Common Sense Prevails

Jump to Latest
#62
scottjoplin said:
Yes, but I'm cheaper than you.
Click to expand...

Y'know, I know people who would pay for a straight line like that...

Anyway, no you wouldn't have been cheaper than me. Your way, fixing his existing cables, would have ended up costing him 7 grand. My way left the possibility of him returning them and getting his money back.

I do feel sorry for the guy though, the look on his face when he realized how badly he'd been screwed over...

So, if we're all done ripping apart a quickly written example, can we get back to the main issue...

Here's another engineer speaking out... Audiophoolery
 
#65
And also a good way of participating in the discussion without actually participating in the discussion...

I trust, by now, you've figured out that my friend was ripped off, even if he didn't run into the problems and everything worked perfectly... Seriously, $7000 for a few cables is totally effing ridiculous.

If you want to get all nerdy and obsess over something... how about going after the schysters producing this crap?
 
#66
AllenB said:
So was it a hypothetical example or did it really happen?
Click to expand...

It happened. As have several others. (I'll take the blame for relating it poorly.)

Over the years I've probably seen a couple of dozen cases where the most expensive "upgrades" have done nothing but cause problems.

I mean, really, the idea that you can tune up your system by swapping cables or paying through the butt hole for do-nothing accessories is just ludicrous.
 
Last edited:
#70
scottjoplin said:
How do you go after these snake oil sellers?
Click to expand...

1) By exposing them for what they are.
2) By educating people around you not to trust them.
3) By helping "audiophiles" get some basic electronics skills.
4) By applying common sense.

#3 is probably the big one, here ... Even the most rudimentary understandings of electronic principles is enough to wise most people up to the BS these guys use to market their garbage.

I'd post another example but I really don't feel like spending another 50+ messages on more nit picking.
 
Last edited:
#71
This is directly from the AudioQuest website...

There is the widely accepted version of directionality: In most audio-grade shielded interconnects, as compared to standard coax, negative has its own internal conductor and the metal shield is attached to ground at only one end, thus defining the cable’s directionality. Many cable manufacturers end their exploration of directionality there, going only as far as to mark their cables for directionality based on the relationship of shield to ground, but altogether neglecting conductor directionality. Because we believe in directing noise to where it can do the least harm, we, too, believe in the advantages of controlling for the attachment of the shield. In fact, long before we controlled for conductor directionality, AudioQuest interconnects were also controlled for direction based on the relationship of shield to ground.

Over the years, our understanding of conductor directionality and its effect on audio performance has steadily evolved, growing stronger and more complete. While we’ve always been keenly aware that directionality plays a significant role in the overall sound of any hi-fi system, we couldn’t completely explain it. This was okay: We trust our own ears and encourage listeners to do the same. The test is easy enough: Simply listen, then reverse the direction of the cable, and listen again.

In one direction, music will sound relatively flat and a little grainy, as though being forced through a screen door. In the opposite direction, the obstruction is removed and music will be communicated with a natural ease, depth, and an open invitation to pleasure. When presented with a cable whose conductors have been controlled for the correct low-noise directionality, a listener feels a sense of comfort and relief: Ahh…Music!
Click to expand...

How many people can actually spot the enormous flaw in this argument?

Hint: Audio signals are AC.
 
#76
indra1 said:
I would suspect majority of Canadians give too much emphasis on cosmetics over function
Click to expand...

True in most of North America, actually.

But there is also the matter that technically astute people are, generally, fewer and further between. We are currently raising our second generation (Millenials and Zappers) who have no basis in even the most basic science.

Giving us results like THIS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom