Are audiophiles still out of their minds?

DNM Reson satisfied all my IC needs.

One could take a look at their minimalist design and think they are overpriced as well for what they are. 

But thing is I tried them specifically because of their  unique minimalist approach  (something clearly much different than the norm just by appearance) and have found them to sound best overall especially in regards to coherency top to bottom.   So I have dropped a few hundred into these wires that appear to not be much different than your run of the mill 300ohm dipole wire antenna you paid $5 bucks or so for a t Radio Shack in years past and no longer have any real interest in others unless they provide something truly unique for a comparable price.  

Well, they are single strand I believe and some come with beefed up connectors so I suppose that gotta cost something.

Geoff,

"Your negative or unsubstantial results actually don’t match what the majority of audiophiles experience with expensive cables, therefore your contention that expensive cables are not worth the price is unfounded."
--Says you. I know plenty who have had the opposite experience. It's hard not to convince yourself that your mega expensive cables improved the sound of your system after spending so much money on fancy dressed copper wire.  So your contention is unfounded. 

"Two, your contention that blind tests reveal that all expensive cables are no better than cheap cables is either your own puffery and untrue or if you have been involved in a blind test, which BTW I actually doubt, that produced negative results I suggest it is simply an outlier and can be thrown out."
--Not even sure how to even begin on this one.  When did I ever claim blind tests reveal ALL expensive cables are no better than cheap cables? I said there is no correlation. Please look up the definition of correlation if I've confused you.  So anything that goes against your belief is an "outlier"? You're full of yourself.

"Besides the tests you yourself (for some bizarre reason) linked earlier on this thread actually show the opposite - they show that there ARE significant differences among cables as heard by almost ALL listeners in the test."
--When did I ever claim there is no difference in sound among cables?  I have repeatedly stated that I hear differences in cables.  This shows you're blinded by your own biases and not EVEN LISTENING to what I have been saying.  First, I thought you're just a troll.  Now I know you're not even a good troll.

Perhaps you should just take your own advice. "This is just a hobby."  You're losing your cool.

Geoff, I have to shake my head at this one again.

"However, if you wish to use room treatments as the alternative to expensive wires, a word of caution. Room treatments you know, like the tiny little bowl acoustic resonators, the Synergistic Research stuff, the Audio Magic stuff, Shakti Hallographs, SteinMusic Harmonizer, heck, even the ubiquitous Tube Traps ain’t cheap, not by any means. I bet you think room treatment involves simply putting up a couple squares of SONEX."

In my earlier posts, I specifically stated what room treatments I use. They are all GIK Acoustics products, probably the most affordable and effective room treatment I’ve come across. All their products are based on proven acoustic principles and physics. They are nothing like the "tiny little bowl acoustic resonators, the Synergistic Research stuff, the Audio Magic stuff, Shakti Hallographs, SteinMusic Harmonizer". All in all, I’ve spent about $4k on the acoustic treatments, which is tens of thousands less than a pair of Odin speaker cables. I have combination of diffusors and absorbers to tame room resonances, slap echos, comb filtering, etc. It took me several years to fine tune my room after multiple consultations with the proprietor of GIK Acoustics. My listening room has no windows and is double dry wall construction. So no, I don’t think room treatment involves simply puttng up a couple of squares of SONEX. Obviously, you have no idea what room treatment involves. Like all your attacks, it's based on your own imagination.

Watts, are you for real?

"Operators capable of raising capital must set pricing on the products the capital is used to produce at a level that maximizes the net-present-value of all future cash flows generated by that capital (as determined using a discount rate equal to the operator’s cost of capital) which in turn must maximize the rate-of-return on each dollar of the capital raised.

Those who employ capital must make such pricing decisions by assessing the price elasticity for the product in question and the incumbent capital required to meet the demand for any given price point. The cost to produce any particular product is only used to determine the floor for pricing to determine a go-no-go decision on the capital project.

Failure to employ rate-of-return maximizing corporate finance principals will quickly undermine the operator’s ability to raise capital as such capital will alternatively flow to those who understand these concepts.

What you describe harkens back to a Soviet style centrally planned economy where the cost of manufacturing is used to determine pricing. Maybe this is one small part of the disconnect so many have with your approach to things.

Regarding your comment 4, I must confess I oscillate between whether I think you really believe the things you say about cables (and as such simply need enlightenment as a scientific matter) or you understand how ill founded your positions are but nonetheless use them within the nebulas nature of the subject to berate those who’s success you deplore. All things considered, (i.e., your clear venom toward the affluent, juvenile treatment toward anyone who logically challenges you, and the weakness of your positions) I continue to lean toward the latter.

Take the corollary of your position into consideration. In my experience I have generally found the correlation coefficient between intelligence and economic success to be greater the zero. On its face, your position argues that the most successful of the successful have happened upon their economic position in spite of the fact that you claim a correlation coefficient of less than zero. A pretty illogical proposition in my opinion.

I strongly encourage you to spend some time with the brain trust you purport to maintain to understand how inductance and capacitance not only impact current availability but influence bandwidth in analog cables; why skin effect is so critical in speaker cables (why I prefer Nordost btw); etc.etc.etc. The mere existence of snake oil is not justification for dismissal of all sound scientific principals. That behavior wreaks of an agenda.

As I pointed out (and you chose to mock rather than acknowledge) there are 70,000 people in the USA alone who’s time is valued to such a degree that it makes no economic sense for them to sort through the low priced cables to achieve the performance they desire. Such an endeavor would actually be more expensive not less expensive than going to a cable company with sound engineering and paying for their services. I refuse to believe you are incapable of grasping this concept but choose to ignore it because it stands in the way of your purpose here."

--You’re now an economist and political scientist in addition to being an "engineer" and "psychoanalyst". It’s really hard for me to take you seriously at this point. I was hoping you would be elucidating instead of being just weird. At least Geoff makes specific points, although unfounded. You hide behind your words and have added nothing useful. BTW, yes skin effect, capacitance, inductance, and resistance. They're real and measurable and are the bases for all sensibly constructed cables. Again you have added nothing new or elucidating.