John Dunlavy On "Cable Nonsense"

Hey Leafs - in your opinion, you spend more time on one-liners slamming MIT and your promotion of Coincident cables. Hmm, interesting. I borrowed Coincident speaker cables from a buddy here on audiogon and they didn't do it for me, IMO. Does't mean they're snake oil.

Sorry Pops you did not like them.I promot Coincident because for 299.00 they give me better sonics than any 1500.00 MIT cable i have ever heard.If the 1500.00 MIT cable which lost an A/B test with 5 others listening was priced in the 300/500 range i would not slam it but at 1500.00 its SNAKE OIL.

Leafs, I thought that you didn't believe in tests? So now why are you slamming MIT based on the result of a pernicious and feared test?

Oh, never mind. I now understand that if it is a controlled test conducted in a systematic, unimpassioned, objective way then the results are suspect. But throw together 5 audio dweebs and "Katy bar the door."

I agree with Dunlavy that the snake oil peddled in cable claims only serves to detract from actual technological development and advances in audio quality, and tarnishes the audio industry in general.

Or to rephase Doc's statement, for some reason tests based on SOUND ONLY are suspect amongst a large proportion of "cable believers". Let everybody know which component is being tested and it becomes a meaningful test????

Not in my book.
JHunter