Roger Russell FOS or legit?

vmaxer

:eek:damn, I was reading this again and let my popcorn burn:eek:

I don't claim to know a lot, but I do listen to those who have a lot of experience. I have upgraded to some speaker cables from PNF Audio and did notice a improvement. I would like to step up tp MIT, but can't afford it at this time.

BlueFox

A repost from the Wire Gauge thread to provide some actual hands-on info for lurkers.

This ended up being a bit longer than I expected, so skip if you have ADD.

Yesterday in the Bi-wire thread I mentioned I was going to upgrade my HT from hardware store 12 gauge twisted copper to Mapleshade Clearview Double Helix with Plus upgrade speaker cable. It turns out this was an all day job that killed my lower back, but it was worth it.

I disconnected everything, completely gutted the room, cleaned the room, and then reassembled everything with the new cables. But, I also cleaned all the connections, and put a conductivity enhancer, Mapleshade SilClear, on the audio and AC connections. Consequently, because I made two changes at the same time to the HT, I cannot state which change makes up what percentage of improvement I heard. Unfortunately for the Luddites, there was a big improvement in sound quality once I put everything back together.

First some HT history. A little over two years ago I upgraded the HT to an external amp (Sunfire TGA5400), and it really made the 4 LSi15s, and LSiC sound a lot better. It wasn’t that they did not sound great before (or so I thought), they sounded even better now. Because of that, I started wondering about the speaker cable. While I was aware of the existence of “better” speaker wire, I was still mostly old-school, and believed that all things being equal (metal, gauge, insulation, etc.), wire is wire.

However, at the time I was using in the HT a mismatch of cable sizes (14, 16, 18), and one of the cables was 2 cables spliced together with wire-nuts. While this seemed to work fine (the longest run is 16 feet), I decided to “upgrade”, went to the hardware store, and bought a continuous piece of 12 gauge, stranded, twisted copper. I forgot the price, but it was inexpensive, low voltage wire.

I then cut an exact length of wire to each speaker, and added 12 gauge jumpers to each speaker. Later that night during its test I remember thinking this is a lot better. It’s an obvious improvement. Unfortunately, this started me wondering if more expensive wire could provide an even better improvement. If the inexpensive upgrade worked so well maybe there is something to the “wire makes a difference” debate.

A year later, after thinking about this subject, and reading all the CP threads, and other stories, I decided to try a moderately expensive cable upgrade in my living room 2 channel system, which by that time was all new, and relatively expensive, equipment, except for the speaker wire. In my mind $400 for an 8 foot pair of speaker cables is expensive, so I purchased the Mapleshade cable I later used in this HT upgrade. The difference in the 2 channel setup was night and day. The cable I was currently using came with my SDA-2 purchase in the late 80s, and while it was huge, twisted copper, it was slippery, and greasy to the touch, even after cleaning, so I think the hardware store cable was better than this stuff.

Since this upgrade worked so well over the last year, I recently spent $825 for a new upgrade from Omega Micro Cables (Planar Speaker 1, bottom of the line), and this also was a positive step up with the 2 channel system providing more detail, lower bass response, and less bright highs.

Back to the present, last night for a cable test, I watched the BR versions of Terminator 3, and The Fifth Element, which are my reference DVDs, since I like the movies, and have watched each one a dozen times, or more. Anyway, I am now hearing things in the sound track I either never noticed before, or things that used to be subtle backgrounds noises, are now more apparent. Music is also sounding a lot better on the LSi15s.

To me, one of the pleasures of watching a movie is paying attention to what is going on in the background, and how the soundtrack is affecting the mood. They do give Oscars for the soundtrack, so you know someone is putting some thought and effort into it. In my mind this a big reason to try and have a good HT. There is so much more to a movie than a sub going boom, boom, boom.

Last night I kept the sub turned off in order to clearly evaluate any difference in sound quality between the old and new wire. The LSi15s did a more than decent job of handing any low end so that the sub, while certainly useful, was not really needed to enjoy the movies. Anyway, with both movies I found myself watching the movie as if for the first time, and laughing at the new and improved sound. Something different was certainly happening here.

Even if imaginary, it was definitely a worthwhile upgrade. So flail away, and keep telling me I am delusional, and not hearing anything different, no matter what the cable. Maybe I am, but I suspect the delusional shoe is really on the other person’s foot.

DarqueKnight

Mr. Russel reminds me of another cable hypocrite, John Dunlavy, who railed against "cable nonsense" for years, and then turned around and started offering expensive speaker cables and interconnects:

Shame On Mr. Dunlavy!

When Mr. Dunlavy was called on his prior anti-high performance cable stance, he had this to say:

"So why does a reputable company like DAL [Dunlavy Audio Labs] engage in the design and manufacture of audiophile cables? The answer is simple: since significant measurable differences do exist and because well-known and understood transmission line theory defines optimum relationships between such parameters as cable impedance and the impedance of the load (loudspeaker), the capacitance of an interconnect and the input impedance of the following stage, why not design cables that at least satisfy what theory has to teach? And, since transmission line theory is universally applied, quite successfully, in the design of cables intended for TV, microwave, telephone, and other critical applications requiring peak performance, etc., why not use it in designing cables intended for critical audiophile applications?"

Damn.

Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but I think it undermines your credibility when you ride the anti-high performance cable "high horse" for years, then as soon as you want to make a few bucks, you bend over and let the premium cable horse have its way with you.

I mean, come on, if you really feel that strongly that cables don't make a difference, put your money where your mouth is and say "see...we could have made a lot of cash by bending over for the premium cable horse, but we held to our convictions...we didn't sell out for filthy lucre".

Wouldn't this have lent more credibility to their spew?

How are we cable people supposed to take someone seriously who sells out for filthy lucre?

Hawkeye

I have to give him (RR) the benefit off the doubt. Perhaps he was a genius in his time, but technology overcame him. I doubt there were many hi end wires available when he was doing his thing. He brings up tests from the 60's which may or may not be relevant today.

Lamp cord was speaker wires back then if I recall. There was nothing like a MIT, double helix, ferrite or any other type what back then would be considered exotic which today we take for granted.

While some of his writings are informative and accurate, technology passed him by and new to audio people need to take this fact into account. My Commodore 64 was "it" many years ago, today it wouldn't make a good door stop.

Gordon

treitz3

xcapri79 wrote: »

My Polk Audio LSi's sing beautifully using shielded RCA interconnects from Radio Shack and Lowes (made by GE), and Radio Shack 16AWG Cu speaker wire connected to wonderful Emotiva amps and Pioneer AVR's.This is consistent with the recommendations from Polk Audio and Roger Russell.

So what do you think of that!

Oh dear, you don't want to know...

DarqueKnight

Hawkeye wrote: »

While some of his writings are informative and accurate, technology passed him by and new to audio people need to take this fact into account.

Are you aware that Mr. Russel is offering speakers costing $18,900 per pair? How are we to have confidence in his high end speaker design skills and in the performance of his speakers, if, as you say, "technology passed him by"?

NJPOLKER

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Are you aware that Mr. Russel is offering speakers costing $18,900 per pair? How are we to have confidence in his high end speaker design skills and in the performance of his speakers, if, as you say, "technology passed him by"?

Easy answer

Those who don't know don't know.

treitz3

Face wrote: »

Are you really that slow?

Damn, I can't believe he posted that. :eek:

To answer your question, yes. What a shame.

hearingimpared

xcapri79 wrote: »

No, he answered this long ago. http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#cardas

You read that and didn't see that he is both a hypocrite and a charlitan?

DarqueKnight

heiney9 wrote: »

Roger Russel...
He's a charlatan.

As if the flip-flopping on which cable horse to "play with" wasn't enough, I now have some "doubts" about these $18,900 speakers he's selling.

The fit and finish of these nearly $20,000 speakers seems "off" to me. They don't look anywhere near as as nice (to me) as my $1,700 LSi15's. Maybe it's just the photos, but other high end speaker manufacturers at this price level seem to be able to convey their cabinet quality in their product photos.

The way the cabinet is joined to the base, the apparent "can of spray paint" quality of the finish and those "interesting" rubber feet make these speakers look more like a high schooler's DIY project than expensive high end, high performance speakers. I would not have these in my living room...or even for bedroom speakers...no matter how good they sounded.

I won't say anything about the "see-thru" metal mesh speaker grille because some people like seeing their speaker's drivers. I do not.

Hmmm...those wonky feet again. Couldn't they have been tucked under the corners of the base like every other speaker I have seen in my life?

Cardas CCGR binding posts are used. I have said several times that I am not able to discern differences in binding posts, yet I use Cardas CCGR binding posts for my projects. I use them simply because I like the way they look. However, I have never gone on record calling high quality audio wire and accessories a "scam". If I had, I would not use such products in any audio device I built for my own use or that I built for sale. I understand the need for binding posts with good mechanical gripping ability. However, there are much cheaper alternatives with the same gripping ability as the expensive Cardas posts.

I have already addressed Mr. Russel's claim that he uses 81 feet of Cardas Premium Golden Ratio chassis wire ($3 to $5 per foot) in each IDS-25 cabinet.

In lieu of an internal crossover, the IDS-25 uses an external equalizer. There is no mention of the parts and build quality of the equalizer on the IDS-25 web pages. I expect that people who buy $18,900 speakers will use some fairly high dollar power amplifiers with them. Such people might have some concern about the build and component quality of the device that their high resolution and very expensive audio signal is going to pass through on the way to their $18,900 speakers.

IDS-25 equalizer board. I count 11 integrated circuits. Chips aren't "bad" per se, but some high end audiophiles demonstrate a preference of totally discrete circuitry in power amps, the output stages of digital gear and loudspeakers. At this price level, I would expect discrete circuitry, or at least an explanation that the IC's and other components in the equalizer are of the highest quality.

Perhaps Mr. Russel feels that such an explanation is not required. Perhaps he feels that, similar to binding posts and wire, there is no sonic difference between IC's, capacitors, inductors, resistors, and other board level parts.:)

The IDS-25 does look better in the maple finish...at least from a distance.;) Although, they really do need to do something about the "furniture slider" feet.

Such good speaker cabinetry.

BlueFox

DarqueKnight wrote: »

IDS-25 equalizer board. I count 11 integrated circuits. Chips aren't "bad" per se, but some high end audiophiles demonstrate a preference of totally discrete circuitry in power amps, the output stages of digital gear and loudspeakers. At this price level, I would expect discrete circuitry, or at least an explanation that the IC's and other components in the equalizer are of the highest quality.

Eight of the ICs are in sockets. Unless this is for ease of upgrades, they should be soldered.

DarqueKnight

NJPOLKER wrote: »

Easy answer

Those who don't know don't know.

You mean he's tryin' to take advantage of people? I thought he was one of the good peoples who was on a crusade to save gullible folk from being separated from their grocery and rent money by cable snake oil peddlers.

I'm confused.

hearingimpared wrote: »

You read that and didn't see that he is both a hypocrite and a charlitan?

Mr. Russel? A hypocrite? A charlitan? Just because he put a little bit of Cardas wire in his $18,900 speakers?

NO WAY!! Me thinks thou art bitter at having your little high end cable racket exposed. Go on admit it. Humble confession is good for the soul.

DarqueKnight

BlueFox wrote: »

Eight of the ICs are in sockets. Unless this is for ease of upgrades, they should be soldered.

Dear Mr. BlueFox,

Are you aware that Mr. Russel is an

"Author, Artist, Engineer, Inventor, Photographer, Collector, and formerly Director of Acoustic Research at McIntosh Laboratory, Inc. and the originator of McIntosh Loudspeakers?

With all that "fire" behind him, do you really think that he does not know what he is doing with those microphonic IC sockets?

I'm willing to bet every last penny in my power amp upgrade savings account that Mr. Russel knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he put those IC sockets on that board. Such high level design practices are far above the understanding of people like you and me.

Such good board design.

heiney9

xcapri79 wrote: »

The feet are designed to act as bumpers to protect the corners of the base.

I think if one pays $19K for a pair of speakers they will be careful enough that the "ugly" bumpers aren't needed.

H9

Lowell_M

xcapri79 wrote: »

My Polk Audio LSi's sing beautifully using shielded RCA interconnects from Radio Shack and Lowes (made by GE), and Radio Shack 16AWG Cu speaker wire connected to wonderful Emotiva amps
So what do you think of that!

I think that you are missing out on a lot of enjoyment of this hobby and being a pain in the **** to us all.











.... EMO sucks.... and I want some PIE!:eek:

treitz3

heiney9 wrote: »

I think if one pays $19K for a pair of speakers they will be careful enough that the "ugly" bumpers aren't needed.

No doubt.

Lowell_M

That is one fugly speaker.

Sami

DarqueKnight wrote: »

How are we cable people supposed to take someone seriously who sells out for filthy lucre?

I think they are both being quite honest about what they are selling and why. If people hear a difference with cables, or think they can hear, that's all that matters. Why shouldn't he sell cables that theoretically have all the best characteristics to those who believe they can hear a difference? At least he has not changed his opinion.

George Grand

Fresh lucre should always be rinsed off with cold water before using.

DarqueKnight

heiney9 wrote: »

I think if one pays $19K for a pair of speakers they will be careful enough that the "ugly" bumpers aren't needed.
H9

Dammit H9!! There you go again quoting one of those forum "members" on my ignore list and thereby forcing an assault on my tender, sensitive eyes.:mad:

That answer gave me a lot of insight into why hypocritical charlatans like Mr. Russel hold such sway over the minds of the gullible.

"The feet are designed to act as bumpers to protect the corners of the base."

Really? Wow! I am almost tempted to take this "member" off my ignore list so I can read his explanation as to how some little 1/4" thick rubber pad can "protect" the corner of a speaker base that is well ABOVE it.:D

That little rubber pad can't stop the toe of a shoe or boot because the toes of most shoes and boots are curved up. It certainly can't stop the corner of a vacuum cleaner which is well above 1/4" from the floor. Absent a protective coating, the only thing that will protect a speaker base corner is TO STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM IT.

Try again Einstein.

The wood veneer corners of the bases of my 22 year old SDA SRS's and 20 year old SDA SRS 1.2TL have the feet tucked under the corners. There is not a scrape, scuff, chip, scratch or any other blemish on them. I, and the previous owners, didn't let anything potentially harmful get near them.;)

Maybe Mr. Russel feels that anyone dumb enough to buy speakers from him is too dumb and clumsy to care for them properly. In which case, he should probably include a chain link fence to surround the speakers.;)

DarqueKnight

Lowell_M wrote: »

That is one fugly speaker.

I think Mr. Russel is counting on the "placebo effect" to counteract his speaker's lack of appealing aesthetic design. Similar to his opinion that cable people like and hear improvements with expensive cables just because they are expensive, he is sure that the suckers who buy his speakers will overlook the poor aesthetics, fit and finish after they bend over and fork over that $19K.

This is probably a cynical ploy to target the very people he has been deriding for decades: "I'll lure the cable people in with the Cardas wire and binding posts, slap an outrageous price tag on it that is no way justified by the design, performance and build quality, and the gullible fools will buy them because they think, hey, if it's expensive, it has to be good."


Such good marketing.

ben62670

3.14

ben62670

22/7

Hawkeye

Why such disdain for this guy? Is is possible he realized after 50 years he was wrong and put higher grade wire in his speakers? I'll admit he may have sold out to sell but what business today won't?

The cable non believers are always told here to at least try. Maybe he did and realized the benefit of higher grade wire. There are more than a few reading here that went down the same road.

This guy was doing things with audio before a lot us were born. Some good, some not. Honestly, give the guy some credit, he's not a complete loser. Read some of his other papers besides wire. Has anybody here actually listened to his speakers? Why slam a guy for his design? This almost sounds like an EMO thread.

Gordon

DarqueKnight

ben62670 wrote: »

3.14

ben62670 wrote: »

22/7

That reminds me...I need to reconfirm my line-up for New Year's pie. I'm out.

Lowell_M

Hawkeye wrote: »

Why such disdain for this guy? Is is possible he realized after 50 years he was wrong and put higher grade wire in his speakers? I'll admit he may have sold out to sell but what business today won't?

The cable non believers are always told here to at least try. Maybe he did and realized the benefit of higher grade wire. There are more than a few reading here that went down the same road.

This guy was doing things with audio before a lot us were born. Some good, some not. Honestly, give the guy some credit, he's not a complete loser. Read some of his other papers besides wire. Has anybody here actually listened to his speakers? Why slam a guy for his design? This almost sounds like an EMO thread.

Gordon

I've heard EMO's and don't like 'em one bit. I don't care to listen to roger's ugly-**** speakers ever since I'd never even consider them them in my living room.

ben62670

DarqueKnight wrote: »

That reminds me...I need to reconfirm my line-up for New Year's pie. I'm out.

Good Night DK. As always a pleasure. Happy New Year if you are not popping in before then.
Ben

Hawkeye

Lowell_M wrote: »

I've heard EMO's and don't like 'em one bit. I don't care to listen to roger's ugly-**** speakers ever since I'd never even consider them them in my living room.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I've never heard a SDA-whatever but I still would like to BEFORE I voiced an opinion.

By the way, I didn't vote one way or the other. There is good and bad in everything.

Gordon

snow

Lowell_M wrote: »

That is one fugly speaker.

No doubt.

snow

Lowell_M wrote: »

That is one fugly speaker.

No doubt. What I find that is most hypocritical is not that he used Cardas wire which in itself is bad enough, but his reason for doing so in his newest speaker design so that more people would buy his speakers knowing that he used it in them.

He could simply have ommited any reference to Cardas or high end wire makers and simply said hi purity content wire or some such was used but no instead did the exact opposite.

There is very little worse in my mind as far as human behavior goes than an hypocrite that does things like to line his own pockets.

I believe a first class **** kicking is in order..... not that I would attempt to do this myself because I am a well mannered gentle human being but it is certainly well deserved



REGARDS SNOW