I wouldn't say that I have now gotten a grasp of this situation, I already felt this way; I was open to being shown I am wrong.
Brian
Brianmgrarcom
Certainly the results could not have surprised you though Brian, could they? I would have been stunned to the point of disbelief if someone tried to validate/justify the cost of cables.
If they do, I bet you'll find the catch all phrase being R&D costs. The customer is expected to pay for the designer's cable/cord purchases from competitors and his hours of listening. You see, they 'have to' buy competing products to test against their own. They have to buy a reference system of three to use as 'synergestic testing lab equipment'. Then they 'have to' listen hours a day for years sometimes, to tune in their products. That's a lot of time and money spent on research and development. Now you may say 'hey, that's what I do for a hobby'. However, when you are selling products it is no longer your hobby, it is a job, and you can write this in as R&D costs.
There is simply no way to justify the material/labor costs, it's all in the 'R&D' department.
Some manufacturers could have HUGE R&D costs. Maybe they have a million dollars or more tied up in R&D assests alone. Someone has to pay for that, and it's certainly not going to be the manufacturer.
Nobody said it would be easy. You must have very expensive audio gear and comparison cables in your 'R&D lab'.
Does that help?
John