$5939 per meter "Audiophile Approved" Mains Cable(hifiklubben.de)
hifiklubben.de
$5939 per meter "Audiophile Approved" Mains Cable
https://www.hifiklubben.de/audioquest-nrg-dragon-high-current-stromkabel/aqnrgdragonhc1,0/
145 comments
The ground rule is that if you're over 30 it doesn't really matter: your ears have already dropped to the point that your stereo - no matter how bad - will handily outperform your ears. Best you can do at that point is get some good headphones and an EQ to level things out a bit.
I want to refute this reply since it's up at the very top to say... even with moderate hearing damage your ears are still very capable and amazing.
Equipment and room acoustics play a great deal in how much information you perceive from an audio wave. It's shocking when you step into a treated room from high-end speakers. I've done a lot of damage to my ears over the years as a sound engineer, tour manager, musician. I have mild tinnitus. I can still walk into a treated room and listen to audio from a high-end sound system and have a bunch of "OH SHIT" moments where I perceive so much more information than I do through headphones, car stereos, high-end home systems.
The last 1-2 decades of computer audio have been a race toward the bottom of punchy bass and air'y high end. It's the equivalent of motion smoothing on TVs. Except nobody talks about it, you can't turn it off, and 'good sound' is just stuff that has a tight thump. This is true of every range of products from Airpod Max's, to high-end Bang & Olufsen to Sonos systems.
Anyway, my point with that is...Sure this stuff may not get preference in a blind test. That's missing the point tho. The audiophile's pursuit is to limit points in the signal path that create distortion and cause loss of fidelity.
Do these cables do much? Probably not compared to another pair of cables with gold plated connectors and high-quality copper. That said, the real test in high-end gear is not a blind test of one song, it's doing something like listening to the snare drum ring in 10 different songs, something with a lot of resonance and overtones, and see if you can actually perceive more information across a set of songs.
If all these cables offer is high-quality materials, construction, and quality control and the cost to produce them is 60-80% of that. Then great, I am glad they exist and I hope they make a buck making them.
Equipment and room acoustics play a great deal in how much information you perceive from an audio wave. It's shocking when you step into a treated room from high-end speakers. I've done a lot of damage to my ears over the years as a sound engineer, tour manager, musician. I have mild tinnitus. I can still walk into a treated room and listen to audio from a high-end sound system and have a bunch of "OH SHIT" moments where I perceive so much more information than I do through headphones, car stereos, high-end home systems.
The last 1-2 decades of computer audio have been a race toward the bottom of punchy bass and air'y high end. It's the equivalent of motion smoothing on TVs. Except nobody talks about it, you can't turn it off, and 'good sound' is just stuff that has a tight thump. This is true of every range of products from Airpod Max's, to high-end Bang & Olufsen to Sonos systems.
Anyway, my point with that is...Sure this stuff may not get preference in a blind test. That's missing the point tho. The audiophile's pursuit is to limit points in the signal path that create distortion and cause loss of fidelity.
Do these cables do much? Probably not compared to another pair of cables with gold plated connectors and high-quality copper. That said, the real test in high-end gear is not a blind test of one song, it's doing something like listening to the snare drum ring in 10 different songs, something with a lot of resonance and overtones, and see if you can actually perceive more information across a set of songs.
If all these cables offer is high-quality materials, construction, and quality control and the cost to produce them is 60-80% of that. Then great, I am glad they exist and I hope they make a buck making them.
> even with moderate hearing damage your ears are still very capable and amazing
Absolutely. A quality audio level spectrum analyzer in a few grams with this incredible output system. Nature is amazing at every turn.
> Equipment and room acoustics play a great deal in how much information you perceive from an audio wave. It's shocking when you step into a treated room from high-end speakers. I've done a lot of damage to my ears over the years as a sound engineer, tour manager, musician. I have mild tinnitus. I can still walk into a treated room and listen to audio from a high-end sound system and have a bunch of "OH SHIT" moments where I perceive so much more information than I do through headphones, car stereos, high-end home systems.
Good for you. But just being able to listen closely - the kind of thing that makes the difference between a good sound engineer and a not-so-good one - is hard work and requires your undivided attention. Most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a master, a digitized version of the same master and an MP3. Which is fine.
> The last 1-2 decades of computer audio have been a race toward the bottom of punchy bass and air'y high end. It's the equivalent of motion smoothing on TVs. Except nobody talks about it, you can't turn it off, and 'good sound' is just stuff that has a tight thump. This is true of every range of products from Airpod Max's, to high-end Bang & Olufsen to Sonos systems.
Indeed. But: compression alone, streaming artifacts, synthesis of the sound back from whatever junk the compression algorithm introduced, all of these are such enormous sources of distortion that all a high end system will do is accentuate the junk. Less clarity may well be a blessing in that case.
> Anyway, my point with that is...Sure this stuff may not get preference in a blind test. That's missing the point tho. The audiophile's pursuit is to limit points in the signal path that create distortion and cause loss of fidelity.
Yes. And these cables are bullshit.
Absolutely. A quality audio level spectrum analyzer in a few grams with this incredible output system. Nature is amazing at every turn.
> Equipment and room acoustics play a great deal in how much information you perceive from an audio wave. It's shocking when you step into a treated room from high-end speakers. I've done a lot of damage to my ears over the years as a sound engineer, tour manager, musician. I have mild tinnitus. I can still walk into a treated room and listen to audio from a high-end sound system and have a bunch of "OH SHIT" moments where I perceive so much more information than I do through headphones, car stereos, high-end home systems.
Good for you. But just being able to listen closely - the kind of thing that makes the difference between a good sound engineer and a not-so-good one - is hard work and requires your undivided attention. Most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a master, a digitized version of the same master and an MP3. Which is fine.
> The last 1-2 decades of computer audio have been a race toward the bottom of punchy bass and air'y high end. It's the equivalent of motion smoothing on TVs. Except nobody talks about it, you can't turn it off, and 'good sound' is just stuff that has a tight thump. This is true of every range of products from Airpod Max's, to high-end Bang & Olufsen to Sonos systems.
Indeed. But: compression alone, streaming artifacts, synthesis of the sound back from whatever junk the compression algorithm introduced, all of these are such enormous sources of distortion that all a high end system will do is accentuate the junk. Less clarity may well be a blessing in that case.
> Anyway, my point with that is...Sure this stuff may not get preference in a blind test. That's missing the point tho. The audiophile's pursuit is to limit points in the signal path that create distortion and cause loss of fidelity.
Yes. And these cables are bullshit.
> It's the equivalent of motion smoothing on TVs.
Funny enough this bugged me at the start, but now I no longer care or notice it and actually dislike when TVs have it turned off. We all got used to a certain video standard and now it's a different standard and it's Just Fine.
Funny enough this bugged me at the start, but now I no longer care or notice it and actually dislike when TVs have it turned off. We all got used to a certain video standard and now it's a different standard and it's Just Fine.
This is obviously false. Try driving a 100W speaker with a 300W amp/signal and you’ll quickly discover that you actually can hear a blown speaker. You can also hear bad crossover between different speakers, bad placement, bad timing, bad sound insulation, echo, reverb, etc.
Sure if you are comparing a single speaker to another single more expensive speaker you might not feel the difference. But if you are comparing a poorly put together setup to a well done one, you will absolutely hear the difference. And I am not audiophile at all saying this.
Sure if you are comparing a single speaker to another single more expensive speaker you might not feel the difference. But if you are comparing a poorly put together setup to a well done one, you will absolutely hear the difference. And I am not audiophile at all saying this.
The point is that $2000 will get you there, for all of your gear. And that the quality of your cables isn't going to make a shred of a difference. I'll be happy to demonstrate this with a run of speaker wire of the highest grade and one made of household extension chord, a pair of nice studio microphones and an oscilloscope with two inputs running in differential mode. You won't see anything on the trace so what's left is in the mind.
You can put a quality setup together for $2K and you can put an extremely poor one together for 10 times that.
You can put a quality setup together for $2K and you can put an extremely poor one together for 10 times that.
300W and 100W is a bad example because it is a disaster instead of music. And you have not mentioned one good example - 1 liter speaker vs 100 liter one.
Really? Why can I, at over 40, blindly the difference between $200 Beats and $80 Koss headphones? Theres no amount of equalizer that can make up for the low quality drivers that simply fail to emit quality mids. That fail to emit clean sounds below a certain DB threshold.
Yeah, your ears change over time - you will lose sensitivity. That, however, will not make crap headphones or speakers suddenly sound good. It just means you want headphones or speakers that match up well with your current hearing.
Yeah, your ears change over time - you will lose sensitivity. That, however, will not make crap headphones or speakers suddenly sound good. It just means you want headphones or speakers that match up well with your current hearing.
Because of $120, apparently!
Note that I did say good headphones.
Note that I did say good headphones.
The Koss headphones are the good headphones. Better than the Beats headphones at least.
And yes, with quality headphones, the equalizer can do some of the work. But it's generally better to have headphones that match your hearing, so you can focus on the fine tuning with the equalizer instead of trying to brute force against a major difference.
And yes, with quality headphones, the equalizer can do some of the work. But it's generally better to have headphones that match your hearing, so you can focus on the fine tuning with the equalizer instead of trying to brute force against a major difference.
This is true. I have a Sony noise cancelling one that is pretty good both for music consumption and for piano practice. And that's about the only bit where I'm really picky, digital pianos can - and do - sound wonderful embedded in a piece of music but once they have to pretend to actually be a piano, for practice or to render midi files of previous recordings then suddenly sample quality is so much more important than just for regular playback.
I took a long time to decide which digital piano I would buy because I could not find one that felt close enough to the real thing to make me happy to practice on it but eventually found the Yamaha P-515 and it is as close as it gets feel wise and sound wise (but not on the built in speakers, but a set of external monitors). Especially in the low end that gets nasty quickly if you hit a couple of notes with sustain.
But that's not a regular listening to music situation.
Agreed on trying to 'match your hearing' the problem there is that matching your hearing and physical comfort are not always to be found in the same brand, and when you're wearing headphones for 8 to 12 hours per day physical comfort becomes a major factor.
I took a long time to decide which digital piano I would buy because I could not find one that felt close enough to the real thing to make me happy to practice on it but eventually found the Yamaha P-515 and it is as close as it gets feel wise and sound wise (but not on the built in speakers, but a set of external monitors). Especially in the low end that gets nasty quickly if you hit a couple of notes with sustain.
But that's not a regular listening to music situation.
Agreed on trying to 'match your hearing' the problem there is that matching your hearing and physical comfort are not always to be found in the same brand, and when you're wearing headphones for 8 to 12 hours per day physical comfort becomes a major factor.
> But that's not a regular listening to music situation.
We are in a thread about audiophiles. Which I personally identify as (though in the sense of "I care about sound over style", not "I'll spend $5000 power conditioner, I mean, power regenerator").
> the problem there is that matching your hearing and physical comfort are not always to be found in the same brand
There's thousands of brands, each with dozens of offerings. It's easier than you might think to find a set of comfortable headphones that sounds good out of the box. The first trick is to avoid the style brands, since they will favor exceptionally heavy bass since it "sounds good". Beats, Skullcandy, Bose (which is a shame, they used to sound a lot better until recently), etc. Bass is rarely where you lose hearing first.
Personally, I recommend starting here, and look for a "Neutral" or "Bright Neutral" signature.
https://crinacle.com/rankings/headphones/
https://crinacle.com/rankings/iems/
We are in a thread about audiophiles. Which I personally identify as (though in the sense of "I care about sound over style", not "I'll spend $5000 power conditioner, I mean, power regenerator").
> the problem there is that matching your hearing and physical comfort are not always to be found in the same brand
There's thousands of brands, each with dozens of offerings. It's easier than you might think to find a set of comfortable headphones that sounds good out of the box. The first trick is to avoid the style brands, since they will favor exceptionally heavy bass since it "sounds good". Beats, Skullcandy, Bose (which is a shame, they used to sound a lot better until recently), etc. Bass is rarely where you lose hearing first.
Personally, I recommend starting here, and look for a "Neutral" or "Bright Neutral" signature.
https://crinacle.com/rankings/headphones/
https://crinacle.com/rankings/iems/
> Which I personally identify as
I hope you are saying that partially in jest.
Audiophiles tend to care so much about the gear (and especially about what it cost them) they tend to forget about the music. I've seen a couple in my life to date and it was always quite amusing to see them utterly flounder when it came to defining what they like in music if it doesn't help them to show off their gear.
By the time the music has been recorded and reproduced it is so far away from the original that I suspect that the true audiophiles are the people who go to the concerts rather than to sit at home. Nothing like a front row seat to a chamber orchestra or a nice symphony orchestra. And a lot cheaper than high end audio gear, but maybe not quite as practical. Still, for quality and lack of distortion it can't be beat.
I hope you are saying that partially in jest.
Audiophiles tend to care so much about the gear (and especially about what it cost them) they tend to forget about the music. I've seen a couple in my life to date and it was always quite amusing to see them utterly flounder when it came to defining what they like in music if it doesn't help them to show off their gear.
By the time the music has been recorded and reproduced it is so far away from the original that I suspect that the true audiophiles are the people who go to the concerts rather than to sit at home. Nothing like a front row seat to a chamber orchestra or a nice symphony orchestra. And a lot cheaper than high end audio gear, but maybe not quite as practical. Still, for quality and lack of distortion it can't be beat.
> I hope you are saying that partially in jest.
Not at all. "An audiophile is a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction." That describes me fairly well, IMO. Those who spend thousands on silly things are a sub-group of the larger group.
It may seem self-defeating to assign myself a label so sullied by marketing sillyness, but I'm beyond being bothered by that. I love audio.
> By the time the music has been recorded and reproduced it is so far away from the original
I'd like to offer a counter point to this. Just like Charles M. Russell's photographs, the raw recording does not reflect the final vision of the artist. Even the sounds heard at a live rock concert have been manipulated by effects pedals, digital synthesizers, overdriven analog amplifiers, and so forth.
So in a way, the final mix as heard through studio headphones or monitors and approved by the artists is the most authentic version of a song available. As such, what I need to do to hear their version is merely reproduce the equipment they used (which doesn't require a ton of money).
Not at all. "An audiophile is a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction." That describes me fairly well, IMO. Those who spend thousands on silly things are a sub-group of the larger group.
It may seem self-defeating to assign myself a label so sullied by marketing sillyness, but I'm beyond being bothered by that. I love audio.
> By the time the music has been recorded and reproduced it is so far away from the original
I'd like to offer a counter point to this. Just like Charles M. Russell's photographs, the raw recording does not reflect the final vision of the artist. Even the sounds heard at a live rock concert have been manipulated by effects pedals, digital synthesizers, overdriven analog amplifiers, and so forth.
So in a way, the final mix as heard through studio headphones or monitors and approved by the artists is the most authentic version of a song available. As such, what I need to do to hear their version is merely reproduce the equipment they used (which doesn't require a ton of money).
This is incorrect. Accurate reproduction of low frequency content is still very hard to do and you can hear low frequencies for as long as you live.
[deleted]
This just isn't true. My father (who is well over 30) would have no trouble telling the difference between a $100 Walmart stereo, my $700 speakers, and the $4000 speakers at the local hi-fi shop in a scientifically controlled blind test. And I'd bet that over 95% of the population can do the same.
> This just isn't true.
Ok then.
Let's just say that I find something very funny about people listening to 128 K MP3s or streaming services on high end audio. I wonder if they're trying to nail down that extra bit of distortion the compressor introduced or to re-create the missing frequency bands from the carefully compressed MP3s.
> And I'd bet that over 95% of the population can do the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZeSZFYCNRw
Ok then.
Let's just say that I find something very funny about people listening to 128 K MP3s or streaming services on high end audio. I wonder if they're trying to nail down that extra bit of distortion the compressor introduced or to re-create the missing frequency bands from the carefully compressed MP3s.
> And I'd bet that over 95% of the population can do the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZeSZFYCNRw
Perhaps I should have been more specific. I was refuting your claim: "your stereo - no matter how bad - will handily outperform your ears." This is trivially untrue. Another commenter mentions blown speakers as a counterexample. Or if I had to, I could build a set of speakers so terrible only deaf people could tolerate it. So the idea that your ears can't appreciate the difference between ANY pair of competing stereos, "no matter how bad" one of them is, is obviously wrong. We might disagree on where the quality floor is, but we must agree that it exists.
That floor is reached long before you get into audiophile territory.
I don't really think this clip is a good counter example.
I'm pretty sure 95% of the population would be able to guess correctly, in a blind test, who is Joshua Bell and who is me playing some stuff on the violin, and I'm actually quite alright at it. Still doesn't mean they'd stop on the subway for either one of us...
I'd still call bs on GP's father being able to tell between a 700 and 4000 set of speakers on a REAL double blind test, but between a 100 and the others? I don't see why not. There's lots of crappy cheap hi-fis on that price range.
I'm pretty sure 95% of the population would be able to guess correctly, in a blind test, who is Joshua Bell and who is me playing some stuff on the violin, and I'm actually quite alright at it. Still doesn't mean they'd stop on the subway for either one of us...
I'd still call bs on GP's father being able to tell between a 700 and 4000 set of speakers on a REAL double blind test, but between a 100 and the others? I don't see why not. There's lots of crappy cheap hi-fis on that price range.
That clip is a fantastic counter example: it offered a front row seat to a world class performance utterly distortion free. Ok, not the ideal venue but I would have been more than happy to miss any number of appointments just to stand there for the full duration.
Of course some of those people were probably in a hurry to not be late for the evening's performance ;)
Of course some of those people were probably in a hurry to not be late for the evening's performance ;)
I really don't see how being able to hear the difference between a bottom-shelf generic consumer system and something better (like GP said) would correlate with being interested in seeing someone playing violin in the subway.
I'm all for debunking audiophile snake-oil but you're going too far in the other direction, like saying that above 30 you can't hear differences "no matter how bad", which is as cuckoo and anti-scientific as audiophile snake-oil. Sorry.
I'm all for debunking audiophile snake-oil but you're going too far in the other direction, like saying that above 30 you can't hear differences "no matter how bad", which is as cuckoo and anti-scientific as audiophile snake-oil. Sorry.
The point is that it probably wouldn't get any better than that in your life. Ever. No matter how much you spent on audio gear.
As for the differences over 30, it's annoying because I very much wished it wasn't true but high attenuation is so well documented I wonder why anybody would even try to argue with it, to all intents and purposes your ability to distinguish the finer points of that violin concerto in the 15KHz+ range (where a violin still puts out plenty of harmonics): you won't. Especially not if it has been recorded and then played back, doubly so if it was compressed along the way. Of course you're going to hear major differences, but the kind of subtlety that requires high end audio gear will be lost on you.
If it makes you feel better to spend $20K on a turntable or a set of speakers, by all means. But realize that it most likely won't move the needle (pun intended).
As for the differences over 30, it's annoying because I very much wished it wasn't true but high attenuation is so well documented I wonder why anybody would even try to argue with it, to all intents and purposes your ability to distinguish the finer points of that violin concerto in the 15KHz+ range (where a violin still puts out plenty of harmonics): you won't. Especially not if it has been recorded and then played back, doubly so if it was compressed along the way. Of course you're going to hear major differences, but the kind of subtlety that requires high end audio gear will be lost on you.
If it makes you feel better to spend $20K on a turntable or a set of speakers, by all means. But realize that it most likely won't move the needle (pun intended).
> The point is that it probably wouldn't get any better than that in your life. Ever. No matter how much you spent on audio gear.
Again: and...? The claim put forth by you and challenged by default-kramer wasn't about wanting to own audiophile gear or wanting to hear high quality music, but rather being able to differentiate between low-quality and higher quality equipment. You claim that one can't hear differences "no matter how bad" the equipment is. Both of us said that's bs. Read again what you wrote yourself: "no matter how bad". That's obviously hyperbolic bs.
> to all intents and purposes your ability to distinguish the finer points of that violin concerto in the 15KHz+ range (where a violin still puts out plenty of harmonics)
And that's exactly the same bullshit that audiophiles say when they make claims about things like "only vinyl preserves the super important finer harmonics over 20k that CD cuts". Harmonics over 15k don't really make much of a difference, especially on something like a violin. I bet one could get away with putting a smooth low-pass filter in quartet recording around 15k and releasing it. There is A LOT of music under 15k hertz. And also a lot to go wrong under 15k, that people could use to identify bottom-shelf vs non-bottom-shelf in a blind test.
> If it makes you feel better to spend $20K on a turntable or a set of speakers, by all means. But realize that it most likely won't move the needle (pun intended).
As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, most of my music listening is made in a $20 set of Apple Earbuds rather than on a $20k turntable. I never even ever owned anything in the audiophile realm! But thanks for confirming my suspicions that you'd make such an assumption followed by an attack :)
Also, you're the one writing audiophile-style marketing copy like "the kind of subtlety that requires high end audio gear will be lost on you", not me. How the turntables... :)
Again: and...? The claim put forth by you and challenged by default-kramer wasn't about wanting to own audiophile gear or wanting to hear high quality music, but rather being able to differentiate between low-quality and higher quality equipment. You claim that one can't hear differences "no matter how bad" the equipment is. Both of us said that's bs. Read again what you wrote yourself: "no matter how bad". That's obviously hyperbolic bs.
> to all intents and purposes your ability to distinguish the finer points of that violin concerto in the 15KHz+ range (where a violin still puts out plenty of harmonics)
And that's exactly the same bullshit that audiophiles say when they make claims about things like "only vinyl preserves the super important finer harmonics over 20k that CD cuts". Harmonics over 15k don't really make much of a difference, especially on something like a violin. I bet one could get away with putting a smooth low-pass filter in quartet recording around 15k and releasing it. There is A LOT of music under 15k hertz. And also a lot to go wrong under 15k, that people could use to identify bottom-shelf vs non-bottom-shelf in a blind test.
> If it makes you feel better to spend $20K on a turntable or a set of speakers, by all means. But realize that it most likely won't move the needle (pun intended).
As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, most of my music listening is made in a $20 set of Apple Earbuds rather than on a $20k turntable. I never even ever owned anything in the audiophile realm! But thanks for confirming my suspicions that you'd make such an assumption followed by an attack :)
Also, you're the one writing audiophile-style marketing copy like "the kind of subtlety that requires high end audio gear will be lost on you", not me. How the turntables... :)
> This just isn't true.
Asserting that a scientifically controlled blind test would reveal something is not the same as actually performing that test. Have you?
Asserting that a scientifically controlled blind test would reveal something is not the same as actually performing that test. Have you?
Correct speakers and speaker placement is worth more than 100000 € in gold plated cables.
Yep. But it doesn't send out those oh so precious conspicuous consumption signals.
That's not true in any way. I'm over 35, and I can clearly differentiate the sound quality & detail level between my Hi-Fi systems.
My favorite and bigger system has a sound signature so distinct, I can easily differentiate it from other systems with ease. Its sound also much more detailed than other systems, and have the capability to paralyze me in front of it while listening albums.
None of the systems I have are slouches in terms of sound reproduction capability, but human ears do not turn into muffled receivers the day you turn 30.
My favorite and bigger system has a sound signature so distinct, I can easily differentiate it from other systems with ease. Its sound also much more detailed than other systems, and have the capability to paralyze me in front of it while listening albums.
None of the systems I have are slouches in terms of sound reproduction capability, but human ears do not turn into muffled receivers the day you turn 30.
Isn't this the same problem? What're "good headphones"? Are they $100? $1000? What about an EQ? The consumer sound system industry is rampant with folks selling and worse, recommending, snake oil.
Anything over $200 is probably better spent on the amp and that too need not be super expensive to be more than good enough. Really, most hi-fi is just like jewelry: overpriced junk that is intended as a statement of the owner's affluence.
Good headphones to me are ones which are comfy to wear over a long period
I've found bose to be the only over ear headphones that don't hurt my ears.
Hearing ability overall doesn't decrease with age per se. Hearing aids are common, but not in the 30 plus population. Our hearing does evolve in the ultra high frequency range, at 12kHz and above, but I'd argue that's not a very useful part of our range anyway, unlike the octaves our human voice ranges in. I'd say hearing and especially listening gets better with age, so investing in better acoustics is always a great experience.
> Hearing ability overall doesn't decrease with age per se.
The established literature begs to differ.
> Our hearing does evolve in the ultra high frequency range, at 12kHz and above, but I'd argue that's not a very useful part of our range anyway, unlike the octaves our human voice ranges in.
If only it were all that simple. For starters, 12KHz isn't 'ultra high', and past 50 8 KHz should still be doable but sensitivity is what matters it this is a gradual process, not a hard cut-off from one day to the next. As you age the various components of your hearing mechanism stiffen, dry out and calcify making it harder to hear tones that you could hear easily before. So the ability to perceive an 'x' frequency may never go away but your ability to detect frequency 'x' at loudness level 'y' definitely does change.
Human voices have overtones just as instruments do, and those help in determining timbre and may help to recognize words and particular speakers (as in: people speaking, not the electromagnetic devices).
> I'd say hearing and especially listening gets better with age
The first is definitely not supported by data, in fact the data all points the other way: reduced sensitivity over time, especially in the highs.
As for listening: listening is an art and like any art you can get better at it over time but without good input it gets harder even if you get better.
> so investing in better acoustics is always a great experience.
Up to a point. And that point lies well below where audiophilia begins.
The established literature begs to differ.
> Our hearing does evolve in the ultra high frequency range, at 12kHz and above, but I'd argue that's not a very useful part of our range anyway, unlike the octaves our human voice ranges in.
If only it were all that simple. For starters, 12KHz isn't 'ultra high', and past 50 8 KHz should still be doable but sensitivity is what matters it this is a gradual process, not a hard cut-off from one day to the next. As you age the various components of your hearing mechanism stiffen, dry out and calcify making it harder to hear tones that you could hear easily before. So the ability to perceive an 'x' frequency may never go away but your ability to detect frequency 'x' at loudness level 'y' definitely does change.
Human voices have overtones just as instruments do, and those help in determining timbre and may help to recognize words and particular speakers (as in: people speaking, not the electromagnetic devices).
> I'd say hearing and especially listening gets better with age
The first is definitely not supported by data, in fact the data all points the other way: reduced sensitivity over time, especially in the highs.
As for listening: listening is an art and like any art you can get better at it over time but without good input it gets harder even if you get better.
> so investing in better acoustics is always a great experience.
Up to a point. And that point lies well below where audiophilia begins.
Yes your ear degrade but no that doesn’t mean everything is equal if you are used to listen to music. As a proof for that, many successful sound engineers have been over 50 and still mixed legendary recordings. Most people won’t hear good audio gear but that’s not related to age ;)
Good equipment will often sound better, to what amount is the question. And yes some things are just fake and don’t deliver better sound, so listening yourself is very important.
Good equipment will often sound better, to what amount is the question. And yes some things are just fake and don’t deliver better sound, so listening yourself is very important.
> As a proof for that, many successful sound engineers have been over 50 and still mixed legendary recordings.
Surely that has much more to do with artistic skill than frequency response of their ears. Having excellent hearing won't make you intrinsically skilled at audio mixing.
> Most people won’t hear good audio gear but that’s not related to age ;)
The relationship between age and hearing loss is incontrovertible. Hearing loss is cumulative, it increases with age. Some people lose their hearing faster or younger than others for a wide array of reasons, but nobody is completely immune to it.
Surely that has much more to do with artistic skill than frequency response of their ears. Having excellent hearing won't make you intrinsically skilled at audio mixing.
> Most people won’t hear good audio gear but that’s not related to age ;)
The relationship between age and hearing loss is incontrovertible. Hearing loss is cumulative, it increases with age. Some people lose their hearing faster or younger than others for a wide array of reasons, but nobody is completely immune to it.
You are just mentioning the ear, not the cumulated ear + brain (perception). While the physical hearing declines, the perception can gets sharper with time. Age makes hearing very high frequencies impossible but thankfully that’s not the main range where instruments play. (And yes, I know about harmonics)
Audio quality is not just about high frequencies thankfully.
Beethoven was quite deaf but still an amazing composer and performer near the end of his life.
Anyway, no need to believe me, just go and do a test and see how well you can still hear and you'll come away even more impressed with your brain than with your ears. Your ears degrade and your brain works very hard to make up for that degradation.
Anyway, no need to believe me, just go and do a test and see how well you can still hear and you'll come away even more impressed with your brain than with your ears. Your ears degrade and your brain works very hard to make up for that degradation.
I agree and I know how my ear perform. Degradation comes mostly from the top end above 10kHz, which is not critical for music.
Composing and directing music are two very different activities. I'd expect the first one to work way better than the latter given strong deafness. I don't know about a successful deaf conductor in the modern times.
Yet I think we are agreeing in the core - hearing music is more than just ears, it is also perception, which is why some people get wrong ideas about and if something sounds better (see the original topic here). Yet that does not mean there is not better gear than other and that no one can hear the difference between anything. Actually better hifi gear will sound better, even to older people.
Composing and directing music are two very different activities. I'd expect the first one to work way better than the latter given strong deafness. I don't know about a successful deaf conductor in the modern times.
Yet I think we are agreeing in the core - hearing music is more than just ears, it is also perception, which is why some people get wrong ideas about and if something sounds better (see the original topic here). Yet that does not mean there is not better gear than other and that no one can hear the difference between anything. Actually better hifi gear will sound better, even to older people.
Well, even old ears will still hear distortion.
Personally I don't like to assume that I will be the only person to listen to my hifi!
Personally I don't like to assume that I will be the only person to listen to my hifi!
Love that website. Another great resource for engineering your way around sound is http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-ak-ohm.htm
> how little you actually have to spend to get good sound.
Can confirm. My highest end system is using gold plated RCA cables bought with the system 30 years ago, simple Acoustic Research speaker cables (at the gauge my speaker manufacturer recommends), and all is connected with factory stock cables to a Philips surge protector.
It's an absolute delight to listen.
Can confirm. My highest end system is using gold plated RCA cables bought with the system 30 years ago, simple Acoustic Research speaker cables (at the gauge my speaker manufacturer recommends), and all is connected with factory stock cables to a Philips surge protector.
It's an absolute delight to listen.
> it makes it very difficult to tell what actually will improve your home hifi audio quality
It's really not. The answer when it comes to audiophile equipment is always 'no'.
It's really not. The answer when it comes to audiophile equipment is always 'no'.
One of the things I have learned about business is that if you have customers willing to pay very high prices you should offer something with those prices.
Definitely rings true of tech enthusiast niches. Mechanical keyboards and retrocomputing may not offer huge volume, but it can probably offer fat margin.
An important distinction is that the mechanical keyboard and retro computers actually are meaningfully different.
If I take a cheap mass-produced keyboard, like the "China Resource Semico Co., Ltd Keyboard" plugged into this random desktop PC, and I put it in a nice box and tell you it costs $500, presumably people who buy expensive mechanical keyboards would notice that the keycaps are cheap plastic with stickers, there are no mechanical switches and so it doesn't have the right "feel" and so on. It costs $500 because that's what I charged, but most people don't believe it's worth $500.
I was looking to sort out a good keyboard and then the pandemic started, and so I just bought the cheapest product I could source very locally (from a supermarket about 5 minutes walk) rather than incur additional risks or delays. And of course this keyboard does work so the impetus to buy a good keyboard receded. But I'm under no illusions that it's just as good, the letters A, C, E, L, N, O, and S are already rubbing off and the left shift key is already significantly worn because they used a cheap plastic!
The problem with situations like this "Audiophile approved" cable is that it isn't even meaningfully different let alone better. Unfortunately in a society that loves Veblen goods this is hardly the exception.
If I take a cheap mass-produced keyboard, like the "China Resource Semico Co., Ltd Keyboard" plugged into this random desktop PC, and I put it in a nice box and tell you it costs $500, presumably people who buy expensive mechanical keyboards would notice that the keycaps are cheap plastic with stickers, there are no mechanical switches and so it doesn't have the right "feel" and so on. It costs $500 because that's what I charged, but most people don't believe it's worth $500.
I was looking to sort out a good keyboard and then the pandemic started, and so I just bought the cheapest product I could source very locally (from a supermarket about 5 minutes walk) rather than incur additional risks or delays. And of course this keyboard does work so the impetus to buy a good keyboard receded. But I'm under no illusions that it's just as good, the letters A, C, E, L, N, O, and S are already rubbing off and the left shift key is already significantly worn because they used a cheap plastic!
The problem with situations like this "Audiophile approved" cable is that it isn't even meaningfully different let alone better. Unfortunately in a society that loves Veblen goods this is hardly the exception.
This is absolutely true, but I do not think it is merely limited to audiophile gear.
The thing is, I don’t think overpriced audiophile gear is really that awful, its just awful value. The adage that there are no bad products, only bad prices is obviously flawed, BUT, sometimes it really is just bad prices.
This cable is probably pretty good. For the price, it ought to be, because even the best cable money can buy would probably leave a fat margin at this price.
Likewise, good mechanical keyboards can sell for a lot. Thousands. It’s no freakin joke. Maybe the prices haven’t gotten as meaninglessly inflated as audiophile gear, but it’s in a similar order of magnitude imo. We’re only talking about the extremes after all; a good pair of Audio Technicas is never going to be a ripoff, but that doesn’t mean someone around the corner isn’t trying to sell snake oil.
Maybe audiophile gear really is different, but if it is I suspect it has something to do with the audience its marketed for and where the money comes from rather than an inherent difference in the markets.
The thing is, I don’t think overpriced audiophile gear is really that awful, its just awful value. The adage that there are no bad products, only bad prices is obviously flawed, BUT, sometimes it really is just bad prices.
This cable is probably pretty good. For the price, it ought to be, because even the best cable money can buy would probably leave a fat margin at this price.
Likewise, good mechanical keyboards can sell for a lot. Thousands. It’s no freakin joke. Maybe the prices haven’t gotten as meaninglessly inflated as audiophile gear, but it’s in a similar order of magnitude imo. We’re only talking about the extremes after all; a good pair of Audio Technicas is never going to be a ripoff, but that doesn’t mean someone around the corner isn’t trying to sell snake oil.
Maybe audiophile gear really is different, but if it is I suspect it has something to do with the audience its marketed for and where the money comes from rather than an inherent difference in the markets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Belt
PWB Electronics shows that even if you believe some audiophile gear might actually "work" the enthusiasts can't tell the difference and will buy nonsense that doesn't do anything.
That's important here, whether you think clicky keyboards are good is a matter of personal preference. Maybe you like how vinyl sounds. Maybe you prefer the wow and flutter of a cheap mono tape player from 2015 over the notionally far better 1982 Sony WM-D6. But whether there is even a perceptible difference is something we can actually measure and of course treatments like the "Quantum Clip" do not make a difference.
Maybe Peter Belt was delusional, and maybe he was a scammer, and maybe somewhere in between, but his products can't work yet audiophiles bought them anyway.
PWB Electronics shows that even if you believe some audiophile gear might actually "work" the enthusiasts can't tell the difference and will buy nonsense that doesn't do anything.
That's important here, whether you think clicky keyboards are good is a matter of personal preference. Maybe you like how vinyl sounds. Maybe you prefer the wow and flutter of a cheap mono tape player from 2015 over the notionally far better 1982 Sony WM-D6. But whether there is even a perceptible difference is something we can actually measure and of course treatments like the "Quantum Clip" do not make a difference.
Maybe Peter Belt was delusional, and maybe he was a scammer, and maybe somewhere in between, but his products can't work yet audiophiles bought them anyway.
It's true in almost all commercial transactions. A price is a message communicating the value of the thing to potential buyers. Also, value is subjective.
Anecdote: I used to work for a large software company. A long time ago they had a product which had a competitive feature set to the industry leaders in the space, but was a poor seller. It turns out that the price was so low (<10% of the market leader) that potential customers assumed that it was not a serious competitor. Raising the price significantly boosted sales.
Years ago I owned a boat. Everything for boats is more expensive than equivalent non-marine items. At first I thought that was because designing things for marine environments required better materials and engineering. Then I realized that most people who own boats are at least moderately well-off, and that the price was what they were willing to pay, not what it cost to manufacture. This taught me that if I ever start a business, I will target rich people.
Anecdote: I used to work for a large software company. A long time ago they had a product which had a competitive feature set to the industry leaders in the space, but was a poor seller. It turns out that the price was so low (<10% of the market leader) that potential customers assumed that it was not a serious competitor. Raising the price significantly boosted sales.
Years ago I owned a boat. Everything for boats is more expensive than equivalent non-marine items. At first I thought that was because designing things for marine environments required better materials and engineering. Then I realized that most people who own boats are at least moderately well-off, and that the price was what they were willing to pay, not what it cost to manufacture. This taught me that if I ever start a business, I will target rich people.
According to hacker news, rich people don't have any money. They only have stocks.
It is much less of a focus now, but I for a long time I wanted to have a business that made me a lot of money. I always focused on trying to make useful stuff, but I sure did wonder about making decent stuff and throwing in a bunch of marketing to charge 10X the normal price! It is one interesting strategy. But then I learned business is SUPER hard (especially starting from zero) and I make great money doing engineering!
Retrocomputing is horrid because every idiot things their worthless crap is worth something.
I can’t tell you how many “unknown soviet terminal keyboard” I’ve seen people ask hundreds of dollars for.
I can’t tell you how many “unknown soviet terminal keyboard” I’ve seen people ask hundreds of dollars for.
I hate the prices on rare items, that stuff sucks. The price of things is far above what people should be willing to pay, but sellers have no incentive to sell for less and buyers have no choice if they ever want to mess with old computers. Frankly, old Japanese computers are easier to get a decent deal on because for one reason or another, Yahoo! Japan Auctions tends to give pretty damn fair prices.
What I’m talking about though is actually not the second-hand market, but the very interesting market of making new retro-computing goods. TexElec has some good examples of said things; accessories or expansions for old computers, or hell, sometimes even successors or recreations of them, like the Vampire V4 standalone, which from my reading is meant to be a successor to the Amiga 4000.
There’s always emulator boxes like the “mini” consoles that have been popular, but frankly I think those have firmly left “niche” territory by now, and only some of them are marketed at the niche. Nowadays the niche markets seem much more palatable to more expensive, but somewhat more versatile FPGA based emulation. (Well, maybe that’s not fair; software emulation can do things FPGA based emulation can not, but FPGA based emulation can do things that software emulation can’t do either, and you can already get software emulation on most computers, phones, and game consoles anyways. It definitely adds some value for being unique.)
What I’m talking about though is actually not the second-hand market, but the very interesting market of making new retro-computing goods. TexElec has some good examples of said things; accessories or expansions for old computers, or hell, sometimes even successors or recreations of them, like the Vampire V4 standalone, which from my reading is meant to be a successor to the Amiga 4000.
There’s always emulator boxes like the “mini” consoles that have been popular, but frankly I think those have firmly left “niche” territory by now, and only some of them are marketed at the niche. Nowadays the niche markets seem much more palatable to more expensive, but somewhat more versatile FPGA based emulation. (Well, maybe that’s not fair; software emulation can do things FPGA based emulation can not, but FPGA based emulation can do things that software emulation can’t do either, and you can already get software emulation on most computers, phones, and game consoles anyways. It definitely adds some value for being unique.)
It may make good business but it doesn't feel very moral to deceive people into spending money they don't need to.
I am okay letting wealthy people spend too much money, but my big issue is that it doesn't feel like a good contribution to society, just a money grab. And if I am going to put my time and energy in to something, I want it to actually offer real value. Which is why I am actually spinning up a non profit that offers all of our work as open source. But it was always interesting to me that very wealthy people will drop huge sums without much thought. You're right tho that a few people trying to "spend their way to the top" will get caught spending more than they can afford and drawing those people in feels particularly immoral.
I'm not rich, but I do spend too much money on certain products on purpose. The reason I do it is because I love the engineer's or artist's work so much that I want to support them more than typical low margin product purchases would allow. I don't think they are being deceptive, and I don't feel swindled... as long as they aren't lying about the product specs or the capabilities.
Sometimes people just want to spend money on something they’re passionate about. How good the ROI is doesn’t matter to them, so you’re not really deceiving them
You are right but it could be true on the other side as well. These people earning money they don't need to.
there is an outdoor knife company which mostly uses well tempered 1095 steel for their products.
People bombard them with requeata for Gucci steel like SV-30 which is ill suited for their applications.
Under description
https://eseeknives.com/product/esee-3-s35v
People bombard them with requeata for Gucci steel like SV-30 which is ill suited for their applications.
Under description
https://eseeknives.com/product/esee-3-s35v
I do think people are a little silly about knife steel, but in this case I'd love to see the company's test results backing up their strong statement.
At 60HRC, S30V should have (according to the data sheet) similar toughness and impact resistance to 1095 at 57HRC. So for the price you're getting a little extra hardness, a lot of extra edge retention, and much better corrosion resistance.
Now, you sure could say that isn't worth it in this application. But this stuff is very real and measurable (unlike the HiFi nonsense). The crazy stuff in knife steel is often the other way: folks picking stuff like White #2, and caring only about hardness, and ending up with something they think is high end but performs quite badly on objective tests.
At 60HRC, S30V should have (according to the data sheet) similar toughness and impact resistance to 1095 at 57HRC. So for the price you're getting a little extra hardness, a lot of extra edge retention, and much better corrosion resistance.
Now, you sure could say that isn't worth it in this application. But this stuff is very real and measurable (unlike the HiFi nonsense). The crazy stuff in knife steel is often the other way: folks picking stuff like White #2, and caring only about hardness, and ending up with something they think is high end but performs quite badly on objective tests.
Reminiscent of the Diamond series of HDMI cables on Amazon that sold for thousands of dollars. The Amazon reviews on these products are hilarious:
https://www.amazon.com/Diamond-Digital-Audio-Ethernet-Connec...
Edit: also, if you want more, see the Denon AKDL1 Dedicated Link Cable:
https://www.amazon.com/Denon-AKDL1-Dedicated-Link-Cable/dp/B...
https://www.amazon.com/Diamond-Digital-Audio-Ethernet-Connec...
Edit: also, if you want more, see the Denon AKDL1 Dedicated Link Cable:
https://www.amazon.com/Denon-AKDL1-Dedicated-Link-Cable/dp/B...
There are also some $5,999 headphones:
https://www.amazon.com/HIFIMAN-SUSVARA-Over-Ear-Full-Size-He...
https://www.amazon.com/HIFIMAN-SUSVARA-Over-Ear-Full-Size-He...
Reviews on these are awesome. Probably hints how large the audience for them is - especially regarding buying them from amazon
Well who is going to spring that sort of cash on a pair of headphones and publicly say they are crap and they foolishly wasted their money by a tenfold factor?
My favorite audiophile product remains the nearly-$500 wooden volume knobs: https://boingboing.net/2005/11/07/astronomically-overp.html
To be fair, the advertising of the knob sounds like trolling to me, but honestly, it's hard to tell if serious or not.
Everyone is talking about how this is a waste of money, but as far as we know satisfaction is a logarithmic function of wealth (which implies that a certain percent change in wealth has equal effects on happiness at all points on the scale) so for someone with enough money this is like getting whipped cream on your latte. To quantify it, this is about 10,000 times as expensive as adding whipped cream at Starbucks, and the US median savings is $5,000, so to someone with $50,000,000 this cable is like the whipped cream.
(Not to ruin the fun but this is also about the cost of saving a life in Africa according to GiveWell, so do with that what you will.)
(Not to ruin the fun but this is also about the cost of saving a life in Africa according to GiveWell, so do with that what you will.)
Bad comparison, the whipped cream actually serves a purpose not just a perceived purpose, Snake oil <> a treat. There is nothing wrong with buying nice or expensive things, but being lied to and ripped off, I take issue with that.
These cables look nicer than the plastic-insulated wires a sensible person would buy in their place.
True but not $5939 per meter nicer, there are cables just as nice if not better for far less. But most importantly people aren't buying these for their looks but for the false performance claims.
>True but not $5939 per meter nicer,
That is the problem I am pointing out, that is totally relative to how much money you have. After a certain point the actually nice stuff you can buy runs out and you are left going for slightly nicer looking audio cables.
That is the problem I am pointing out, that is totally relative to how much money you have. After a certain point the actually nice stuff you can buy runs out and you are left going for slightly nicer looking audio cables.
What about the other 83 miles of cable between you and the power station, when would the audiophile pay some attention to that as well as the last 3 feet?
Wow, that's deep! Where is the line drawn?
At being stupid enough to spend this sort of money on those cables, instead of spending it on something you might actually have a possible chance of hearing.
People, aren't buying these for their looks, but for the false claims of performance. That's the issue, the lie, not the price.
Do we actually know why people are buying them? Has anyone A/B tested the marketing copy on this?
It's obvious why, you don't need an a/b study to tell you the sun is shining, you can just look outside.
It actually shows how people are excited to buy new stuff even if it is purely decorative and they would be better off if they did not buy it.
These audiophile companies are creating an artificial need in the most obvious way possible. Insert an intrusive thought like "your audio equipment sucks because of X" and a rich person may consider the peace of mind more valuable than the money he is spending.
These audiophile companies are creating an artificial need in the most obvious way possible. Insert an intrusive thought like "your audio equipment sucks because of X" and a rich person may consider the peace of mind more valuable than the money he is spending.
There are enough people over the $10M line that I am not sure these things need any explanation. If you were at Costco and saw one product being sold for $0.01, another being sold for $0.001 and another for $0.003, would you spend any time thinking about the price at all?
[deleted]
I sometimes suspect that the super expensive cables are a form of "anchoring." I've seen comments on web forums where someone will say: "I can't believe that I need a $5939/m mains cable, so I bought a $539/m cable instead."
They still got snookered.
They still got snookered.
Back when I was deeply into this sort of thing we purchased hospital grade power cables (green dot) for less than $20. You get a well made cable and connectors. https://www.digikey.com/en/product-highlight/q/qualtek/hospi...
This cable is ok, but it is overpriced. I can sell it for only $4000 per meter.
Of course if you want a true high performance cable, we offer that too, but it is $6500/meter, with a certificate of compliance showing that it passed the tests we tested it with. This cable also has a $750/year support option, allowing you to send it back at any time for recertification and tuning.
Of course if you want a true high performance cable, we offer that too, but it is $6500/meter, with a certificate of compliance showing that it passed the tests we tested it with. This cable also has a $750/year support option, allowing you to send it back at any time for recertification and tuning.
If you haven't seen, Audio Myths Workshop [1] is a must watch for any audio enthusiast.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
I don’t get the thinking behind these sorts of products. What’s on the other side of the wall is usually made of shit and string. It’s like only cooking the last inch of a sausage.
I know I’m approaching it rationally. Perhaps I shouldn’t.
I know I’m approaching it rationally. Perhaps I shouldn’t.
Outside of skincare cosmetics and homeopathy, I'm not sure there's an area that's got as much pseudo-scientific snake oil on it as audiophile equipment.
No, I don't think you really need a rubidium master clock for your CD/DAC combo. Nor do I think that your directional, stranded-silver cable is going to work any better as a digital interconnect. etc
No, I don't think you really need a rubidium master clock for your CD/DAC combo. Nor do I think that your directional, stranded-silver cable is going to work any better as a digital interconnect. etc
But muh jitter, bro…
Always wondered if these are part of money laundering operations.
Not enough volume and markets, I think.
Expensive watches and art definitely are.
You give someone $50,000 Swiss watch. When they are in Geneva, they resell the watch for a good price for a reputable Swiss merchant, take the money and walk across the street to the Swiss bank. The same shop can resell the same watch again and again.
Expensive watches and art definitely are.
You give someone $50,000 Swiss watch. When they are in Geneva, they resell the watch for a good price for a reputable Swiss merchant, take the money and walk across the street to the Swiss bank. The same shop can resell the same watch again and again.
[deleted]
Too finicky, if I had to do it I’d use a cryptocurrency, or connections in the state lottery.
Cryptocurrency doesn't solve the problem the way a $12K cable does and not everybody has connections in the state lottery.
How about a 55k picture of a cat licking its ass?
It's not easy to launder money using cryptocurrency.
Untraceable transactions don't solve the money laundering problem. That's why drug lords end with warehouses full of $100 bills.
Untraceable transactions don't solve the money laundering problem. That's why drug lords end with warehouses full of $100 bills.
Here's the thing about those hobbies...
People start by spending, say, $500 total on some expensive hobby. But soon they increase their frequency on internet forums and see way more Youtube videos of comparisons, which lead them to buying more stuff. The "thrill of the chase" is so fantastic that they spend more and more until they get a lot of junk. Soon they amass 2000, 3000 worth of semi-cheap stuff. They have 4 pairs of speakers, 10 guitars, whatever.
But this is not really fulfilling in the long term, so they sell most of their stuff to fund the next purchase, the purchase to end all purchases. They get a $5000 kit. But of course forum dwelling and Youtube watching continues and they gotta buy more $5000 gizmos or update what they have. They have the money... why not?
So, for example, 10 years ago you had 10 different ~$500 gizmos, and now you have 10 different ~$5000 gizmos. Where do you go next?
All those hobby things have their periphery of accessories. So of course there's gonna be a $5000 cable for someone who started with a $5 one, graduated to a $50 one, then to a $500... ad nauseum...
Why? It's fun, and you get to be part of a community of sorts.
I kinda got tired of it with Guitars myself, but it was fun while it lasted. And with the pandemic I was able to sell almost everything I had for significantly more than I paid for. It's not really a true investment, but it's not throwing it away.
People start by spending, say, $500 total on some expensive hobby. But soon they increase their frequency on internet forums and see way more Youtube videos of comparisons, which lead them to buying more stuff. The "thrill of the chase" is so fantastic that they spend more and more until they get a lot of junk. Soon they amass 2000, 3000 worth of semi-cheap stuff. They have 4 pairs of speakers, 10 guitars, whatever.
But this is not really fulfilling in the long term, so they sell most of their stuff to fund the next purchase, the purchase to end all purchases. They get a $5000 kit. But of course forum dwelling and Youtube watching continues and they gotta buy more $5000 gizmos or update what they have. They have the money... why not?
So, for example, 10 years ago you had 10 different ~$500 gizmos, and now you have 10 different ~$5000 gizmos. Where do you go next?
All those hobby things have their periphery of accessories. So of course there's gonna be a $5000 cable for someone who started with a $5 one, graduated to a $50 one, then to a $500... ad nauseum...
Why? It's fun, and you get to be part of a community of sorts.
I kinda got tired of it with Guitars myself, but it was fun while it lasted. And with the pandemic I was able to sell almost everything I had for significantly more than I paid for. It's not really a true investment, but it's not throwing it away.
Hearing is determined by psychoacoustics.
Some audiophiles are more into the acoustics, others more into the psycho.
Some audiophiles are more into the acoustics, others more into the psycho.
In a study by the University of Manchester participants who were told they were testing a "new technology" hearing aid objectively scored better then people who were told they got a conventional hearing aid -- but they all got the same hearing aid. That is, the placebo effect really works.
The love that you pour into your audiophile hifi system may really give you a better listening experience.
The love that you pour into your audiophile hifi system may really give you a better listening experience.
Here is a website in English selling the same thing: https://reverb.com/item/21134334-audioquest-nrg-dragon-high-...
"Simply put these are very danceable cables."
https://gizmodo.com/7-250-speaker-cables-turn-you-into-a-dan...
https://gizmodo.com/7-250-speaker-cables-turn-you-into-a-dan...
As they say, there's one born every minute.
This is pure status symbol.
It accomplishes its goal whether or not it performs any better than a cheap product.
Entrepreneurs can get rich making such products targeted at such consumers. See: the iPhone "I Am Rich" app.
Everybody wins.
It accomplishes its goal whether or not it performs any better than a cheap product.
Entrepreneurs can get rich making such products targeted at such consumers. See: the iPhone "I Am Rich" app.
Everybody wins.
I don't know why you're being downvoted, this has been said over and over for more than a century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
I think there's a difference. A Lamborghini is an extremely expensive car that people buy to show off how rich they are; they touts performance numbers nobody has a real use for.. but as far as I'm aware those cars really do perform as advertised. The specifications of those cars aren't flagrant lies. A luxury handbag isn't much better at holding things than a cheap handbag, but a luxury handbags (as far as I'm aware) aren't advertised with fraudulent capacity numbers. A very expensive swiss watch won't tell time better than a cheap quartz watch, but I wager they have as many gears in them as they claim.
Audiophile stuff seems to be different. If Lamborghini sold cars like audiophile companies sell cables, they'd be claiming their cars had 50 million horsepower and could fly to the moon.
Audiophile stuff seems to be different. If Lamborghini sold cars like audiophile companies sell cables, they'd be claiming their cars had 50 million horsepower and could fly to the moon.
I don't really agree. Those audiophile companies aren't exactly lying in their product specs. At least not this one.
These people aren't claiming that their 20A cable supports 200A, for example.
The claims are always subtle and about things you can't measure, like "that your system can deliver maximum performance without losing sound subtleties due to irradiated noise" in this case. Which sure, might also be the case for the €3 cables I just bought yesterday for my TV.
So, these cables are most certainly better than my €3, but of course they aren't 1833 times better. But that's just how the law of diminishing returns work. This is, of course, an extreme case.
Also, I feel like most of the "lying" that happens within this specific industry is perpetrated by the consumers themselves: "I can hear things with this cable that I couldn't hear before" on forums and so on.
I'm not really into this world (I still only use Airbuds...), but as an electrical engineer I often see this claim, but I rarely see any manufacturer outright-lying. Confusing marketing? Exaggerated claims? Sure... but nothing close to "Lamborghini [...] claiming their cars had 50 million horsepower".
These people aren't claiming that their 20A cable supports 200A, for example.
The claims are always subtle and about things you can't measure, like "that your system can deliver maximum performance without losing sound subtleties due to irradiated noise" in this case. Which sure, might also be the case for the €3 cables I just bought yesterday for my TV.
So, these cables are most certainly better than my €3, but of course they aren't 1833 times better. But that's just how the law of diminishing returns work. This is, of course, an extreme case.
Also, I feel like most of the "lying" that happens within this specific industry is perpetrated by the consumers themselves: "I can hear things with this cable that I couldn't hear before" on forums and so on.
I'm not really into this world (I still only use Airbuds...), but as an electrical engineer I often see this claim, but I rarely see any manufacturer outright-lying. Confusing marketing? Exaggerated claims? Sure... but nothing close to "Lamborghini [...] claiming their cars had 50 million horsepower".
There is a real chance that at some point a lambo might get you sex you otherwise wouldn't have participated in, can't see these cables doing that, probably the opposite.
I also don't know why.
Perhaps the people downvoting can share their though process as to how my post goes against comment guidelines, or perhaps how they disagreed with it:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Perhaps the people downvoting can share their though process as to how my post goes against comment guidelines, or perhaps how they disagreed with it:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Haha. Anyone remember the monster cable thing? “Bro you get your monster cables?!”
Well, buy 3 meter for just €14,299, and save €2,198 right there! Bargain!
If any cable might be approved by audiophiles, it has to be just the thickest. How thick it can be if invest 5939 dollars in two copper cylinders 1 meter each?
You can’t do better than lossless audio transmission. The human ear can’t perceive higher than 20KHz. Uncompressed 32 bit audio sampled at 40Khz (double because of Nyquist frequency) is only about 160 kB/s. Even with 64 bit samples it would be about 320 kB/s. What am I missing here? Why can't a standard cheap ethernet cable be used for this?
This is a mains power cable, but yes stores will absolutely sell you an audiophile ethernet cable. Often claiming it should be connected a particular way round for the signal to flow correctly!
Somehow I find this tiny bit less distasteful than high-priced optical or digital cables. Theoretically you might have use case for very high quality mains cable. Let's say with good quality UPS regulating the power supply. Not that it is not a scam also.
It is quackery, even comes with anecdotes about how great the music is.
[Audioquest Hurricane High Current VS Dragon High Current](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKEI1JU4vrI)
[Audioquest Hurricane High Current VS Dragon High Current](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKEI1JU4vrI)
You can kind of see how these kind of things evolved, especially if you consider back to the very beginning of hi—fi when slight fluctuations in incoming power COULD affect things, such as slightly slowing down or speeding up a record player.
Use that money and treat your room acoustically. For my rule of thumb - invest money equally into room acoustics and equipment - you would need to apply 200k for your room acoustics till it justifies such a cable ;-)
If you use these to power your equipment, it will still generate some RF if you power it using AC. Real audiophiles modify their systems so they work with DC power to get rid of any RF interference coming from AC.
Pretty hard to hear DC, thats 0 Hz.
Almost a bargain in comparison to Nordøst Odin 2 power cords…
Things i will never understand.
Things i will never understand.
Ah yes, I remeber the "ricers" trends for cars and then for PCs, and then for gentoo. Good times.
And then you got this that is the cost of a used car per meter. I hope no one falls for it.
And then you got this that is the cost of a used car per meter. I hope no one falls for it.
Similar concept, different market. People pimping out PC's have some disposable income. People pimping out Honda Civics have more disposable income.
People dropping 5k on a single cable for their audio setup have a lot of disposable income. We are talking setups nearing and into the millions of dollars.
People dropping 5k on a single cable for their audio setup have a lot of disposable income. We are talking setups nearing and into the millions of dollars.
Am I the only one who looks at this and thinks money laundering?
Don't judge too quick. It may be expensive but it is well worth the price. Before using this cable, my amp sounded muffled, the violine's timbre was foggy and the bass wobbly.
Immediately after installing this master piece, it unleashed the beast. The bass was on spot and it was like a curtain of mud and fog was lifted.
Immediately after installing this master piece, it unleashed the beast. The bass was on spot and it was like a curtain of mud and fog was lifted.
Let my guess: the singer suddenly started to sing in time?
Hey if it's made of solid gold lol.
I was delighted to discover "Audio Science Review" which, if nothing else, has revealed how little you actually have to spend to get good sound.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?reviews/
(No association, just a happy reader.)