The "cynical and conspiratorial perspective forming the meat of this thread" is a rather silly way to look at the matter that some rational people simply don't see that spending hard earned money for foolish products that either do nothing or perform horribly should be ignored.
So those that have money and their priorities are working more and more and more instead of taking the time to learn what works and what doesn't is an excuse for them to throw money at faux products? Ignorance is bliss. Those types rarely have time for family by the way.
Am I the frequent contributor you speak of in this thread? Come on and be honest about it.You seem to like to exaggerate what I am doing if so. "Western civilization's end" 😕 How dramatic. Daily? Hardly. Maybe once a week if then. Oh I also do contribute to technical matters in other parts of the forums, sorry if my "quota" isn't up to your standards. 🙄 The name of the thread is "Funniest Snake Oil Theories" by the way. Care to contribute to it by posting some links to snake oil products? Please state your own priorities.
David L, you don't know everything, you really don't! People can be 'rational' yet find different solutions than you might 'think' about. This is the case here, for the most part. Some 'fools' will be parted from their money by eager salesmen, BUT some people will actually find that a certain cable type works in their audio system than anything they have used before. Why don't you give these people some understanding?
Coconut - my cable business? NO - get real.
But I seriously wonder about the customers - who are they?
Some understanding? 😀 Well when they make an effort to actually put in the time to see if that $20,000 cable does anything other than take their money THEN I will consider giving them some understanding. Till then they are "fools".
Where did I claim to know everything 😕 if using my brain and the common sense I was given is "knowing everything" in your opinion then hooray!
Why? If anyone is buying stuff like that they are the ones who should be trashed. Anyone can advertise whatever crap on the web (for nothing).
Golden Ears or measurements?😉
The reviewer at Stereophile, Muse Kastanovichm had this to say about the Unity Audio Signature 3 speaker:
"I do think both the Unity Audio Signature 3 and the Thiel CS1.5 are worthy of recommendation for listening to any kind of recording. And, like any two high-end components that you might hit if you threw two rocks in the air, they have different balances of strengths. The Signature 3 will play louder, but the 1.5 will go lower in the bass. The CS1.5s' imaging is more pinpoint-accurate, but the Signature 3s give a more enveloping sense of space. The Signature 3 presents more midrange detail, but the '1.5 has a flatter frequency response. Come to think of it, both the Unity Audio and the Thiel have a lot in common (in addition to the loudspeaker ladder thing). They both have a bit of an unforgiving treble. They both are very detailed and will reveal the quality of anything they're matched with. Also, they both have tight and tuneful bass.
Which did I prefer, after all of my auditioning? For me, the nod has to go to the Thiel CS1.5. I felt it was a little more accurate in some respects, and the bass extension was a necessity given the amount of rock music I listen to. I certainly enjoyed my time listening to the Signature 3, though, and so might you"
They must be pretty good then right? 😕
Here is the first speaker they were sent
The reviewer at Stereophile, Muse Kastanovichm had this to say about the Unity Audio Signature 3 speaker:
"I do think both the Unity Audio Signature 3 and the Thiel CS1.5 are worthy of recommendation for listening to any kind of recording. And, like any two high-end components that you might hit if you threw two rocks in the air, they have different balances of strengths. The Signature 3 will play louder, but the 1.5 will go lower in the bass. The CS1.5s' imaging is more pinpoint-accurate, but the Signature 3s give a more enveloping sense of space. The Signature 3 presents more midrange detail, but the '1.5 has a flatter frequency response. Come to think of it, both the Unity Audio and the Thiel have a lot in common (in addition to the loudspeaker ladder thing). They both have a bit of an unforgiving treble. They both are very detailed and will reveal the quality of anything they're matched with. Also, they both have tight and tuneful bass.
Which did I prefer, after all of my auditioning? For me, the nod has to go to the Thiel CS1.5. I felt it was a little more accurate in some respects, and the bass extension was a necessity given the amount of rock music I listen to. I certainly enjoyed my time listening to the Signature 3, though, and so might you"
They must be pretty good then right? 😕
Here is the first speaker they were sent
So the company sent them a "better" one to test
Atkinson's conclusion about the speaker?
"Overall, these measurements suggest that while it might be possible to get a tonally balanced presentation from the Unity Audio Signature 3s with careful setup and choice of listening distance and height, the speaker is not inherently neutral. And consistent factors in its presentation will be an exaggerated top octave and a restricted LF, which will make a recommendation very much a matter of taste"
Gosh that's really telling it like it is! 🙄
http://www.stereophile.com/content/unity-audio-signature-3
Atkinson's conclusion about the speaker?
"Overall, these measurements suggest that while it might be possible to get a tonally balanced presentation from the Unity Audio Signature 3s with careful setup and choice of listening distance and height, the speaker is not inherently neutral. And consistent factors in its presentation will be an exaggerated top octave and a restricted LF, which will make a recommendation very much a matter of taste"
Gosh that's really telling it like it is! 🙄
http://www.stereophile.com/content/unity-audio-signature-3
If EE's are that smart, why don't they all have jobs (+ make enough bills to buy $20k trinkets)
Audio seems to be the pinnacle of cable research and design, if one believes the rhetoric postulated on the high end cable sites...yet if an audio interconnect goes wrong you loose sound or have distortion, whereas in other areas a dodgy cable can mean so much more, such as life threatening...yet we don't see the cable mystique in these areas!
people who buy this stuff don't have to be unintelligent, its a matter of what you have studied and understand, if you don't know any electronics of physics the above mentioned rhetoric sounds very believable and seductive.
Having had a look around a couple of the very high end cable sites recently, one part of me is seduced by the marketing spiel, whilst another is screaming in angst at the twisted reality they describe.
people who buy this stuff don't have to be unintelligent, its a matter of what you have studied and understand, if you don't know any electronics of physics the above mentioned rhetoric sounds very believable and seductive.
Having had a look around a couple of the very high end cable sites recently, one part of me is seduced by the marketing spiel, whilst another is screaming in angst at the twisted reality they describe.
Least we forget the very effective marketing tool to prove cables make a difference:
I was in a shop one time where they were doing A/B comparisons between generic free cables and their current mega-buck ones.
They were doing the " wow, what a difference, you can hear that!" routine. Yes you could clearly. The mega-buck cables were screwing up the sound so terribly, it was obvious. The "lack of harshness" was a total lack of highs. I don't think I ever went back to that shop.
As long as the reviewers give the long list of (free I presume) cables used in every review and ascribe such magic to them, there will always keep preaching to the choir.
I have been reading a long list of patents involving stability of the bias. Knowing patents are for an idea, not any proof they work, I wonder what happened to all of them?
I was in a shop one time where they were doing A/B comparisons between generic free cables and their current mega-buck ones.
They were doing the " wow, what a difference, you can hear that!" routine. Yes you could clearly. The mega-buck cables were screwing up the sound so terribly, it was obvious. The "lack of harshness" was a total lack of highs. I don't think I ever went back to that shop.
As long as the reviewers give the long list of (free I presume) cables used in every review and ascribe such magic to them, there will always keep preaching to the choir.
I have been reading a long list of patents involving stability of the bias. Knowing patents are for an idea, not any proof they work, I wonder what happened to all of them?
To add to the confusion, the type of wire used for a speaker cable can make a difference:
Loudspeaker Cable Characteristic Impedance
The peaking seen is an issue with amps employing negative feedback, yet another audio bugbear. I suppose emitter-follower output stages might also be affected by the unterminated line. Of course as Rod notes, properly terminating the cable is the answer. Being a contrary sort of fellow, I've posted this article numerous times in high-end speaker cable discussion threads. So far, no one has been interested. What can I say? People like their magic.
Loudspeaker Cable Characteristic Impedance
The peaking seen is an issue with amps employing negative feedback, yet another audio bugbear. I suppose emitter-follower output stages might also be affected by the unterminated line. Of course as Rod notes, properly terminating the cable is the answer. Being a contrary sort of fellow, I've posted this article numerous times in high-end speaker cable discussion threads. So far, no one has been interested. What can I say? People like their magic.
Last edited:
What Rod has shown in his usual practical and easily understood way is you can make a cable so bad as to really screw up an amplifier. Easier if the amplifier was not well designed. So what's new? He clearly states what I have been saying, zip cord works just fine. Characteristic impedance is a RF issue, not AF.
Truth in advertising: About 30 years ago I bought some Kimber 4TC because I was having RF pickup issues from an illegal high power CB radio. It did help a bit. Eventually I tracked down the cowboy in his pick-em-up truck with the 1000W amp. As he was not open to discussion, I "solved" the root of the problem with nothing more exotic than a straight pin.
Truth in advertising: About 30 years ago I bought some Kimber 4TC because I was having RF pickup issues from an illegal high power CB radio. It did help a bit. Eventually I tracked down the cowboy in his pick-em-up truck with the 1000W amp. As he was not open to discussion, I "solved" the root of the problem with nothing more exotic than a straight pin.
Why do middle-aged execs buy expensive anything?
Status.
The practicality of the item is not a criterion for them. Hence the trophy wife and the Porsche SC.
And expensive cables (on hardwood risers natch).
Status.
The practicality of the item is not a criterion for them. Hence the trophy wife and the Porsche SC.
And expensive cables (on hardwood risers natch).
There was a great ad. A very pleasant looking lady leaning against the side of a Ferrari.
The caption read : "The car is cheaper"
The caption read : "The car is cheaper"
At the very real risk of speaking the honest and actual truth, a *very* unpopular thing to do:
Could it be that they, and the people that willingly service them, may be the majority now. As opposed to decades ago, there are a lot of people that in one form or another, via some sanctioned mechanism or another are spending money that they would likely not earn on in a time when money was real. I will bet there are a lot less 20 thousand dollar cables in homes of wealthy people that produce tangible products than let's say.. an uneeeded but "created" paper pusher position of some sort, someone who is not really producing a truly needed product..a created job, there are lots of those now. I am often amused when someone tells me their occupation, I go WTFhoooey is that???? I suppose we are teaching intangibles, creating intangible positions, and intangible people are spending the "easy" money on intangible products. This completes the circle, it is sad.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.