Your Monster Cable is nonsense.

EdGrip

p90fool said:

I've seen many times how effective the placebo effect can be, but charging £21,700 for two speaker leads (in one company's case) is a bit steep when that's all it is.

It's not just a bit steep, it's clearly unkind and unethical. People's gullibility isn't license to fleece them. 

NDAs intrigue me - I would amuse myself finding anonymous-yet-provable ways of whistleblowing in such instances. I'd get a real kick from it.

Van_Hayden

I once tried a £1500 guitar cable up at Russ Andrews. It crackled when I moved. They don't advertise guitar cables anymore. Although Gilmour did rewire his studio with Kimber cable.

I've got a Pete Cornish cable. Bought it for £16 and it's darker than a George L of the same length, so it has higher capacitance.

ChrisMusic

@ThePrettyDamned said:    As I understand it, a reliable power supply is good, but beyond that...

There is more to a power supply than just reliability, any ripple or transients on the power rails in analogue equipment will be passed into the signal chain, it is the power driving supplying that chain after all.  If the supply is unable to meet transient needs then that too will affect the signal, so it needs to be bullet proof and up to the job in the highest demand situation.  It depends how stringent your requirements are of course, and it used to be an area where cost cutting seemed acceptable by many producers.  Unfortunately "out of sight & out of mind" (of the signal path where most people look, that is).

However I totally agree that there is an unethical level of charging "what you can get away with", and hoodwinking the less educated (i.e. not professional engineers & designers) into misplaced trust and parting with unjustifiable amounts of money with little or no return.

ThePrettyDamned

@Chrismusic, yeah I totally understand that - I mean, those are what you'd expect from a quality supply.

I have, however, seen some retail for several thousand pounds.  Which *is* unethical.  

p90fool

EdGrip said:

 NDAs intrigue me - I would amuse myself finding anonymous-yet-provable ways of whistleblowing in such instances. I'd get a real kick from it.

I honestly wouldn't, simply because I've worked with some very decent and talented people in that industry who are trying to do the right thing, but whose jobs would suffer if I started pissing off parent companies etc.

I actually found an old NDA in a pile of paperwork yesterday, it makes amusing and desperate-sounding reading with the benefit of hindsight.

Rocker

@p90fool, what is a NDA?

ChrisMusic

ThePrettyDamned said:    Chrismusic, yeah I totally understand that - I mean, those are what you'd expect from a quality supply.

I have, however, seen some retail for several thousand pounds.  Which *is* unethical.  

Hey @ThePrettyDamned, trust me, what you expect is not necessarily what you get, neither is what you are promised by the marketing etc.  The world is even more cost cutting conscious, and unfortunately in business the first victim of cost cutting is often morality, quickly followed by performance and long term reliability.    Cynical ?  Moi ?  

Totally agree, thousands of pounds sounds totally unethical IMHO, I can't see how that can be justified.

ThePrettyDamned

ChrisMusic;128872" said:

ThePrettyDamned said:    Chrismusic, yeah I totally understand that - I mean, those are what you'd expect from a quality supply.I have, however, seen some retail for several thousand pounds.  Which *is* unethical.  





Hey @ThePrettyDamned, trust me, what you expect is not necessarily what you get, neither is what you are promised by the marketing etc.  The world is even more cost cutting conscious, and unfortunately in business the first victim of cost cutting is often morality, quickly followed by performance and long term reliability.    Cynical ?  Moi ?  

Totally agree, thousands of pounds sounds totally unethical IMHO, I can't see how that can be justified.

You're like my brother from another mother.

ChrisMusic

EdGrip said:   NDAs intrigue me - I would amuse myself finding anonymous-yet-provable ways of whistleblowing in such instances. I'd get a real kick from it.

p90fool said:   I honestly wouldn't, simply because I've worked with some very decent and talented people in that industry who are trying to do the right thing, but whose jobs would suffer if I started pissing off parent companies etc.

The only way to change corporate culture effectively is from the inside, so having good people in place, you can only hope that they can show that shareholder return is not reliant on deceit.  Business can be, and should be, ethical.

ChrisMusic

ThePrettyDamned said:

ThePrettyDamned said:    Chrismusic, yeah I totally understand that - I mean, those are what you'd expect from a quality supply.I have, however, seen some retail for several thousand pounds.  Which *is* unethical.  


Hey ThePrettyDamned, trust me, what you expect is not necessarily what you get, neither is what you are promised by the marketing etc.  The world is even more cost cutting conscious, and unfortunately in business the first victim of cost cutting is often morality, quickly followed by performance and long term reliability.    Cynical ?  Moi ?  

Totally agree, thousands of pounds sounds totally unethical IMHO, I can't see how that can be justified.

You're like my brother from another mother.

cool

p90fool

Rocker;128869" said:

@p90fool, what is a NDA?

Non Disclosure Agreement

Dave_Mc

ICBM said:

EdGrip said:

ICBM said:

The whole world of "high-end" hi-fi and guitar cables is built on ignoring the laws of physics.

More specifically, it's a world of people saying (essentially) yes, well, the "laws of physics" are all well and good but there are more things in Heaven and Earth, audio-n00b, than exist in your philosophy - namely, mysterious stuff. Mysterious stuff that makes expensive cables sound audibly better. Of course, you have to have very discerning ears to hear it - we wouldn't expect you to understand. Look, here is a picture of an oscilloscope.

I'd be happy to believe it could make a difference if it could be proved in a blind test, whether or not you can see it on a scope. An oscilloscope is just a useful diagnostic tool, not what matters when you're listening to music. I actually do suspect there may be things you can hear which might not be easy or perhaps even possible to see on a scope… maybe not even on a spectrum analyser.

If you can't see the difference on a measuring instrument, and there is no physical reason why there should be such a difference, *and* you can't tell the difference in a blind test, then there is no difference… period. But if you can tell the difference in a properly-conducted blind test, then there is one and it's up to the engineers to work out what the reason could be.

The problem is that the 'audiophiles' won't accept blind testing either. I have a good idea why.

+1

Rocker

Guitar cables can, in reality, make very little difference to the sound we produce as our amplifiers are distortion generators and not hi-fi amplifiers.  Durability in a guitar cable is very important.

People are correct in thinking that there is a lot of marketing and snake oil in cable sales.  As someone who plays [??] guitar and listens to music on my hi-fi system, I have a lot of experience of reading about the latest and greatest cable which purports to unlock the music on your disks 'better' than anyone else's cables.  These are usually priced at the 'how much' price range, it is doubtful if many are actually sold - I expect most are 'loaned' to hi-fi reviewers on the expectation that they will be mentioned in every review produced by that reviewer.

But some cables DO make a difference, sometimes to quite an amazing degree.  And they are not that pricey either.

The subject of hi-fi cables is a well known topic for generating lots of cheap jibes at audiophiles and how they spend their money.  I cannot explain why two cables will affect the sound you hear from your system as they do but they do.  I don't go in for double blind or such tests.  Neither do I detune my guitar if it is in tune to 'prove' it was in tune!  If my hi-fi sounds right, I leave it as it is.  Same with my guitar.  If people are genuinely interested in reading my personal [with absolutely no technical references to back up my observations] experiences of hi-fi system setup and cables, I will post them here.  If not, no problem.

p90fool

Rocker;129103" said:

Guitar cables can, in reality, make very little difference to the sound we produce as our amplifiers are distortion generators and not hi-fi amplifiers.  Durability in a guitar cable is very important.

I disagree, a guitar signal is far more readily modified by cable type than say, speaker signals, once an adequate quality level is reached. Different types can actually move the resonant peak around, as well as attenuating it.

JayGee

There's a key difference between the exotic cable (or whatever) debate in HiFi and apparently similiar debates in the music kit world, and that's it's (perceived) effect on the performer. 

Basically I suspect that if a performer truly believes something makes them sound better, or is neccesary to their performance it will because they'll be more comfortable, relaxed, and confident and that will make abdifference which will be apparent to listeners in blind tests in spite of the absence of any measurable or testable difference in the artefact itself.

Yes it's a psychological trick and it raises awkward questions about that horrible expensive CS masterbuilt Stratocaster or vintage Les Paul as well as the ethics of expensive gadgets made from relatively cheap components or charging a huge amount for directional cables made from oxygen free copper and hand soldered by virgins but it's real because a human performer is aware of, and reacts to his/her environment ( including the kit they're using) in a hugely subjective way that a CD player isn't and can't.

ThePrettyDamned

Rocker;129103" said:

But some cables DO make a difference, sometimes to quite an amazing degree.  And they are not that pricey either.

The subject of hi-fi cables is a well known topic for generating lots of cheap jibes at audiophiles and how they spend their money.  I cannot explain why two cables will affect the sound you hear from your system as they do but they do.  I don't go in for double blind or such tests.  Neither do I detune my guitar if it is in tune to 'prove' it was in tune!  If my hi-fi sounds right, I leave it as it is.  Same with my guitar.  If people are genuinely interested in reading my personal [with absolutely no technical references to back up my observations] experiences of hi-fi system setup and cables, I will post them here.  If not, no problem.

Therein lies the reason I cannot do anything but giggle at the audiophile world I'm afraid. I blind test in shops when I buy effects pedals if possible. No, really. Just ask the staff, and they'll set it up with the pedals behind you.

It's interesting to think some of the hideously expensive cables are gooped. Is it a small circuit to boost the sound being gooped, or is it hiding the fact it's a conductor and insulation soldered to connectors?

ICBM

p90fool said:

Rocker;129103" said:

Guitar cables can, in reality, make very little difference to the sound we produce as our amplifiers are distortion generators and not hi-fi amplifiers.  Durability in a guitar cable is very important.

I disagree, a guitar signal is far more readily modified by cable type than say, speaker signals, once an adequate quality level is reached. Different types can actually move the resonant peak around, as well as attenuating it.

Exactly - guitar cables can make a big difference. The guitar is a passive, high-impedance signal source so from an electrical point of view the cable is *part of the guitar* - exactly as the control pots and tone caps are, and it will have as much effect on the signal as those will. The capacitance of the cable can be as much as 5-10% of the value of the tone cap if it's a long or low-quality cable, and you will definitely hear that. As p90fool said it can actually alter the basic sound of the pickups slightly by moving the resonant peak, as well as rolling off the top-end.

Put enough distortion on at the amp and you might not notice as much, but that's not the same thing .

Speaker cables make no difference to the sound if the cable is of an adequate gauge to not introduce significant resistance. For the very short cable (or at least it should be!) between a guitar amp and its cabinet, anything heavier than bell wire will do the same job. The most important characteristic is robustness - if the cable breaks, you *will* hear the difference . (And might damage the amp.)

It is actually possible that the quality of the plugs is audible - some are very poorly made, and have a surprising amount of resistance in the riveted connections - enough to occasionally produce heating, which is a sure sign that a significant portion of the power is not getting to the speaker. This will be audible and is also a risk to the amp if the connection then burns out, which it can. That's why I only use proper Neutrik NP2C plugs on speaker cables - they're turned from single pieces of metal so there are no riveted connections.

Rox

Rocker said:

@p90fool, what is a NDA?

...not allowed to say... 

martinw

Rocker said:

 I don't go in for double blind or such tests. 

I get the feeling it wouldn't much matter anyway.

EdGrip

The matter of a performer playing better because their better/peer-approved kit gives them confidence, makes perfect sense. I would be interested in this question, though; does the confidence come from their kit actually sounding and responding better to them, OR does it come from the comforting knowledge that they are definitely holding an R8, stomping on a genuine Klon, and all connected up with Monster cable and anyone who says they aren't is lying? 

An opponent might say, no Ed, you're wrong - are they not already be the bravest and most confident of souls precisely because they are playing through the very "best" of gear, so there is nothing to hide behind and any flaws must be within themselves? I would argue that if you took all that golden gear away, and made them play with a well-set-up £400 guitar and an old solid-state Peavey, and they said "I can't possibly work in these conditions!", you would have your answer. I am sure you would find that the "certainty" of peer-approved gear is as psychologically effective to many as actual audible differences. 

Not just in a guitar field, either - in both professional and hobby fields, people comfort themselves by acquiring and using stuff they know will meet with peer approval. (Or they consciously try to avoid doing so - if you refuse to join in with the game, you can't be judged by its rules. I think I do this a lot, in various aspects of life. I like to play the fool and cast myself as an outsider.)

On another note, I went to the auction when Carlton television closed down. There were a couple of sound editing rooms, with huge desks and monitors as tall as me flanking them. The monitors were connected to the desk with chunky mains flex.