DO CABLES REALLY MATTER?

The more difficult the problem is to solve, the more fundamental the error in the formulation of the question.

A restatement of the last line in my prior post.

Which is, in turn, a restatement of the Aldous Huxley quote.

I don’t get into the science project answers! So anyone please don’t get upset if it seems like I don’t answer your question.  The bottom line is that it has been my experience when I put random cheap cable in I lose fidelity to my ears. It may be a change in the sound. I like an open midrange tight bass and extended highs. Some cables do that in my system. I’m going to like those more. I started this thread because at the end of the day cables matter. To some they matter because they change what we hear. For others it drives them nuts because some of us in their eyes spend too much for zero improvement based on what they hear or can’t hear. Some of us would rather spend more on equipment or tweaks. I enjoy what my cables do and I can tell the difference. To each his own. I’m not hear for case study. I enjoy the tunes. You should too cables or not!

@teo_audio  Thank you for another value laden post.

+1 "If you watch yourself carefully you can see it in action."

@david_ten

I honestly don’t know if you were serious in giving teo’s posts props, given I have yet to see anything but what looks like irrelevant (or specious) drive-by philosophizing from him. Though I may certainly have missed some excellent posts by teo, virtually all I’ve seen (at least in these types of threads) fall pretty heavily into the geoffkait category.

What I see are vague attempts at establishing some elitism for those who
believe the tweakier side of high end audio - various versions of "those poor skeptical souls are unenlightened." E.g.:

It’s why we have such threads as cable debates. Some people live with an outward projection only, and some have a two way path of awareness, which is what is required to build a self beyond the basics.

And some of those who don’t like what skeptics have to say seem to fall for Teo’s faux-philosophical tone, noticing it’s disparagement of critics supports their own feelings, and think "wow...deep...and so right!"

But what I haven’t actually seen from Teo is an actual cogent argument, that would show his points are directly pertinent to, or act as an actually justified critique, of anyone’s points.  In other words: I've yet to see Teo do anything other than raise vague strawmen.

But...hey...I could be wrong. Is Teo doing anything other than appealing to people’s biases with his vague put-downs of skepticism?

Can you point to the relevance of anything teo just wrote to anything I’ve written. Anything that shows I’ve claimed something untrue, or unreasonable, for instance?

You’ll pardon me for saying so, but there seems to be a very fine line between satire, sarcasm and pseudo skepticism on this thread recently. Would it be asking too much to make more liberal use of emojis to ensure everyone understands if you’re serious or sarcastic or whatever?