The truth about interconnects - can you handle it?

I didn't think so. Audioholics anonymous anyone?

The sub-linked article is a kill:
"As a rule of thumb, I recommend investing about 5-7% of your total system cost into cables and interconnects, with the following priorities:

1. Video Interconnects (75 ohm, shielded coax)
2. Analog interconnects (low capacitance, twisted pair / Coax, shielded when needed)
3. Speaker Cables (Low DC resistance and inductance, short runs when possible)
4. Digital Interconnects (75 ohm, shielded coax for short runs, or toslink for longer runs)"

Oh yeah, my TV's much more important that the rest of the system - but this quote is from a HT site. But what do I know, as a joke I've moved my home interconnects into my car system (Nak cassette deck/Soundstream amp/ADS speakers) and found that one can hear the difference driving down the highway. Ack!

But, then, they call ME extreme (same article): "The truth of the matter is, standard 12 AWG Oxygen Free Multistranded Cable (OFMC) is fine for most applications except for maybe the extreme scenario of a particularly difficult Electrostatic Loudspeaker (ESL) system driven by tube amplifiers" Is there another way?

Thanks for the chuckle, Redbeard!

Any article posted under a title such as 'The truth about interconnects' deserves to be ignored. The effects of interconnects on sound are subtle and vary depending on the situation. A blanket claim to the 'truth' is absurd.

An interesting site, Redbeard. As you can see, it is unlikely to shake the faith of those who already buy into what its authors call "cable theology." But perhaps newer audiophiles who are still making up their minds about such things will find the different perspective offered there enlightening.

My high school physics teacher once told us that tire width makes no difference in traction too. Righhhhht, that's why all pro race cars are running on bicycle tires. ;-)

People also saw apples fell from trees but didn't know why until Sir Newton came up with this idea about gravity, and all of a sudden, a lot of thing became explainable. And Einstein's relativity theory, and so on, and so on. Science is just a term to describe the limited knowledge that we currently possess until another genius come up with another briliant theory or discovery. So all that article validated is that we still don't know a lot about how a lot of things works in our physical environment. You might hear the difference, but our current limited "scientific knowledge" hasn't been able to explain it, or know what to measure.

People belive what they want to believe. If people want to think Earth is flat, they will find "scientific evidence" to support their view.

I just trust the best scientific measuring device I have: my ears, and they tell me that interconnects makes difference, so do powercords.

FrankC