Criderfive,
Thanks for the answer. You did take the time to give me a quality response, so I just want to clarify my position on doing things the "right way". I fully understand that there may be a textbook way to do things. Maybe its something product specific like THX, or maybe its something generic, like room acoustics. What I was trying to say was simply this: Even if you do something exactly the "right" way in audio, quite often people don't like it. For example, you can show someone a system that exhibits, high quality, audiophile bass, and they still prefer crappy one note bass from something like a car stereo. Over the years, I've found that you just can't force people to like something just because you do, or because its the "right way".
As far as the Bose comment, I know that I may have throne you off on that a bit on that one. I'm pretty sure you were talking theater in the more traditional sense (THX, Dolby Digital, 5.1 etc.). The topic of this thread is to try and reproduce the IMAX experience. For IMAX audio, Bose is what they use. That, of course, leaves the door open to say that you have to use Bose speakers to do it right. I won't lie, every time I re read this quote from the OP, I start laughing: "For example: in the IMAX series, he suggests that, since you can do an "inspired" IMAX system, you can pretty much just chose any type of loud speakers you have laying around the house, and they will work just fine!.". Out with the Wilson's and in with the Bose!
As far as the link to ausioholics, we may still disagree. There's a lot of info and I didn't have a chance to read everything. I use mostly Audioquest cables in my system and read through some back and forth dialog pertaining to them, and found it very interesting. I'll pick out a few quotes and make some comments.
"Audioquest Response
A quick look at your web site gives the impression that you are on a quest to prove that the evaluation of component audio performance is something best determined with test instruments. While I agree that measured performance is important, I'm an old fuddy duddy that still believes that the ear is the best test instrument of all. Years of evaluating (blind) various metals, insulation materials and cable geometry bare this out. That you would include AudioQuest DBS cables.....cables that you've never heard... in your list of audio snake oil makes it quite clear that your mind has already been made up before doing any evaluation at all."
Without doing any type of hands on testing, scientific or not, I can't see that any comments are anything other than a guess.
"Electrical properties of cables are well known and documented from DC up to GHz (reference. Henry Ott,Dr. Howard Johnson, etc). To insist otherwise is futile. Exotic cable psuedo science only exists in consumer audio. Why is that? In our opinion it appears the exotic cable industry thrives on consumer ignorance and a lack of industry checks and balances. Audioquest and other exotic cable vendors claim all sorts of "audible distortions" from cables. Yet they offer no measurable proofs or methods for analysis. Ever hear of a device called the "Audio Precision One". This proven and industry standard audio analyzer is capable of measuring audio distortions well below human audibility. Surely if all of this distortion was present, a simple measurement would prove it. No? Have Audioquest and other exotic cable vendors discovered new types of audible distortions not currently known by proven science and engineering disciplines? If so, why not publish a paper on it at AES or IEEE and have it peer reviewed. It may even be worthy of a Nobel Prize."
That's a fair point if its true. Cable companies like AQ do provide some specs. I can't help but think, though, that if the critic thinks the results from using the Audio Precision Device is so important for an evaluation as to the quality of a cable, why leave it up to AQ to do it (or any other cable company, for that matter.)? Using the machine is his idea, and there is nothing stopping him from doing a test with it.
"Our mind has not been made up about the quality of your cables. Despite your unproven and mostly fictitious claims, if your cables measure well based on proven science (you know lumped element analysis) they may actually perform well. If we had samples to review, we would certainly confirm this. We have no issues with cables costing as much as yours do provided that the supporting claims for the products are based in reality and do not clearly violate engineering and scientific truths while being pawned off as such. Perhaps if you made the consumer aware of the fact that producing cosmetically pleasing cables does carry a considerable manufacturing and materials expense, your price justification would be vindicated."
Complete speculation. How can you say that AQ's claims are mostly fictitious without listing the claims that they think are fictitious? Not only that, I don't see how they can make any claims at all when they haven't so much laid a hand on a pair of cables. And they don't need AQ to send them cables for evaluation. They can get them from Best Buy if they want to test them so badly. Return them when they are done.
"Alternatively we can arrange a controlled DBT with your cables and say 10AWG Zip Cord with a panel of listeners and do a statistical analysis to determine correlation that your cables really do sound "better" and that your reasoning is sound. We are willing to work with you on exposing the truths about your claims to promote better understanding for our readership and the rest of the audio community. Here is your chance to educate the public about a science that is allegedly not well understood and have an independent source peer review and confirm."
Same thing again. Why ask AQ if they want to take part in a DBT and not continue if they don't? Do it anyway. Its a blind test. The results should be identical regardless of weather AQ participates in them.
To sum up, that's my main issue. Critics go on about all of this testing, but they never do it. Why? I could if I really wanted to. There seems to be agreement that well done DBT's would be a big help in determining what claims about cables are true. I agree. No doubt that claims are a mixed bag; some true and some false. But until the critics start actually testing the cables, I just can't take them seriously.
Thanks for the answer. You did take the time to give me a quality response, so I just want to clarify my position on doing things the "right way". I fully understand that there may be a textbook way to do things. Maybe its something product specific like THX, or maybe its something generic, like room acoustics. What I was trying to say was simply this: Even if you do something exactly the "right" way in audio, quite often people don't like it. For example, you can show someone a system that exhibits, high quality, audiophile bass, and they still prefer crappy one note bass from something like a car stereo. Over the years, I've found that you just can't force people to like something just because you do, or because its the "right way".
As far as the Bose comment, I know that I may have throne you off on that a bit on that one. I'm pretty sure you were talking theater in the more traditional sense (THX, Dolby Digital, 5.1 etc.). The topic of this thread is to try and reproduce the IMAX experience. For IMAX audio, Bose is what they use. That, of course, leaves the door open to say that you have to use Bose speakers to do it right. I won't lie, every time I re read this quote from the OP, I start laughing: "For example: in the IMAX series, he suggests that, since you can do an "inspired" IMAX system, you can pretty much just chose any type of loud speakers you have laying around the house, and they will work just fine!.". Out with the Wilson's and in with the Bose!
As far as the link to ausioholics, we may still disagree. There's a lot of info and I didn't have a chance to read everything. I use mostly Audioquest cables in my system and read through some back and forth dialog pertaining to them, and found it very interesting. I'll pick out a few quotes and make some comments.
"Audioquest Response
A quick look at your web site gives the impression that you are on a quest to prove that the evaluation of component audio performance is something best determined with test instruments. While I agree that measured performance is important, I'm an old fuddy duddy that still believes that the ear is the best test instrument of all. Years of evaluating (blind) various metals, insulation materials and cable geometry bare this out. That you would include AudioQuest DBS cables.....cables that you've never heard... in your list of audio snake oil makes it quite clear that your mind has already been made up before doing any evaluation at all."
Without doing any type of hands on testing, scientific or not, I can't see that any comments are anything other than a guess.
"Electrical properties of cables are well known and documented from DC up to GHz (reference. Henry Ott,Dr. Howard Johnson, etc). To insist otherwise is futile. Exotic cable psuedo science only exists in consumer audio. Why is that? In our opinion it appears the exotic cable industry thrives on consumer ignorance and a lack of industry checks and balances. Audioquest and other exotic cable vendors claim all sorts of "audible distortions" from cables. Yet they offer no measurable proofs or methods for analysis. Ever hear of a device called the "Audio Precision One". This proven and industry standard audio analyzer is capable of measuring audio distortions well below human audibility. Surely if all of this distortion was present, a simple measurement would prove it. No? Have Audioquest and other exotic cable vendors discovered new types of audible distortions not currently known by proven science and engineering disciplines? If so, why not publish a paper on it at AES or IEEE and have it peer reviewed. It may even be worthy of a Nobel Prize."
That's a fair point if its true. Cable companies like AQ do provide some specs. I can't help but think, though, that if the critic thinks the results from using the Audio Precision Device is so important for an evaluation as to the quality of a cable, why leave it up to AQ to do it (or any other cable company, for that matter.)? Using the machine is his idea, and there is nothing stopping him from doing a test with it.
"Our mind has not been made up about the quality of your cables. Despite your unproven and mostly fictitious claims, if your cables measure well based on proven science (you know lumped element analysis) they may actually perform well. If we had samples to review, we would certainly confirm this. We have no issues with cables costing as much as yours do provided that the supporting claims for the products are based in reality and do not clearly violate engineering and scientific truths while being pawned off as such. Perhaps if you made the consumer aware of the fact that producing cosmetically pleasing cables does carry a considerable manufacturing and materials expense, your price justification would be vindicated."
Complete speculation. How can you say that AQ's claims are mostly fictitious without listing the claims that they think are fictitious? Not only that, I don't see how they can make any claims at all when they haven't so much laid a hand on a pair of cables. And they don't need AQ to send them cables for evaluation. They can get them from Best Buy if they want to test them so badly. Return them when they are done.
"Alternatively we can arrange a controlled DBT with your cables and say 10AWG Zip Cord with a panel of listeners and do a statistical analysis to determine correlation that your cables really do sound "better" and that your reasoning is sound. We are willing to work with you on exposing the truths about your claims to promote better understanding for our readership and the rest of the audio community. Here is your chance to educate the public about a science that is allegedly not well understood and have an independent source peer review and confirm."
Same thing again. Why ask AQ if they want to take part in a DBT and not continue if they don't? Do it anyway. Its a blind test. The results should be identical regardless of weather AQ participates in them.
To sum up, that's my main issue. Critics go on about all of this testing, but they never do it. Why? I could if I really wanted to. There seems to be agreement that well done DBT's would be a big help in determining what claims about cables are true. I agree. No doubt that claims are a mixed bag; some true and some false. But until the critics start actually testing the cables, I just can't take them seriously.