Moog Matriarch into MBL 6010d. Advice sought.

Been asked by a client to make some cables to connect his Moog Matriarch synth directly into his MBL 6010d pre.

Taking instrument output voltage (1-14v) into account I expressed my concerns to him regarding potential voltage/impedance mismatch and suggested placing a basic instrument mixing console with a line-level output in between to facilitate the most efficient/safe signal path.
There are also input attenuation pots on his pre, but still.

Over-cautious approach or just risk it for a biscuit?

 

He won't need specialized cables with a mixer in the path, and then you're out of a job. Warn him of the potential problems and maybe instruct him on setting safe levels with the attenuation pots and then charge mega bucks for the cable because it's custom and he has an MBL preamp and is therefore loaded.

 

LOL
I like to think I am an 'ethical' supplier and offer value for money compared to some other ludicrously-priced boutique cable peddlers. But don't get me started on that!

I already advised him to contact MBL for clarification but advised him to set the attenuator pots on the lowest setting before cranking up the volume if he eventually just orders some cables.

That MBL gear is (*expletive*) expensive! :O
I don't know much about them as they also look pretty 'boutique'.
Is it any good or is it just all blingy packaging?

 

I've only heard MBL equipment at shows with all TOTL MBL components, including beautiful, monstrous speakers that wouldn't fit in any room of my house by themselves, usually with a million dollar vinyl playback setup supplying the music. So not a great point of reference, but it has always sounded amazing. Who knows what kind of sound you could get throwing that much money at a setup with any number of brands though.

I think what you're doing is good. It's good to be ethical and not make claims about the supernatural yet undetectable properties of your product, however I have no problem charging more to people who make special requests and are known to have the means.
I spent about 7 years as an independent contractor in the 2000's doing mostly specialty/custom interior house painting for rich folks in Chicago. I started out as the cheapest doing what I did, and I like to think I did good work, but I noticed that the more I charged, the happier the customers were with the work, so I eventually became very expensive, then it all ended with the financial collapse in 2008 and I moved on to other things. But it was an important lesson I learned about rich people, and maybe people in general, they feel better about the quality of a purchase simply because it costs more than other products in the same category. While it's not universally true, this tendency is definitely evident in the audiophile world, and I'm sure I've fallen prey to it myself. Not arguing for you to do it, but giving an explanation as to why I would personally be ok with it.

 

You just defined the 'law of diminishing returns' which is something I actually cite in my advertising blurb; 'more expensive does NOT mean better'.

I get what you're saying and agree in general - rich folks do seem to generally have an entirely different value-set to most 'normal' folks, such as me and you perhaps. But while that might be a thing in that particular echelon, providing a real and genuine value stream to both myself and my loyal and often repeat-customers is not something I'm going to deviate from any time soon.

It actually angers me when I see some of these boutique cables-makers products and what they charge for them.
I'd LOVE to name and shame a few specific outfits as I know explicitly what goes into their products, or rather what I know does NOT go into their products to justify the ridiculous mark-up but it's against forum rules and I don't really want to be accused of mud-slinging.

The value-for-money aspect is what inspires me to do what I'm doing and operate how I'm operating and at the moment things are going well by following this philosophy.
I might not appeal to that higher echelon because of my pricing structure but at least I'm being genuine and not ripping people off unecessarily. The most significant cost component that goes into the cables is the time it takes to make them and time in itself is a precious commodity. It's the most valuable thing you can give anyone in my opinion and if you can give it for free then the value to the recipient is unquestionable and assured, whatever that time is used for.
I don't charge lawyer-type fees. I could, but I won't.

 

This article in the Atlantic about New Jersey wine beating out French wine in a blind test by expert sommeliers would back this principle up, in it, it is stated, "Study after study has shown that people enjoy a wine more the more the pay for it."

"If someone believes a wine to be of high quality—if they view its producer as truly high-end—it ends up tasting better to them. 'Marketers cannot assume,' the authors of one 2008 study in the Journal of Wine Economics wrote, “that intrinsic product attributes, even when experienced, will be weighted and interpreted accurately by consumers.”

"Since price is a strong predictor of enjoyment, one could make the argument that the wine industry is actually set up according to a certain logic: People pay more to buy the products they end up enjoying more."

Not far off base for something as subjective as audio as well, although we all like to think we know better!

 

Interesting.
However, on reading one of those 'studies' I instantly spotted a potential caveat in the testing methodology:

'Most of the tasters were either MBA students at the Graduate School of Business of the Univer-
sity of Chicago or its alumni, alumnae, and their companions'

I'd suggest this instantly marginalises the test subjects into a narrow cross-section of the wine-consuming public and renders the test as not really representative or authoritative, wouldn't you?
Reading further I just became more and more unconvinced of the test conditions and criteria.

Now, I don't want to be judgemental or generalist but I like to think of my clientele as intelligent, articulate, thoughtful, insightful and with a strong sense of quality levied agaisnt price and belonging to no particular social echelon other than to say that they recognise audio quality from audio bullsh!t.

To give you a clear and verified example... (and I'm running the knife-edge of being accused of shilling my products now) .... I currently make 2 cable models which could justifiably be considered as clones. Not outright copies mind, but clones of 2 very expensive cables as made by others.
One is a signal cable; a clone of The Indigo Plus XLR made and sold by Chord for a LOT of money, to be precise; a magnitude of 10 compared to the price I sell my version for.

During development I decided to replicate the cable geometry using what I considered to be better components. I managed to get hold of a pair of the real Chord cables in order to do a reverse-engineering exercise and subsequent direct technical comparison.
On completion and testing I decided for myself that my cables performed better but of course this is nowhere near acceptable enough when you're in a market where you need to convince die-hard audiophiles as well as Chord fans. So I decided to conduct bllind tests amongst friends and aquaintances.
The result - my cables came out top every single time!
I was actually expecting it to go the other way as I was sceptical even of my own product, thinking 'better/more experienced ears' would really be able to tell the difference. But no, I was pleasantly....let me correct that...I was overwhelmingly surprised by the results!

The net result is that I had owners of Chord cables trading in their expensive cables for mine, realising a better synergy / sonic result and making a profit in the process! WIN WIN!

The other cable is a clone of Audioquests 'Thunder' power cable and the above observation also applies.

In conclusion, you can test all you want but the proof is in the pudding. Especially when you identify and utilise your target market correctly and under adequate/verifiable conditions.

 

If you're looking for a more bulletproof study, again on wine, this time on the effect of labels on associations of taste, take a look at this one.

The study found "a white wine artificially colored red with an odorless dye was olfactory described as a red wine by a panel of 54 tasters." top kek.

As well, according to the Guardian, the same study found that "when tasting a supposedly superior wine [what was a control wine, only with a grand cru label], their language was more positive – describing it as complex, balanced, long and woody. When the same wine was presented as plonk [or with an inexpensive label], the critics were more likely to use negatives such as weak, light and flat."

And here's another study that found the same as above, but only "for individuals with wine training", it found that in these supposed experts "indications of a positive relationship between price and enjoyment" existed.

The mind is a powerful thing, not to be underestimated.