PRC as a amplifier in GPS question.

[Blue Peeler]

felix wrote:

it aint. the sound has different tonal qualities.. warmer, smoother,
etc., just because you can't notice or appreciate the difference,
doesn't mean others can't

It's distortion you moron.

i suppose that you imagine that a "good" turntable and arm will sound
better than a CD too - you are certainly stupid enough.

I sold the linn sondek with Dyna-Vector (or some such name anyway) in
1984 a few months after i bought my first CD Player and just after i
bought a Phillips portable CD player and realized that for quality of
reproduction even the portable shat on the Linn.


Fortunately I found a golden eared moron just like you to buy it from
me.....


And what decided me?

Two albums - the first was a back to back comparison between a Telarc
reference pressing of the 1812 overture and a CD of the same recording
(both started as digital recordings having been a relatively recent one
for the time) and the second was a direct comparison of the Barbara
Streisand album "guilty" and suddenly realized that on the CD pressing
of the same recording, you could hear her breathe (since removed on
later pressings), the sound was lost in artifact noise on the turntable.


Likewise in terms of accurate reproduction a good quality transistor
amp will always shit all over any valve.

 

On Fri, 13 May 2016 19:02:58 +1000, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

On 13-May-2016 5:16 PM, F Murtz wrote:
felix wrote:
On 13-May-2016 8:02 AM, Noddy wrote:
On 13/05/16 12:34 AM, felix wrote:

They make overpriced crap for suckers like you.

bullshit. I was beginning to think you weren't an idiot. so which
cable
is the industry standard then, hmmm?..

Who says there *is* a cable that is the "industry standard"?

Cables are like many other things in that there is a standard to meet,
and once you've done that going above and beyond is unlikely to make
any difference.

However, Monster cables are regarded as the best available, and always
have been

Not by experts on the subject (unless they work for monster or trying
to sell you something)

well then enlighten me. which are the regarded as the best?

There is no best.

oh yes, that
would be monster

You're such an incredible idiot, your benchmark must be Harvey Normans
or JB HiFi.

If you have the courage of your convictions, why not create an account
at http://stereo.net.au/ and start a thread on this very topic. Let's
see how you fare there <G>. Oh, and it's well moderated, so you surely
won't be 'victimised' there...

 

On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:48:23 +0200, BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On 13/05/2016 9:05 AM, j@j.j wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:56:35 +1000, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

However, Monster cables are regarded as the best available, and always
have been

ROTFL. Not even close.

Monster cables etc. are meant to separate audiofools from their money.

Pretty much.

Just like the bullshit with valve amplifiers. There are many fuckwits
who think they have 'golden ears', in fact they are just being conned
and are unable to understand why. Sad but true.

I have to disagree in principle about valve amps, I do have a couple
myself but my favourite amps are all SS. All depends on personal
preference. I learned long ago that I'm not seeking truly accurate
reproduction, which invariably was disappointing to me. But yes, point
taken. Plenty of snake oil and people deceiving themselves out there
in the audio world. At least know what you want, and why.

 

On 13 May 2016 11:53:04 GMT, "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> wrote:

felix wrote:


it aint. the sound has different tonal qualities.. warmer, smoother,
etc., just because you can't notice or appreciate the difference,
doesn't mean others can't

It's distortion you moron.

i suppose that you imagine that a "good" turntable and arm will sound
better than a CD too - you are certainly stupid enough.

I sold the linn sondek with Dyna-Vector (or some such name anyway) in
1984 a few months after i bought my first CD Player and just after i
bought a Phillips portable CD player and realized that for quality of
reproduction even the portable shat on the Linn.


Fortunately I found a golden eared moron just like you to buy it from
me.....


And what decided me?

Two albums - the first was a back to back comparison between a Telarc
reference pressing of the 1812 overture and a CD of the same recording
(both started as digital recordings having been a relatively recent one
for the time) and the second was a direct comparison of the Barbara
Streisand album "guilty" and suddenly realized that on the CD pressing
of the same recording, you could hear her breathe (since removed on
later pressings), the sound was lost in artifact noise on the turntable.


Likewise in terms of accurate reproduction a good quality transistor
amp will always shit all over any valve.

LOL. I disagree with almost all of that for so many reasons, but
mainly because there's so many variables to factor in.

 

[Trevor]

On 14/05/2016 6:52 AM, Je�us wrote:

On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:48:23 +0200, BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com
wrote:
On 13/05/2016 9:05 AM, j@j.j wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:56:35 +1000, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

However, Monster cables are regarded as the best available, and always
have been

ROTFL. Not even close.

Monster cables etc. are meant to separate audiofools from their money.

Pretty much.

"pretty much" implies there might be some other reason as well?
Fact is there is little wrong with Monster cables other than the price.
But they certainly aren't any better than many others, and not as good
as some. And there *definitely* is a *quality* difference between
cables, not usually much if any sound difference though, until the cheap
ones stop working. The sound difference then is rather large!
There CAN be sound differences though like microphonics, hum from poor
shielding etc.

Just like the bullshit with valve amplifiers. There are many fuckwits
who think they have 'golden ears', in fact they are just being conned
and are unable to understand why. Sad but true.

I have to disagree in principle about valve amps, I do have a couple
myself but my favourite amps are all SS. All depends on personal
preference. I learned long ago that I'm not seeking truly accurate
reproduction,

Precisely. Valve amps have their own distortions which some people find
more pleasing than an amp without it. Simple as that.
Nothing wrong with that, but like vinyl freaks, I just wish they'd shut
up and stop pretending it is somehow better, rather than simply a
minority preference they get to have. (and can keep IMO

Trevor.

 

[felix]

On 14-May-2016 5:21 PM, Trevor wrote:

On 14/05/2016 6:52 AM, Je�us wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:48:23 +0200, BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com
wrote:
On 13/05/2016 9:05 AM, j@j.j wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:56:35 +1000, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

However, Monster cables are regarded as the best available, and
always
have been

ROTFL. Not even close.

Monster cables etc. are meant to separate audiofools from their money.

Pretty much.

"pretty much" implies there might be some other reason as well?
Fact is there is little wrong with Monster cables other than the
price. But they certainly aren't any better than many others, and not
as good as some.

such as?

And there *definitely* is a *quality* difference between cables, not
usually much if any sound difference though, until the cheap ones stop
working. The sound difference then is rather large!
There CAN be sound differences though like microphonics, hum from poor
shielding etc.


Just like the bullshit with valve amplifiers. There are many fuckwits
who think they have 'golden ears', in fact they are just being conned
and are unable to understand why. Sad but true.

I have to disagree in principle about valve amps, I do have a couple
myself but my favourite amps are all SS. All depends on personal
preference. I learned long ago that I'm not seeking truly accurate
reproduction,

Precisely. Valve amps have their own distortions which some people
find more pleasing than an amp without it. Simple as that.
Nothing wrong with that, but like vinyl freaks, I just wish they'd
shut up and stop pretending it is somehow better, rather than simply a
minority preference they get to have. (and can keep IMO

Trevor.

--
"As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world"
-William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain
http://www.siotw.org/
http://www.australianlibertyalliance.org.au/

 

On Sat, 14 May 2016 17:21:52 +1000, Trevor <trevor@home.net> wrote:

On 14/05/2016 6:52 AM, Je?us wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:48:23 +0200, BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com
wrote:
On 13/05/2016 9:05 AM, j@j.j wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:56:35 +1000, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

However, Monster cables are regarded as the best available, and always
have been

ROTFL. Not even close.

Monster cables etc. are meant to separate audiofools from their money.

Pretty much.

"pretty much" implies there might be some other reason as well?
Fact is there is little wrong with Monster cables other than the price.
But they certainly aren't any better than many others, and not as good
as some. And there *definitely* is a *quality* difference between
cables, not usually much if any sound difference though, until the cheap
ones stop working. The sound difference then is rather large!
There CAN be sound differences though like microphonics, hum from poor
shielding etc.


Just like the bullshit with valve amplifiers. There are many fuckwits
who think they have 'golden ears', in fact they are just being conned
and are unable to understand why. Sad but true.

I have to disagree in principle about valve amps, I do have a couple
myself but my favourite amps are all SS. All depends on personal
preference. I learned long ago that I'm not seeking truly accurate
reproduction,

Precisely. Valve amps have their own distortions which some people find
more pleasing than an amp without it. Simple as that.
Nothing wrong with that, but like vinyl freaks, I just wish they'd shut
up and stop pretending it is somehow better, rather than simply a
minority preference they get to have. (and can keep IMO

Heh I know what you mean, even though I'm into vinyl myself. Also
into digital formats, of course. I appreciate the good points of both.

 

[Chris]

On 14/05/2016 6:56 AM, Je�us wrote:

On 13 May 2016 11:53:04 GMT, "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> wrote:

felix wrote:


it aint. the sound has different tonal qualities.. warmer, smoother,
etc., just because you can't notice or appreciate the difference,
doesn't mean others can't

It's distortion you moron.

i suppose that you imagine that a "good" turntable and arm will sound
better than a CD too - you are certainly stupid enough.

I sold the linn sondek with Dyna-Vector (or some such name anyway) in
1984 a few months after i bought my first CD Player and just after i
bought a Phillips portable CD player and realized that for quality of
reproduction even the portable shat on the Linn.


Fortunately I found a golden eared moron just like you to buy it from
me.....


And what decided me?

Two albums - the first was a back to back comparison between a Telarc
reference pressing of the 1812 overture and a CD of the same recording
(both started as digital recordings having been a relatively recent one
for the time) and the second was a direct comparison of the Barbara
Streisand album "guilty" and suddenly realized that on the CD pressing
of the same recording, you could hear her breathe (since removed on
later pressings), the sound was lost in artifact noise on the turntable.


Likewise in terms of accurate reproduction a good quality transistor
amp will always shit all over any valve.

LOL. I disagree with almost all of that for so many reasons, but
mainly because there's so many variables to factor in.

An order of magnitude *less* variables (but orders of magnitude *more*
consistency/reproducability) in the digital signal chain compared to
analogue...

--
Cheers,
Chris.

 

[Philip Shaw]

["Followup-To:" header set to aus.electronics.]
On 2016-05-14, Trevor <trevor@home.net> wrote:

On 14/05/2016 6:52 AM, Je�us wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:48:23 +0200, BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com
wrote:

Just like the bullshit with valve amplifiers. There are many
fuckwits who think they have 'golden ears', in fact they are just
being conned and are unable to understand why. Sad but true.

I have to disagree in principle about valve amps, I do have a
couple myself but my favourite amps are all SS. All depends on
personal preference. I learned long ago that I'm not seeking truly
accurate reproduction,

Precisely. Valve amps have their own distortions which some people
find more pleasing than an amp without it. Simple as that. Nothing
wrong with that, but like vinyl freaks, I just wish they'd shut up
and stop pretending it is somehow better, rather than simply a
minority preference they get to have. (and can keep IMO

For old recordings mixed in the era when valve amps dominated the
middle and high-end, it is concievable that a "typical" good valve amp
would produce a better sound than a typical SS amp, because presumably
the mix would have been intended to be listended to with valve
distoritions (and indeed the producer would have listened to it with
valve distortions). Of course, that doesn't apply to modern mixes
when no valve distortion is anticipated.

While sometimes the vinyl version of an album is better[1], that's not a
result of the medium (apart from some bad masters of early CDs from
cheaper publishers, where the signal was post-processed to make a
master which could be used for more pressing with a tolerable result,
so all the CDs were excessively harsh). Whatever the reason, a digital
copy of the record will of course have all the merits of the original
vinyl, while having the ongoing merits of a digital recording.

[1] Most commonly because the digital version was remastered badly, or
was prodced lazily from a decayed master which was worse than some
suviving record from the original, but sometimes just becuase there is
no official digital verison.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 14/05/2016 5:21 PM, Trevor wrote:

On 14/05/2016 6:52 AM, Je�us wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:48:23 +0200, BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com
wrote:
On 13/05/2016 9:05 AM, j@j.j wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:56:35 +1000, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

However, Monster cables are regarded as the best available, and always
have been

ROTFL. Not even close.

Monster cables etc. are meant to separate audiofools from their money.

Pretty much.

"pretty much" implies there might be some other reason as well?
Fact is there is little wrong with Monster cables other than the price.

**Incorrect. There are two major parameters of interest WRT speaker
cables and a handful of minor ones. Those two characteristics are
resistance (R) and inductance (L). Monster Cable™ exhibits reasonably
low resistance, but quite high inductance. Except for Naim speaker
cables, Monster Cable is, along with all 'figure 8' type speaker cables,
the worst choice possible. Naim cable is worse, due to the incompetent
design employed by Naim for their amplifiers, which demands that highly
inductive speaker cables be used. That said, if Monster Cable™ provides
adequate performance for a given system, then some 4mm mains cable will
provide superior performance for less money. However, if genuinely
superior performance is required (say, for electrostatic speakers), then
this:

http://www.altronics.com.au/p/w4920-rg213u-50-ohm-low-loss-coaxial-cable/

Is a much better choice. It offers a usefully lower inductance figure.
Cost is reasonable.

But they certainly aren't any better than many others, and not as good
as some. And there *definitely* is a *quality* difference between
cables, not usually much if any sound difference though, until the cheap
ones stop working. The sound difference then is rather large!
There CAN be sound differences though like microphonics, hum from poor
shielding etc.


Just like the bullshit with valve amplifiers. There are many fuckwits
who think they have 'golden ears', in fact they are just being conned
and are unable to understand why. Sad but true.

I have to disagree in principle about valve amps, I do have a couple
myself but my favourite amps are all SS. All depends on personal
preference. I learned long ago that I'm not seeking truly accurate
reproduction,

Precisely. Valve amps have their own distortions which some people find
more pleasing than an amp without it. Simple as that.

**No, it is not as simple as that. SOME valve amps are engineered to
deliver quite high levels of distortion, whilst others are engineered to
deliver inaudible levels of distortion. The catch is where the amplifier
is pushed to it's limits. Many valve amps possess rather graceful
Voltage limiting (clipping) characteristics and rather benign current
limiting artefacts, whilst many SS amps do not.

Nothing wrong with that, but like vinyl freaks, I just wish they'd shut
up and stop pretending it is somehow better, rather than simply a
minority preference they get to have. (and can keep IMO

**The reality is that most valve amp owners buy them because it is a
fashion statement, rather than for any technical or sonic advantages.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 13/05/2016 5:48 PM, BuckyBalls wrote:

On 13/05/2016 9:05 AM, j@j.j wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:56:35 +1000, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

However, Monster cables are regarded as the best available, and always
have been

ROTFL. Not even close.

Monster cables etc. are meant to separate audiofools from their money.

**Not just Monster Cable™. There are a raft of companies doing the same
thing. It's just that Monster Cable™ was the first company to seriously
identify a gap in the marketplace.

Just like the bullshit with valve amplifiers. There are many fuckwits
who think they have 'golden ears', in fact they are just being conned
and are unable to understand why. Sad but true.

**No. What is sad is those who condemn a range of products, without
understanding why it is so popular. Like solid state amps, there are
good and bad valve amps. The good ones are very good indeed.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

<snip>

**Incorrect. There are two major parameters of interest WRT speaker
cables and a handful of minor ones. Those two characteristics are
resistance (R) and inductance (L). Monster Cable™ exhibits reasonably
low resistance, but quite high inductance. Except for Naim speaker
cables, Monster Cable is, along with all 'figure 8' type speaker cables,
the worst choice possible. Naim cable is worse, due to the incompetent
design employed by Naim for their amplifiers, which demands that highly
inductive speaker cables be used. That said, if Monster Cable™ provides
adequate performance for a given system, then some 4mm mains cable will
provide superior performance for less money. However, if genuinely
superior performance is required (say, for electrostatic speakers), then
this:

http://www.altronics.com.au/p/w4920-rg213u-50-ohm-low-loss-coaxial-cable/

Is a much better choice. It offers a usefully lower inductance figure.
Cost is reasonable.

You are ignoring the capacitance of around 100 pF/metre (see http://www.ok1rr.com/coax/50/RG213-U.pdf), so for your example of 10m lead you will have a capacitance of 1nF across the speaker. Have a look at what effect that will have interacting with the cross-over network!

Perhaps the audiofools like a nice 'mellow' sound!

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 18/05/16 07:58, Trevor Wilson wrote:

It's just that Monster Cable™ was the first company to seriously
identify a gap in the marketplace.

.... between the ears of their buyers.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 18/05/2016 10:14 AM, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 18/05/16 07:58, Trevor Wilson wrote:
It's just that Monster Cable™ was the first company to seriously
identify a gap in the marketplace.

... between the ears of their buyers.

**Not even close. It was NEVER about listeners. Before Monster Cable™
arrived on the market, you would toddle down to your local hi fi store
and buy your complete system, with a pair of speakers that matched the
rack you bought in woodgrain and height. The sales-droid would ask you
how much speaker cable you wanted and, typically, the droid would unroll
10 Metres of 11 strand 0.16mm wire and give it to you for free. Monster
Cable™ hit the market running with a compelling argument to provide the
dealer with a seriously profitable option for the dealer to offer their
customers. It was heavy, thick, with a clear PVC insulation, which made
the cable look even better.

It was always about turning a giveaway item into a profit-making item.
Ironically, the only ways for hi fi dealers to make any kind of profit
today, is in the peripherals, like cables, power adapters and other
stuff. It's kinda like those paint treatments when you buy your new car.
It's bullshit and extremely profitable for the dealer.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Noddy]

On 18/05/16 3:44 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

To me it's not a matter of whether or not they're good. It's more a case
of whether they're any better than something that costs a whole lot less
coin.

**Tell that to a Ferrari owner.

Not a good analogy Trev. There are few V12 powered sports cars on the
market, and few cars that match Ferrari performance that are
considerably cheaper.

Valve amps can do some things that very few solid state amps can. Some would argue that no solid state amp can
match certain aspect of valve amps' performance. And yes, in general,
valve amps cost more, all things being equal. That said, the most
expensive amps on the planet are probably solid state ones (ca. US$1
million).

I'm just taking from an average end-user's perspective. You can fill
your house with high end audio gear and spend a motza, but if it doesn't
sound any better than equipment that costs half the price or less then
what's the point?

Apart from wank value I mean....



--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 18/05/2016 3:44 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 18/05/2016 3:35 PM, Noddy wrote:
On 18/05/16 7:58 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**No. What is sad is those who condemn a range of products, without
understanding why it is so popular. Like solid state amps, there are
good and bad valve amps. The good ones are very good indeed.

To each their own.

To me it's not a matter of whether or not they're good. It's more a case
of whether they're any better than something that costs a whole lot less
coin.

**Tell that to a Ferrari owner. Valve amps can do some things that very
few solid state amps can. Some would argue that no solid state amp can
match certain aspect of valve amps' performance. And yes, in general,
valve amps cost more, all things being equal. That said, the most
expensive amps on the planet are probably solid state ones (ca. US$1
million).

**Scratch that. The price for the most expensive audio amplifier I am
aware of is around US$2.2 million:

http://luxurylaunches.com/gadgets/most-expensive-amplifier.php

Like Ferraris, it's made in Italy.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 18/05/2016 3:35 PM, Noddy wrote:

On 18/05/16 7:58 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**No. What is sad is those who condemn a range of products, without
understanding why it is so popular. Like solid state amps, there are
good and bad valve amps. The good ones are very good indeed.

To each their own.

To me it's not a matter of whether or not they're good. It's more a case
of whether they're any better than something that costs a whole lot less
coin.

**Tell that to a Ferrari owner. Valve amps can do some things that very
few solid state amps can. Some would argue that no solid state amp can
match certain aspect of valve amps' performance. And yes, in general,
valve amps cost more, all things being equal. That said, the most
expensive amps on the planet are probably solid state ones (ca. US$1
million).


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Noddy]

On 18/05/16 7:58 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**No. What is sad is those who condemn a range of products, without
understanding why it is so popular. Like solid state amps, there are
good and bad valve amps. The good ones are very good indeed.

To each their own.

To me it's not a matter of whether or not they're good. It's more a case
of whether they're any better than something that costs a whole lot less
coin.



--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 18/05/2016 1:26 PM, dave.goldfinch@gmail.com wrote:

snip
**Incorrect. There are two major parameters of interest WRT speaker
cables and a handful of minor ones. Those two characteristics are
resistance (R) and inductance (L). Monster Cable™ exhibits
reasonably low resistance, but quite high inductance. Except for
Naim speaker cables, Monster Cable is, along with all 'figure 8'
type speaker cables, the worst choice possible. Naim cable is
worse, due to the incompetent design employed by Naim for their
amplifiers, which demands that highly inductive speaker cables be
used. That said, if Monster Cable™ provides adequate performance
for a given system, then some 4mm mains cable will provide superior
performance for less money. However, if genuinely superior
performance is required (say, for electrostatic speakers), then
this:

http://www.altronics.com.au/p/w4920-rg213u-50-ohm-low-loss-coaxial-cable/



Is a much better choice. It offers a usefully lower inductance figure.
Cost is reasonable.

You are ignoring the capacitance of around 100 pF/metre

**Yes, I am. Assuming the listeners is using a properly designed, stable
amplifier (most are - Naim is not), the the amount of capacitance is,
within reason, inconsequential.


(see

http://www.ok1rr.com/coax/50/RG213-U.pdf), so for your example of 10m
lead you will have a capacitance of 1nF across the speaker. Have a
look at what effect that will have interacting with the cross-over
network!

**None, whatsoever.

Perhaps the audiofools like a nice 'mellow' sound!

**Perhaps you should do the circuit analysis on the system. Capacitance
of speaker cable is inconsequential. Inductance and resistance are the
only parameters of interest.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Chris]

On 18/05/2016 4:23 PM, Noddy wrote:

On 18/05/16 3:44 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

To me it's not a matter of whether or not they're good. It's more a case
of whether they're any better than something that costs a whole lot less
coin.

**Tell that to a Ferrari owner.

Not a good analogy Trev. There are few V12 powered sports cars on the
market, and few cars that match Ferrari performance that are
considerably cheaper.

Valve amps can do some things that very few solid state amps can. Some
would argue that no solid state amp can
match certain aspect of valve amps' performance. And yes, in general,
valve amps cost more, all things being equal. That said, the most
expensive amps on the planet are probably solid state ones (ca. US$1
million).

I'm just taking from an average end-user's perspective. You can fill
your house with high end audio gear and spend a motza, but if it doesn't
sound any better than equipment that costs half the price or less then
what's the point?

Apart from wank value I mean....

In the end the weakest link in the whole system is the transducer
(speaker). What's the point of a Monster cable *to* the speaker without
one *inside* the cabinet? What about the voice coil, wouldn't it also
have to be blessed-by-virgins OFC crystal-aligned shakra pure snake oil too?

The rest of the signal chain can easily attain orders of magnitude less
distortion than the speaker at very moderate cost depending on the
listening SPL.

To paraphrase PA, the highest fidelity is listening to live performance...

--
Cheers,
Chris.