My main issue with the high end industry is false, misleading, and unsupported claims and preying on ignorance. I don't think I've used the word "profits" in my criticisms, that's your cartoon. If I thought that there were "obscene" profits to be made in fashion-niche audio, I might be tempted to throw away my integrity. I'm not.
However, if you'll be kind enough to make your financials public, as does Yum! Brands, we can make a simple comparison. Personally, I don't find profits in a free market (I deliberately exclude rent-seekers) to be obscene, whatever their levels. Not even Apple's. If your net profit is 20% or 80% instead of 10% of revenue, bully for you, as long as the profits aren't made fraudulently.
Never touch the stuff but we do verticle roasted herbed chicken once a week, it's amazing how many local farms are selling freerange/organic chicken these days. Also due to our OCD foodie population virtually everything is available with no added MSG (except of course the "best" real imported asian versions). We even have artisanally made beef or chicken Bovrile.
EDIT - This is funny.
Unilever, announced that the composition of Bovril was being changed from beef extract to a yeast extract, claiming it was to make the product suitable for vegetarians and vegans; at that time fear of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) may have been a factor. According to Unilever, "in blind taste tests, 10% didn't notice any difference in taste, 40% preferred the original and 50% preferred the new product.
Last edited:
I think that it is a matter of belief, as to whether one attacks hi end audio or not. There is a certain percentage of individuals, some of whom I have known for more than 40 years, who just HATE the idea that audio cables could make any difference. They have regularly set up ABX double blind listening sessions, just to 'prove' that there isn't any difference between two cables. If a difference appears, they stop the test, because of course, as differences are 'impossible'. '-)
Personally I believe in cable differences, they are subtle, and I am not 'wild' about the differences, but I have heard them consistently enough over the decades to always use 'good' cables in my main audio system. For TV, I can be more forgiving.
Once, about 20 years ago, after a firestorm destroyed everything, I set forth to make a new audio system. I then decided to TRY to use Radio Shack interconnects to make my system work, along with an inexpensive Grado cartridge.
Over time, I gave away the Grado, and put the Radio Shack interconnects aside to use for test cables, when I got a decent replacement. I usually don't have to pay for my cables, because people give them to me from time to time, but I will NOT go back to Radio Shack, because they (in my listening opinion) have a subtle sonic signature that I don't like. Now, WHY do they have this 'signature'? I have since tried to measure this and at least with MY test equipment I was able to find a serious difference between different cables, much to my surprise and amazement! I made a number of measurements over a 10 year span, finally giving up because of the 'backlash' of criticism from people here and elsewhere (the all cables are the same gang) and because my test equipment was getting old and tired, and it was just too hard to get consistent results. (That is true for me, this very day, even with standard test levels).
However, since what I was measuring only occurred in some cables and not others, then maybe I should avoid the badly measuring cables for testing amps and preamps, because they might add their 'distortion' to the measurement and throw me off. I still worry about that today, but I digress.
In reality, some believe their 'lying' ears and others do not. Take your choice, but please don't hassle me about it.
Personally I believe in cable differences, they are subtle, and I am not 'wild' about the differences, but I have heard them consistently enough over the decades to always use 'good' cables in my main audio system. For TV, I can be more forgiving.
Once, about 20 years ago, after a firestorm destroyed everything, I set forth to make a new audio system. I then decided to TRY to use Radio Shack interconnects to make my system work, along with an inexpensive Grado cartridge.
Over time, I gave away the Grado, and put the Radio Shack interconnects aside to use for test cables, when I got a decent replacement. I usually don't have to pay for my cables, because people give them to me from time to time, but I will NOT go back to Radio Shack, because they (in my listening opinion) have a subtle sonic signature that I don't like. Now, WHY do they have this 'signature'? I have since tried to measure this and at least with MY test equipment I was able to find a serious difference between different cables, much to my surprise and amazement! I made a number of measurements over a 10 year span, finally giving up because of the 'backlash' of criticism from people here and elsewhere (the all cables are the same gang) and because my test equipment was getting old and tired, and it was just too hard to get consistent results. (That is true for me, this very day, even with standard test levels).
However, since what I was measuring only occurred in some cables and not others, then maybe I should avoid the badly measuring cables for testing amps and preamps, because they might add their 'distortion' to the measurement and throw me off. I still worry about that today, but I digress.
In reality, some believe their 'lying' ears and others do not. Take your choice, but please don't hassle me about it.
Uuuuuummmm ---- wine porn
(referring to Scott's bucket of empty Echezeaux)
..............just like a pile of empty g-strings.
While this is not the best thread for wine comparisons, it does reflect something: Yes, it shows that an ABX type double blind test is NOT NECESSARY to compare wines and talk about them. However, IF we tried to talk about cables or wire in the same way, what a storm of protest would arise from the SAME individuals who compared the wines with such glee. '-)
My favorite sighted wine evaluation was when I was on my way to someone's apartment and stopped at a wine shop to get something. I saw a quite reputable Beaune of some variety, which seemed rather reasonably priced. Not one of the all-time great estates but not too shabby either. It featured a sort-of wire cage and a lead seal, a bit gimmicky but so it goes. It had a price sticker of 14.99 (roughly equivalent to 35 bucks now, and not even accounting for the much higher demand for French burgundy today), and I began to peel it off after purchase. The "14" came off first, leaving the .99. I chuckled and decided to leave it in place.
I got to the destination, and the host was pleased to see that I'd brought a bottle of wine. He was fairly sophisticated and knew that I was a wine geek, and had happily partaken of my offerings in the past.
The wine was very pleasant, ready-to-drink, eminently burgundian, true to type, a wine to which Schoonmaker's advice about drinking in "its incomparably lusty prime" applied. I offered it around. People, seeing the price sticker and perhaps being a bit put off by the wire cage, declined.
Finally I persuaded Leon, the host, to have some. He just wasn't sure what to think. Another guest was finally persuaded, had a sip, made something of a puckery face, and said "Well! Sure is grapey! But hey, whatever gets you high!" No one had anymore after that. Eventually the other guests left, and I revealed to the host what I had done, and what the wine really was.
He began to enjoy it at that point.
Brad
Last edited:
I'm sorry, John, this is just a silly comparison. To compare something whose whole point is flavour with something which merely has to reliably transfer a signal is daft. A better comparison would be to compare cables with wine bottles, not the wine inside. Wine should be compared to music, not cables.john curl said:
Brad, we all have stories like that, I'm afraid...
During one of those blind tasting competitions at the Box, we had a team of three against the LA Sommelier Society team of three. Each team was given a glass of the same wine, huddled up, decided what the wine was, then made their guess public (there were probably 50 people packed into that little room). One year, I was on our team, along with the attorney friend of Burghound and a good friend of mine who had recently done a blind tasting with Parker and scored 24 out of 27 correct. We were about halfway through, got a particular red, huddled up and discussed. "Syrah, of course," says me. "It's a Jaboulet," says my buddy, "I recognize that lactic signature." The attorney frowns and says, "Well, it's not La Chapelle, it's gotta be the Crozes." I agreed and suggested Thalabert vineyard, and that it had to be the '91. Nods all around.
OK, time for the reveal. The sommeliers unhuddle and it's their turn to name the wine first. They announce... '91 Jaboulet Crozes-Hermitage Thalabert. Heh, heh.
Punch line. It was indeed a '91 Syrah. But from Yarra Yerring. Ooops.
During one of those blind tasting competitions at the Box, we had a team of three against the LA Sommelier Society team of three. Each team was given a glass of the same wine, huddled up, decided what the wine was, then made their guess public (there were probably 50 people packed into that little room). One year, I was on our team, along with the attorney friend of Burghound and a good friend of mine who had recently done a blind tasting with Parker and scored 24 out of 27 correct. We were about halfway through, got a particular red, huddled up and discussed. "Syrah, of course," says me. "It's a Jaboulet," says my buddy, "I recognize that lactic signature." The attorney frowns and says, "Well, it's not La Chapelle, it's gotta be the Crozes." I agreed and suggested Thalabert vineyard, and that it had to be the '91. Nods all around.
OK, time for the reveal. The sommeliers unhuddle and it's their turn to name the wine first. They announce... '91 Jaboulet Crozes-Hermitage Thalabert. Heh, heh.
Punch line. It was indeed a '91 Syrah. But from Yarra Yerring. Ooops.
But this attempt to fool via a comparable subterfuge can work in the other direction. One of my mentors at UCLA, Harland Epps, also a wine enthusiast and given to waxing rhapsodically, was taken to dinner by a friend at Michael's in Santa Monica many years ago, when that restaurant was very notable for its cuisine and general ambiance (and high prices!; it's still quite good but has a lot more competition now).
Harland knew the place was expensive, and didn't want to have his friend suffer too high a tariff. Of course early on the question of wine came up, and the benefactor suggested they try the house wine. Harland was amenable, as he knew it couldn't be too bad given the restaurant's reputation. The white wine came to the table in one of those hourglass-shaped ~liter carafes. Glasses were poured. Harland went through the usual rituals of swirling and sniffing, smiling already, and finally had a sip.
His face lit up. Oh my heavens this is fantastic! It must be French. What in the world is it? This is by far the finest house wine I've ever drunk!!
The server was reserved, and said it couldn't be officially revealed, some special arrangement etc. etc. Harland continued to press, but to no avail. The food came and it was outstanding, and they ate and drank heartily. After a while it was clear that they were going to finish the wine before the food. Harland, again convinced that he was doing his friend a favor by drinking surely the least-expensive wine in the house, said "Well, I guess we might as well just get another carafe of this. It is so excellent!"
Harland went back to the restaurant a week later and this time finally got the management to confess to the subterfuge: by prearrangement, the friend, skeptical of Har's organoleptic prowess, had arranged that they be served the finest white burgundy in the cellar: Joseph Drouhin, Marquis de Laguiche Montrachet. It was on the wine list of course, at 200 bucks. And not to belabor it, but this was a long time ago.
So that's my favorite "single-blind" wine tasting story
Harland knew the place was expensive, and didn't want to have his friend suffer too high a tariff. Of course early on the question of wine came up, and the benefactor suggested they try the house wine. Harland was amenable, as he knew it couldn't be too bad given the restaurant's reputation. The white wine came to the table in one of those hourglass-shaped ~liter carafes. Glasses were poured. Harland went through the usual rituals of swirling and sniffing, smiling already, and finally had a sip.
His face lit up. Oh my heavens this is fantastic! It must be French. What in the world is it? This is by far the finest house wine I've ever drunk!!
The server was reserved, and said it couldn't be officially revealed, some special arrangement etc. etc. Harland continued to press, but to no avail. The food came and it was outstanding, and they ate and drank heartily. After a while it was clear that they were going to finish the wine before the food. Harland, again convinced that he was doing his friend a favor by drinking surely the least-expensive wine in the house, said "Well, I guess we might as well just get another carafe of this. It is so excellent!"
Harland went back to the restaurant a week later and this time finally got the management to confess to the subterfuge: by prearrangement, the friend, skeptical of Har's organoleptic prowess, had arranged that they be served the finest white burgundy in the cellar: Joseph Drouhin, Marquis de Laguiche Montrachet. It was on the wine list of course, at 200 bucks. And not to belabor it, but this was a long time ago.
So that's my favorite "single-blind" wine tasting story
Last edited:
I don't disagree that there are differences in wine. I have tasted them, also. However, I am sure, and you can too, find double blind tests of different wines set up by skeptics that show little or no difference, and imply that most everyone is fooled into buying expensive wines.
However, I have differences in wires, and so have the great majority of my colleagues, so I must assume that there are differences. What was just discussed here about wine quality did NOT presume that a double blind test was mandatory, before you could compare different brands of wine. Everybody, especially critics of wire differences jump at the chance to talk wine quality here on this thread. And so it goes.
However, I have differences in wires, and so have the great majority of my colleagues, so I must assume that there are differences. What was just discussed here about wine quality did NOT presume that a double blind test was mandatory, before you could compare different brands of wine. Everybody, especially critics of wire differences jump at the chance to talk wine quality here on this thread. And so it goes.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.