7500 for USED cables? Are they joking?


I've been out of high-end audio for about 8 years, and the thing I am most struck by on my return is the apparent acceptance of power cables, interconnects and speaker cables that cost as much or more than heavy-duty high-end components.

As a now-outsider of sorts, this really looks like the Emperor's New Clothes big-time. Especially power cords, considering the Romex that delivers the A/C to the outlet isn't exactly audiophile quality.

Are people really paying $500 and up for wire? Is this foolishness of the highest order, or is this what people now believe it takes to extract the last percent or two of definition from their components?

What happened? Even buyers of what are now considered "modestly priced" cables would be laughed out of the professional audio world, so why do audiophiles think they need something better than was used to make the original recording? MOST professional recording engineers scoff at the difference between microphone cables that cost $19.95 vs. those that cost $49.95 -- most anything higher is rarely considered at all (the most expensive microphone cable might be $125 for a 20 foot run, and it's laughed at by most of the pros).

I'm not criticizing -- I'm too stunned to draw any conclusions -- I just wondered if anyone has given this much thought.

(At least I understand the home theater revolution -- thank heavens something came along to save the high end manufacturers, although it makes me chuckle to think of someone spending $30,000 to watch the Terminator. It's OK with me.)

Thank you for your consideration,

Mark Hubbard
Eureka, CA
Ag insider logo xs@2xmark_hubbard
By default components shouldn't be a cable-sencitive at all but there again plays the marketing side.
Some of the manufacturers will advice you to use only audiophile grade cables and some are fine with pro-grade or even RadioShack.
Mark: I'd add Dunlavy to Sean's list. (He even admits his own cables don't sound any better than anybody else's!) But I suspect most component manufacturers would see no value in trying to unconvince audiophiles of something they're convinced of. Besides, the proof is there that most (note that I said most) gear doesn't require specialized cables--if you want to accept that proof. But as we know, many audiophiles do not (as is their right). I don't see what else science could do to convince them.
Well, science doesn't understand everything, or claim to know everything. Those who say if I can’t measure it, it doesn’t exist are walking on thin ice. You do the best you can with the tools you have. There have been many, many instances in history where science has been proven wrong in its assessments (and those who follow and agree). My point earlier in this thread, which was then lambasted, is that I think science has yet devise a measurement to answer the question of what is the difference. So the Pros shake their heads in disbelief because there is no measurable proof of the claim. Attributes such as 6dB of more signal gain (lower noise floor), and high common mode rejection ratios for differential inputs (near elimination of common noise) have a solid mathematical base.

A number of manufacturers use Cardas, Kimber, and various other brands in their designs. I think the best question is, during the design process what cables (and equipment) were used to complete the design. To answer the $7500 question is different for every audiophile. Hence the previous comment on trusting your ears. There are some extremely good cables for a tenth to a hundredth of $7500, but if we could and we heard a difference, would we?

Now back to your pander…
Lmb- I think almost everyone agrees with you that we have not or cannot measure everything.

Sincerely, I remain