2. cables
  3. 128927-305

Most Important, Unloved Cable...

Ethernet. I used to say the power cord was the most unloved, but important cable. Now, I update that assessment to the Ethernet cable. Review work forthcoming. 

I can't wait to invite my newer friend who is an engineer who was involved with the construction of Fermilab, the National Accelerator Lab, to hear this! Previously he was an overt mocker; no longer. He decided to try comparing cables and had his mind changed. That's not uncommon, as many of you former skeptics know. :)

I had my biggest doubts about the Ethernet cable. But, I was wrong - SO wrong! I'm so happy I made the decision years ago that I would try things rather than simply flip a coin mentally and decide without experience. It has made all the difference in quality of systems and my enjoyment of them. Reminder; I settled the matter of efficacy of cables years before becoming a reviewer and with my own money, so my enthusiasm for them does not spring from reviewing. Reviewing has allowed me to more fully explore their potential.  

I find fascinating the cognitive dissonance that exists between the skeptical mind in regard to cables and the real world results which can be obtained with them. I'm still shaking my head at this result... profoundly unexpected results way beyond expectation. Anyone who would need an ABX for this should exit the hobby and take up gun shooting, because your hearing would be for crap.  
douglas_schroeder
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Next up, controlled blind testing and how it would show there’s no difference between zip cord and the Megabuck cable and that it's all psychological. Ten, nine, eight, seven....

dynaquest4's avatar
dynaquest4
445 posts
 
goeff:

I said: "...the OP suggested, no...he essentially said, that the equipment in your test did not cost enough and therefore would only provide mediocre results."

You said: "Actually the OP suggested no such thing. Good try."

OP actually said to jinjuku:

"Seriously, a couple hundred dollar system is what you are putting up for evidence? How about you get some serious gear and do the test? Audiophilia is not the reduction of quality to the lowest common denominator. You WILL get mediocre sound that way."




jinjuku's avatar
jinjuku
226 posts
 
@geoffkait 

I know Mike Lavigne couldn't tell his $30,000 Magnum Opus from Monster cable. Helpful hint: He has a $500,000 system. 
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 


Dynaquest4
goeff:

I said: "...the OP suggested, no...he essentially said, that the equipment in your test did not cost enough and therefore would only provide mediocre results."

You said: "Actually the OP suggested no such thing. Good try."

OP actually said to jinjuku:

"Seriously, a couple hundred dollar system is what you are putting up for evidence? How about you get some serious gear and do the test? Audiophilia is not the reduction of quality to the lowest common denominator. You WILL get mediocre sound that way."

Makes sense to me. Not to mention he might very well be all thumbs. Or deaf in one ear. Who knows? there are lots of reasons why people sometimes get negative results.

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 

jinjuku
@geoffkait

I know Mike Lavigne couldn’t tell his $30,000 Magnum Opus from Monster cable. Helpful hint: He has a $500,000 system.

You don’t say? Was that during the period when his system was out of phase? There are many reasons why some people don’t hear things. Not being able to put together a system that doesn’t have at least one mistake in it or be able to maintain that system are just two reasons. Could be the time of day. Cables not broken in. Yada, yada, yada. One test doesn’t prove anything. Getting negative results proves nothing. I would be the first to say even a very expensive system can sound bad. I’ve heard plenty that didn’t sound good. It’s not generally because of the equipment or the cables, though. It’s something else. Look within.

More to discover