MOTUnation.com

Not to restart the cable wars or anything - but hey - if any of you golden eared wonders wanna try to pick up some cash....

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/calling-bull ... 305549.php

"James Randi Offers $1 Million If Audiophiles Can Prove $7250 Speaker Cables Are Better"
...

Randi offered $1 million to anyone who can prove those cables are any better than ordinary (and also overpriced) Monster Cables. Pointing out the absurd review by audiophile Dave Clark, who called the cables "danceable," Randi called it "hilarious and preposterous." He added that if the cables could do what their makers claimed, "they would be paranormal."

We see that the Pear Cable company is advertising a pair of 12-foot "Anjou" audio cables for $7,250; that's $302 a foot! And, as expected, "experts" were approached for their opinions on the performance of these wonders ... Well, we at the JREF are willing to be shown that these "no-compromise" cables perform better than, say, the equivalent Monster cables. While Pear rattles on about "capacitance," "inductance," "skin effect," "mechanical integrity" and "radio frequency interface," - all real qualities and concerns, and adored by the hi-fi nut-cases - we naively believe that a product should be judged by its actual performance, not by qualities that can only be perceived by attentive dogs or by hi-tech instrumentation. That said, we offer the JREF million-dollar prize to - for example - Dave Clark, Editor of the audio review publication Positive Feedback Online.

WOW!!!!!!

What I do know and experienced myself is that Monster Cable is a known BS to the most of the audiophiles. You can spend less and get better quality elsewhere. Even cheapos from Audio Research sold at Best Buy were better.

LOL! I love the comment abot 92kbs mp3's sounding better. James Randi is one of my all time heroes.

Hey... would you look at that. The Emperor isn't wearing any clothes!

I'd love to see people pick between the two in objective blind tests. I have a feeling nobody is going to win the prize.

michkhol wrote:What I do know and experienced myself is that Monster Cable is a known BS to the most of the audiophiles. You can spend less and get better quality elsewhere. Even cheapos from Audio Research sold at Best Buy were better.

You don't need audio cables for speakers at all. As long as they have a good enough resistance, any electrical cable works the same for this purpose. Shielding is a good thing, sure, but that's just distance between the wire and other wires. Whether that's done with a mix between mica and dwarf pines from Banff, or by a rubber hose, or just keeping the cable away from other cables doesn't matter one bit.

As for gold and platinum plugs, yeah, they are corrosion resistant. That's it. They lead electricity worse than copper, though (not that it matters much compared to the solder joints the electricity will have to go through anyhow).

It's funny. I think these cables claims are BS too. However, I bought a Monster Cable recently, as I needed a cable ASAP and it was the only one available.

Now, does it sound better than my other cables?

I have no idea. As I've said before, I have ears of copper, not gold. Anything past, say, 92% performance is mostly lost on me.

I will say this though: Cables hate me.

I'll plug a cable into my guitar. Then, into my amp. Then, I'll glance at the clock, wondering what the time is. Then, I'll look back at the cable --

And it's in some kind Escher-like, Houdini-besting, impossible knot!

So, I'll unplug and untangle, grumbling under my breath. Sit down. Look at my cable --

And it's in a knot again!

The only cable that doesn't do this to me? Just guessed the punchline: My lone Monster Cable.

So, it gets a little of my love, undeserved though it may be.

In taking James Randi's side in the cable issue, I have a couple of things to say:

1) Look at the insides of your amplifiers, pre-amps, audio interfaces, effects boxes, and for that matter, even your speakers. Trace the wiring from the back-side of the audio ports to the electronics inside. I doubt that you will ever see anything like a Monster Cable in there. Inside most of them you'll find your audio travelling at least part of its journey through tiny traces in a printed circuit board. Sure, there's a lot of science involved, and I'm not naive about that, but the fact remains: the wiring inside these great devices, many of them audiophile quality, is nothing like monster-cable in size or expense. People say "well, you're not taking into consideration things like impedance and interference that occurs in long cables." And I say to that: there is a lot of disagreement even among top engineers as to how all that stuff works. I've even read articles that say never to use balanced XLR cables!

Lots of mythology, and we don't always know which one is true. Which brings up item #2:

2) Ask Richard Feynman about understanding quantum physics and he'd tell you "anyone who says they understand quantum physics is lying to you." Even the guys who developed the theories have no idea what is really going on down there in those atoms, photons, and electrons. They only came up with a set of "analogies" that seem to work, and from which you can make accurate predictions about outcomes of quantum events.

Therefore, anyone who tells you they know how the electrons are streaming down their wires, about skin capacitance and cores and so forth, is very likely feeding you a big load of bullsh•• that they can get away with simply because nobody else can prove that they are wrong. But they can't prove they're right, either.

In the end, I'd LOVE to see a foolproof double-blind test in which someone could:
a) tell the difference between cables, and
b) identify which is the better one

I would place my bets that Randi will keep his $1 million.

Shooshie

Shooshie wrote:1) Look at the insides of your amplifiers...

<SNIP>

Inside most of them you'll find your audio travelling at least part of its journey through tiny traces in a printed circuit board.

I'm convinced actually that the use of circuit boards I why some newer guitar amplifiers don't quite sound right compared to some of the older ones that were point to point wired.

James Steele wrote:I'm convinced actually that the use of circuit boards I why some newer guitar amplifiers don't quite sound right compared to some of the older ones that were point to point wired.

Unless you get a new amp that is point-to-point. Like I did:

http://www.gibson.com/en%2Dus/Divisions ... %20Junior/

Great recording amp IMHO.

Not sure why more people don't go for these new Gibson amps. They sound great. Everyone gravitates toward the old standards, I suppose.

James Steele wrote:

Shooshie wrote:1) Look at the insides of your amplifiers...

<SNIP>

Inside most of them you'll find your audio travelling at least part of its journey through tiny traces in a printed circuit board.

I'm convinced actually that the use of circuit boards I why some newer guitar amplifiers don't quite sound right compared to some of the older ones that were point to point wired.

It still doesn't necessarily mean that wires are better. A device that's wired point-to-point is going to contain far fewer components and a much simpler circuit. After all, you can't hand-wire a million transistors, whereas a printed circuit board with a VLSI chip may contain more than that. So, what you're hearing in such a device is more like a program, or plugins that operate on your sound. Naturally, those are going to sound quite different than a simple component-based amp. The wiring is just incidental. Or maybe not.

When I look at old amplifiers and transformers from 50 years ago, I'm struck by the massive bulk of the components. The wires are bolted on, and underneath the rotting insulation are fat, copper wires resembling pipes. Of course, the P.A. systems from those days sounded like crap, but they were powerful. But in those higher-quality amps; that vacuum tube sound was unbeatable. Simple circuits.

When dealing with the voltages those devices produced, heavy wiring might have been necessary. But that still doesn't mean that heavy wires SOUND better. As long as the wiring is adequate for the amperage of the system, I would guess that it all sounds the same.

Shooshie

SixStringGeek wrote:"James Randi Offers $1 Million If Audiophiles Can Prove $7250 Speaker Cables Are Better"

Hey, man, come on... those are actually cheap. How about these ones, just for $43,000

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-enterta ... 303825.php

It's almost imposible to believe there might actually be some IDIOTS who pay that kind of money for that crap. Even if I was as rich as [DELETED], I'd still wouldn't buy them. I mean, what for? I'd be ashamed of wearning the "I'm an ignorant arrogant fool who believes anything they say" seal.

FMiguelez wrote:

SixStringGeek wrote:"James Randi Offers $1 Million If Audiophiles Can Prove $7250 Speaker Cables Are Better"

Hey, man, come on... those are actually cheap. How about these ones, just for $43,000

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-enterta ... 303825.php

The transparent cables would otherwise be good but they're too cheap.

It's probably a good match for the $485 volume knob. No, not potmeter, just the knob for it. Or one of the knobs, cause you need two. The potentiometer, if you don't already have it, is just $6,820, and that's a bargain. And only $960 extra to get it in mahogany instead of oak!
Ca-ching.

Then there's the $200 mat with triangles on it that through Rube Goldberg-like technology makes not only CDs but even CDs with MP3s on them sound better.
Ca-ching.

That's not good enough, of course. It's also obvious that shaving the outside of a CD will improve the sound quality of it, and what's better then than a fully automatic $799.95 CD edge shaver? It "results in pronounced improvements in focus, transient attack, detail and transparency", so I'm surprised that the record companies don't already use one!
Ca-ching.

But that won't do you much good unless you then demagnetize your shaved CDs with the $417.92 CD demagnetizer. Never mind that CDs are made of plastic and aluminium and can't get magnetized in the first place, nor that they're read optically, so even if they were, it'd make no difference. It's clearly quantum, i.e. beyond our mere mortal understanding.
Ca-ching.

The same place is also happy to sell you a $1,255.62 power cable. Cause, you know, having a high quality cable on the last six feet really improves the electricity...
Ca-ching.

Then there's the $230 Stone, which you place on or tape on your electronics. Its "improved inter-transient silence allows the listener to hear ambient cue information essential for accurate perception of stage depth, width and unwavering imaging". And not only that, but "placement on automotive CPUs has measurably increased engine horsepower." I'm not kidding. Wow, let's rush order a few dozen of those!
Ca-ching!

But let's hope you hook up your system with $14,900 SPDIF cables. The digital signal that either gets through or doesn't get through will become much warmer and clearer. It wouldn't surprise me if the 0s and 1s will become at least -0.001 and 1.001 using such a wonderful cable!
Ca-ching.

But wait a minute, you weren't planning to plug these directly into the equipment, were you? Haha, silly you! Of course to get the best clarity, you use $850 interconnect tails.
Ca-ching!

The winner, though, is clearly the $1,000 Hallograph Soundfield Optimizer. Just place these high tech wooden devices behind your speakers, and you'll get "more realistic presentation of stage depth, width and height, along with a warmer musical tonality that doesn••™t compromise clarity and detail."
Ca-ching!

To quote P.T. Barnum, there's one born every minute.

Yeah, but what if I want to listen vinyls? Ah, here's the 125 000$ turntable http://www.gearlive.com/index.php/news/ ... -06071408/