Master Built-What are Owners Hearing That They Didn't Hear With Other Cables

[853guy]

Hi 853guy,

the qualms I have with MB's claims are not about scientifically controlled tests, but about the questionable technical claims they make. Free radicals and "fog"? Also, why the blatant inconsistency about "free radicals" that Amir pointed out?

Hi Al M,

Yes, I understand the nature of the questions you’re raising. I guess I was wanting to understand better whether there was a process you used in verifying the veracity of any technical claims for products that have made it into your system. (It may be that all you did was listen and could justify the expenditure to yourself, and to me, that would be reason enough.)

But like Microstrip is suggesting, the reality is many, many audio components make technical claims that read no better or worse than the sort of advertising hubris we’ve come to expect from shampooing products for brunettes with dry/oily hair, and that many of those products probably currently reside in our systems without any of us having independently verified their claims.

 

[RayDunzl]

"While these awards are significant, MasterBuilt Audio understands the need to demonstrate its individual performance claims and will seek reviews from the critical press for 2017 as part of our product rollout. To assist with this launch, we have partnered with Von Schweikert Audio as our global distributor in order to build our distribution network. Interested dealers and international distributors should contact Mr. Leif Swanson for details on available territories."

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/masterbuilt-audio-official-debut/

I don't see where anyone is being unreasonable here given my interpretation of the above bolded statement...

 

[NorthStar]

Hello Speedskater,
I found it interesting when you did not answer the questions I personally responded to you at audio Circle. Once again, you are asking a similar question, which needs no answer, if you are a knowledgable thinking man. First, as you are well aware, MasterBuilt has made no claims that they can't directly prove. Whether or not they want to respond to you is another question. Second, as Mike LaVine has pointed out, this group of audiophiles does not buy expensive products based on specs or ads, they buy what apeals to them on many levels. Sound, beauty, aesthtics, and utility are far more important than which Japanese receiver toutes the lowest distortion. When you have spent almost 40 years buying and selling very high quality stereo components, you'll come to understand what our members are trhing to teach you. No hard feelings here, friend, only my love of great sound (along with the truth) motivates my response.
I

:b ...Good read this morning.

 

[Al M.]

Hi Al M,

People should buy a product because they like how that product sounds. I don't know many people who buy audio products based off of what their website says.

MasterBuilt does have proprietary materials used in these cables. But if they shared what they are doing or how they are doing this, well it's not so proprietary anymore is it. I have no intention on discussing our approach to crossover design or any other aspect on how we design loudspeakers. Or are crossovers just crossovers and there is no difference between one speaker manufacturer to another?

People should just listen

If all that is the case, Leif, then MB has nothing to lose by taking all unexplained and self-contradictory *) technical claims from their website. After all, the website is irrelevant for the purchase, as you imply.

Just say it's proprietary technology.

_____________

*) see Amir's very valid observations on thread page 46

 

[ack]

People should just listen

I'll say again, one cannot possibly design a worthy product simply by listening and no science, and consequently, it's impossible for some of us to buy just by listening - it's that simple. Therefore, in cases where manufacturers are just being cryptic and seemingly evasive, a cloud will always hang over them, whether we like it or not, and regardless of the feedback we get from others. We also must not ignore that one of the great aspects of this hobby is that we are dealing with a highly sophisticated buying audience.

 

[amirm]

It would not be fair. Most high-end manufacturers of similar products do the same - using technical meaningless sentences to capture the attention of people, that then will try the product.

Never seen anything like this by the designer of any other cable:

"The electrons in the signal have to flow around these cracks to find the most direct path. When the electrical signal has to jump across these barriers, non-linear behavior of the signal occurs. If the electrons in the signal path are forced to jump across the crystalline barrier gaps, there are very small arcs of static which are generated. These "sparks" create distortion in the treble frequency range, making the sound harsh and two-dimensional. This is a quantifiable, measurable difference! Being able to hear it during an A/B/X comparison is child's play."

Measureable and child's play when it comes to hearing such effects blind? You have seen the likes of such statements from other cable designers? If so, where?

 

[Al M.]

Hi Al M,

Yes, I understand the nature of the questions you’re raising. I guess I was wanting to understand better whether there was a process you used in verifying the veracity of any technical claims for products that have made it into your system. (It may be that all you did was listen and could justify the expenditure to yourself, and to me, that would be reason enough.)

All I did was listen indeed. But then I didn't have to deal with "free radicals" and such (As a (bio)chemist, I am suspicious about this.)

As for the claim of the benefits of no feedback in amps, like in mine, there is enough technical literature out there to support it -- so that is not a questionable claim. On the other hand, there is also plenty evidence that extensive feedback circuits, when done right, can also lead to spectacular results and that in high power/high current situations, see for example Spectral amps.

But like Microstrip is suggesting, the reality is many, many audio components make technical claims that read no better or worse than the sort of advertising hubris we’ve come to expect from shampooing products for brunettes with dry/oily hair, and that many of those products probably currently reside in our systems without any of us having independently verified their claims.

While that may be true, I don't see why MB needs to cheapen their reputation in such a way. Or at least make the appearance that it does.

 

[Al M.]

I'll say again, one cannot possibly design a worthy product simply by listening and no science, and consequently, it's impossible for some of us to buy just by listening - it's that simple. Therefore, in cases where manufacturers are just being cryptic and seemingly evasive, a cloud will always hang over them, whether we like it or not, and regardless of the feedback we get from others. We also must not ignore that one of the great aspects of this hobby is that we are dealing with a highly sophisticated buying audience.

All good points.

 

[RogerD]

I'll say again, one cannot possibly design a worthy product simply by listening and no science, and consequently, it's impossible for some of us to buy just by listening - it's that simple. Therefore, in cases where manufacturers are just being cryptic and seemingly evasive, a cloud will always hang over them, whether we like it or not, and regardless of the feedback we get from others. We also must not ignore that one of the great aspects of this hobby is that we are dealing with a highly sophisticated buying audience.

I have never seen any high end cable manufacturer divulge proprietary information.....maybe I'm wrong. It hasn't made a difference yet...has it. When I purchased my NBS cables 27 years ago, Walter Fields explained to me why his cables improved sound. His explanation still makes sense to me at least. Like a audio friend told me 27 years ago, "you went over to the dark side"....the majority on this board I think could care less....and that's not a put down either. IMHO

 

[Al M.]

But like Microstrip is suggesting, the reality is many, many audio components make technical claims that read no better or worse than the sort of advertising hubris we’ve come to expect from shampooing products for brunettes with dry/oily hair, and that many of those products probably currently reside in our systems without any of us having independently verified their claims.

Here is the wonderful reply by Schiit Audio to this phenomenon, when "describing" their Pyst cables:

http://schiit.com/products/pyst-cables

Beyond Just Technology: SuperUltraHyperTechnology
PYST cables are made from only the finest 6-nines Unobtanium™ alloy, molecularly assembled in our Alternate Universe™ reality-distortion tesseract field , using a secret geometry reverse-engineered from crashed UFOs, painstakingly smuggled out of Area 51 by deep-cover operatives. Performance is further enhanced by the use of a QuantConnect™ quantum-entangled pair of transmission interfaces, held at absolute zero by our exclusive Stasis Field™ technology. The cables are then wrapped in NanoAeroCap™, a nanotechnology-enabled aerogel anti-capacitance insulation system, featuring Fractal Interleaved Geometry™ to create negative inductance for maximum audio transmission quality.

Or, er, well . . . again, no. These are nice, high-quality cables, with solid, reliable connectors. That’s it. Hope you like them!

(End quote.)

***

I guess quite a few high end companies could learn from this, how not to make claims that seem outrageous to people with some knowledge. In any case, I guess the above perfectly captures the sad state of much of the industry.

 

[Leif S]

That is pretty funny lol

 

[Al M.]

Glad you like it

 

[Steve Williams]

Al

Are you suggesting that the Schiit cable description is one that you find acceptable? Personally I think they are pandering to their name. And Al are you telling me that every piece of equipment you have you have bought is based on the manufacturer's description.

Whatever happened to listening?

 

[ack]

I have never seen any high end cable manufacturer divulge proprietary information.....maybe I'm wrong.

Many in fact do; MIT is probably the best, from a significant number of white papers and patents, to layman's brochures. And why is that... it's because everything they say checks out scientifically, and we have been able to explain a lot of things we hear in these cables based on the information they provide. No voodoo there. In fact, a lot of the great audible aspects people describe about MB cables we already hear with MIT Oracle, and have been for decades.

It hasn't made a difference yet...has it. When I purchased my NBS cables 27 years ago, Walter Fields explained to me why his cables improved sound. His explanation still makes sense to me at least. Like a audio friend told me 27 years ago, "you went over to the dark side"....the majority on this board I think could care less....and that's not a put down either. IMHO

I've always been on the "dark side" wrt measurements, as long as they are coupled with listening - but science first, then listening. I don't expect to be in the majority, nor does it matter to anyone but me. But it does matter to me, because of all the nonsense I am reading from a variety of manufacturers, day after day. Like pretty much everywhere else, there are the A Listers, the B Listers, and then everyone else - high end audio is not any different. In our audio world, I want to see the credentials as well, especially at stratospheric price points.

 

[Steve Williams]

Al

Are you suggesting that the Schiit cable description is one that you find acceptable? Personally I think they are pandering to their name. And Al are you telling me that every piece of equipment you have you have bought is based on the manufacturer's description.

Whatever happened to listening?

 

[microstrip]

Never seen anything like this by the designer of any other cable:

"The electrons in the signal have to flow around these cracks to find the most direct path. When the electrical signal has to jump across these barriers, non-linear behavior of the signal occurs. If the electrons in the signal path are forced to jump across the crystalline barrier gaps, there are very small arcs of static which are generated. These "sparks" create distortion in the treble frequency range, making the sound harsh and two-dimensional. This is a quantifiable, measurable difference! Being able to hear it during an A/B/X comparison is child's play."

Measureable and child's play when it comes to hearing such effects blind? You have seen the likes of such statements from other cable designers? If so, where?

I will not enter the contest to find the more sensationalist advertising in the high-end, but there are many similar or even worst - it seems you have read very little. But I find amusing you are worried about others claims and do not care about those strong claims on distortion made in the literature and brochures of the excellent quality products in the brands that are closer to you.

 

[microstrip]

All I did was listen indeed. But then I didn't have to deal with "free radicals" and such (As a (bio)chemist, I am suspicious about this.) .

I can easily understand that people with a chemist background know extensively about "free radicals " but probably are not specialists in dielectric absorption, a subject where the words "free radicals" are often referred. It is a complicated subject, not suitable to forum debates, although I posted on it sometime ago concerning burn-in.

While that may be true, I don't see why MB needs to cheapen their reputation in such a way. Or at least make the appearance that it does.

Anyone referring to electrons in cables is a sinner. Unless you refer to Maxwell equations you are not debating cables properly. But consumers are not going to take a course in EM to understand brochures.

 

[amirm]

Anyone referring to electrons in cables is a sinner. Unless you refer to Maxwell equations you are not debating cables properly. But consumers are not going to take a course in EM to understand brochures.

Again, what they talk about is pretty plain and has nothing to do with Maxwell, etc. You seem to not have read anything they have said such as this:

"Please note that our listening panel rejected all other metals in the blind ABX tests, including silver, silver plated copper, aluminum, gold, and platinum conductors. Although initially dazzled by the brighter, forward-sounding silver formulations, the brighter sound became quite fatiguing over an extended period of time, often as little as ten minutes. In addition, the metals other than copper seemed to reduce bass power as they simultaneously increased the treble range, making them a poor choice."

Everyone here would understand the results of blind listening tests. We just need to know the details of what was tested, how and who the participants were. Nothing complicated.

 

[Al M.]

Al

Are you suggesting that the Schiit cable description is one that you find acceptable?

Absolutely! I like it when a manufacturer makes fun of the situation.

Personally I think they are pandering to their name. And Al are you telling me that every piece of equipment you have you have bought is based on the manufacturer's description.

Whatever happened to listening?

The BorderPatrol external power supplies for my amps, as well as my speakers, were based on the manufacturer's description and on reviews (mostly the latter). I had no other choice, they were factory direct. But I had a trial period in each case. Fortunately, listening quickly confirmed that in both cases the choice worked out better than expected.

 

[853guy]

All I did was listen indeed. But then I didn't have to deal with "free radicals" and such ? (As a (bio)chemist, I am suspicious about this.)

(...)

While that may be true, I don't see why MB needs to cheapen their reputation in such a way. Or at least make the appearance that it does.

Here is the wonderful reply by Schiit Audio to this phenomenon, when "describing" their Pyst cables:

http://schiit.com/products/pyst-cables

Beyond Just Technology: SuperUltraHyperTechnology
PYST cables are made from only the finest 6-nines Unobtanium™ alloy, molecularly assembled in our Alternate Universe™ reality-distortion tesseract field , using a secret geometry reverse-engineered from crashed UFOs, painstakingly smuggled out of Area 51 by deep-cover operatives. Performance is further enhanced by the use of a QuantConnect™ quantum-entangled pair of transmission interfaces, held at absolute zero by our exclusive Stasis Field™ technology. The cables are then wrapped in NanoAeroCap™, a nanotechnology-enabled aerogel anti-capacitance insulation system, featuring Fractal Interleaved Geometry™ to create negative inductance for maximum audio transmission quality.

Or, er, well . . . again, no. These are nice, high-quality cables, with solid, reliable connectors. That’s it. Hope you like them!

(End quote.)

***

I guess quite a few high end companies could learn from this, how not to make claims that seem outrageous to people with some knowledge. In any case, I guess the above perfectly captures the sad state of much of the industry.

Hi Al M,

I’m not disagreeing with anything you’re saying. And I appreciate for some there are claims being made by manufacturers they feel are either worth challenging at best or calling out as dishonest at worst. From a cursory glance, I’d say some of the criticism levelled at MB on this thread probably falls somewhere in the middle.

But for what it’s worth (and as someone who works in advertising) I’ll say this: Given that building a brand presence is problematic when the signal-to-noise ratio is already poor due to the proliferation of social media and the ubiquity of the internet; the market in which the product competes is already oversaturated partly because the market itself is infinitesimally small relative to the mainstream; and especially, the USP of that particular product is difficult to articulate considering real-world differences are poorly articulated even amongst sophisticated consumers who seemingly cannot agree on what the word “realistic” means, let alone the real purpose of the mechanism in question (see Ron’s thread re: Toward a Theory of Mutual Understanding and Predictability) - is it any wonder that we are here debating not whether MB cables offer a real and tangible benefit to the consumer in terms of an increase in sound quality, but whether or not their marketing jargon happens to offend our sensibilities?

A person or persons who debate the marketing jargon surrounding cables that they have never heard nor intend to audition in their system - let alone purchase - is the answer to the question, “what is an audiophile?”