:lol: :lol: :lol:
Ignorance is bliss..
Well said.
All well designed interconnects will sound the same. This is a contentious claim, but is regrettably true - regrettable for those who have paid vast sums of money for theirs, at least
There are far less expensive ways of eliminating interference, capacitance, inductance.
One can avoid skin effect by using litz wire, but skin effect becomes noticeable when frequency reaches MHz. Aside from interference pickup, capacitance and crosstalk are the only real potential problem with interconnects. Capacitance can be minimised by selection of the cable, keeping it as short as possible. In some cases, even though the impedance of the preamp may be low enough, use of a highly capacitive cable may cause RF instability in the output stages - this will definitely ruin the sound.
Crosstalk is all but eliminated by the use of good quality shielding, which will generally also reduce interference. Keeping lead lengths to the minimum needed will also help reduce any possible negative influences.
The height is that superior audio claims are made even for cables that carry digital signal (0s and 1s) - USB cable, optical cable, RCA cable that carry SPDIF, etc
And one cannot eliminate the role of our ear and the marvelous human brain (which will naturally feel the better sound coming from super expensive cables). Cars cannot go fast with cryogenic-ally treated platinum pistons
From Douglas Self -
"
It has been universally recognised for many years in experimental psychology, particularly in experiments about perception, that people tend to perceive what they want to perceive. This is often called the 'experimenter expectancy' effect; it is more subtle and insidious than it sounds, and the history of science is littered with the wrecked careers of those who failed to guard against it. Such self-deception has most often occurred in fields like biology, where although the raw data may be numerical, there is no real mathematical theory to check it against.
When the only 'results' are vague subjective impressions, the danger is clearly much greater, no matter how absolute the integrity of the experimenter. Thus in psychological work great care is necessary in the use of impartial observers, double-blind techniques, and rigorous statistical tests for significance. The vast majority of Subjectivist writings wholly ignore these precautions, with predictable results. In a few cases properly controlled listening tests been done, and at the time of writing all have resulted in different amplifiers sounding indistinguishable. I believe the conclusion is inescapable that experimenter expectancy has played a dominant role in the growth of Subjectivism.
It is notable that in Subjectivist audio the 'correct' answer is always the more expensive or inconvenient one. Electronics is rarely as simple as that. A major improvement is more likely to be linked with a new circuit topology or new type of semiconductor, than with mindlessly specifying more expensive components of the same type."
To sum it up
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."
--The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams
The above could just as easily be re-phrased - for example ...
"I refuse to prove that my cables will make your system sound better", says the snake oil vendor, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, you will hear nothing."