Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

Okay.. I just went to a couple websites which I knew had Inductance and Capacitance specifications listed for their cables. Interesting enough, the cheapest cable in this list has the closest measurement to the most expensive - which is recognized as a "reference" cable and not typically considered inferior.

So what does it mean?

TMC Yellow Label ($300 1m pair)
Inductance 0.059 µH/ft
Capacitance 23.40 pF/ft

Empirical - Holophonic-2S ($419 1m pair)
Inductance .72µH
Capacitance 10.3pF

Nordost Valhalla ($3300 1m pair)
inductance 0.055uH/ft
capacitance 22.0pF/ft

Harmonic Tech Pro Silway ($359 1m pair)
Inductance 0.43 uH / ft
Capacitance 32 pF / ft

My brain instantly reacts with "Electronics" but on further reflection I can recall many instances where cables made a bigger difference (for better or worse) than electronics. I think Sean hit upon something. Is the question being asked of someone starting from scratch or upgrading? I guess it all depends on the paritcular circumstances and goals.

Bwhite wrote:
"Heck... each module within a component has a unique sonic signature which changes as a signal propogates through the component - are these tone controls too? If so are they bad?"

No, the gain and buffering stages in components add a little noise, but they do not act as tone controls. If they did, it would sound like a boom-box.

"If the Linn CD12 CD player uses crappy wire internally but sounds awesome, is it a bad CD player?"

No, it sounds good because the wires are so short.

"Would changing the crappy wire to "superior" wire inside the player actually improve the sound...?"

Might, but the improvement would be infinitesimal.

"Similarly if a system lacks midrange presence, weight or body it is not going to be fixed necessarily with a cable that measure good."

True, the offending component must be eliminated.

"The best is simply what sounds the best, tone controls are everywhere and nothing is truly superior unless it sounds the best in the application in which its being used."

I disagree. Until you have heard a superior system where there are no "weak links", one that is wired with truly low-loss IC's and speaker cables, you will not know what I am talking about. This "tone-control" mentality is what makes it really difficult to get an even playing field to compare cable performance.

Bwhite wrote:

"Interesting enough, the cheapest cable in this list has the closest measurement to the most expensive - which is recognized as a "reference" cable and not typically considered inferior."

The one thing that is not mentioned is the dielectric absorption. Even if the capacitance is equal, this will make a big difference. Besides, have you compared all of these cables head-to-head? I believe you will find that the lowest capacitance cables always sound the best. Also, the specs you mention are for the shielded Empirical cable which has half the capacitance of any competitor:

Empirical - Holophonic-2S ($419 1m pair)
Inductance .72µH
Capacitance 10.3pF

the unshielded version is actually much better at 3.8 pF/foot. What makes you think that the Valhalla sounds better than the Holophonic?

Just because they advertise in Stereophile does not make them superior.

Cable-butting is obviously unrealistic, but it makes the point that whatever the sound is like with no cables, the best cables shuld approach this sound.