine provide tangible benefits. That would be the
significant difference.

High-end cables provide benefits too, though perhaps those benefits
don't represent good value to you. For example, there are bragging
rights! There may be some appeal to having cables the thickness of fire
hoses in your living room. And the MITs have "network boxes" attached to
one end; there may be some appeal to that feature. Again, perhaps those
things have no value to you. But the cables are tangibly different, no
doubt. They are distinctive.

Sliding a little bit off-topic, the interchangeable use of "home" for
bricks and mortar (house/apartment/condo/whatever) is part-and-parcel
of the degrading of language that allows for such scammers to get away
with vague language...

That sounds as though you received your education in English from pop
music! You must be thinking of the famous Burt Bacharach song "A House
Is Not A Home"...

A chair is still a chair
Even when there's no one sitting there
But a chair is not a house
And a house is not a home
When there's no one there to hold you tight,
And no one there you can kiss good night.

But that's just pop music.
Here's the definition of "home" from the American Heritage dictionary:

n. 1. A place where one lives; residence; habitation.
2. The physical structure or portion thereof within which one lives, as
a house or apartment.

In fact, I chose the word "home" to specifically include condos,
townhomes and the like, because the word "house" would exclude them.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 21, 8:20�pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 21, 5:45�pm, wrote:

On Oct 21, 3:12 pm, Peter Wieck wrote: On Oct 21, 8:07 am, "C. Leeds" wrote:

Um... for the most part, houses (one cannot buy a "home"), cars,
jewelry and wine provide tangible benefits. That would be the
significant difference.

If someone enjoys listening to their system more as a result of using
these various cables and power chords how is that any less tangeble
than the pleasure derived from wearing a cut and pollished rock
wrapped in shiny metal? I understand the outrage against false
advertising but I don't understand the denial of user satisfaction.
Satisfaction is a state of mind.

�So is delusion.

Indeed. but we are all deluded to some degree about all sorts of
things. Anyone who fancies themselves as truly objective and free of
any delusions is really just a little more deluded about themselves.
Ironic no?

�In general, I think the prevalence of snake oil
damages the hobby and diminishes the market for good hi-end
audio products which in turn diminishes our own choices
and drives up expense.

That is an interesting assertion. I'd like to see you flesh it out.
Snake oil, as I undertsand the term there is an implied understanding
on the part of the slaesman that his product lacks substance. IOW
"snake oil" is a from of deliberate fraud. I would agree that this is
an outrageous and unacceptable business practice. But I think a lot of
people, when they refer to snake oil in audio, are using the term to
stand for anything they believe makes no audible difference or even
worse makes an audible difference that they personally have a
philisophical problem with. I find this broader use of the term to be
unfair and a bit of an attempt by some people to push a personal
agenda on other consumers. I find that sort of thing just as
outrageous and unaccptable as the fraud. I am against policing
perosnal beliefs.

The cable issue is a creeping malaise which now pervades all
levels of the audio video world with Best Buy sales
kids pushing Monster audio and video cable with BS claims.
The nerdy know-nothing at Radio Shack tried to make BS claims
for their overpriced "Gold" junk while they've purged the shelves of
any reasonable cable. �Even Home Depot has dropped their
decent connector RCA or GE cable leaving behind tin or nickel
crap with no spring force and put up a 3x as expensive
Monster beast with those hideous jack damaging cyclone
jaws of death plugs.

How does this prevent legitimate audio designers from making and
selling better products? That does seem to be your assertion, that it
"diminishes the market for good hi-end audio products."


Why is this allowed to stand? �A state of mind.


Well yeah, freedom of belief. There are a lot of things I don't
believe in but would never consider supressing other peoples' right to
believe in them. There is a difference between being a fraud and
simply being wrong. the latter is far more inocent IMO. The capitalist
in me says let the market sort it out but the pro regulation side of
me defintiely wants to do something about fraud. The proud American in
me hates the idea of regulating beliefs. I hope this post doesn't
appear to be too political. But we are talking about commerce here as
much as audio.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:15:49 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Oct 21, 6:25*pm, Sonnova wrote:

Kind of makes you wonder. Cable makers are big advertisers in all of the
audio rags. Do you think that they would remain advertisers if Stereophile
(or TAS, or any other audio magazine) did a review of these cables and said,
straight-out: " This reviewer was unable to discern any difference between
the sound of the reference system when wired with (insert brand here) cables
and the system wired with Radio Shack molded cables at 1/100th the price." ?

I think the bigger and more immediate problem would be reader
abandonment. Stereophile feeds a fantasy: that there are subtle
differences among all these wonderful components, and you, dear
reader, can train yourself to hear those differences and become a
member of the in-club of audiophiles. Puncture that myth, and there's
nobody left to read the magazine but the people who appreciate
Atkinson's speaker measurements. And how many advertisers want to tell
to *them*?

bob

That myth is truly punctured with me, yet I still read Stereophile, TAS and
TAV (The Audiophile Voice) because I'm interested in seeing new equipment and
to get the reaction of "experts"* to their hands-on experience with new
equipment. I don't put much faith in their sonic evaluations (other than for
entertainment purposes), but I find the rags fun reading just the same.

* "Experts" in that these reviewers see a LOT of new gear at all price points
pass through their systems. That kind of familiarity with what Harry Pearson
used to call the "passing parade" is of some value.

[bob]

On Oct 22, 9:16*am, Sonnova wrote:

* "Experts" in that these reviewers see a LOT of new gear at all price points
pass through their systems. That kind of familiarity with what Harry Pearson
used to call the "passing parade" *is of some value.

This sets the bar VERY low. Go back and read the first post in this
thread—or the whole review for that matter—and tell me what
'expertise" the reviewer is demonstrating other than an uncanny
ability to spit back the marketing gibberish that MIT has spoon-fed
him. He's not an expert; he's an embarrassment. And the pages of S-
phile and TAS are full of such embarrassments.

bob

[Peter Wieck]

On Oct 22, 9:15*am, "C. Leeds" wrote:

But that's just pop music.
Here's the definition of "home" from the American Heritage dictionary:

n. 1. A place where one lives; residence; habitation.
2. The physical structure or portion thereof within which one lives, as
a house or apartment.

In fact, I chose the word "home" to specifically include condos,
townhomes and the like, because the word "house" would exclude them.

Older (1963 edition) Merriam-Webster

1 a: the social unit formed by a family living together
2 a: a familiar or usual setting : congenial environment ; also : the
focus of one's domestic attention home is where the heart is b:
habitat
3 a: a place of origin salmon returning to their home to spawn

Yeah, the newer version does put bricks first. Sadly.

Wanna play dictionary?

I expect that the word you are searching for is "domicile" - that
covers bricks-and-mortar in all of its forms.

English has the power to be a very precise language able to convey
concepts with great accuracy. Diluting that power happens all the
time, but it does remove the 'snap' from the language. And fosters
delusions...

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
On Oct 21, 8:20?pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 21, 5:45?pm, wrote:

On Oct 21, 3:12 pm, Peter Wieck wrote: On Oct 21, 8:07 am, "C. Leeds" wrote:

Um... for the most part, houses (one cannot buy a "home"), cars,
jewelry and wine provide tangible benefits. That would be the
significant difference.

If someone enjoys listening to their system more as a result of using
these various cables and power chords how is that any less tangeble
than the pleasure derived from wearing a cut and pollished rock
wrapped in shiny metal? I understand the outrage against false
advertising but I don't understand the denial of user satisfaction.
Satisfaction is a state of mind.

?So is delusion.

Indeed. but we are all deluded to some degree about all sorts of
things. Anyone who fancies themselves as truly objective and free of
any delusions is really just a little more deluded about themselves.
Ironic no?

Do you know ANYONE who so fancies themselves, and is considered sane?

What about the middle ground, of realizing that we are prey to delusion,
and attempting to be aware of that when making claims?

That is an interesting assertion. I'd like to see you flesh it out.
Snake oil, as I undertsand the term there is an implied understanding
on the part of the slaesman that his product lacks substance. IOW
"snake oil" is a from of deliberate fraud. I would agree that this is
an outrageous and unacceptable business practice. But I think a lot of
people, when they refer to snake oil in audio, are using the term to
stand for anything they believe makes no audible difference or even
worse makes an audible difference that they personally have a
philisophical problem with. I find this broader use of the term to be
unfair and a bit of an attempt by some people to push a personal
agenda on other consumers. I find that sort of thing just as
outrageous and unaccptable as the fraud. I am against policing
perosnal beliefs.

When someone is asking for money for their product, rather than giving it away, that
inevitably raises the question of how much their 'belief' in the product is tainted by the
prospect of profit.

But even a 'sincerity defense' doesn't exonerate them from fault if they make claims that
simply aren't true.


The cable issue is a creeping malaise which now pervades all
levels of the audio video world with Best Buy sales
kids pushing Monster audio and video cable with BS claims.
The nerdy know-nothing at Radio Shack tried to make BS claims
for their overpriced "Gold" junk while they've purged the shelves of
any reasonable cable. ?Even Home Depot has dropped their
decent connector RCA or GE cable leaving behind tin or nickel
crap with no spring force and put up a 3x as expensive
Monster beast with those hideous jack damaging cyclone
jaws of death plugs.

How does this prevent legitimate audio designers from making and
selling better products? That does seem to be your assertion, that it
"diminishes the market for good hi-end audio products."

Ever hear of Gresham's Law?



--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Peter Wieck]

Please forgive this top-posting - please note the interpolations.

For the sake of the moderators, I will try not to go over the top. But
there is a great deal of faulty logic here, which when mixed with
complaisance is dangerous.

On Oct 22, 9:15*am, wrote:
On Oct 21, 8:20 pm, ScottW wrote:





On Oct 21, 5:45 pm, wrote:

On Oct 21, 3:12 pm, Peter Wieck wrote: On Oct 21, 8:07 am, "C. Leeds" wrote:

Um... for the most part, houses (one cannot buy a "home"), cars,
jewelry and wine provide tangible benefits. That would be the
significant difference.

If someone enjoys listening to their system more as a result of using
these various cables and power chords how is that any less tangeble
than the pleasure derived from wearing a cut and pollished rock
wrapped in shiny metal? I understand the outrage against false
advertising but I don't understand the denial of user satisfaction.
Satisfaction is a state of mind.

So is delusion.

Indeed. but we are all deluded to some degree about all sorts of
things. Anyone who fancies themselves as truly objective and free of
any delusions is really just a little more deluded about themselves.
Ironic no?

Yes. But the deliberate packaging of delusion as a desired state or on
the basis that 'everybody does it' is both unethical and cruel.

In general, I think the prevalence of snake oil
damages the hobby and diminishes the market for good hi-end
audio products which in turn diminishes our own choices
and drives up expense.

All of the above.

That is an interesting assertion. I'd like to see you flesh it out.
Snake oil, as I undertsand the term there is an implied understanding
on the part of the slaesman that his product lacks substance.

Yes. Absolutely. I defy you to find any engineer - even the designers
of said cables - who by actual test can or will even try to prove the
assertions commonly given about the cables under discussion. further,
I defy you to find any human being on earth who will discern these
cables even 75% of the time from any given well-made similar cable in
any carefully designed blind test - I will go further to say that the
design of said test must be acceptable to both sides. Salespeople are
on commission (or survive on what they kill) and so have the ethics of
a wolverine and the morals of a typical politician. This is a
necessary state to their survival.

IOW "snake oil" is a form (corrected) of deliberate fraud.

Absolutely - see above.

I would agree that this is
an outrageous and unacceptable business practice. But I think a lot of
people, when they refer to snake oil in audio, are using the term to
stand for anything they believe makes no audible difference or even
worse makes an audible difference that they personally have a
philisophical problem with. I find this broader use of the term to be
unfair and a bit of an attempt by some people to push a personal
agenda on other consumers. I find that sort of thing just as
outrageous and unaccptable as the fraud. I am against policing
perosnal beliefs.

All very nice. Sheep are made for shearing - and with cooperative
sheep, this may be done on a regular basis. When it comes to humans,
that should not be the case. It is a "victimless crime" but a crime
nonetheless.

The cable issue is a creeping malaise which now pervades all
levels of the audio video world with Best Buy sales
kids pushing Monster audio and video cable with BS claims.
The nerdy know-nothing at Radio Shack tried to make BS claims
for their overpriced "Gold" junk while they've purged the shelves of
any reasonable cable. Even Home Depot has dropped their
decent connector RCA or GE cable leaving behind tin or nickel
crap with no spring force and put up a 3x as expensive
Monster beast with those hideous jack damaging cyclone
jaws of death plugs.

That is a tad over-the-top - if one's jacks might be damaged by these
cables, perhaps the jacks (and thereby the build-quality) is not so
hot to begin with. But otherwise dead on-point.

How does this prevent legitimate audio designers from making and
selling better products? That does seem to be your assertion, that it
"diminishes the market for good hi-end audio products."

Because those products will not penetrate the high-end market. There
will neither be the mark-up or the hype to support them. Our local
Mercedes Benz dealer (no, we don't own one) survives well on selling
~50 new cars *PER MONTH*. The local Chrysler-Plymouth dealer is going
under at ~30 new cars *PER WEEK*. Boutique audio sellers have come to
depend on the 100% and 200% (and more) mark-up items to survive - and
therefore cannot afford to compete against themselves. Mid/low end
dealers see this and in the "rising tide lifts all boats" approach
gradually increase the price of their goods - but are still only a
fraction of high-end costs. But the consumer gets screwed from both
ends. Few have alternatives to Radio Shack, Home Depot or Circuit City
at the low end. And fewer can afford nose-bleed prices at the high
end. Me, I go to HBF electronics on State Road in Philadelphia and get
my 2-meter patch cords at 4/$5. And they work just fine.

Why is this allowed to stand? A state of mind.

Well yeah, freedom of belief.

No. Carefully managed smoke and mirrors. Do you remember history and
the great Tulip Craze - that was all belief based on delusion. Enron
tried it more recently - also belief based on delusion, smoke and
mirrors. Now we are in a credit-crisis for largely the same reasons -
as long as the delusion survives the market continues - but does that
make it a "good" thing? Or rather something to be prevented or
eliminated by all possible means whenever confronted?

There are a lot of things I don't
believe in but would never consider supressing other peoples' right to
believe in them.

But, would you permit the deliberate distribution of false assertions
in their support? I think that is what is at issue here. Not the
closely held beliefs or other forms of revealed religion that goes
along with them.

There is a difference between being a fraud and
simply being wrong.

Absolutely. See "engineer" and "salesperson" above. The engineer is
committing fraud. The salesperson is just wrong.

the latter is far more inocent IMO. The capitalist
in me says let the market sort it out but the pro regulation side of
me defintiely wants to do something about fraud. The proud American in
me hates the idea of regulating beliefs. I hope this post doesn't
appear to be too political. But we are talking about commerce here as
much as audio.

Yet we regulate drugs or things purported to be drugs with some care
and attention. Audio cables are relatively harmless and lives do not
depend on them - but the principles are precisely the same. It is one
thing to state that an audio cable *WILL* give a noticeable
improvement - it is entirely another to state that the same cable
gives no measurable improvement, that audible improvements are as-yet
unproven, but they may make *you* feel better. That would be fair
enough. But it would sell very, very few cables.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:15:36 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Oct 22, 9:16*am, Sonnova wrote:

* "Experts" in that these reviewers see a LOT of new gear at all price
points
pass through their systems. That kind of familiarity with what Harry Pearson
used to call the "passing parade" *is of some value.

This sets the bar VERY low. Go back and read the first post in this
thread—or the whole review for that matter—and tell me what
'expertise" the reviewer is demonstrating other than an uncanny
ability to spit back the marketing gibberish that MIT has spoon-fed
him. He's not an expert; he's an embarrassment. And the pages of S-
phile and TAS are full of such embarrassments.

bob


Like I said (in context). Reviewers see a lot of different equipment. Many
are good at explaining features, accessing build quality, and discussing
features left out, as well as ergonomic and interface problems, etc. It's all
I expect from a review, and except for speakers (where sonic observations
MIGHT give one at least a frame of reference), their comments about sound
quality are, mostly, irrelevant to me. Add to that, a chance to see new
equipment discussed and a certain entertainment value, and I find these and a
couple of British magazines fun reading.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 06:15:44 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

On Oct 21, 8:20�pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 21, 5:45�pm, wrote:

On Oct 21, 3:12 pm, Peter Wieck wrote: On Oct 21, 8:07 am,
"C. Leeds" wrote:

Um... for the most part, houses (one cannot buy a "home"), cars,
jewelry and wine provide tangible benefits. That would be the
significant difference.

If someone enjoys listening to their system more as a result of using
these various cables and power chords how is that any less tangeble
than the pleasure derived from wearing a cut and pollished rock
wrapped in shiny metal? I understand the outrage against false
advertising but I don't understand the denial of user satisfaction.
Satisfaction is a state of mind.

�So is delusion.

Indeed. but we are all deluded to some degree about all sorts of
things. Anyone who fancies themselves as truly objective and free of
any delusions is really just a little more deluded about themselves.
Ironic no?

�In general, I think the prevalence of snake oil
damages the hobby and diminishes the market for good hi-end
audio products which in turn diminishes our own choices
and drives up expense.

That is an interesting assertion. I'd like to see you flesh it out.
Snake oil, as I undertsand the term there is an implied understanding
on the part of the slaesman that his product lacks substance. IOW
"snake oil" is a from of deliberate fraud. I would agree that this is
an outrageous and unacceptable business practice. But I think a lot of
people, when they refer to snake oil in audio, are using the term to
stand for anything they believe makes no audible difference or even
worse makes an audible difference that they personally have a
philisophical problem with. I find this broader use of the term to be
unfair and a bit of an attempt by some people to push a personal
agenda on other consumers. I find that sort of thing just as
outrageous and unaccptable as the fraud. I am against policing
perosnal beliefs.

Selling "snake oil" isn't necessarily a result of a "knowing" attempt to
defraud. Pharmacists sold Carter's Little Liver Pills" in their drug-stores
for decades, along with other such dubious nostrums as Geritol, and a myriad
of worthless products sold to restore hair to the balding (they didn't) or
cure acne (nope) and slim down the overweight ("this product, when used in
conjunction with a proper weight-loss diet and exercise, will aid in
significant weight loss." Well guess what? Diet and exercise WITHOUT the
product in question will also result in significant weight loss, now, won't
it?

Most audio salesmen probably honestly believe that cables are important (and
for the record, from a standpoint of reliability and to get quasi-balanced
interconnects, I believe that audiophiles should by DECENT, well-made cables
instead of cheap junk. I'm old enough to remember when we had to make our
own, and I remember how unreliable they were. I also remember when the cheap,
Japanese "Radio Shack" type molded cables were all that was available. They
too, while better than home-made, were likewise unreliable.). They probably
believe, in the absence of any double-blind test data, that cables can
improve the sound. That means that the culpability for the "snake oil" aspect
of cable sales must go back another step and rest with the manufacturer.
Surely, the people who are designing these cables must know that its nonsense
and that from an electronics engineering point of view, there is nothing at
all critical about audio frequencies that would allow them, to be altered in
any way, by the construction or materials used in the wire carrying those
signals. THese engineers and their bosses and marketing cohorts are where the
snake oil is being sold.

The whole fallacy wrt audio interconnects and speaker cables is that they
are priced all over the place and many are filled with gimmicks of dubious
worth, put there merely (it would seem) to justify their price and, of
course, to add "bling" factor. Yet nobody can tell you which cables are
better, or why. The only hierarchy seems to be price. We are expected to
believe that a $4000 pair of 1-meter Nordost interconnects sounds better than
a $60 pair of similar Monster cables. Yet where is the "cable shootout" to
prove this is so? If cables are acting as a subtle "tone control" (which is,
if you think about it, all a piece of cable can do - either boost or cut
parts of the spectrum. It certainly can't introduce or eliminate distortion,
change absolute phase relationships, or do anything else to in some way alter
the signal it's passing.), then wouldn't the best cables be those which alter
the signal they're passing THE LEAST? Yet nobody ever discusses that aspect
of cable "design" either.

It is snake oil and somebody in the manufacturing an sales chain knows it,
it's just not necessarily the guy in the stereo shop that sells it.

The cable issue is a creeping malaise which now pervades all
levels of the audio video world with Best Buy sales
kids pushing Monster audio and video cable with BS claims.
The nerdy know-nothing at Radio Shack tried to make BS claims
for their overpriced "Gold" junk while they've purged the shelves of
any reasonable cable. �Even Home Depot has dropped their
decent connector RCA or GE cable leaving behind tin or nickel
crap with no spring force and put up a 3x as expensive
Monster beast with those hideous jack damaging cyclone
jaws of death plugs.

How does this prevent legitimate audio designers from making and
selling better products? That does seem to be your assertion, that it
"diminishes the market for good hi-end audio products."

It affects credibility of the entire hi-end audio "movement". When a
technology market becomes filled with products of dubious technical worth,
expensive cables that cannot justify their superiority to other products
except by price, wooden blocks that cost an arm and a penis and are supposed
to magically make things "sound better" by their mere proximity, expensive
stands to raise speaker cables off of the carpet to make the cables "sound
better", green pens to stripe the edges of CDs (to keep the laser light from
spilling out?) and other assorted nonsensical nostrums and talismans, it
diminishes the credibility of real breakthroughs and puts into question the
actual worth of all high-end components. For instance, if a one meter pair of
interconnects can cost $4000, what does that say about a $4000 Pre-amplifier?
Which, then would be the better place to spend your $4K?


Why is this allowed to stand? �A state of mind.


Well yeah, freedom of belief. There are a lot of things I don't
believe in but would never consider supressing other peoples' right to
believe in them. There is a difference between being a fraud and
simply being wrong. the latter is far more inocent IMO. The capitalist
in me says let the market sort it out but the pro regulation side of
me defintiely wants to do something about fraud. The proud American in
me hates the idea of regulating beliefs. I hope this post doesn't
appear to be too political. But we are talking about commerce here as
much as audio.

While I agree with you in theory, I try to take the path that says that the
phrase Caveat Emptor should be sufficient regulation in and of itself.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 22, 2:48�pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 21, 8:20?pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 21, 5:45?pm, wrote:

On Oct 21, 3:12 pm, Peter Wieck wrote: On Oct 21, 8:07 am, "C. Leeds" wrote:

Um... for the most part, houses (one cannot buy a "home"), cars,
jewelry and wine provide tangible benefits. That would be the
significant difference.

If someone enjoys listening to their system more as a result of using
these various cables and power chords how is that any less tangeble
than the pleasure derived from wearing a cut and pollished rock
wrapped in shiny metal? I understand the outrage against false
advertising but I don't understand the denial of user satisfaction.
Satisfaction is a state of mind.

?So is delusion.
Indeed. but we are all deluded to some degree about all sorts of
things. Anyone who fancies themselves as truly objective and free of
any delusions is really just a little more deluded about themselves.
Ironic no?

Do you know ANYONE who so fancies themselves, and is considered sane?

I think the attitude is pandemic. I suspect it is human nature to have
excessive confidence in one's own objectivity.


What about the middle ground, of realizing that we are prey to delusion,
and attempting to be aware of that when making claims?

I think there is value in having enough humility to accept that one
can be deluded.
I think having the same humility when making claims of "truth" is a
very good thing.


That is an interesting assertion. I'd like to see you flesh it out.
Snake oil, as I undertsand the term there is an implied understanding
on the part of the slaesman that his product lacks substance. IOW
"snake oil" is a from of deliberate fraud. I would agree that this is
an outrageous and unacceptable business practice. But I think a lot of
people, when they refer to snake oil in audio, are using the term to
stand for anything they believe makes no audible difference or even
worse makes an audible difference that they personally have a
philisophical problem with. I find this broader use of the term to be
unfair and a bit of an attempt by some people to push a personal
agenda on other consumers. I find that sort of thing just as
outrageous and unaccptable as the fraud. I am against policing
perosnal beliefs.

When someone is asking for money for their product, rather than giving it away, that
inevitably raises the question of how much their 'belief' in the product is tainted by the
prospect of profit.

It may raise the question but it doesn't answer it. There are people
in this world selling things that they whole heartedly believe in.


But even a 'sincerity defense' doesn't exonerate them from fault if they make claims that
simply aren't true.

I think that is an overly broad claim. I thing in some cases you are
absolutely right. There comes a point where ignorance becomes
neglegance. In other cases it can be quite innocent. you got to judge
that on a case by case basis.


The cable issue is a creeping malaise which now pervades all
levels of the audio video world with Best Buy sales
kids pushing Monster audio and video cable with BS claims.
The nerdy know-nothing at Radio Shack tried to make BS claims
for their overpriced "Gold" junk while they've purged the shelves of
any reasonable cable. ?Even Home Depot has dropped their
decent connector RCA or GE cable leaving behind tin or nickel
crap with no spring force and put up a 3x as expensive
Monster beast with those hideous jack damaging cyclone
jaws of death plugs.
How does this prevent legitimate audio designers from making and
selling better products? That does seem to be your assertion, that it
"diminishes the market for good hi-end audio products."

Ever hear of Gresham's Law? �

I had not. I looked it up. I don't think it is at work in this case.