Audiophiles should learn from people who created audio

And since we are at it, here are my systems:

Main system
Chromecast Audio/TV/BD player+Quad 33/606-2+Quad 2805+B&W PV1d/Antimode 8033
I still have a Quad FM3 tuner but it is no longer used (replaced by internet radio). Similarly, the Linn Sondek/SME combination sits idly, waiting to be sold off.

Home office system
PC+ODAC+Emotiva Control Freak+12 dB inline attenuators+Quad 405-2+Harbeth P3ESR. Mildly equalized with REW to cope with a slight bass hump from the proximity of the desktop.

Bedroom
Chromecast Audio/Ava Maestro 50/Wharfedale Diamond 9.0
The beauty of this system is that the tiny amplifier does not only have an optical input, but also an auto on/off. So it can sit out of sight in the wardrobe, turned on and off by the signal from the Chromecast.

Finally, I have a Tivoli Radio 2 for in my university office, with a computer into a Behringer UCA 202 external usb DAC as its source. I also take it with me on my extended research trips abroad. I cannot live without good music, but institutional accommodation never has an audio system and this is the largest/heaviest that I can take.

None of these use fancy cables.

Statistically half of the rigs must be average to mediocre; the cable skeptics largely do the job of creating those systems. 

+1, douglas_schroeder. More tan likely they are listening to a system that usually lacks soul in the music, IMHO.

OP’s referenced article by Mr. Russel is, in my opinion, a well written, well researched, fairly scientific based article. It is all about why basic cable, that meets appropriate impedance, length and connection requirements, is all you need and you can’t expect real improvements in audio quality regardless of how much you spend on "wire-bling."

I’d like to see an opposing article (not written by someone "in the business" or a reviewer paid to do it) that lays out the science of how exotic cable works and why. Bet it doesn’t exist. And for good reason...there is no science....just perception.