How much money do you want to waste?

Since I've been so upstage, and pbb fessed up, my cables for you to puruse/pick apart:

NBS Pro IC's
AudioNote Kondo KSL spkr wire
Hovland phono cable

Yes, very expensive, too expensive for me, actually, but they sound great in their context. In other systems they may sound bad, whether that context is an improper system synergy or another listener that can't hear what they are doing because...well, enough of that.

Interestingly, an Electraglide Fat Boy Series I sounded horrid on the Supratek pre and a $100 Discovery PC that I found sitting in a 5yr old box sounds great. So you never know.

Here's how it goes between the objective and subjective in the pursuit of the Music:

Look at the objective factors (material used, construction, configuration); compare those against technology that already seems to show a correlary between configuration and performance; if no correlary, then still keep an open mind because it may be a new and better invention or approach, but also keep in mind the objective incongruency; conduct empiric experiments by inserting the cable into the system and listening for details in an objective way by thinking, then by deepening into the music through by allowing your thinking to dissipate, always remembering that the later observation necessarily requires you to live with the cable longer before reaching a conclusion; compare these results with previous cables that you've listened to in same context as a control; decide, based upon the evidence that you hear, absent any desire to conform to others' expectations or prior pronouncements, which cable allows you to "connect" with the musical message in the way that you are most able.

When you forget about "music", the subjective and the objective evaporate in an "event" of music that is absent both.

The search for the truth, even through objective means, is not attained by a limitation of possibilties, but an openness to them.

Good luck.

Asa, please. You have grotesquely misstated my position, and quite willfully. NOWHERE did I say "it is "baseless" to believe that people listen at varying degrees of "feeling".", nor anything ever remotely close. Nor would I have said that, for I firmly believe otherwise. Of course all abilities, including artistic, vary widely among individuals.

What I take very strong exception to is your oft-repeated implication that the so-called "objectivists" by definition are unable to listen to music, to experience it, to the same depth as you. It's just another refrain of "engineers don't get the music" in more erudite phrasing but it is just as insulting, and yes, baseless. If you have any evidence suggesting a correlation between technical understanding and the inability to experience music (or any form of art) at all levels, please produce it or apologize and retract your assertion.

In the specific instance of cables, I firmly believe that different cables can in fact enhance the listening experience for some. Not from changing the sound, though, for the overwhelming number of cables at any price. Sorry, but we have a very, very thorough understanding of signal propogation at audio frequencies and the parametric differences between most cables will simply not provide an audible change. The total experience goes beyond just the sound, however, and if certain cables allow one to truly experience all depths of the music, that's a good thing.

But perhaps, just perhaps, "objectivists" have no need of such crutches to feel the music.

Hearhere: You continue the Jlambrick heresy! (See post above) Our position has been stated clearly to those with ears to hear. Are you misnamed? The Audiophilic Dialogue is not for beginners! To a rational person our discussion may appear as simply a group of undefined and incoherant buzzwords bantered about to no end. So vacuous as to defy any verifiable statement and, at the same time, contain any intended meaning. Not so! The fault Sir is your own! Your brain, moribund with structure and discipline, is unable to cogitate directly with the aural experience which is the hallmark of the Audiophilic Dialogue.

Proof! you say, I can hear it now.(You EE types are all the same.) PROOF IT IS. In dark nights after some hours of deep listening I actually hear the aural cogitation. I HEAR IT SIR! Are you prepared to call me a lier!? Not only do I hear it Sir, but after considerable meditation and cogitation interspaced with deep listening I have narrowed down the frequency of said cogitation to somewhere over 60kHz!! Refute That! As further proof I say my dog has left the building...left the building Sir... and has not been seen for months! That Sir, is BEYOND REFUTATION!

I do not mean to be dismissive of your naivete but you should consider keeping to yourself until you have learned something of aural cogitation through deep listening. I myself (I am an open mind sir) tried your mathmatics once and it gave me a headache lasting some weeks, during which my aural experience was directly and adversely affected! Quite frankly I see no future in it... not in the Audiophilic Dialogue anyway.

Sincerely, I remain

Argh! I don't know art, but I know what I like.

Well, well, now we see the recoil, don't we? Let's update our tabulation: "surreal", "irrational", "grotesque", etc. and now a demand for an apology on behalf (self-annointed)of all objectivists throughout all the world (and, assumably, throughout all time).

Why are you afraid of ideas?

If I say that a certain orientated mind hears deeper into the music, then, per se, I am being "insulting" to, well, an occupation? Is that what you are saying? How can you say that you believe that different minds hear to varying depths of "feeling", but then also say that one mind can't hear deeper than "an engineer"? This is a logical incongruency.

I ask you to tell me why you think that my ideas are "baseless", and you proceed to omit doing so, then demand that I "prove" my ideas through referring to what others say (demanding objective eveidence, symptomatically), and tie it all together with an emotional, politically correct demand for an apology on behalf of all "objectivists", including, assumably, all "engineers".

Are you a crusading for all "engineers" who have been harmed by ideas that say attachment to objective thinking is partial? Who has been harmed? The only minds "harmed" by ideas are those who believe that their ideas are who they are, and when confronting another idea, for their self to survive, must censure that opposing idea? Descartes, the father of empiric method, said, "I think therefore I am." This is incorrect. It is, "I am, therefore, I think, sometimes." You are not only your ideas. As such, an opposing idea does not threaten your survival.

OK, again, what, specifically, is "baseless" in the above theories? I'm still waiting.

I'm also confused by your statement that there is no difference in sound between one cable and another, but then you say that the "total experience" of music goes beyond sound. If the sound is the same from any given configuration of matter (an assumption that is entirely against the evidence of science), then how can one hear something different and, therefore, have a differing experience?

As far as objective proof for my ideas, alas, the "what is" wants YOU to conduct that experiment for yourself without looking to someone else to tell you what you are "hearing". The problem is that you do not want to let go of the scientific passifier that tells you that if you only believe what others say, then you will be safe in your mind of ideas. The "what is" wants you to go deeper though. But first you have to stop believing that you are a sum of your objectifying thoughts. And stop looking to the "we" you refer to to tell you the sum of potentiality that is waiting for you in the Music...