Who cares...
First, an apology - I'm sorry I said you suck Auric's Clams and insulted your intelligence. It seems that the mood created on these boards almost demands a WWF-type exchange, and I'd rather communicate with civility. This has gone from an argument about my throwing insults at Worthington after his having called me out of dormancy by maligning my name to a raging debate about my industry, my niche, and my products and their value.
Let's try a different, more elevated approach to the subject.
While ML says that different cables sound different, and you agree that different cables sound different, you persist in using the ABX model to defend your position - even though it contends that different cables do not sound different. By espousing the ABX'ers general philosophy, you deny your original assertion - that different cables sound different.
And by the way - you are correct when you say that people would be better off tweaking room acoustics before investing in high resolution cables. A highly resolved audio system not only requires a very synergistic match between components, but also requires a synergistic match between the audio system and the room in which it resides. It's all quite alot of work, not something that happens overnight... and if the room is untreated and poorly fashioned, the system will not have the chance to reveal everything it is capable of revealing.
Once a system AND a room are dialed in, addressing the cable system comes next.
If you're driving those ML's with a Sony receiver, then stick to the cables that came with the receiver and definitely use zip-cord. You won't benefit from hi-resolution cables. If you're driving the ML's with a high resolution amplifier, preamplifier, and front end components... cable contenders will reveal themselves much more readily and you may then judge from your own experience as to the value of the contribution they are making to your listening experience.
By the way, your ABX heroes also insist that a Sony receiver with the same power rating as, say, a VTL or Linn or Meridian or Forsell or Lamm or Madrigal or Manley or Jadis or Plinius or Ayre, etc etc amplifier - will sound the same as any of those amplifiers. Same with preamplifiers, CD players, etc... so the question is, what are you driving those ML's with?
What's your front end consist of? Does it consist of the cheapest possible (Consumer Reports and Tom Nousaine ABX-approved) components, or did you spring for more "audiophile" oriented electronics even though ABX testing "proves" that they are indistinguishable from their cheap counterparts?
Do you have your system hooked up to the TV system, or do you have a dedicated space for listening to pure 2-channel audio? How pure is your setup?
Lots of questions... simply relying upon a general ABX theory to prove your prejudice for you doesn't do anyone any good, especially yourself. There are at least as many constituents of subjectivity as there are those supporting ABX models... probably more.
But the problem you face initially has to do with you sitting on both sides of the fence... while both you and Martin Logan agree that different cables sound different (better is a subjective judgement and will be different for different people in different situations), you also use the ABX'ers as a defense of your position - and yet they disagree with you and Martin Logan, and conclude that different cables sound the same. So by espousing the ABX'ers philosophy, you contradict yourself and also contradict the recommendations of the very people that made your speakers.
As an interesting note, you will also find that ABX'ers will also say that all loudspeakers which measure the same (with an FFT) will sound the same... yet you chose electrostatic speakers, a very uncommon choice (I believe less than 5% of hi-fi enthusiasts have e-stats installed in their system) - why did you choose electrostatic loudspeakers when less expensive, dynamic loudspeakers that measure substantially the same are available? You may have saved a grand or two, depending on which model you bought.
You have also listened to McIntosh electronics - another relatively esoteric brand of expensive tube-based amplification and electronics - while your ABX heroes would clearly recommend an equivalently powerful, much less expensive Japanese receiver. Why? Do you prefer tubes to solid-state, even though the "important" measurements between the two types are essentially the same?
You should examine your own biases, perceptions and reasons for setting up the system you've assembled, in the room you've assembled it in, with the room treatments you've used to tame reflections, resonances, proximity effects, Hemholz effects, etc... before you can make any clean judgements about the effect of wire and cable and it's real value in your system.
But as far as I can tell, from what you yourself have told me on these threads, your opinion is unqualified and - again by your own words - you seem quite ambivalent.
If you want to rely purely on the "science" that you seem to respect, you can create a "perfect" audio system from relatively inexpensive "mid-fi" components that stick with the ABX'ers measured credos as the reference against which to choose your components. That Sony receiver, CD player, DVD, that dynamic set of 2-way or 3-way Bose or Boston Acoustics loudspeakers, those lengths of zip cord - all of these will serve your objectives if the objectives are simply to create a system which satisfies the common ABX'ers idea of what is and what isn't significant.
If you, like many many thousands of audiophiles, choose to use your ears and your experience to tell you the value of various components in a system... then you're an audiophile and you've got a LOT of work ahead of you, because it takes years of trial and error to discover first what you like and dislike, and second - how to achieve that sound in a home system. And it takes years of learning how to listen, for the myriad subtleties to shine through and reveal themselves. Perception isn't automatic - some perception takes training. Audiophiles learn the skill of listening, because perception isn't merely a matter of frequency response and Fletcher-Munson curves. Again - if the 'pure science' were to be believed in-toto, you would not be able to tell the difference between a CD and the SACD of the same analogue master, or the difference between your Class A-B McIntosh amplifier and a receiver costing a few thousand dollars less.
High resolution audio is more than a hobby - it's a discipline. But it always depends upon how much you care about your sound to determine how much work you're willing to put in to it. Some folks are totally groovy with their Bose Acoustimass Lifestyle system hidden behind plants around the house... some people demand much more, and still other people are dedicated purists and perfectionists. Your level of participation, your dedication... wherever you fall along that scale and want to participate... that's the real challenge for you to figure out. Ultimately no philosophy fills in all the gaps between perception and measurement - you have to judge for yourself by yourself in your own system, without the help of ABX'ers.
Real science teaches us that there is no such thing as objectivity - you cannot separate subject from object, observer from observed. The experimenter is an inextricable factor in all experiments. Buddhism taught this so very long ago... and Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, M-Theory, etc. have caught up and told us the same thing. Go figure. |
