a great take on big$ cables

Snofun3: My claim is very simple. Since the method proposed (i.e. DBT) is worthless (and there is lots of scientific data that says that is true) for determining audible differences (whether they exist or not) then my proposal is to make a judgement based on long-term listening. The goal is to enjoy the music, so test equipment is marginally relevant (how do you test joy?!)
So, at least I have a proposal, rather than say it's all BS, even though many of us believe they have more joy with certain components.
You can say that you don't agree, and instruments are the only thing that counts, despite their faults. Then you'll say NO and I'll say YES and we'll go on (theoretically) forever. In that case it becomes a "religious" discussion rather than a logical one.
The other option is for you to have an alternative proposal, so we can discuss it.
Or just buy a boombox. They're fine for making noise in the street, but I still say that you (and I) won't tell the difference between that boombox and a Krell with Wilson speakers - not in a DBT...

Serus, I don't understand - not (just) trying to be argumentative.

The article points out how they had a box where they could go back-and-forth on cables to determine whether the differences were indeed perceptable. Much like when you go to a stereo shop and they give you a button to A/B speakers with. You don't need 5-10 seconds of audio memory as the changes are virtually real-time. And if you can or can't tell a statistically relevant change then??

And if you have to know what you're listening to to know how it sounds (boombox vs. Krell/Wilson), then all of the review is a fallacy, no?

I see tests in the Mags, where "this speaker had a better bottom end than that one, but the other imaged better etc" - and this is from NOTES!

Look, I've changed power cords and perceived great differences. Then I had a friend do the old DBT, and couldn't predictably tell which was which. I've had the same experience with I/C's, but here could use two sets of inputs on the preamp to be able to go back and forth, and again, suddenly the difference was, errr, let's say, much less perceptible.

That's why I get a good chuckle when someone gets all gooey about his latest audio ephiphany on one hand, but gets real defensive about DBT on the other. The old Emperor has no clothes situation to me.

yawn...

is you dont hear a difference with cable in "your" system. then something is really wrong (low resolution, hearing etc.)

Okay Mike, Thanks for the predictable response (see Whoaru99's post). Seems like you're bored - plenty of other threads to go to for such insightful comments.

I'm a firm believer that cables make and audible difference....for the better or worse is another question. I think a lot of folks use them as high dollar tone controls myself. For my system i went with something reasonable that sounded good and then started tweaking my room.

Anyway, my main point is i have a friend who holds " a cable is a cable" viewpoint. He owns a high dollar pro studio. The early Manheim steamroller stuff was done there and he does work for Disney among others, in other words a real studio and not a corner of a basement. He feels that anything other than 12 ga zip wire for speakers is a waste of money and for the sensitive low level lines he uses all monster but anything more than that is also a waste of money. If the guys who are sourcing our material aren't all that worried about what they use i think it adds support to the fact we are using wires to tune our systems to our ears rather than going for the most accurate. Nothing wrong with that