Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: Not a question of space

Posted by Jim Austin on November 2, 2016 at 15:46:41:
I was referring to this sentence in one of the more recent SoundStage cable reviews:

"Victor's last task was to balance the low, mid, and high frequencies of each of his analog cable models."

I'm not commenting on the efficacy of cabling, and yet, from any remotely scientific standpoint that's an ludicrous claim, repeated uncritically.

(To be clear what I'm saying, the frequency dependence of cables is easily measured to very high accuracy, and all reasonable cable designs are flat through the audio band to very high precision. A small number MAY have capacitance sufficient to cause interactions with the impedance of the components they're connected to, but usually not, or not to a measurable extent. Even cables with "network boxes" tend to roll off in the MHz range, if memory serves, or at least in the high 100s of kHz--much higher than any tweeter can reach.)

My goal is not to humiliate anyone but to point out that we all function routinely, to varying degrees, in a pretty subjective mode, which is as it should be: We're reviewing experiences after all. Some reviewers ignore science altogether, including some of my favorite audio writers.

It's completely reasonable to question MQA's claims, but then it's completely reasonable to question a lot of things. MQA's rigor and efficacy are far better established, in my view, as some of what passes as doctrine. Not that that's a bad thing.

Jim