Whilst googling I happened across this slide-show presented
at the University of Texas at Austin as part of an engineering
seminar series in 2001, presented by one Dr. THomas D. Kite of AudioPrecision Inc.
-- thought it might be of interest to some he

"Debunking Audio Myths: Directional cables, tube amplifiers, and analog vs. digital"

http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminar...AudioMyths.pdf

--
-S.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Whilst googling I happened across this slide-show presented
at the University of Texas at Austin as part of an engineering
seminar series in 2001, presented by one Dr. THomas D. Kite of AudioPrecision Inc.
-- thought it might be of interest to some he

"Debunking Audio Myths: Directional cables, tube amplifiers, and analog vs. digital"

http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminar...AudioMyths.pdf


Excellent synopsis. Thanks.

Not bad but I have two comments.

One - does this person actually listen to and love music or is he just
annoyed by esoterica...

Two - I think it is shortsighted to state that diminishing returns on
speakers set in at $1500. In my personal experience I have listened to
speakers that were absolutely worth the 8K/pair asking price and markedly
improved over plenty of less expensive ones. However...I've seldom heard
much more expensive ones (15K~40K) that seemed worth the price of a new car.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
. net...
Whilst googling I happened across this slide-show presented
at the University of Texas at Austin as part of an engineering
seminar series in 2001, presented by one Dr. THomas D. Kite of
AudioPrecision Inc.
-- thought it might be of interest to some he

"Debunking Audio Myths: Directional cables, tube amplifiers, and analog
vs. digital"

http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminar...AudioMyths.pdf

--
-S.

Unfortunately we are not comparing speakers to automobiles, so a
speaker that is $15k-40k can be signifcantly better than one that is
8k as well. That $32k buys a lot of volume and surface area as well as
machinery or man hours to work it.
- Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250
"S. Brook" wrote in message
...
Not bad but I have two comments.

One - does this person actually listen to and love music or is he
just
annoyed by esoterica...

Two - I think it is shortsighted to state that diminishing returns
on
speakers set in at $1500. In my personal experience I have listened
to
speakers that were absolutely worth the 8K/pair asking price and
markedly
improved over plenty of less expensive ones. However...I've seldom
heard
much more expensive ones (15K~40K) that seemed worth the price of a
new car.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
. net...
Whilst googling I happened across this slide-show presented
at the University of Texas at Austin as part of an engineering
seminar series in 2001, presented by one Dr. THomas D. Kite of
AudioPrecision Inc.
-- thought it might be of interest to some he

"Debunking Audio Myths: Directional cables, tube amplifiers, and
analog
vs. digital"


http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminar...l/AudioMyths.p
df

--
-S.

Agreed, speakers and cars are apples and lawnmowers. However...I think the
difference between 10K speakers and 40K speakers is better spent on room
customization and season tickets to the philharmonic - if you are lucky
enough to live near a 1st tier philharmonic orchestra. JMHO ;-)

"Uptown Audio" wrote in message
...
Unfortunately we are not comparing speakers to automobiles, so a
speaker that is $15k-40k can be signifcantly better than one that is
8k as well. That $32k buys a lot of volume and surface area as well as
machinery or man hours to work it.
- Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250
"S. Brook" wrote in message
...
Not bad but I have two comments.

One - does this person actually listen to and love music or is he
just
annoyed by esoterica...

Two - I think it is shortsighted to state that diminishing returns
on
speakers set in at $1500. In my personal experience I have listened
to
speakers that were absolutely worth the 8K/pair asking price and
markedly
improved over plenty of less expensive ones. However...I've seldom
heard
much more expensive ones (15K~40K) that seemed worth the price of a
new car.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
. net...
Whilst googling I happened across this slide-show presented
at the University of Texas at Austin as part of an engineering
seminar series in 2001, presented by one Dr. THomas D. Kite of
AudioPrecision Inc.
-- thought it might be of interest to some he

"Debunking Audio Myths: Directional cables, tube amplifiers, and
analog
vs. digital"


http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminar...l/AudioMyths.p
df

--
-S.

With my budget I could not agree with you more. If I were more well
heeled, a set of full-range, super high fidelity speakers would make
as much sense to me as a new automobile. Perhaps more as I enjoy music
and they would last a lot longer than a car with no worries about
collisions with idiots! I have heard some pretty amazing speaker sets.
It is an awesome experience to be before a pair of Utopia or Kingdom
speakers. I have also heard the 7' tall Evidence, which was pretty
cool as well, if not quite as earth shaking. We all have to make
choices based upon our values and circumstances; some of us just have
a few more options!
- Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"S. Brook" wrote in message
...
Agreed, speakers and cars are apples and lawnmowers. However...I
think the
difference between 10K speakers and 40K speakers is better spent on
room
customization and season tickets to the philharmonic - if you are
lucky
enough to live near a 1st tier philharmonic orchestra. JMHO ;-)

"Uptown Audio" wrote in message
...
Unfortunately we are not comparing speakers to automobiles, so a
speaker that is $15k-40k can be signifcantly better than one that
is
8k as well. That $32k buys a lot of volume and surface area as
well as
machinery or man hours to work it.
- Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250
"S. Brook" wrote in message
...
Not bad but I have two comments.

One - does this person actually listen to and love music or is
he
just
annoyed by esoterica...

Two - I think it is shortsighted to state that diminishing
returns
on
speakers set in at $1500. In my personal experience I have
listened
to
speakers that were absolutely worth the 8K/pair asking price
and
markedly
improved over plenty of less expensive ones. However...I've
seldom
heard
much more expensive ones (15K~40K) that seemed worth the price
of a
new car.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
. net...
Whilst googling I happened across this slide-show presented
at the University of Texas at Austin as part of an engineering
seminar series in 2001, presented by one Dr. THomas D. Kite
of
AudioPrecision Inc.
-- thought it might be of interest to some he

"Debunking Audio Myths: Directional cables, tube amplifiers,
and
analog
vs. digital"



http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminar...l/AudioMyths.p
df

--
-S.

S. Brook wrote:
Not bad but I have two comments.

One - does this person actually listen to and love music or is he just
annoyed by esoterica...

Ad hominem argument noted and file appropriately. (And gee whiz, could
a devotion to *esoterica* be a mark of an audiophile as well? A perusal
of any issue of any audiophile mag would seem to indicate the answer is
*yes*.)

Two - I think it is shortsighted to state that diminishing returns on
speakers set in at $1500. In my personal experience I have listened to
speakers that were absolutely worth the 8K/pair asking price and markedly
improved over plenty of less expensive ones. However...I've seldom heard
much more expensive ones (15K~40K) that seemed worth the price of a new car.

But the question is, *as a rule*, will 8K speakers tend to be a
marked improvement over $1500 ones. I don't know, myself, not having
had a chance to audition many properly.





--
-S.

Uptown Audio wrote:
Unfortunately we are not comparing speakers to automobiles, so a
speaker that is $15k-40k can be signifcantly better than one that is
8k as well. That $32k buys a lot of volume and surface area as well as
machinery or man hours to work it.


Again, the issue as I understood it from the presentation
is not whether spending more *could* result in getting
a 'better' speaker, based on objective measurements --
an occurrence no one would deny is possible.
It's whether it's *likely to* have that
result, beyond a certain price point ($1500 in this case),
by *objective* criteria of audio performance. Mr. Kite,
whose company appears to specialize in audio equipment measuring devices,
seems to think not.

Steven Sullivan wrote:




S. Brook wrote:
Not bad but I have two comments.

One - does this person actually listen to and love music or is he just
annoyed by esoterica...

Ad hominem argument noted and file appropriately. (And gee whiz, could
a devotion to *esoterica* be a mark of an audiophile as well? A perusal
of any issue of any audiophile mag would seem to indicate the answer is
*yes*.)

Two - I think it is shortsighted to state that diminishing returns on
speakers set in at $1500. In my personal experience I have listened to
speakers that were absolutely worth the 8K/pair asking price and markedly
improved over plenty of less expensive ones. However...I've seldom heard
much more expensive ones (15K~40K) that seemed worth the price of a new
car.

But the question is, *as a rule*, will 8K speakers tend to be a
marked improvement over $1500 ones. I don't know, myself, not having
had a chance to audition many properly.

I've evaluated, used and listened to several hundred loudspeaker systems over
the past 15 years. IME there are 2 demarcation points where quality tends to
level out. $300 and $1000 for 2, 3 or 4 way loudspeaker systems. As the price
increases quality differences seem to widen susbstantially. My comments relate
to pair(s) of speakers and yes, one can find plenty of individual exceptions.

With sets of multichannel products there seems to be an even wider variance but
its harder to assess price classes because there are so many ways to mix/match.
With subwoofers as a product class $2500 is where quality seems to stop
improving and there are plenty of relatively poor performing products at every
price level and a particular $450 model and a particular $700 product
outperform many $2000+ products.

I don't believe that anyone who has heard a pair of the speakers that
I mentioned really gives a rat's tail about what mr kite thinks. It is
not even remotely logical to argue what *could* result or is *likely
to* result in a better speaker at those prices either objectively or
subjectively as many designs have proven to be both. You should hear
them for yourself or reserve comment for others that have.
- Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Uptown Audio wrote:
Unfortunately we are not comparing speakers to automobiles, so a
speaker that is $15k-40k can be signifcantly better than one that
is
8k as well. That $32k buys a lot of volume and surface area as
well as
machinery or man hours to work it.


Again, the issue as I understood it from the presentation
is not whether spending more *could* result in getting
a 'better' speaker, based on objective measurements --
an occurrence no one would deny is possible.
It's whether it's *likely to* have that
result, beyond a certain price point ($1500 in this case),
by *objective* criteria of audio performance. Mr. Kite,
whose company appears to specialize in audio equipment measuring
devices,
seems to think not.

But the question is, *as a rule*, will 8K speakers tend to be a
marked improvement over $1500 ones. I don't know, myself, not having
had a chance to audition many properly.


Why would one bother with such *rules* except to feel better about their
speakers on a budget? If one really wants to know if they may or may not like
any particular speakers they need to listen to them. Then they need to decide
if they are worth the money.

Uptown Audio wrote:
I don't believe that anyone who has heard a pair of the speakers that
I mentioned really gives a rat's tail about what mr kite thinks. It is
not even remotely logical to argue what *could* result or is *likely
to* result in a better speaker at those prices either objectively or
subjectively as many designs have proven to be both.
You should hear
them for yourself or reserve comment for others that have.

Gosh. If you read my post carefully, you'd see thtat I was relating my
understanding of what Mr. Kite wrote, not what I have experienced.

So, how do you know Mr. Kite *hasn't* heard them?

And why does the idea that speakers above $1500 might display diminishing
returns, in terms of OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE -- which is the idea I believe
Mr. Kite is promoting -- set you off?



___
-S.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
. net...
Whilst googling I happened across this slide-show presented
at the University of Texas at Austin as part of an engineering
seminar series in 2001, presented by one Dr. THomas D. Kite of
AudioPrecision Inc.
-- thought it might be of interest to some he

"Debunking Audio Myths: Directional cables, tube amplifiers, and analog
vs. digital"

http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminar...AudioMyths.pdf

--
-S.


I wonder how much he has looked into the area he debunks. Myth 12 about
directional cables is wrong. There are directional cables in that one end
does not have a connection to the shield. I have not reason to accept that
these directional cables work, but they do exist and should be debunked
properly. Oversights like this can destroy the credibility of his other
pontifical statements.

Another person implied that he claimed that there was little improvement
over $1500K on loudspeakers. He actually said that $1500K was where
dramatic improvements ended, not that all improvements ended.

On the whole, I tend to agree with many of his statements, but begin
wondering when there are statements of fact that are based on an incorrect
understanding of what is being marketed.

Dave

S888Wheel wrote:
But the question is, *as a rule*, will 8K speakers tend to be a
marked improvement over $1500 ones. I don't know, myself, not having
had a chance to audition many properly.


Why would one bother with such *rules* except to feel better about their
speakers on a budget?

I guess that applies to the 'rule' that more expensive speakers tend to sound better --
whihc is implicit in audiophilia and in Mr. Uptown Audio's reply, for
example -- eh?

If one really wants to know if they may or may not like
any particular speakers they need to listen to them. Then they need to decide
if they are worth the money.


Again, Mr Kite , who apparently maks a living doign audio measurment,
appears to me to be talking a btou *OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE* as it relates
to price. Of course, whether a speaker is 'worht the money' may depend on
non-objective data as well. ANd lsitening in store does not necessarily give
a good idea of what speakers will sound like at home, nor is it always ,
or even commonly, possible to audition speakers at home. Therefore some sort
of 'rules' can be helpful.

So, what's your beef?


--
-S.

harrison wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
. net...
Whilst googling I happened across this slide-show presented
at the University of Texas at Austin as part of an engineering
seminar series in 2001, presented by one Dr. THomas D. Kite of
AudioPrecision Inc.
-- thought it might be of interest to some he

"Debunking Audio Myths: Directional cables, tube amplifiers, and analog
vs. digital"

http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminar...AudioMyths.pdf

--
-S.


I wonder how much he has looked into the area he debunks. Myth 12 about
directional cables is wrong. There are directional cables in that one end
does not have a connection to the shield. I have not reason to accept that
these directional cables work, but they do exist and should be debunked
properly. Oversights like this can destroy the credibility of his other
pontifical statements.

It's a slide show....one might expect he ex[pands on the points in the
actual talk.

Another person implied that he claimed that there was little improvement
over $1500K on loudspeakers. He actually said that $1500K was where
dramatic improvements ended, not that all improvements ended.

Exactly. He's talkign abotu diminishign returns on objective
measures of performance, if I read him correctly.

On the whole, I tend to agree with many of his statements, but begin
wondering when there are statements of fact that are based on an incorrect
understanding of what is being marketed.

I htink you're expecting too much from a posting of *bullet points*.


--
-S.

Steven said


But the question is, *as a rule*, will 8K speakers tend to be a
marked improvement over $1500 ones. I don't know, myself, not having
had a chance to audition many properly.


I said


Why would one bother with such *rules* except to feel better about their
speakers on a budget?

Steven said


I guess that applies to the 'rule' that more expensive speakers tend to sound
better --
whihc is implicit in audiophilia and in Mr. Uptown Audio's reply, for
example -- eh?


That wasn't my read of what he meant. What you are saying he said would just
amount to another rule of thumb that would have no use for someone who might
actually be considering where to draw the line with his or her budget.

I said


If one really wants to know if they may or may not like
any particular speakers they need to listen to them. Then they need to
decide
if they are worth the money.



Again, Mr Kite , who apparently maks a living doign audio measurment,
appears to me to be talking a btou *OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE* as it relates
to price.

Yes he is. But most people buy speakers to listen to them not to measure them.

Steven said

Of course, whether a speaker is 'worht the money' may depend on
non-objective data as well.

Agreed. Whole heartedly.

Steven said

ANd lsitening in store does not necessarily give
a good idea of what speakers will sound like at home,

Very much agreed.


Steven said

nor is it always ,
or even commonly, possible to audition speakers at home.

Not commonly? I have yet to run into this problem ever.


Steven said


Therefore some sort
of 'rules' can be helpful.

I think such a rule of thumb is more likely to be misleading than helpful. It
could discourage someone from considering speakers that they may think are well
worth the extra money were they to here them at home.

Steven said


So, what's your beef?

Rules of thumb on diminishing returns.

I htink you're expecting too much from a posting of *bullet points*.


--
-S.

Not really. I have to make up similar charts as part of my work. These
were not good, having semi-truths in them.

Dave

S888Wheel wrote:
Steven said


But the question is, *as a rule*, will 8K speakers tend to be a
marked improvement over $1500 ones. I don't know, myself, not having
had a chance to audition many properly.


I said


Why would one bother with such *rules* except to feel better about their
speakers on a budget?

Steven said


I guess that applies to the 'rule' that more expensive speakers tend to sound
better --
whihc is implicit in audiophilia and in Mr. Uptown Audio's reply, for
example -- eh?


That wasn't my read of what he meant. What you are saying he said would just
amount to another rule of thumb that would have no use for someone who might
actually be considering where to draw the line with his or her budget.

Who are you to say this? Do you have a direct line to everyone who might
be buying speakers on a budget?


If one really wants to know if they may or may not like
any particular speakers they need to listen to them. Then they need to
decide
if they are worth the money.



Again, Mr Kite , who apparently maks a living doign audio measurment,
appears to me to be talking a btou *OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE* as it relates
to price.

Yes he is. But most people buy speakers to listen to them not to measure them.

Most people don't have unlimited resources to listen to all the speakers
available. So they might like to have some sort of guideline. Every
day, I see people on the internet asking questions about buying speakers
on a limited budget.


Steven said

Of course, whether a speaker is 'worht the money' may depend on
non-objective data as well.

Agreed. Whole heartedly.

Including factors such as size and finish.


Steven said

ANd lsitening in store does not necessarily give
a good idea of what speakers will sound like at home,

Very much agreed.


Steven said

nor is it always ,
or even commonly, possible to audition speakers at home.

Not commonly? I have yet to run into this problem ever.


Good for you. How many different speakers are you allowed
to take home at one go?


Steven said


Therefore some sort
of 'rules' can be helpful.

I think such a rule of thumb is more likely to be misleading than helpful. It
could discourage someone from considering speakers that they may think are well
worth the extra money were they to here them at home.

They could, but the whole idea of such a recommendation is to reduce
the *likelihood* of overspending. YOu places your bets and you takes
your chances.

Steven said


So, what's your beef?

Rules of thumb on diminishing returns.

Life is often a gamble. You can gamble intelligently,
or ignorantly. Good rules of thumb help you do the former.



--
-S.
______
"You're an abuser Sullivan....a base beast with
intellect but little intelligence to show for it" -- KENNEH!

Steven said


But the question is, *as a rule*, will 8K speakers tend to be a
marked improvement over $1500 ones. I don't know, myself, not having
had a chance to audition many properly.



I said


Why would one bother with such *rules* except to feel better about their
speakers on a budget?

Steven said


I guess that applies to the 'rule' that more expensive speakers tend to
sound
better --
whihc is implicit in audiophilia and in Mr. Uptown Audio's reply, for
example -- eh?

I said


That wasn't my read of what he meant. What you are saying he said would
just
amount to another rule of thumb that would have no use for someone who
might
actually be considering where to draw the line with his or her budget.

Steven said


Who are you to say this?

Another guy on RAHE with opinions. i would think someone with a PhD would be
able to figure that out.

Steven said

Do you have a direct line to everyone who might
be buying speakers on a budget?


No. Did you understand what I said?

I said


If one really wants to know if they may or may not like
any particular speakers they need to listen to them. Then they need to
decide
if they are worth the money.

You see when you cut in the middle of my point you are bound to fail to
understand it. I was simply pointing out that if one follows a rule of thumb
like this one they "may" miss out on getting something they would be happier
with even at a higher price. I was not speaking for all people on a budget.

Steven said


Again, Mr Kite , who apparently maks a living doign audio measurment,
appears to me to be talking a btou *OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE* as it relates
to price.

I said


Yes he is. But most people buy speakers to listen to them not to measure
them.


Steven said


Most people don't have unlimited resources to listen to all the speakers
available.

What does that have to do with my point that people buy speakers to listen to
them and not measure them?

Steven said

So they might like to have some sort of guideline.

And I am simply saying that this particular guideline is of no help and may be
misleading. If one has a budget of only $1500.00 then the guideline is
irrelevant. that person cannot spend more on another speaker system even if
they do think it is worth the money. OTOH someone with more to spend "may" read
something like this and based on this rule of thumb choose to not audition
speakers that could be afforded and "may" be far more enjoyable. I see no
scenerio inwhich this rule of thumb helps and I see a clear scenerio inwhich it
hurts.


Steven said

Every
day, I see people on the internet asking questions about buying speakers
on a limited budget.

That is different. If the budget is set then we help them with specific
recomendations. that is not what this rule of thumb is doing.



Steven said

Of course, whether a speaker is 'worht the money' may depend on
non-objective data as well.

I said


Agreed. Whole heartedly.


Steven said


Including factors such as size and finish.


Agreed still.



Steven said

ANd lsitening in store does not necessarily give
a good idea of what speakers will sound like at home,

I said


Very much agreed.




Steven said

nor is it always ,
or even commonly, possible to audition speakers at home.


I said


Not commonly? I have yet to run into this problem ever.

Steven said


Good for you. How many different speakers are you allowed
to take home at one go?


Interesting question. I don't know? I've never asked for more than one.


Steven said


Therefore some sort
of 'rules' can be helpful.


I said


I think such a rule of thumb is more likely to be misleading than helpful.
It
could discourage someone from considering speakers that they may think are
well
worth the extra money were they to here them at home.

Steven said


They could, but the whole idea of such a recommendation is to reduce
the *likelihood* of overspending. YOu places your bets and you takes
your chances.

What do you mean the likelyhood of overspending? Are you saying that if someone
auditions to speakers costing more than $1500.00 they may accidentally buy
them? Overspending on speakers? if one auditions speakers that cost more than
$1500.00 having listened to others that cost $1500.00 and less and thinks the
more expensive speakers are worth the money, one has not overspent.


Steven said


So, what's your beef?

I said


Rules of thumb on diminishing returns.


Steven said


Life is often a gamble. You can gamble intelligently,
or ignorantly. Good rules of thumb help you do the former.


This rule of thumb doesn't help with anything IMO for reasons I have explained.

S888Wheel wrote:
So they might like to have some sort of guideline.

And I am simply saying that this particular guideline is of no help and may be
misleading. If one has a budget of only $1500.00 then the guideline is
irrelevant. that person cannot spend more on another speaker system even if
they do think it is worth the money. OTOH someone with more to spend "may" read
something like this and based on this rule of thumb choose to not audition
speakers that could be afforded and "may" be far more enjoyable. I see no
scenerio inwhich this rule of thumb helps and I see a clear scenerio inwhich it
hurts.

Scott, it might be of help to some, for reasons I outlined.
Everyone isn't like you.

They could, but the whole idea of such a recommendation is to reduce
the *likelihood* of overspending. YOu places your bets and you takes
your chances.

What do you mean the likelyhood of overspending? Are you saying that if someone
auditions to speakers costing more than $1500.00 they may accidentally buy
them? Overspending on speakers? if one auditions speakers that cost more than
$1500.00 having listened to others that cost $1500.00 and less and thinks the
more expensive speakers are worth the money, one has not overspent.

One the one hand, you have the rather common perception that the more you spend
on something the better it is likely to perform. On the other hand you have a
guy who works in audio for a living, sayign that as you go beyond $1500 you
don't necessarily get better peformance in proportion to price. If you choose
to believe him, you could save yourself some auditioning time and money.

Your final decision may not be *Scott-approved*, or even *audiophile-approved*,
but the guy's whole point is that much of what passes for 'common knowledge;
in audiophilia, is dubious.


Life is often a gamble. You can gamble intelligently,
or ignorantly. Good rules of thumb help you do the former.


This rule of thumb doesn't help with anything IMO for reasons I have explained.

Again, not everyone is you, Scott.



--
-S.
______
"You're an abuser Sullivan....a base beast with
intellect but little intelligence to show for it" -- KENNEH!

IME, the price/performance curve begins to flatten out between $1,500 and
$2,000. I discovered this while auditioning for my last purchase which was
a pair of Paradigm Studio 100 v.2. I thought (and still believe) that these
Paradigms represented the best sounding speaker sub $4,000. There were
speakers at the $4k price point that sounded worse, but there were a few
that sounded marginally better. It wasn't until I heard the $20,000+ B&W
N800 Signature that I decided that you could spend more money for more
speaker. How much more is entirely subjective, but I don't believe that I
could ever be worth enough money to justify the improvement that $13,000
would yield in my listening room.

Back to the point of the price/performance curve, there were very small
improvements made along the way between my Paradigms and the B&Ws. Based on
this experience, I'd have to agree that if you listen to best values at
$1,500-2,000, any incremental dollars spent above that may or may not yield
improved performance.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
S888Wheel wrote:
So they might like to have some sort of guideline.

And I am simply saying that this particular guideline is of no help and
may be
misleading. If one has a budget of only $1500.00 then the guideline is
irrelevant. that person cannot spend more on another speaker system even
if
they do think it is worth the money. OTOH someone with more to spend
"may" read
something like this and based on this rule of thumb choose to not
audition
speakers that could be afforded and "may" be far more enjoyable. I see
no
scenerio inwhich this rule of thumb helps and I see a clear scenerio
inwhich it
hurts.

Scott, it might be of help to some, for reasons I outlined.
Everyone isn't like you.

They could, but the whole idea of such a recommendation is to reduce
the *likelihood* of overspending. YOu places your bets and you takes
your chances.

What do you mean the likelyhood of overspending? Are you saying that if
someone
auditions to speakers costing more than $1500.00 they may accidentally
buy
them? Overspending on speakers? if one auditions speakers that cost more
than
$1500.00 having listened to others that cost $1500.00 and less and
thinks the
more expensive speakers are worth the money, one has not overspent.

One the one hand, you have the rather common perception that the more you
spend
on something the better it is likely to perform. On the other hand you
have a
guy who works in audio for a living, sayign that as you go beyond $1500
you
don't necessarily get better peformance in proportion to price. If you
choose
to believe him, you could save yourself some auditioning time and money.

Your final decision may not be *Scott-approved*, or even
*audiophile-approved*,
but the guy's whole point is that much of what passes for 'common
knowledge;
in audiophilia, is dubious.


Life is often a gamble. You can gamble intelligently,
or ignorantly. Good rules of thumb help you do the former.


This rule of thumb doesn't help with anything IMO for reasons I have
explained.

Again, not everyone is you, Scott.



--
-S.
______
"You're an abuser Sullivan....a base beast with
intellect but little intelligence to show for it" -- KENNEH!

Bruce Abrams wrote in message ...
Snip

Back to the point of the price/performance curve, there were very small
improvements made along the way between my Paradigms and the B&Ws. Based on
this experience, I'd have to agree that if you listen to best values at
$1,500-2,000, any incremental dollars spent above that may or may not yield
improved performance.

I entirely agree. When my son was in his school orchestra and
wanted a silver clarinet I couldn't see spending "incremental dollars"
on the small improvement in the sounds he would make. When I saw a
sculpture I liked on a trip to Prague the price convinced me that I
may just as well stay with the bust of Beethoven in gypsum on the
mantlepiece.
All those Glenn Goulds carrying their favourite pianos around the
world, Pearlmans with their Stradivarius or Guarnieri they just
haven't learnt to calculate the cost/benefit ratios properly.
Ludovic Mirabel

"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message
...
Bruce Abrams wrote in message
...
Snip

Back to the point of the price/performance curve, there were very small
improvements made along the way between my Paradigms and the B&Ws.
Based on
this experience, I'd have to agree that if you listen to best values at
$1,500-2,000, any incremental dollars spent above that may or may not
yield
improved performance.

I entirely agree. When my son was in his school orchestra and
wanted a silver clarinet I couldn't see spending "incremental dollars"
on the small improvement in the sounds he would make. When I saw a
sculpture I liked on a trip to Prague the price convinced me that I
may just as well stay with the bust of Beethoven in gypsum on the
mantlepiece.
All those Glenn Goulds carrying their favourite pianos around the
world, Pearlmans with their Stradivarius or Guarnieri they just
haven't learnt to calculate the cost/benefit ratios properly.
Ludovic Mirabel

Your analogy would seem to imply that the price/performance curve and hence
the point of diminishing returns is the same for audio loudspeakers as it is
for sculpture, pianos and violins. This would be a ludicrous assumption at
best, as the difference between a quality Japanese vertical piano at $7,500
and a Bosendorfer vertical at $20,000 is quite significant. Furthermore,
the price points between those two represent significant incremental
improvements as well. The case has simply been made by Mr. Kite that such
is not the case in loudspeakers. Based on my own experiences, he may be
correct to a point, in that speakers in the price range of $1,500 up to 3 or
4 times that will generally tend to perform like the best performing $1,500
speakers. Mr. Kite extended the idea to cost-no-object designs, and based
on my own experiences, I don't agree with his extension.

Bruce Abrams wrote:
Your analogy would seem to imply that the price/performance curve and hence
the point of diminishing returns is the same for audio loudspeakers as it is
for sculpture, pianos and violins. This would be a ludicrous assumption at
best, as the difference between a quality Japanese vertical piano at $7,500
and a Bosendorfer vertical at $20,000 is quite significant. Furthermore,
the price points between those two represent significant incremental
improvements as well.

I believe Mr. Kite was referring to an improvement in "objective (measurable)
criteria" in which case the Bosendorfer may not represent a significant
improvement. But then it comes down to what you measure, and how, doesn't it?

The case has simply been made by Mr. Kite that such
is not the case in loudspeakers. Based on my own experiences, he may be
correct to a point, in that speakers in the price range of $1,500 up to 3 or
4 times that will generally tend to perform like the best performing $1,500
speakers. Mr. Kite extended the idea to cost-no-object designs, and based
on my own experiences, I don't agree with his extension.


Neither do I. From an observational listening perspective (not measuring or
dbting) I would agree with Mr. Kite that the law of diminishing returns applies
to audio equipment and loudspeakers. However, I would draw the line, say, at
$6 - $10,000 for loudspeakers rather than his $1500. What you get for more
money is better quality drivers, more extended bass response, and less resonant
cabinets. At $1500, figuring the actual manufacturing cost at 20%, you are
getting $300 worth of parts and labor. Hardly state-of-the-art regardless of
how Mr. Kite measures them.
Regards,
Mike

My 2 cents on the whole analog/digital, tube/transistor, esoteric cable/lamp
cord business:

People have stereo systems because they enjoy them, and listening to music is a
subjective experience. So if owning an expensive tube amp makes you happy, and
you think it sounds better, who's to argue?

This was summed up best years ago in a motorcycle magazine, re. the Japanese
bike (rice burner) vs. Harley Davidson (oil burner) debate. "We don't ride
motorcycles because they run well, but because we like the way they run."

--Paul

Paulfxfoley wrote:
My 2 cents on the whole analog/digital, tube/transistor, esoteric cable/lamp
cord business:

People have stereo systems because they enjoy them, and listening to music is a
subjective experience. So if owning an expensive tube amp makes you happy, and
you think it sounds better, who's to argue?

No one, unless you start spouting technically dubious claims
about *why* it sounds better. Or the ways in which it sounds better.

This was summed up best years ago in a motorcycle magazine, re. the Japanese
bike (rice burner) vs. Harley Davidson (oil burner) debate. "We don't ride
motorcycles because they run well, but because we like the way they run."

Do such people really understand 'the way they run' or do they merely
*think* they understand it?


--
-S.

Just a note on the thread title: the University of Texas at Austin is
referred to as "UT". Texans would identify "UT-A" as the University of
Texas at Arlington.

Stephen

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 19:25:07 +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Whilst googling I happened across this slide-show presented
at the University of Texas at Austin as part of an engineering
seminar series in 2001, presented by one Dr. THomas D. Kite of AudioPrecision Inc.
-- thought it might be of interest to some he

"Debunking Audio Myths: Directional cables, tube amplifiers, and analog vs. digital"

http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminar...AudioMyths.pdf

Interesting stuff, and it certainly states the scientific case well for
the most part.

I think there was one place where he may have missed the boat, though; the
usefulness of gold in connectors. Gold is good because it doesn't tarnish,
which is good for connections that are in place for a long time; it means
that the quality of the connection doesn degrade. Gold, however, is soft,
so it's not so great for connections that are made and broken frequently;
the gold plating will wear off the connectors. The latter (and cost) is
why gold connectors mostly aren't used in professional gear.

"Mark J. Dulcey" wrote:




On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 19:25:07 +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Whilst googling I happened across this slide-show presented
at the University of Texas at Austin as part of an engineering
seminar series in 2001, presented by one Dr. THomas D. Kite of
AudioPrecision Inc.
-- thought it might be of interest to some he

"Debunking Audio Myths: Directional cables, tube amplifiers, and analog vs.
digital"

http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminar...AudioMyths.pdf

Interesting stuff, and it certainly states the scientific case well for
the most part.

I think there was one place where he may have missed the boat, though; the
usefulness of gold in connectors. Gold is good because it doesn't tarnish,
which is good for connections that are in place for a long time; it means
that the quality of the connection doesn degrade. Gold, however, is soft,
so it's not so great for connections that are made and broken frequently;
the gold plating will wear off the connectors. The latter (and cost) is
why gold connectors mostly aren't used in professional gear.

The use of gold goes back to electro-mechanical switching in telephony. By one
estimate of a Bell Labs materials scientist in 1970 a long distance call from
New Jersey to California might have been made through 10,000 metal-to-metal
connections (including air-exposed copper petals and leafs over Cross-Bar and
Step-by-Step switching and Plug-In circuit cards.

If each of those connections had 99% reliability if one started making attempts
on the network at 12:00:01 on New Year's Eve he might connected 1 or 2 calls in
a years' time.

Depositing a small amount of Gold on the contacts area improved reliability of
each individual contacts to 6-Nines and improved system reliability to 99% or
better.

But for connections that don't involve metal-to-metal repeated cyclical
contacts this level of reliability isn't an issue.

For typical audio interconnection gold-plated contacts aren't typically needed.

In article , Nousaine wrote:
"Mark J. Dulcey" wrote:

But for connections that don't involve metal-to-metal repeated cyclical
contacts this level of reliability isn't an issue.


As long as the metals are the same - different metals may lead to electrolytic
corrosion. This is typically a problem with a lot more current running
through the connectors than you'll see with audio, but I've seen this kind
of problem with the (now illegal) Keith Monks version of the A&D mercury
contact tone arm and in computers with motherboards using gold-plated power
supply contacts into which a tinned connector is plugged.

(The A&D arm used a different pin material and didn't have this problem,
as I remember, although it would still be illegal under US laws governing
the use and disposal of mercury).

Mike Squires
--

Mike Squires (mikes at cs.indiana.edu) 317 233 9456 (w) 812 333 6564 (h)
mikes at siralan.org 546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN 47408

(Michael Squires) wrote in message ...
In article , Nousaine wrote:
"Mark J. Dulcey" wrote:

But for connections that don't involve metal-to-metal repeated cyclical
contacts this level of reliability isn't an issue.


As long as the metals are the same - different metals may lead to electrolytic
corrosion. This is typically a problem with a lot more current running
through the connectors than you'll see with audio, but I've seen this kind
of problem with the (now illegal) Keith Monks version of the A&D mercury
contact tone arm and in computers with motherboards using gold-plated power
supply contacts into which a tinned connector is plugged.

(The A&D arm used a different pin material and didn't have this problem,
as I remember, although it would still be illegal under US laws governing
the use and disposal of mercury).

While the general point here is correct, i.e., that of mismatch
of dissimilar metals used in the conduction of electricity, the
Kieth Monks problems was different. Here was simply a case of
a stupid implementation as a result of the appaling ignorance of
general chemistry.

The arm in question used 4 baths of mercury arranged in sectors
around the pivot point. 4 pins from the arm conducted the signal
from the cartridge to the arm base, the idea being that such an
arrangement avoided lead-out wire torque and friction. To implement
anti-skating, two of the pins were normal steel, the others were
a non-magnetic stainless steel (please, before someone gets all
hot and bothered, not ALL statinless steels are non-magnetic),
and a magnet below the baths provided the anti-skate force.

The original design was somewhat problematic in that it's REAL
hard to solder copper wires to stainless steel. Beyond that, when
Kieth Monks started making the arm, the decided to substitute
brass for stainless steel. They did this both for the pins and
for the conductors at the bottom of the mercury cups.

The result was unmitigated disaster (as unmitigated a disaster
can be in high-end audio): the copper in the brass is soluble
in mercury and it took anywhere from a few months or a year or
two for the pins to crumble and fall off or, worse, the pins at
the bottom of the cups to dissolve and cause mercury to leak all
over hell's half acre. In at least one case that I am familiar
with, the leaking mercury caused an amplifier to fail when it
dripped onto its circuit board.