I used to think pricey interconnects were snake oil...

The question becomes what is the incline of diminishing returns for cables?

My own guess is that it's pretty steep, because compared to other elements in the system, cables make a smaller contribution.

Thus, the killer question for anyone spending on cables is: Are cables more deserving of your upgrade dollar than anything else in the system?

For example, if one were to spend $4k on interconnects, the question I'd ask is whether $500 in interconnects and $3500 elsewhere in the system would be a better investment. That's just the form of the question, and everyone would fill in the amounts with whatever suits their situation.

Jasonbourne will buy your old cables.

@hilde45 your perspective is similar to mine - assuming your interconnects and cables are half decent to begin with - the reality is that many are not. Steeply diminishing returns after say $500/m or so.

Now a brief rant about digital cables - these in particular are not worth spending more than a small investment ($300?). I’m a computing expert but not a networking expert but had a hunch that error correction in the protocols (plus the digital binary nature of the information) negates the traditional benefits of better copper and interconnects. One of my good buddies is a networking expert for one of the largest SPs in the USA. He cannot conceive of how say typical electrical signals could change the digital info enough for protocol correction to not work. if this were true, the Internet would not work - voice calls would not work, etc. 

They aren't snake oil, they are just a billion times more expensive than a good tone control.

Unless you do a blind test sighted bias is in play. 

I've tried many cables I haven't liked much, and several that I have.  I wanted to love every single one of them, but didn't.  How are cables that we don't like explained without a blind test?