Sheryl Crow: All my original music tapes destroyed in 'apocalyptic' Universal Studios fire

[snoop1130]

Sheryl Crow: All my original music tapes destroyed in 'apocalyptic' Universal Studios fire

 

Sheryl Crow says 'all her masters' were wiped out in the 2008 fire

 

Sheryl Crow has confirmed the master tapes of her hit albums Tuesday Night Music Club and The Globe Sessions were among those destroyed in a fire 11 years ago.

 

The US singer-songwriter said the loss "absolutely grieves me", adding "it feels a little apocalyptic" following the blaze that reportedly wiped out about 500,000 songs in Universal Music's catalogue.

 

Crow said she only found out about her tapes' destruction after a report this month in The New York Times revealed the extent of the damage in the Universal Studios blaze - described as "the biggest disaster in the history of the music business".

 

The 57-year-old star said "all her masters" were wiped out when the sound recordings library was hit by the fire in the Los Angeles backlot on 1 June 2008.

 

Source: https://news.sky.com/story/sheryl-crow-all-my-original-music-tapes-destroyed-in-apocalyptic-universal-studios-fire-11749150

[billd766]

What? No backup in a different location in a fireproof vault?

 

The worst part seems to be that the fire was in 2008 and nobody told her. The NYT revealed it this month, some 11 years later.

 

I wonder who else lost their master tapes?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/11/magazine/universal-fire-master-recordings.html

 

Among the incinerated Decca masters were recordings by titanic figures in American music: Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Al Jolson, Bing Crosby, Ella Fitzgerald, Judy Garland. The tape masters for Billie Holiday’s Decca catalog were most likely lost in total. The Decca masters also included recordings by such greats as Louis Jordan and His Tympany Five and Patsy Cline.

 

Much more.......

 

 

Edited June 26, 2019 by billd766
Added extra text

[canuckamuck]

I love her music, good thing there is a lot of digital copies about. Not originals, But it's better than total annihilation. 

[NCC1701A]

1 hour ago, snoop1130 said:

The 57-year-old star said "all her masters" were wiped out when the sound recordings library was hit by the fire in the Los Angeles backlot on 1 June 2008.

my studio was located almost directly across the street from universal. I watched it burn for hours.

 

The CEO of Universal was live on TV at 11am saying the tours would be open again at 2pm ???? while at the same time LAFD was warning people to shelter in place due to the clouds toxic fumes covering a nearby neighborhood. 

[UnkleMoooose]

I'm surprised the fire didn't spit them back out.

[robblok]

14 hours ago, NCC1701A said:

my studio was located almost directly across the street from universal. I watched it burn for hours.

 

The CEO of Universal was live on TV at 11am saying the tours would be open again at 2pm ???? while at the same time LAFD was warning people to shelter in place due to the clouds toxic fumes covering a nearby neighborhood. 

Sound really Thai.. are you sure it happened in the US ????

[khunPer]

19 hours ago, billd766 said:

What? No backup in a different location in a fireproof vault?

I've been to the tape storage basement of major record companies in Britain. They did have safe-copies, standing next to the original tape, so always easy to find the safe-copy.

 

Hopefully Universal Music had managed to digitize the tapes, or many/most of them, before 2008. That job began already in 1990'ies when the CD became the popular sales unit.

 

Another problem with many of the old master tapes was that the magnetic coating disintegrated by humidity due to a change in the binder (glue) by some of the manufacturers, unfortunately some of the leading studio tape brands like USA's Ampex and 3M Scotch, and German Agfa. However, many of those audio master tapes could be saved by a "baking" procedure.

 

Today it's possible to digitally restore in acceptable high quality from vinyl records; there are even folks that claims it sounds better than tape...

 

Some of the older artists named in the article – Ray Charles, Louis Armstrong, Judy Garland, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, and BB King – their recordings exists in fine copies of the original master tapes, as their recording rights, or so-called phonogram rights, had expired, and the recordings were sold on non exclusive basis. There are two copyrights, the recording and artist, which has a limited life from the year of recording, and the songwriters that have lifetime plus 70 years; the latter is the main interest for Universal Music as music publisher. These older artist's recordings were mainly used for budget releases. I bought some excellent masters, especially the Chuck Berry songs were in a unique quality, but unfortunately all on Ampex or Scotch tapes...????

–Perhaps they can be "baked"...????

[BritManToo]

Not exactly a loss to humanity, youtube still have it.

PS. She's exactly the sort of girl I take home.

 

Edited June 27, 2019 by BritManToo

[Airalee]

7 hours ago, khunPer said:

Today it's possible to digitally restore in acceptable high quality from vinyl records; there are even folks that claims it sounds better than tape...

Are the people claiming that digital is better professionals or consumers?  

 

Most of us at my age (50) listened to store bought cassettes on crappy boom boxes.  When digital came out, we were in the process of upgrading to actual stereo systems so our frame of reference to judge would have been flawed.  My best “tapes” were still only the Maxell UDXLii C90s recorded from vinyl.  However, even being a big fan of 2 channel SACD, I will admit that analog sounds better when played on a quality system (unaffordable to most).  Most people never get a chance to even hear a good analog rig.   I never had the chance to listen to reel to reel.  I’m sure I would have loved it.

 

Thanks for the informative post.

[khunPer]

14 hours ago, Airalee said:

Are the people claiming that digital is better professionals or consumers?  

 

Most of us at my age (50) listened to store bought cassettes on crappy boom boxes.  When digital came out, we were in the process of upgrading to actual stereo systems so our frame of reference to judge would have been flawed.  My best “tapes” were still only the Maxell UDXLii C90s recorded from vinyl.  However, even being a big fan of 2 channel SACD, I will admit that analog sounds better when played on a quality system (unaffordable to most).  Most people never get a chance to even hear a good analog rig.   I never had the chance to listen to reel to reel.  I’m sure I would have loved it.

 

Thanks for the informative post.

Thanks for your comments.

 

Digital, I'm talking a digital remastering af a vinyl record, re-released on vinyl. If not mentioned, people might well believe it's all vinyl. In opposite, one of the early digital recordings – the complete Beethoven string quartets for HMV in London – the producer was not happy with the sound, especially the reverberation from the room in the old castle, where the chamber music were recorded. He ended in my studio adding artificial, but analogue, reverb to the recording, and transfer them all from digital to magnetic tape, and back to digital. We never talked about it (then), and HMV was happy with the digital sound and true castle room acoustic...????

 

Analogue vs. digital has been, and still is an ongoing issue – just like speaker cables (another story) – and might be very, if not extremely, subjective. I experienced that from not only many years in the music business, but also as area agent & distributor of major professional sound products, including leading manufacturers of studio monitor speakers, and huge concert rigs, so-called FOH (Front of House).

 

The British magazine "Grammophone" had an ongoing debate in the late 1980'ies, when digital sound became if not common, then used, and the first CDs had appeared on the commercial market, with arguing about if 16-bit linear was good enough quality. Again and again the commentators mentioned BBC's transmission of concerts from the Royal Albert Hall as optimal analogue sound – no recording, but broadcasted live transmissions – until one day BBC commented the discussion: "The link from Royal Albert Hall to BBC was not analogue, but digital, and not 16-bit linear, nor 14-bit linear, but only 13-bit linear, as nobody in BBC could tell the difference"...

 

Analogue vinyl sound has the disadvantage of limited low frequency – especially if a "long playing" time is wished for the 12" disk – due to the groove amplitude; i.e. the bass frequencies are cut by a low pass filter. Also the high frequencies are limited with a high pass filter and normally a treble limiter at 15 kHz. All this is done when "cutting" the lacquer disc. The RIAA pre-amplifier curve would partly compensate by boosting some of the missing frequencies (the long discussion if Decca in London used the real RIAA curve, or made their own sound). After lacquer cutting the silver layer proces, and electrogalvanization to finally third level stampers (father-mother-sons), furthermore changed the original master sound a bit. DMM (Direct Metal Mastering or Direct-to-metal) cuttings eliminated the lacquer – and some times even the tape recording – the silver process, and the first electrogalavization to the father matrix, which should improved the sound quality.

 

Many feel, or says, that the sound become more warm after the cutting and matrix process, and that vinyl has it's own "life".

 

"Own life", so does a real symphonic orchestra in a concert hall have, when reproduced through a few round paper discs in a living room from a black plastic disk, tube amplifier or not...

 

The "mother" is positive and can be played on a turntable – however the disc is wider than a 12", so not all grammophones can take it – and special pick-up cartridges are available for playing the negative "father" and "sons", i.e. stampers. You need to play the various matrix and listen for quality and especially clicks (subjective quality control), if too many matrix-clicks a new cutting process is needed. Mothers are considered as optimum record quality, if you are audiophile enough, you play "mothers" only, which are not easy to get hand on, but then father-pressed vinyls – the "father" can be used for stamper, but then no more additional "mother" can be generated.

 

We would often press a first run from "father" – when the "mother" was secured – and keep some pressings for future reference.

 

When listening to a test-vinyl-pressing you should never compare with the master recording, but listen for the experience only as a commercial user – if you try to compare, the sound would be different – wherefore the original master was duplicated to various cutting masters, optimized for each their field; like vinyl pressing, or cassette duplication, or CD replication. Single cut – when talking about popular hit-music – would be further compressed in sound to limit dynamics, and optimize for reproduction through small speakers, and the single mono-speaker from the radio in the back of a work shop, as that is where, your hit music would be "sold". Today it's called "broadcast mix", as there are now several mixes of the recordings, depending of genre.

 

When mixing, we would normally make the optimum sound on a high-end tape, normally 1/4-inch 15 ips (inch per second), and often with a noise reduction of Dolby-A system, or sometimes DBX system. We used the latter in my studio, giving us signal-to-noise ratio like a digital recording, i.e. 90 dB or better. Some more freaky studios would use 1/2-inch tape (double track width) and 30 ips speed, and no noise reduction, as all noise reduction systems made some coloration to the sound; worst by Dolby that made a typical "Dolby-sound" (some liked it, made vocalists a bit nasal sounding), less by dbx that however had problem with "rattling keys" (not used much, but some cymbal sound and chimes/carillons could in rare cases have problems), whilst Telefunken's Telcom-system probably was the best, but hardly used outside Germany.

 

When demonstrating high volume speakers, using a turntable was not optimal – especially in closed rooms like a studio control room – due to feed back. We would instead record the preferred records to a tape, which could be played back without feed back; for example was (and probably still is) Pink Floyd's "The Wall" a preferred piece of music to test both speakers and acoustics as analogue music, and Michael Jackson's "Bad" for digital (CDs can be played). Furthermore selected classical recordings could be used, a trained ear would be able to hear the frequency curve of speakers, or a room, from listening to a recording of a symphonic orchestra. Control room monitor speakers and acoustic are supposed to be neutral, reproducing the "real" sound, without coloration; i.e. if you have too much bass in the control room, you masters will lack bass, vice versa. You bet that "The Wall" – right after the helicopter has taken off – would not only give a funky feeling in the stomach, but at full power you would feel your trouser legs flapping with the bass drum, but never hurting your ears (when a perfect balanced undistorted system)...????

 

Cassette tapes – in my modest opinion, and I was manufacturer of cassette tapes, as well as vinyl pressing – never raise to an acceptable audiophile quality, but was a handy practical medium; especially when the Sony Walkman appeared.

 

One of my friends – the inventor of one of the speaker systems I represented – never owned a measuring instrument, and to my knowledge still don't have one, but only used his ears. He created speaker systems for some of the World's largest events. When he gave final proof – that would be the first time a new set-up was used at a major music festival – he would listen to two pieces of favorite music, in all about 10 minutes, and after that tell if any adjustments of the FOH rig was needed, like moving the bass cabinets on the ground 1/2 meter forward, as they are out of phase with the flying rig; I've been together with, when doing final approval, and when testing the rig with pink noise afterwards, it's perfect. His speaker-system was for example used when Pink Floyd performed "The Wall" live in Berlin 1990...????

 

I'm sure you would have loved to listen to one of my speaker demos...????

[Airalee]

1 hour ago, khunPer said:

Thanks for your comments.

 

Digital, I'm talking a digital remastering af a vinyl record, re-released on vinyl. If not mentioned, people might well believe it's all vinyl. In opposite, one of the early digital recordings – the complete Beethoven string quartets for HMV in London – the producer was not happy with the sound, especially the reverberation from the room in the old castle, where the chamber music were recorded. He ended in my studio adding artificial, but analogue, reverb to the recording, and transfer them all from digital to magnetic tape, and back to digital. We never talked about it (then), and HMV was happy with the digital sound and true castle room acoustic...????

 

Analogue vs. digital has been, and still is an ongoing issue – just like speaker cables (another story) – and might be very, if not extremely, subjective. I experienced that from not only many years in the music business, but also as area agent & distributor of major professional sound products, including leading manufacturers of studio monitor speakers, and huge concert rigs, so-called FOH (Front of House).

 

The British magazine "Grammophone" had an ongoing debate in the late 1980'ies, when digital sound became if not common, then used, and the first CDs had appeared on the commercial market, with arguing about if 16-bit linear was good enough quality. Again and again the commentators mentioned BBC's transmission of concerts from the Royal Albert Hall as optimal analogue sound – no recording, but broadcasted live transmissions – until one day BBC commented the discussion: "The link from Royal Albert Hall to BBC was not analogue, but digital, and not 16-bit linear, nor 14-bit linear, but only 13-bit linear, as nobody in BBC could tell the difference"...

 

Analogue vinyl sound has the disadvantage of limited low frequency – especially if a "long playing" time is wished for the 12" disk – due to the groove amplitude; i.e. the bass frequencies are cut by a low pass filter. Also the high frequencies are limited with a high pass filter and normally a treble limiter at 15 kHz. All this is done when "cutting" the lacquer disc. The RIAA pre-amplifier curve would partly compensate by boosting some of the missing frequencies (the long discussion if Decca in London used the real RIAA curve, or made their own sound). After lacquer cutting the silver layer proces, and electrogalvanization to finally third level stampers (father-mother-sons), furthermore changed the original master sound a bit. DMM (Direct Metal Mastering or Direct-to-metal) cuttings eliminated the lacquer – and some times even the tape recording – the silver process, and the first electrogalavization to the father matrix, which should improved the sound quality.

 

Many feel, or says, that the sound become more warm after the cutting and matrix process, and that vinyl has it's own "life".

 

"Own life", so does a real symphonic orchestra in a concert hall have, when reproduced through a few round paper discs in a living room from a black plastic disk, tube amplifier or not...

 

The "mother" is positive and can be played on a turntable – however the disc is wider than a 12", so not all grammophones can take it – and special pick-up cartridges are available for playing the negative "father" and "sons", i.e. stampers. You need to play the various matrix and listen for quality and especially clicks (subjective quality control), if too many matrix-clicks a new cutting process is needed. Mothers are considered as optimum record quality, if you are audiophile enough, you play "mothers" only, which are not easy to get hand on, but then father-pressed vinyls – the "father" can be used for stamper, but then no more additional "mother" can be generated.

 

We would often press a first run from "father" – when the "mother" was secured – and keep some pressings for future reference.

 

When listening to a test-vinyl-pressing you should never compare with the master recording, but listen for the experience only as a commercial user – if you try to compare, the sound would be different – wherefore the original master was duplicated to various cutting masters, optimized for each their field; like vinyl pressing, or cassette duplication, or CD replication. Single cut – when talking about popular hit-music – would be further compressed in sound to limit dynamics, and optimize for reproduction through small speakers, and the single mono-speaker from the radio in the back of a work shop, as that is where, your hit music would be "sold". Today it's called "broadcast mix", as there are now several mixes of the recordings, depending of genre.

 

When mixing, we would normally make the optimum sound on a high-end tape, normally 1/4-inch 15 ips (inch per second), and often with a noise reduction of Dolby-A system, or sometimes DBX system. We used the latter in my studio, giving us signal-to-noise ratio like a digital recording, i.e. 90 dB or better. Some more freaky studios would use 1/2-inch tape (double track width) and 30 ips speed, and no noise reduction, as all noise reduction systems made some coloration to the sound; worst by Dolby that made a typical "Dolby-sound" (some liked it, made vocalists a bit nasal sounding), less by dbx that however had problem with "rattling keys" (not used much, but some cymbal sound and chimes/carillons could in rare cases have problems), whilst Telefunken's Telcom-system probably was the best, but hardly used outside Germany.

 

When demonstrating high volume speakers, using a turntable was not optimal – especially in closed rooms like a studio control room – due to feed back. We would instead record the preferred records to a tape, which could be played back without feed back; for example was (and probably still is) Pink Floyd's "The Wall" a preferred piece of music to test both speakers and acoustics as analogue music, and Michael Jackson's "Bad" for digital (CDs can be played). Furthermore selected classical recordings could be used, a trained ear would be able to hear the frequency curve of speakers, or a room, from listening to a recording of a symphonic orchestra. Control room monitor speakers and acoustic are supposed to be neutral, reproducing the "real" sound, without coloration; i.e. if you have too much bass in the control room, you masters will lack bass, vice versa. You bet that "The Wall" – right after the helicopter has taken off – would not only give a funky feeling in the stomach, but at full power you would feel your trouser legs flapping with the bass drum, but never hurting your ears (when a perfect balanced undistorted system)...????

 

Cassette tapes – in my modest opinion, and I was manufacturer of cassette tapes, as well as vinyl pressing – never raise to an acceptable audiophile quality, but was a handy practical medium; especially when the Sony Walkman appeared.

 

One of my friends – the inventor of one of the speaker systems I represented – never owned a measuring instrument, and to my knowledge still don't have one, but only used his ears. He created speaker systems for some of the World's largest events. When he gave final proof – that would be the first time a new set-up was used at a major music festival – he would listen to two pieces of favorite music, in all about 10 minutes, and after that tell if any adjustments of the FOH rig was needed, like moving the bass cabinets on the ground 1/2 meter forward, as they are out of phase with the flying rig; I've been together with, when doing final approval, and when testing the rig with pink noise afterwards, it's perfect. His speaker-system was for example used when Pink Floyd performed "The Wall" live in Berlin 1990...????

 

I'm sure you would have loved to listen to one of my speaker demos...????

I have an ear to ear grin right now after reading that and could comment (and ask questions because I’m geeky like that) on so many things.

 

Interesting that you seem to be in the “speaker cables don’t matter” camp.  There were always some posters over on Audiogon who swore up and down that lampcord was every bit as good as high end cables. Personally, I think that speaker cable makes a bit of a difference.  I noticed when switching from Audioquest Type 4 to DHLabs Silver Sonic Q10 that there was an obvious improvement (for my ears and preferred music), but not as much of an improvement compared to upgrading RCA interconnects.  Both were biwired from either a Bryston B60 or Electrocompaniet ECI-3 to B&W CDM1nt speakers (and a Martin Logan Grotto sub).  All my digital front ends were various upper level mass market dvd/cd/SACD players (Sony/Philips/Denon).  A decent budget setup but nothing like what you were listening to.

 

With regards to vinyl, what really “caught my ear” wasn’t the warmth but the absolute holographic sound of the beans circling around the inside of the maracas on Sympathy For The Devil.

 

Also interesting is what you guys were using for your reference albums back then.  I’m a huge Pink Floyd fan.  I think you’d be impressed by some of the more modern recordings.  Beck’s “Sea Change” is a real sonic treat.

[khunPer]

On 6/28/2019 at 12:24 PM, Airalee said:

I have an ear to ear grin right now after reading that and could comment (and ask questions because I’m geeky like that) on so many things.

 

Interesting that you seem to be in the “speaker cables don’t matter” camp.  There were always some posters over on Audiogon who swore up and down that lampcord was every bit as good as high end cables. Personally, I think that speaker cable makes a bit of a difference.  I noticed when switching from Audioquest Type 4 to DHLabs Silver Sonic Q10 that there was an obvious improvement (for my ears and preferred music), but not as much of an improvement compared to upgrading RCA interconnects.  Both were biwired from either a Bryston B60 or Electrocompaniet ECI-3 to B&W CDM1nt speakers (and a Martin Logan Grotto sub).  All my digital front ends were various upper level mass market dvd/cd/SACD players (Sony/Philips/Denon).  A decent budget setup but nothing like what you were listening to.

 

With regards to vinyl, what really “caught my ear” wasn’t the warmth but the absolute holographic sound of the beans circling around the inside of the maracas on Sympathy For The Devil.

 

Also interesting is what you guys were using for your reference albums back then.  I’m a huge Pink Floyd fan.  I think you’d be impressed by some of the more modern recordings.  Beck’s “Sea Change” is a real sonic treat.

Thanks for your reply.

 

»Interesting that you seem to be in the “speaker cables don’t matter” camp.«

I didn't make any impressions about my camp on speaker cables. It's little "off topic" from Universal's tape storage, however a major part of recorded music.

 

Speaker cables does matter, but might not be in the way some audiophile folks thought.

 

I remember my girlfriend's friend's boyfriend around 1980 had invested the better part of his income in a hi-fi set up – i.e. Linn Sondek turntable, reasonable amplifier, a pair of fancy trapez shaped speakers on spikes – and his last several paychecks seemed all exchanged for "Monster Cable", a by that time fairly new and relative expensive thick speaker cable. "Better part" I believe, as there were no money left for furniture, just pillows on the floor; or parhaps that was another late hippie-age trend. What caught my eyes, as already little experienced in pro music and studio business, was his extra long Monster Cables that he did not wish to cut, in case moving to larger premises, so the excess cable meters were nicely rolled in two large coils behind each speaker. I didn't say anything, he was so proud of his speaker's sound, and his speaker cables.

 

There was at that time talk about an audio freak – I didn't met him – that had stripped the isolation of his speaker cables to improve the sound. Weird move, my pro colleges said – that fellow might for sure be a bit to a side – but perhaps ha was just much more cleaver than we professionals...????

 

The well reputed pro audio magazine "Studio Sound" decided to make the "mother" of all speaker cable tests, inviting both leading hi-fi reviewers, that had so fine ears that they could hear every little fine minor detail of growing grass, and engineers, to the final speaker cable test. The selection of cables were British standard telephone wire (the thin solid core, i.e. ringing bell type), standard British 0.75 square mains cable, and a selection of hi-end speaker cables, including Monster Cable and a number of other brands (I cannot remember by heart), plus a new Swedish relative thin hi-fi speaker cable with a layer of silver on the copper cores – probably similar to "DHLabs Silver Sonic" – and the professional "Connectronics" speaker cable that I was agent for in Denmark, a 2 x 2.5 square reasonable "oxygen free" copper, but a very affordable cable, in price light-years apart from hi-end hi-fi speaker cables.

 

It's common sense, that the metal conductor, i.e. copper, and the square is even proportional with the current, so for a high powered system a certain size of cable is needed, basically down to a calculation of ampere in AC-peaks limited only by the mains supply, and the size of amplifier condensers' power storage capacity. So in theory a telephone core shall be of less quality to a 0.75 mains cable, which again shall be of less quality to a cable with a thicker square when used for high power ratings. But apart from that, most speaker tests seemed to be very subjective, especially as the human brain can only remember sound in seconds; maybe 10 seconds, perhaps some can recall a sound impression up to a minute or two. It's different with film or video, where you can say, did you see the white spot? Where? You can stop the film, or tape, a find the frame that actually had a small white spot. Now I see! You cannot stop audio and inspect a 24th or a 50th of a second. (You can actually today inspect the sine wave of digital audio, and see if there is a hole, even you might not be able to "hear it", or clip, or...)

 

The Studio Sound test was divided into three parts: subjective listening test, blind folded listening test, and engineer's measuring. At the subjective test, there were almost no limits of what the hi-fi reviewer's could hear of difference between the known speaker cables. Of course telephone core came in last, followed by mains cable, and the cheap pro cable, with the well branded speaker cables in almost equal top positions. After a break – to relax their ears, and especially brains – followed the blind test, where the listeners didn't not know which cables were used. Again telephone core came in last, but surprisingly followed by the major speaker cable brands – including Monster Cable – and standard mains cable, the cheap Connectronics pro cable was number two, and the Swedish "silver-plated" copper became the winner.

 

Now the engineers proved that there is a scientific difference in speaker cables – apart from the size of the copper square – and that difference is: condenser effect. The cable isolation, typical PVC, in contact with the metal core makes the cable a condenser – and we all know what a condenser do in a speaker crossover – where the thin silver layer between the copper core and the PVC-isolation limited, or eliminated, the condenser effect; i.e. the Swedish winner in the blind folded audio test. The polymers in the Connectronic's PVC inner isolation had, probably by coincidence, a similar effect, and so in the standard British mains cable. That of course generated some interest for the Connectronics cable in my area, but the hi-fi retailers wanted the price to be at least ten-times higher, as it was way "too cheap" for their audiophile customers. Unfortunately we could not do that, i.e. if you're hi-fi listener, you shall be welcome to pay 10 times the normal price...

 

It's kind of the same theory with gold plated plugs, both speaker connections and RCA-phono plugs, that connection shall be of same metal; however it seemed like no one could hear any difference in blind tests. However, gold plated connectors gives optimal conductivity, compared to metal that can corrode, so it make sense to use it anyway.

 

The strange fellow that had peeled the isolation off his speaker cables, were in fact a rather cleaver, and cool guy...????

 

In the pro-section we also had 6 x 2.5 square and 6 x 4 square cables for flying 3-way active high power speaker rigs for example at festivals; the latter might be a potential solution for optimal bi-wiring...????

 

The discussion and tests, and explanations – I've seen some that seem to originate from both Neptun and Pluto, or even further out in space – will go on, and something hard to believe now, might show to be absolutely correct in the future. And subjective test are important, because there is a difference, and that difference is mainly between pro audio – where for example the monitors in a studio control room is a tool that shall be linear and fully trustworthy – and domestic equipment, where the sound is correct only when the listener, often the owner, is happy, and feel it's perfect sound; and so it is, no matter what others might think or say, or hi-fi reviewers write.

 

And a'propos explanations from "outer space", they actually can make a great sound – believe it or not – but that's a different story...????

 

I'm by the way pretty much into "contemporary" music, and enjoy the sound and mix, and re-mix, of present hits – but occasionally it happens I do listen to one of my old favorites, like "Sympathy for the Devil"...????