7500 for USED cables? Are they joking?


I've been out of high-end audio for about 8 years, and the thing I am most struck by on my return is the apparent acceptance of power cables, interconnects and speaker cables that cost as much or more than heavy-duty high-end components.

As a now-outsider of sorts, this really looks like the Emperor's New Clothes big-time. Especially power cords, considering the Romex that delivers the A/C to the outlet isn't exactly audiophile quality.

Are people really paying $500 and up for wire? Is this foolishness of the highest order, or is this what people now believe it takes to extract the last percent or two of definition from their components?

What happened? Even buyers of what are now considered "modestly priced" cables would be laughed out of the professional audio world, so why do audiophiles think they need something better than was used to make the original recording? MOST professional recording engineers scoff at the difference between microphone cables that cost $19.95 vs. those that cost $49.95 -- most anything higher is rarely considered at all (the most expensive microphone cable might be $125 for a 20 foot run, and it's laughed at by most of the pros).

I'm not criticizing -- I'm too stunned to draw any conclusions -- I just wondered if anyone has given this much thought.

(At least I understand the home theater revolution -- thank heavens something came along to save the high end manufacturers, although it makes me chuckle to think of someone spending $30,000 to watch the Terminator. It's OK with me.)

Thank you for your consideration,

Mark Hubbard
Eureka, CA
Ag insider logo xs@2xmark_hubbard

Showing 9 responses by clueless

$7,500 for used cables is ridulous! You can get a half-way decent pair of 18" new ones for that!

I remain,
I think Sean said it all.

Wire is not wire and we cannot measure everything that makes a system sound good at this point, but the price put on cables cannot survive any intelligent look at their design parameters. Too many folk look at cables as some mystery tweak when there is less "mystery" in cables than any other part of the audio circuit. What is especially unfortunate is that in the cable discussions so many throw up their hands and argue that measurements and numbers don't matter at all. This is throwing out the design with the bathwater, so to speak, and moves us all in the wrong direction as far as improvements in audio are concerned and leaves everyone even more available for the endless marketing hype. Just recently there was a post where a guy was advised to buy $3,500 worth of wire when his cd player and speakers totaled 5k. I'd never walk in that store again.

Sincerely, I remain
Actualy Einstein was quite religious but I do not think he could change a tire.

Sincerely, I remain
Lmb- I think almost everyone agrees with you that we have not or cannot measure everything.

Sincerely, I remain
Ya Detlof, but you have to understand that in those European Mts. it's harder for them lectrons to get around due to the Alp's magnetic influence. . I hear it's well worth it overthere, specially when them amps are trying to push all those strange ESLs and plasma thingamabobs. Send em to me and I'll polarize em for ya -- free!

Sincerely, I remain
One of my favorite folks in audio is Lynn Olson, I quote

"The deepest challenge of designing high fidelity equipment is... reconciling the interior experience of listening with the technical world of measurements. If you can't reconcile the two, or insist that only one exists, you are flying blind. Since I've been designing system speakers for the last twenty years, I've spent much of that time finding associations between the perceptual experience and measurements. With so many possible analytic techniques (frequency response, group delay variation, inter-drive phase angle, polar response vs. frequency, cumulative waterfall display, IM distortion vs. frequency, etc), the hard part is deciding which set of measurements are the most significant." from "Finding Common Ground" at www.aloha-audio.com/library/findingsCG.html

The Article "Finding Common Ground" goes on to describe his findings using a spectrum analyzer that, he argues, undercut many of the common assumptions about distortion that have directed the development of audio for several decades. It's very nice and worth the read.

In any event, we have to reconcile the listening experience with measurements and I certainly do not think we have learned how to measure everything or that we measure the right thing all of the time. If we think we understand it all than we'll stop looking, eh? That being said, I fall on the side on the argument that measurments will tell us most of why wire does what it does and that a huge body of folklore and hype can be avoided with a little respect for EEs and very basic measurements. I use very inexpensive but well designed wire.

As the good Bishop notes, It's nice to have civil discussion on the topic without anyone calling the other deaf or naive.

Sincerely, I remain
Thanks Mark for the post and everyone else for the civility on this topic.

Lmb: "one of the assumptions is that the free electrons available for conducting electric signals tend to be polarized in a "broken in" cable." I am not certain what you mean and I do not want to put word in your mouth.

I have heard similar explanations at more length. My problem with the argument is as follows. (Please understand that I make no claim to understand the intricacies of how an audio signal works and am, quite frankly, dumbfounded by it the closer I look.)

1)The audio signal is an ac signal, that is, the direction of the current flow changes with each half cycle.

2)This means that there is basically no net direction to the current flow. "Current" flows equally in both directions. If this is true, even if there is such a thing as "polorized electrons" how could that aid the flow of electrons if they are moving in two directions?

3)In any event it is not the "flow" of electrons that carries the audio signal but rather the electric field/voltage that transfers the energy of the signal.The field moves through the electrons a little like a wave through water (very imperfect analogy). Electrons move at the speed of light but the "drift velocity" of the electrons in a cable is very slow (a couple inches per second). It's slow because of the huge excess of electrons available. During the negative half of the signal electrons are actually pulled back into the amp and basically go back and forth in this manner. Many electrons leaving the amp may never make it to the speaker. The electric field/voltage on the other hand moves at the speed of light.

In any event, I do not understand how you polorize a particle that is by definition negatively charged and what good it would do if you could do it.

Sincerely, I remain

Lmb. Thanks for the St. Andrews site. Lots of nice stuff there. As I said in my post I did not want to put words or an argument in your mouth and reading all of your posts I tend to agree with a lot of your approach. I'm a relative simple sh** when it comes to this stuff. I am never going to be at the cutting edge of understanding this stuff, most of us aren't. My basic position comes from dinking around with tube amps/speakers and trying to think of the audio system in terms of a circuit(s). If you just take the top off of the "boxes" it is virtually impossible to place such emphasis on the wire connecting the components. If your going to upgrade your going to take a balanced approach. Surely, your not going to try to fix obvious design problems in your amp with ridiculously costly wire coming out the end. I've met very few people who understand basic circuit design who would tweak/upgrade as cable companies promote. I think ultimately this destroys audio. It's ironic that one end of the industry is telling people to buy a half dozen speakers for 2k strung out all over the place while the other is telling them to spend that much on 18" of wire. Oh well. Common point???-- it sells stuff.

Thanks again for the St Andrews site. I only took the half hour tour but it looks very interesting.

I remain,