home made speaker cable vs. the big boys

No_money - you're missing the boat. Digital bits and bytes are just that. Digital. Which means that it doesn't matter what cable, interconnect, patch cord was used in the process. I can take those bits and bytes and run them through some pretty sophisticated algorithms and make them sound like anything I want, regardless of what type of link was in the chain. Monster is often mentioned by recording studio people. Yes, you can polish a turd, in your vernacular, because the ultimate quality of the recording as presented on the CD (let's exclude vinyl right now) is a reflection of the talent and quality of the recording engineer and the producer of the recording. Plus how much money is allocated for post-recording production. So if something is "colored" in the recording process (not) then the producer and engineer can take care of it during the final mixing process. Fagan and Katz are recording gods, to be sure, and the Grammys mentioned by Trelja are testament that too many of us put our (misplaced) faith in exotica when it is the talent of the producers and engineers that make your recording sound as good (or bad) as it does. Can your playback gear truly reproduce what the producer really heard as his final mix? Ludwig could make anyone sound good, bad, or neutral REGARDLESS of what wire is in the chain - it's called talent. These people have great ears and passion for music. Plus they are able to pull performances out of musicians that sometimes the musicians thought they were incapable of. Go take a totally blind "taste test" some time. It's embarassing to see Monster and Belden (not to mention Radio Shack and DIY'ers) cables place as high or higher than the mega bucks stuff being shoved down our throats by clever marketing playing on our ego. Finally, speaking of producers, look at the variety of artists and studios used by Mutt Lange - cables never compromised his talent or quality of his production.

Gmkane, like you said, Ludwig can make anything sound good, but it all comes down to this. He wanted the best reproduction of the recording he is mastering possible, and he chooses Transparent to do this. We as audiophiles are seeking the same goal, the best reproduction of the recording possible, granted we will never be able to match what is (gateway) studio. I still stand by the you can't polish it statement, because that is what it will sound like , polish.

Before they start to even think of cable inprovements they need to stop over mikeing and over mixing. That's where all the resolution is lost. And compressing doesn't help either. These studios are concerned about the final sound but are by no means purists. They still have to make the general public happy so you'll be hard pressed to find a studio that is audiophile correct to the last detail or even close to that when you really nit pick it.

I agree with that, Kacz! Pop music is about what will sound good in a convertible at 90 mph, and always will be. Whatever sounds best to those who primarily listen this way is what wins Grammys...

Ludwig chose Transparent because he was paid to endorse it. And being the wizard he is, Ludwig can polish a recording to sound the way he envisions or "hears" it to be when he undertakes the project. There is no magic in wire but there is magic in his mastering and mixing. He would turn out the same product using Rat Shack or Transparent, because he is talented and never loses focus on what he wants the final product to sound like. He just doesn't take the money and run. He is an artist in his own right and a perfectionist. The digital bits and bytes are transported down the wire, Transparent or Rat Shack, uncorrupted. It is what he does after the data is stored that is the pure mastery of his production. If you understand anything about algorithms and how digital data can be manipulated to do just about anything you want it to do (or how you want it to sound), you know this to be true.