How much money do you want to waste?

Questioning scientific exclusivity does not mean, implictedly, that a costlier cable is necessarily better (see my response today under thread "Snake Oil"). And, yes, based on conformity (the desire to conform one's assumptions to the assumptions of the collective culture at any given time), some people do find the need to buy things/objects that other people who collect things/objects covet. Interestingly, those people who conform their views to others regardless of subjective experience, are, SURPRISE!, the same people in western culture who conform to the assumptions of science - which, not coincidentally, is also attached to objects. It is not a coincidence that people who are very good at accumulating things in our society, generally rising in socio-economic strata and gaining increased buying power (or people who are desperate to, but lack the ability or luck), are also many times the same people who buy cable that is over-priced because its the next-best-thing to get. Hmmm...

On wine, if, after tasting them, you can't tell the relative quality differences between a '97 and '98 Beaucastel Chauteneuff du Pape - even that close of a comparison - then yes, you should stick to sparkling grape juice...

Hey, look at that, I slammed superficial rich people and supported wine - a notorious "rich guy" activity - at the same time! I've become a moving target! Oh hell, just stone him anyway, one of the rocks is bound to hit...

It does go on, doesn't it? I have not read all the posts in this thread but a fair number. I have a nagging question though: why is it so very few manufacturers of electronic components offer cables with remarkable qualities, but that the field is left to what are essentially repackagers with a bigger budget on promo than research? Could it be that it's not that safe yet to make claims about cables because everyone is waiting for the Matti Otala of cabledom to show up? Has anyone actually read the longish spiel on cable theory from Audioquest? I think there is a need in this hobby for tinkering and finding irrefutable made in heaven synergies that offer mistery in a world so cut and dried, and cables have come in an opportune time to fill this need. I am certain all the proponents of cables as a component that can fine tune a system feel that their experience gives them the credibility required to dismiss the power of suggestion or some combination on the known parameters of electrical conductors as the only explanations for the "HUGE" improvements expensive cables procure. And to think we haven't even broached the subject of power cables in this thread. Everyone should know by now that that last meter of what is a cable run of hundreds, if not thousands, of kilometres, is what will make or break your listening pleasure. Geez that thread on smooth "jazz" was interesting. You don't like expensive equipment 'cause you can't afford it. That's the bottom line 'cause I ain't no sucker, my $1,300. cables told me so!

Since I've been so upstage, and pbb fessed up, my cables for you to puruse/pick apart:

NBS Pro IC's
AudioNote Kondo KSL spkr wire
Hovland phono cable

Yes, very expensive, too expensive for me, actually, but they sound great in their context. In other systems they may sound bad, whether that context is an improper system synergy or another listener that can't hear what they are doing because...well, enough of that.

Interestingly, an Electraglide Fat Boy Series I sounded horrid on the Supratek pre and a $100 Discovery PC that I found sitting in a 5yr old box sounds great. So you never know.

Here's how it goes between the objective and subjective in the pursuit of the Music:

Look at the objective factors (material used, construction, configuration); compare those against technology that already seems to show a correlary between configuration and performance; if no correlary, then still keep an open mind because it may be a new and better invention or approach, but also keep in mind the objective incongruency; conduct empiric experiments by inserting the cable into the system and listening for details in an objective way by thinking, then by deepening into the music through by allowing your thinking to dissipate, always remembering that the later observation necessarily requires you to live with the cable longer before reaching a conclusion; compare these results with previous cables that you've listened to in same context as a control; decide, based upon the evidence that you hear, absent any desire to conform to others' expectations or prior pronouncements, which cable allows you to "connect" with the musical message in the way that you are most able.

When you forget about "music", the subjective and the objective evaporate in an "event" of music that is absent both.

The search for the truth, even through objective means, is not attained by a limitation of possibilties, but an openness to them.

Good luck.

Asa, please. You have grotesquely misstated my position, and quite willfully. NOWHERE did I say "it is "baseless" to believe that people listen at varying degrees of "feeling".", nor anything ever remotely close. Nor would I have said that, for I firmly believe otherwise. Of course all abilities, including artistic, vary widely among individuals.

What I take very strong exception to is your oft-repeated implication that the so-called "objectivists" by definition are unable to listen to music, to experience it, to the same depth as you. It's just another refrain of "engineers don't get the music" in more erudite phrasing but it is just as insulting, and yes, baseless. If you have any evidence suggesting a correlation between technical understanding and the inability to experience music (or any form of art) at all levels, please produce it or apologize and retract your assertion.

In the specific instance of cables, I firmly believe that different cables can in fact enhance the listening experience for some. Not from changing the sound, though, for the overwhelming number of cables at any price. Sorry, but we have a very, very thorough understanding of signal propogation at audio frequencies and the parametric differences between most cables will simply not provide an audible change. The total experience goes beyond just the sound, however, and if certain cables allow one to truly experience all depths of the music, that's a good thing.

But perhaps, just perhaps, "objectivists" have no need of such crutches to feel the music.

Hearhere: You continue the Jlambrick heresy! (See post above) Our position has been stated clearly to those with ears to hear. Are you misnamed? The Audiophilic Dialogue is not for beginners! To a rational person our discussion may appear as simply a group of undefined and incoherant buzzwords bantered about to no end. So vacuous as to defy any verifiable statement and, at the same time, contain any intended meaning. Not so! The fault Sir is your own! Your brain, moribund with structure and discipline, is unable to cogitate directly with the aural experience which is the hallmark of the Audiophilic Dialogue.

Proof! you say, I can hear it now.(You EE types are all the same.) PROOF IT IS. In dark nights after some hours of deep listening I actually hear the aural cogitation. I HEAR IT SIR! Are you prepared to call me a lier!? Not only do I hear it Sir, but after considerable meditation and cogitation interspaced with deep listening I have narrowed down the frequency of said cogitation to somewhere over 60kHz!! Refute That! As further proof I say my dog has left the building...left the building Sir... and has not been seen for months! That Sir, is BEYOND REFUTATION!

I do not mean to be dismissive of your naivete but you should consider keeping to yourself until you have learned something of aural cogitation through deep listening. I myself (I am an open mind sir) tried your mathmatics once and it gave me a headache lasting some weeks, during which my aural experience was directly and adversely affected! Quite frankly I see no future in it... not in the Audiophilic Dialogue anyway.

Sincerely, I remain