I know it’s all been said before but this is madness ….

[mansr]

@mansr - something odd may be happening, but I find myself agreeing with some recent posts of yours too. However, I'd quibble with the last one.

In the real world, few things are completely random or wholly repeatable. How much I notice that I like music on my main hi-fi more than on my Naim Atom will vary, and all the other human effects (is the sun shining, do I prefer it because I 'know' it's better, do I need a loo &c.) apply. However, the result that I enjoy the big system more is very repeatable, even if I can't prove it and my testimony is of limited use as evidence to anyone.

I don't know what your systems look like, but I guess it's a fair assumption that the "big" one has better speakers. Presumably it's also in a different room. Those things alone are likely to produce very real differences in sound.

As for the idea that ignoring how good your kit is whenever possible and just listening to music

That's not quite what I said. I said, or least meant to say, that I'm confident that my DAC, amp, and cabling are good enough that any "upgrade" would be inaudible, at least most of the time. For this reason, I spend exactly zero time thinking about what cable to try next.

 

[westsea]

A link to the BBC radio programme mentioned above. The Prediction Machine

Thanks I'm just catching up, and spotted Jim A 's request

 

[TheFlash]

I tend to think about what is involved in the manufacturing and selling. Can I see 7k for a pair of large well made speakers being justified? Yeah, just about.

Can I see how 10k for a cable is justified? No. They can feck off.

That’s a view. It’s a view I don’t share.
I guess you could use the same “cost plus” basis to assess the value of all sorts of things but in my not-so-humble opinion that’s missing the point.

• This house can’t be worth anywhere near that much: I mean how much do bricks actually cost these days?
• That painting cost how many million? Crikey, he’s been dead 200 years. Paint must have cost nothing back then
• Tiffany diamond ring costs how much? What’s the hourly rate for miners and for diamond cutters these days?
• That Rolex watch: you’re kidding! It’s a watch FFS. How much can the components actually cost? What do designers earn these days?
• This Lamborghini….
• You get the thrust

Market value should be about performance not cost of components plus labour. If A sounds twice as good as B, I don’t care if it cost the same to make, I care about whether it’s worth paying the asking price. Ditto the Lambo: whether that extra few mph or 0.1s shorter 0-60 is worth the price tag is not going to be based on whether the gearbox cost a bit more to make.

Unfortunately, market price is often not about actual performance it’s often more about slick marketing combined with some perverted sense of bragging rights. See Rolex and Lambo. Driving and telling the time top priorities? I’m not convinced…

Same applies to some stupid cable prices. Think luxury goods, nothing to do with actual performance and definitely nothing to do with manufacturing costs, and you’re probably closer to the mark.

 

[NickofWimbledon]

I am confident that plugging the Atom into the speakers downstairs would still not sound the same, but I agree of course that room and speakers are among the myriad variables. To me, the difference at higher volume from all the extra available watts alone is not small, but no-one is obliged to believe me.

As to the last bit, my apologies: I certainly didn’t mean a slight on you or whatever boxes you own.

As you say, hifi is good and wholly satisfactory, and so you think it vanishingly unlikely that it could be changed so that you enjoyed music more and have literally no interest in doing work to pursue the point - a stance that you find conducive to more musical enjoyment. Good.

 

[mansr]

I am confident that plugging the Atom into the speakers downstairs would still not sound the same, but I agree of course that room and speakers are among the myriad variables. To me, the difference at higher volume from all the extra available watts alone is not small, but no-one is obliged to believe me.

The Atom seems to be 40 W per channel. Depending on speakers, room, listening volume, material, and how the power rating qualified, that could potentially be on the low side. If you were to connect the Atom pre outs to your large amp, I doubt you'd notice any difference unless something has been deliberately designed to impart a signature sound. Naim may well be guilty of this.

As you say, hifi is good and wholly satisfactory, and so you think it vanishingly unlikely that it could be changed so that you enjoyed music more and have literally no interest in doing work to pursue the point - a stance that you find conducive to more musical enjoyment. Good.

If I had the inclination to spend money on better sound today, I'd get a second subwoofer. Some day, I probably will, but it's not something that keeps me awake at night, and I have no specific complaints about the sound I'm currently getting.

Some posters on forums like this one seem to be trying out new cables or whatnot most days of the week. If that amuses them, great. I'd find that level of insecurity stressful.

 

[NickofWimbledon]

That’s a view. It’s a view I don’t share.
I guess you could use the same “cost plus” basis to assess the value of all sorts of things but in my not-so-humble opinion that’s missing the point.

• This house can’t be worth anywhere near that much: I mean how much do bricks actually cost these days?
• That painting cost how many million? Crikey, he’s been dead 200 years. Paint must have cost nothing back then
• Tiffany diamond ring costs how much? What’s the hourly rate for miners and for diamond cutters these days?
• That Rolex watch: you’re kidding! It’s a watch FFS. How much can the components actually cost? What do designers earn these days?
• This Lamborghini….
• You get the thrust

Market value should be about performance not cost of components plus labour. If A sounds twice as good as B, I don’t care if it cost the same to make, I care about whether it’s worth paying the asking price. Ditto the Lambo: whether that extra few mph or 0.1s shorter 0-60 is worth the price tag is not going to be based on whether the gearbox cost a bit more to make.

Unfortunately, market price is often not about actual performance it’s often more about slick marketing combined with some perverted sense of bragging rights. See Rolex and Lambo. Driving and telling the time top priorities? I’m not convinced…

Same applies to some stupid cable prices. Think luxury goods, nothing to do with actual performance and definitely nothing to do with manufacturing costs, and you’re probably closer to the mark.

I have a lot of sympathy with your gist here, but still have a couple of quibbles.

I think that comparatively few of the more objectivist here object to other people spending/ wasting money in ways that please them. However, they are a good deal less happy to see people misled by claims of utility or relevant superiority, which is how many of them see the situation. If you choose to buy a gold bath, they can be confident that you know what you are doing.

Second, you are opening up the topics of sustainable margins and their decay in luxury branded good businesses versus technology businesses, though I doubt that you intend to are that anyone but me is interested in them. Can we just apply the Goldacre caveat “It’s a bit more complicated than that”?

If I were thinking of buying a Lamborghini, someone pointing out that I can get the same performance from the same V10 in an R8 with fewer ‘issues’ and for less money might be very handy. At least if I then look again at the Ksmmbi and buy it anyway, I know what it is that I sm buying and why.

I don’t think either changes your basic point, mind you.

 

[mansr]

I think that comparatively few of the more objectivist here object to other people spending/ wasting money in ways that please them. However, they are a good deal less happy to see people misled by claims of utility or relevant superiority, which is how many of them see the situation. If you choose to buy a gold bath, they can be confident that you know what you are doing.

Spot on.

Second, you are opening up the topics of sustainable margins and their decay in luxury branded good businesses versus technology businesses, though I doubt that you intend to are that anyone but me is interested in them. Can we just apply the Goldacre caveat “It’s a bit more complicated than that”?

Manufacturing cost is but one of many factors in the final price of a product. The other big one is development cost. Even a seemingly simple device can cost a considerable amount to develop. This cost will then be amortised over the expected sales, which is why high-volume products can be so cheap. If there's an expectation of ongoing firmware updates, the cost of producing these will also be reflected in the asking price.

In the luxury goods market, things get turned around a bit. Buyers of a Rolex watch or an Armani suit certainly expect a decent quality, and they are willing to pay for that. More importantly, however, they are looking for exclusivity, and one way to assure this is through a high price. These customers buy what they do because of the expene, not despite it.

I was chatting once with a watch/jewellery shop assistant at LHR, and she mentioned some rich dude earlier having looked at a few items before asking "do you have anything more expensive?" When that's your market, the value is the price, not the performance.

 

[NickofWimbledon]

The Atom seems to be 40 W per channel. Depending on speakers, room, listening volume, material, and how the power rating qualified, that could potentially be on the low side. If you were to connect the Atom pre outs to your large amp, I doubt you'd notice any difference unless something has been deliberately designed to impart a signature sound. Naim may well be guilty of this.


If I had the inclination to spend money on better sound today, I'd get a second subwoofer. Some day, I probably will, but it's not something that keeps me awake at night, and I have no specific complaints about the sound I'm currently getting.

Some posters on forums like this one seem to be trying out new cables or whatnot most days of the week. If that amuses them, great. I'd find that level of insecurity stressful.

Part 1 - we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. The more basic kit in the Atom upstream of the power amp is to me fine, but significantly less good than NDX2+ PS, plus 52. Even at my most sceptical/ cross, I don't think it's 100% imagined or assumed or whatever or just a power/ grip issue.

There is a reason Naim put all that money into different streaming architecture and DACs (and the power supply obsession) - if they could develop just one set of internals, add some bold claims and use the same items in every box, I am sure they could persuade just as many to buy (creating even bigger profits due to less R&D) - as long as they could convince us it sounded the same.

I also don't believe that Naim deliberately makes the Atom less competitive versus other companies' products just so that they can keep it less good than other Naim products.

On the other hand, the second part sounds very well-adjusted to me. Enjoy!

I should also say that I joined this site an the Naim site because I am doing the last few tinkering bits to a round of upgrades, and was looking for information/ advice - I got lots. However, for years I had had no interest in posting on (or often looking at) the sites, because all the focus was understandably on changing things and I had no interest in doing that. The degree to which what I perceive as better fidelity increases my enjoyment (despite me not being a good listener at all) is a constant surprise, but I don't expect to be changing anything on my hifi part from the cartridge in the next few years (if ever).

It may be that much the same applies to other people too. That could mean that the number of people excited about new cables shows a lot of people excited about the 1 cable change in a decade, not a few people excited eery month by this month's new cable. At least, I am going to hope it's that, if the cable upgrade is as bad as it looks to you, but I'd need to backtrack names to see & life is too short.

 

[mansr]

I also don't believe that Naim deliberately makes the Atom less competitive versus other companies' products just so that they can keep it less good than other Naim products.

I didn't mean to suggest anything of the kind. Naim are known for their signature sound, and they could very well be designing in a particular frequency response or distortion profile to achieve it. If that is the case, it would be no surprise if the Atom sounded differently even when only used as a DAC. I've never so much as seen one, so I really can't say.

I'm getting the feeling we are probably largely in agreement in the grand scheme of things. If you're ever in Southampton and fancy a pint, feel free to drop me a note.

 

[NickofWimbledon]

Thanks for the offer!

 

[Tarzan]

Meh. Those cables don't even have 'reference', 'statement', or 'platinum' in the name. Bet they're pony.

At least the £40k top of the range Crystal speakers cables have 'ultimate' in the name.

However they do come with some fishing lures.

 

[flutteringwow]

How many posts did the OP @Sloop John B make in this riveting discussion? After all he felt it of such significance one would think he had much more to say about it?

 

[Paul Hindle]

Some people like tinkering with cars. Some prefer driving them. Some just collect them. We are all different. Who would have known that?

 

[NickofWimbledon]

How many posts did the OP @Sloop John B make in this riveting discussion? After all he felt it of such significance one would think he had much more to say about it?

To be fair to @Sloop John B - it isn't his fault where the thread went.

 

[flutteringwow]

To be fair to @Sloop John B - it isn't his fault where the thread went.

Oh it is, it was intended that way. These types of threads always are intentional as the content and subsequent outcome is always the same. When OP's back out of their threads very quickly it is a sign of that intent.

 

[chiily]

Some people like tinkering with cars. Some prefer driving them. Some just collect them. We are all different. Who would have known that?

But do go faster stripes on a car make it go any faster?

 

[JensenHealey]

Yes. And the reason is simple. The driver knows they have 'go faster' stripes. So, they drive faster to make themselves feel right about having the stripes.

Your question is not framed as accurately as thought...

But do go faster stripes on a car make it go any faster?

You might have meant - "is the cars maximum acceleration or top speed 'improved' by the stripes?"

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

That’s a view. It’s a view I don’t share.
I guess you could use the same “cost plus” basis to assess the value of all sorts of things but in my not-so-humble opinion that’s missing the point.

• This house can’t be worth anywhere near that much: I mean how much do bricks actually cost these days?
• That painting cost how many million? Crikey, he’s been dead 200 years. Paint must have cost nothing back then
• Tiffany diamond ring costs how much? What’s the hourly rate for miners and for diamond cutters these days?
• That Rolex watch: you’re kidding! It’s a watch FFS. How much can the components actually cost? What do designers earn these days?
• This Lamborghini….
• You get the thrust

Market value should be about performance not cost of components plus labour.

In Capitalism as we have it, the price is set as high as the "market will bear" to optimise the profit oif the makers. So if they can make more profit from selling a few via advertising making it seem 'special', that's what they go for.

Some markets are also in essence, 'captured', by the 'suppliers'. Housing in the Uk is an example. The big housebuilders have openly said they only build when they can make 20% or more profit. And they 'lockstep' on this. i.e. no real competition drives down that margin by building more.

There is no magic ooofle dust. If a given cable 'costs' (sic) 1000 UKP/m and 'sounds good' the chances are that someone else could make it for sale at, say, 20 UKP/m, but would then get a lower profit to use in part for their advertising campaign. 8-]

People buy the label and the image when they splash out high amounts. KK routinely compares this with superb watches or expensive wines.

If you're happy to do it, fine. Your ears, your money. Personally, I stop worrying when moving my head half an inch or turning the level up a dB makes a bigger improvement. Having done both listening tests and measurements in the past, I now just enjoy the music, quite happy with cheap cables I got from CPC/Farnell on drums. YMMV if you can afford it. I use the money to buy CDs, etc.

That said, I also now use a DAP and headphones a lot. So the only cable is the one from DAP to headphones. And, yes, the cables that came with the phones *did* alter the sound. They were also too long for mobile use, and absurdly fat and heavy. So I got some simpler leads made by someone via PFM. These work fine. Measurement showed the fat fancy ones had a remarkably high end-to-end resistance due to the way they were made. Which then could be expected to interact with the headphone's frequency-dependent impedance and 'change the sound'.

Maybe people experimenting with cables could also experiment with adding small amounts of series inductance or shunt capacitcant or series resistance. Such components are cheap and may give you improvements (i.e. changes to your taste). Main snag for some may be soldering, I guess.

 

[NickofWimbledon]

Yes. And the reason is simple. The driver knows they have 'go faster' stripes. So, they drive faster to make themselves feel right about having the stripes.

Your question is not framed as accurately as thought...
You might have meant - "is the cars maximum acceleration or top speed 'improved' by the stripes?"

I recall a motorcycle journo commenting that he tested top speed on a Z1000R in the 80s before and after adding the Go Faster stripes. The measured result was +6mph. Of course, he had just taken half of it apart and done a service and general tidy (clean carbs and air filters etc)...He didn't think it too likely that it was the stripe that had probably done the job, but he didn't care. He kept it and was happy to declare the stripe's success in print and provoke good-natured comment for it.

Ok, my analogy is starting to look weak...

 

[adamdea]

There is no magic ooofle dust. If a given cable 'costs' (sic) 1000 UKP/m and 'sounds good' the chances are that someone else could make it for sale at, say, 20 UKP/m, but would then get a lower profit to use in part for their advertising campaign. 8-]

The "no oooffle dust" hypothesis is really the beginning and end of it. (although it might not obviously be so until one unpacks the consequences)
Once you approach a cable in engineering terms you are inevitably going to reach the conclusion that there is no need to spend much on them.
If the performance is simply the result of L, C and R then the correct values can be produced without signficant costs.

Actually it goes much further than that- whatver cable you need is very likely already to exist and to be produced by one of the bulk cable manufactuers like belden. Why rationally (assumign you know what it is you need) would you get a guy in a shed to make it for you? Not only is the guy in the shed highly unlikely to be able to make it as accurately and reliably as Belden, it will cost them more.

One obvious example of this is digital S/PDIF coax cable. The perfect sort already exists and has been produced in very large quantities by eg Belden: it's analogue video cable which is designed to carry an analgue signal of the same frequncy as the carrier signal for the digital S/PDIF. What are the chances of some guy in a shed making such a cable better than is required for professional installation throughout the world? And since the use is for transmission of digital information we can be confident that something that sends an analogue signal to acceptable standards in critical professional installations throughout the world is going to send that same signal as a means of encoding digital data (over a distance of 1m or so!) to vastly greater than any conceivably required tolerance. This is why we use digital signals.

How is it possible to equal this performance as a shedware manufacturer at anything like the same cost?
How is it possible materially to exceed this performance at any cost?