[Giblets]

I am most definitly not an expert, but one thing I am pretty sure of is that the improvement vs price graph is most definitly going to be a sigmoid curve.

I know a speaker cable costing 10p a metre will be crap compared to one costing £5/m, but £5m vs £10/m? Or £50/m vs £100/m?

Whatever product you buy, the cheapo ones will be bad, and there will be a huge improvement above a certain price, then its the law of diminishing returns. Ultimately there will be a few bargains, or dogs in there, but I think its a good rule to use. You just need to know where the improvements really start to come in.

[marscay]

Exotic HDMI and Optical cables are the biggest con ever.

When you think about how digital cables even work the thought that any cable can alter sound/picture properties for better or worse apart from providing a clean or dirty signal is just absurd.

Even the suggestion that exotic phono/RCA cables which cost more than £15/m offer real benefits to the average person is open to real debate imho, my system is far from real high end - Beresford 7520 DAC with modded opamps --> Arcam A90+P90 bi-amped into Monitor Audio GR20 floorstanders but as you can appreciate it's pretty nice gear all the same ....anyway i've tried about 4-5 different interconnects ranging from £10 upto £60 (Chord/VDH/Blue Jeans) and so far i've yet to find anything which sounds even remotely different from each other.

[dovercat]

Well what hifi forum seems to burn people at the stake for claiming there is no difference between interconnectors analogue and digital, speaker cables, power cables, even audiophile grade plug fuses. So I guess not many of you post there.

Oddly they seem unintrested in speaker placement or room acoustics. Strange lot.

[marscay]

Originally Posted by dovercat

Well what hifi forum seems to burn people at the stake for claiming there is no difference between interconnectors analogue and digital, speaker cables, power cables, even audiophile grade plug fuses. So I guess not many of you post there.

Oddly they seem unintrested in speaker placement or room acoustics. Strange lot.

yep and i think you can draw you're own conclusions on that one, i've spent a bit of time trawling through their forums in the past and i'm almost convinced their regular forum posters are nothing but shills.

[Giblets]

Think they should ensure full 'blind' tests for their products (except of course for the practical aspects of the kit, like aesthetics and remote control usage etc), might increase the likely hood of people buying into what they say.

[davepuma]

Originally Posted by marscay

yep and i think you can draw you're own conclusions on that one, i've spent a bit of time trawling through their forums in the past and i'm almost convinced their regular forum posters are nothing but shills.

Unfortunately I agree with that statement. I have noticed a few posters that simply regurgitate what is said by the reviewers and seem to own every single 5* amp/cable/speakers/BD player/TV that is flavour of the month and when anyone suggests anything else, they're straight on there slating it and recommending anything that has been given a 5* review by their favourite mag. Cables and Sony products seem to be the main culprits. My suspicions were more or less confirmed when I noticed one poster that bought and recommended something that I had only read about in WHF and their purchase was almost immediate after the mag hit the shelves and a glowing review appeared on the site. It was obvious to me anyway! Either some of them are very blinkered and use WHF exclusively as a basis for their purchases or are indeed 'shills'. I have read posts asking for staff to comment and they don't bother, probably because they simply don't know the answer. Some of the staff answers are also pretty rude too. You will also find some of the suspected 'shills' posting in the 'About the mag' forum defending the mag at all costs when someone dares to question or criticise them. Why, I often ask?

[McFaber]

Originally Posted by marscay

Exotic HDMI and Optical cables are the biggest con ever.

When you think about how digital cables even work the thought that any cable can alter sound/picture properties for better or worse apart from providing a clean or dirty signal is just absurd.

Even the suggestion that exotic phono/RCA cables which cost more than £15/m offer real benefits to the average person is open to real debate imho, my system is far from real high end - Beresford 7520 DAC with modded opamps --> Arcam A90+P90 bi-amped into Monitor Audio GR20 floorstanders but as you can appreciate it's pretty nice gear all the same ....anyway i've tried about 4-5 different interconnects ranging from £10 upto £60 (Chord/VDH/Blue Jeans) and so far i've yet to find anything which sounds even remotely different from each other.

Maybe you need to spend a bit more.

I've recently been down the same road testing many cables from a couple of the brands you've mentioned...I found the differences between some of the cables to be quite distinct, hence each brand had more or less added a flavour or two to the overall sound, call it colouring the sound if you may.

[marscay]

Originally Posted by Manxstar

Maybe you need to spend a bit more.

I've recently been down the same road testing many cables from a couple of the brands you've mentioned...I found the differences between some of the cables to be quite distinct, hence each brand had more or less added a flavour or two to the overall sound, call it colouring the sound if you may.

how do you perform your cable testing if you don't mind me asking?

i've got 2 line outs from my 7520 DAC into my amps so i can switch inputs at the press of a button whilst playing tracks.

i know my Arcam amps aren't worth 5k a pop but they're still 1.5k between them at full retail so they're not junk and my GR20 speakers definitely aren't lightweights ......i mean changing DAC's is an immediate difference to the sound signature as is experimenting with opamps in the DAC yet cables are so far proving a waste of time.

[Avi]

Originally Posted by dovercat

Well what hifi forum seems to burn people at the stake for claiming there is no difference between interconnectors analogue and digital, speaker cables, power cables, even audiophile grade plug fuses. So I guess not many of you post there.

Oddly they seem unintrested in speaker placement or room acoustics. Strange lot.

I got banned because I pushed the issue of how HDMI cables produce the result they describe over short runs. They don't appear very interested in educating consumers beyond buying their magazine. Also it appears there is little if any objective data or science applied just pure subjective opinion and abuse if your dare to question.

Some of their "tests" can appear interesting such as "The big question of Upscaling which kit does it best ?" in the April 09 issue. The idea being is the player, AVR or display better at "upscaling" DVD which I guess really means video processing as the upscaling involves a number of video processes. Interestingly there is no mention whatsoever about deinterlacing (the critical process prior to interpolating resolution) and all the player appear set to progressive (576p) output even though most offered 576i output over HDMI allowing the other products on test to deinterlace. As such the test is flawed because all the devices are limited by the players deinterlacing performance which does vary from product to product..... Experts

AVI

[McFaber]

Originally Posted by marscay

how do you perform your cable testing if you don't mind me asking?

i've got 2 line outs from my 7520 DAC into my amps so i can switch inputs at the press of a button whilst playing tracks.

i know my Arcam amps aren't worth 5k a pop but they're still 1.5k between them at full retail so they're not junk and my GR20 speakers definitely aren't lightweights ......i mean changing DAC's is an immediate difference to the sound signature as is experimenting with opamps in the DAC yet cables are so far proving a waste of time.

I test the interactions between pre/pro to amp and then with the same cable CD>pre/pro, but I make sure I'm using with an older cable that I know well.

[marscay]

Originally Posted by Manxstar

I test the interactions between pre/pro to amp and then with the same cable CD>pre/pro, but I make sure I'm using with an older cable that I know well.

which interconnects are you using right now?? and have you used the Chord Chrimson/Cobra IC's ...thoughts??

Originally Posted by Manxstar

Maybe you need to spend a bit more.

i don't think price has anything to do with it apart from higher profit margins for the manufacturers and an increased expectancy from the user that there is improvement.

[McFaber]

Originally Posted by marscay

which interconnects are you using right now?? and have you used the Chord Chrimson/Cobra IC's ...thoughts??

I'm using Chord Cobra 3 and Nordost Blue Heaven right now. Imo, the Chord Cobra 3 is a softer sounding cable and an ideal cable for taming bright or clinical sounding components; such as my Sony ES cdp.
The Nordost BH, which was loaned from a friend is ideal for one wanting a bit more oomph down the bottom end. Some say the Nordost BR is quite bright, and again imo, it didn't sound like this in my set-up, I did however think it was over emphasizing the lower frequencies.

i don't think price has anything to do with it apart from higher profit margins for the manufacturers and an increased expectancy from the user that there is improvement.

One could say that about most Hifi.

[IWC Dopplel]

Originally Posted by marscay

Exotic HDMI and Optical cables are the biggest con ever.

When you think about how digital cables even work the thought that any cable can alter sound/picture properties for better or worse apart from providing a clean or dirty signal is just absurd.

Even the suggestion that exotic phono/RCA cables which cost more than £15/m offer real benefits to the average person is open to real debate imho, my system is far from real high end - Beresford 7520 DAC with modded opamps --> Arcam A90+P90 bi-amped into Monitor Audio GR20 floorstanders but as you can appreciate it's pretty nice gear all the same ....anyway i've tried about 4-5 different interconnects ranging from £10 upto £60 (Chord/VDH/Blue Jeans) and so far i've yet to find anything which sounds even remotely different from each other.

I have spent some time exeperimenting and will be doing the same this weekend looking at different interconnects. why some may ask ! Well in my 2 channel they do make a repateatable and consistent difference. Lets be honest if they did'nt the cable industry would of died away.

I have at home Chord Cobra's currently in service, a set of Blue Jeans and a pair of vandenhul D102 MkII interconnects.

I have experiemented with the VDH and just swapping the two channels onthe fronts between the BR and Processor made an audible difference. I preferred the cheaper Chord in this situation but the difference was noticeable.

If you don't hear a difference or it doesn't warrant the cost then don't buy it.

I have posted my findings and I hope others will too. There is no magic about different cables any more than magic between different components with the same value (eg resistors and capacitors) but they do often sound different, sometimes alarmingly sometimes very little difference.

I am prepared to stick my neck out and say agian honestly that comparing the sound of a pair of Naim NAC A5 cables to wire the fronts made more of a difference than using the P1 to drive the center channel vs one of the P7 channels.

Both made an improvement but the speaker cable I had been using (QED silver annisersary) simply sounded worse than the naim or the naim better however you want to present the results ! and the level of improvement of the cable was greater than the P1 driving the center channel in this situation.

If you don't try you won't know. In this case we both have the same interconnect cables and ended up with different results !

[Tone-uk]

Whilst people should spend their money as they please, some of the cables are simple too much - surely??? I really fail to see how it is possible to charge so much. What is so specifically great about them. I not talking about how they perform to the individuals ear but, what work goes into making them and the cost of making them? Is it that demand is so low that prices are inflated? If so then they have to be only viewed as a luxury that promises nothing but exclusivity. If you want exclusivity then cool and some of them look really nice too.

The terminology manufacturers use is crazy talk to me. Copper is copper surely? One cable might sound differently if it has more or less copper and that's about it. You can strand it, have it solid etc but it remains as copper.

So, why are these cables so much better than say 2.5mm twin and earth?
Help me to understand

[IWC Dopplel]

Originally Posted by Tone-uk

Whilst people should spend their money as they please, some of the cables are simple too much - surely??? I really fail to see how it is possible to charge so much. What is so specifically great about them. I not talking about how they perform to the individuals ear but, what work goes into making them and the cost of making them? Is it that demand is so low that prices are inflated? If so then they have to be only viewed as a luxury that promises nothing but exclusivity. If you want exclusivity then cool and some of them look really nice too.

The terminology manufacturers use is crazy talk to me. Copper is copper surely? One cable might sound differently if it has more or less copper and that's about it. You can strand it, have it solid etc but it remains as copper.

So, why are these cables so much better than say 2.5mm twin and earth?
Help me to understand

Tone UK, I understand your question but the answer is tricky

The truth is I am not sure anyone FULLY understands... I have heard many different systems and many different pieces of equipment and a lot of different cables. One thing for me is reality is that there are differences

Price is NO guarantee of success. As already noted I have tried many, many different cables over the years in two channel, far less with AV. But the rules still apply, materials, coatings, construction all do something to a lesser and greater extent. Some things come in and go out of favour - solid core, silver coatings, litz construction etc, etc. Listen evaluate and decide.

There is the 'skin' effect that looks at the frequency differences and the fact that a lot of current and voltage travels at the edge of a wire, capacitance, resistance and inductance, RF, etc etc

I have experimented a lot with crossover components in my two channel system and this opens your eyes to how much components can influence the sound.....

I do know a LOT of expensive cables are very high margin and marketed on the back of rubbish. I also know that some cable is very expensive to manufacture - low volumes, the cost of manufacture, the costs of materials etc, etc

I have a very good personal friend that manufactures very high end valve amps. He is the most knowledgeable guy I know on valve circuit design and components. He imports a number of unaffordable cables and even makes his own speaker cables to order. He said he could order a reel for me if I wanted to experiment, the cable cost to him from a company in the Netherlands was 1,900 Euros for a 50m reel. He then needs to make them up into speakers cables (one channel will need two lengths).....

I suspect they would sound no better or possibly worse in my AV system than much cheaper copper. They are very high grade silver and a lot of the components in his amps use similar materials. I have heard but never substantiated that systems can sound fabulous using sliver components and cables, but I do know that a lot of silver plated cables tend to sound a bit bright and thin in normal systems

So what's the point of my ramble ?

Well, you can avoid the question of why and simply try and evaluate like anything else. Cables will not perform miracles BUT if you put really low quality (note I did not mention price) in you could be losing a lot of system performance.

[scorpion88]

I have just been browsing this thread and remember seeing a range of 'kettle cables' priced at £150 - £300 in whfi with all sorts of 'exotic' claims.

Are these really worth more than my CD player? Perhaps they are - I don't know but I would not buy one.

[Avi]

Is it possible to perform a detailed real time analysis of the sound produced and compare what affect each cable has using the same source material ?

Some interesting articles on cable here - http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/

AVI

[scorpion88]

Originally Posted by Avi

Is it possible to perform a detailed real time analysis of the sound produced and compare what affect each cable has using the same source material ?

Some interesting articles on cable here - Cables and Interconnects — Reviews and News from Audioholics

AVI

I read the cable gauge article (AWG). Are you really telling me that the average consumer with say a £1,000 system is going to relate to that and thereafter pick up audible differences and inhabit specialist audiophile stores, alter their system and think great what a difference and keep spending to infinity and invite their friends around who will also say wow! that sound s incredible.

Of course all is revealed by sitting down and discussing the graphs

[scorpion88]

Will the Russ Andrews kettle Cables boil your water at greater speed.

[William YZF-R1]

Originally Posted by scorpion88

Will the Russ Andrews kettle Cables boil your water at greater speed.

Dunno about faster but it will filter the water won't it?

[IWC Dopplel]

Originally Posted by scorpion88

I read the cable gauge article (AWG). Are you really telling me that the average consumer with say a £1,000 system is going to relate to that and thereafter pick up audible differences and inhabit specialist audiophile stores, alter their system and think great what a difference and keep spending to infinity and invite their friends around who will also say wow! that sound s incredible.

Of course all is revealed by sitting down and discussing the graphs

If your system is a £1000 worth and you need 60m + of cable you will need to buy a quality cable as cheaply as you can even at £2 per meter before termination thats over 10% of the cost of the equipment. Your choices are somewhat limited.

If you have £10,000 worth of kit then there is a decision to make, maybe a cable at £10 per meter is a better but than a £2 per meter alternative. Then again maybe not. Would you be silly not to try ?

[scorpion88]

I think 60m of cable would be a tad too much for the average house. For that matter 6m per speaker could be excessive.

Conversley some mansions may require 600m with flotation to transverse the swimming pool.

[dovercat]

How different are the electrical properties of these different speaker cables or analogue interconnectors? I can see how they could make a difference if they have radically different resistance etc...

But they do not generate electricity or enhance the signal so I would of thought there would be a point where you are getting as good as you can get. I would expect this point to be rapidly met with low cost cables and easily measurable.

Using over spec cables that have no real effect or cables that are altering the sound quality by making it less true to source strikes me as odd.


Power conditioners and shielding on power cables and interconnectors might stop interferrence to/from other cables or from the mains, if it is present to start with, which I expect it usually is not.


I do not see how power cables, digital interconnectors including hdmi and according to what hifi even hifi racks alter the tonal balance of the sound. Also apparantly image quality from the colours to the sharpness to how smooth motion appears.

Some of the claims for these only seem to make sense to me if they are comparing using the accessory to not using anything, the soundstage is bigger - in comparison to the silence of not having the cd player connected to the amp, or not plugged into the wall. The motion is smother the image sharper and colours more realistic in comparison to the black screen of not connecting the blu-ray player to the display. But from the reviews it is obvious they are talking about real perceived improvements vs lower cost accessories.

Do sound and image have properties undefinable and unmeasurable by modern science, yet easily perceived by the reviewers? At least as long as it is not a double blind test.


Speakers, speaker placement and room acoustics I would expect to have the biggest effect on sound quality. In most living rooms the room acoustics and position of your head probably have the biggest impact on sound quality.

[ryart]

Originally Posted by dovercat

Using over spec cables that have no real effect or cables that are altering the sound quality by making it less true to source strikes me as odd.

Speakers, speaker placement and room acoustics I would expect to have the biggest effect on sound quality. In most living rooms the room acoustics and position of your head probably have the biggest impact on sound quality.

IME your second point is very valid.

As for your first point, it may sound odd but we have to take account of the fact that sound reproduction does involve a lot of compromises, especially at the speaker end of things. The more revealing and "realistic" sounding the system the more it is liable to reveal said compromises. Cable can be a way of tuning out those compromises to make for a more musically satisfying experience.

Also, some of the sounds an orchestra makes can be quite harsh, but listening live it is acceptable because we can see them playing and we know that it is real. At home, without the visual element, that harshness can be off-putting and to make the sound closer to how we imagine/remember it may mean a departure from the sound being true to source.

My main beef with reviewers in general is that when they express the differences in sound between products they rarely mention how much difference there is likely to be, and in partnership with which equipment those differences are likely to be discernible.

[ryart]

Originally Posted by IWC Dopplel

If you don't try you won't know.

Exactly right.

So many base their opinions on what they think the result should be rather than taking the trouble to try things for themselves. Let the theories and reviews act as guides to where to start, but in the last analysis cables can only really be assessed in your own home with your own equipment and with your own ears listening to your preferred type of music. Change just one of these elements and the results could, as you say, be opposite.

[MarkTaylor]

OK, done a little tidying up in this thread.

Remember, debate the ideas not the people expressing the ideas and all will remain friendly

[IWC Dopplel]

Originally Posted by dovercat

How different are the electrical properties of these different speaker cables or analogue interconnectors? I can see how they could make a difference if they have radically different resistance etc...

But they do not generate electricity or enhance the signal so I would of thought there would be a point where you are getting as good as you can get. I would expect this point to be rapidly met with low cost cables and easily measurable.

Using over spec cables that have no real effect or cables that are altering the sound quality by making it less true to source strikes me as odd.


Power conditioners and shielding on power cables and interconnectors might stop interferrence to/from other cables or from the mains, if it is present to start with, which I expect it usually is not.


I do not see how power cables, digital interconnectors including hdmi and according to what hifi even hifi racks alter the tonal balance of the sound. Also apparantly image quality from the colours to the sharpness to how smooth motion appears.

Some of the claims for these only seem to make sense to me if they are comparing using the accessory to not using anything, the soundstage is bigger - in comparison to the silence of not having the cd player connected to the amp, or not plugged into the wall. The motion is smother the image sharper and colours more realistic in comparison to the black screen of not connecting the blu-ray player to the display. But from the reviews it is obvious they are talking about real perceived improvements vs lower cost accessories.

Do sound and image have properties undefinable and unmeasurable by modern science, yet easily perceived by the reviewers? At least as long as it is not a double blind test.


Speakers, speaker placement and room acoustics I would expect to have the biggest effect on sound quality. In most living rooms the room acoustics and position of your head probably have the biggest impact on sound quality.

Subjectivity plays a part, no question. And taste and preferences too.

For me the test of a system is believability and engagement, not 'detail' in a false sense of the word. If you don't listen to a lot of live instruments, my girlfriend plays the piano, but at home the piano is digital (more practical and cheaper)

If you have an acoustic guitar, play a chord loudly in your room. I would be surprised if the depth and weight together with the clear dynamic transients is replayed by the system with the same sense of speed and scale. I don't mean record and play back just see how this compares considering what makes this sound more real than the sounds from your system.

To combine real body and depth of tone with speed and the appropriate detail is not easy. Only the very best systems can really recreate the sense of scale of a guitar, let alone a piano or an orchestra or band. Oh and listen to a violin played in room, well played they sound anything but shrill, all the detail and subtlety is there but not exaggerated. Hell they have body and depth of tone too.

Most equipment is a compromise in design simply due to cost and time. The designers will need to please the marketing guys too......

Some products are designed to appeal in the dem room. Exaggerating higher frequencies to appear as though they are finding more detail from the recording. Do try and reference to how things really do sound and not get drawn or misled. Moving on to 'expensive accessories' there will be occasions when your system is close but one small part dissapoints or niggles, it MIGHT be improved with a little more work, be that speaker placement, a new pair of speaker stands, speaker cable, interconnects or other.

The way to think about accessories is set up, they are extra tools that can improve performance or reduce the loss in performance which is the way to look at it.

There is NO magic, no need even to trouble yourself as to why and in a lot of cases no need to spend big money

As to the benefit of snazzy kettle leads I have never tried one But I have been told by people I trust that the differences can be heard

I am going to see for myself I know the quality of the electricity supply makes a difference, I was lucky enough to spend a few hours last year listening to the most impressive system I have ever heard and probably ever will. scale body and clarity was jaw dropping especially in the lower registers, now this was a two channel system that was powered by a room full of batteries above The installation was serious and I didn't even ask how much but looking at the control panel the dozen or more batteries (bigger than I have ever seen) and three phase supply I knew it was more than a snazzy kettle lead....

This made a significant difference and it could be turned off (back to mains) turned on batteries only (about 6 hours continuous for a whole system). So power supply does have an impact ! Oh and he uses expensive kettle leads too, I didn't listen to the system with and without but the recommendation to try them was there.

For me it's all about improving performance and the film experience, if I have to play with accessories and do so with an open mind I will

I do however recognise that there is a LOT of expensive rubbish, or expensive well made products that do very little. I'm looking for things that make a difference and justify the cost.

I remember demming a monstrous Mark Levinson power amp 15-20 years ago. It was exdem and I had read all the reviews, I took it home, it looked fabulous next to my rather insignificant Roberston 4010 amp at the time. BUT the dam thing sounded thin and dull, it just didn't do anything at all interesting..... It looked awesome the spec sheets said how it should drive my panel speakers like no other amp and it sounded, well flat and boring....

I now don't find that unusual. Big specs and high cost give greater opportunity for improved sounds BUT no guarantee. The same is true of things like speaker cables, interconnects or anything else. I have yet to find an interconnect in my two channel system that justifies a cost of over £100. I have heard better at more money but not better enough......

I loved PHY speaker cable when I tried it in my two channel, if it had been a few hundred pounds I would of kept it but it wasn't...... so it went back - better but not better enough .....

I have found a few bargains in the past that made notable improvements for very, very little outlay. I hope to find a few more

[Avi]

Originally Posted by ryart

Cable can be a way of tuning out those compromises to make for a more musically satisfying experience.

What I'm trying to understand is if cable does alter the characteristics of the sound coming from the speaker it must be measurable in terms of comparing the affect of different cable and all else remaining the same. It's then objectively measurable and possible to show the impact of each cable on the same source. My concern would be the power of suggestion and placebo affect which can have a powerful influence on what we perceive.

I believe if you can hear a difference it will be possible to measure the difference with the appropriate tools and expertise. Maybe it would a good test for the Mythbusters to try as I'am not aware of any cable manufacturers having published objective test like this using real world material. The Audioholics article on Pear cable was interesting as it appear to offer Pear the opportunity to objectively prove their claims but they appear to decline????

"In our first article, we looked at the saga of Pear Cables and the challenge by the James Randi Education Foundation to prove that some seriously overpriced Pear Anjou speaker cables made any difference in controlled testing conditions compared to common Monster Cable. Much smack talk ensued from both sides of the challenge, but ultimately, Head Pear Adam Blake turned tail and ran."

AVI

[William YZF-R1]

People have different interests & hobbies, for some it is real top end H-Fi or AV systems. If I were one, then no doubt I would be of the opinion that super serious gear needs super serious cabling, mains filters and interconnects etc to remove any possible constraints or induced limitations.

However, if you do not fall into the above category and instead own what could be loosely termed "budget" gear (and I am one) then I cannot see the point of wasting money on expensive cabling & interconnects.

If the quality isn't there in the first place how can a cable/interconnect add it? If a cable/interconnect can remove imperfections, which is perhaps feasible, then maybe the source needs the attention (ie treat the cause not the symptom).

You just can't get a quart out of a pint pot, or even a linked series of pint pots loosely called a system.

I put my toe in the water with some better speaker cabling and although I honestly wanted to hear a difference I really couldn't, but as I said I have budget equipment.

I remain very sceptical of posts which claim to hear audible differences, punctuated with many descriptive adjectives to explain the different tonal properies of each speaker cable tried especially when its all hooked up to "relatively" cheap Amp/Receiver and modest speakers.

But each to their own, its their money.

Perhaps to bring my post more "On Topic" I should add the question: "How many of the Companies who make a parasitic existence, based upon the unfounded, non scientific claims of the magazines, would still be in business without them?

I would suggest very few, only a few small specialised ones, supplying the TRUE audiophiles whose initial expenditure justifies their need for such cables etc.

My own analogy revolves around Nova's and Chavs. The relevant mags have the nations Chav Nova owners spending and tinkering every weekend but its still a Nova come Monday. It might have the biggest bestest dustbin exhaust but does it sound better to a Veyron owner?

[Avi]

Originally Posted by William YZF-R1

People have different interests & hobbies, for some it is real top end H-Fi or AV systems. If I were one, then no doubt I would be of the opinion that super serious gear needs super serious cabling, mains filters and interconnects etc to remove any possible constraints or induced limitations.

I'm not sure I'd agree that cost is a wise benchmark of quality/proof of performance but I guess it what manufacturers and retailers hope we think especially if using the old % of equipment spend as a rule. I spend a reasonable amount on AV gear but I'd like to think I choose wisely and don't fall prey to snake oil.

Again the easy way for manufacturers to prove the difference/benefit is objective testing but they appear to shy away from this. Why ?

If a company introduced a car and claimed it did 100mpg and 0-60 in 1 sec would we seek proof or just believe because it felt like it did a 100mpg and 0-6 in 1 sec? When a land speed record attempt is made do they measure the speed or just base it what was felt to be the fastest ?

AVI