How much money do you want to waste?

Excellent point, Mvwine. Looking to objective evidence does not make you an objectivist; the attachment to the assumption that objective observations are the only way to validly derive truth makes you an objectivist. Interestingly, it are not only his assumptions that the objectivist is attached to (specifically, these assumptions derive from Bacon [knowledge of matter = truth], Galileo [knowledge of matter can be enhanced by seeing reality as a mathematical machine, or linear matix, decribed by quantifiable data, ie size, etc.] and Descartes [reducing matter into progressively smaller parts gives greater truth]. Rather, the objectivist is also attached to his fear of his assumptions absense, or a denial of knowledge that is beyond scientific thinking (labeled with the abstraction "ratio-empiric, hypothetico-deductive formal operational cognition", presently recognized by psychology as the end-point in cognitive development). This is why science categorizes all knowledge that is not "scientific" as irrational; it must be, otherwise, science would be forced to examine its own premises, and why traditional psychology, allied as a rubber stamp for science, denies any level of cognition beyond the abstraction above (even though 5 million years of progressive cognitive development argues, empirically, the opposite future potential...). It is the attachment to the assumptions outlined above, and the recoil from a possibilty beyond them, that makes someone an "objectivist" (which, at its base, is an attachment to matter, or objects).

I would point out to you, however, that your assumption that more quantitative data necessarily will reveal greater truth is based upon the above assumptions. In this century - and something, characteristically, objectivists don't know, or choose to ignore - is that these assumptions have been thoroughly deconstructed. That's another discussion if someone wants to have it.

......of all the numerous, overly-simplistic and tired posts I've read on cable pricing, this is one of them. Sheesh, again.

alan m. kafton

Alan, when you make conclusions, you must state reasons for your conclusions and, specifically, which conclusions you are referring to. It is important that when you reject something - and claim that the arguments made are insufficient - that you say WHY they are insufficient. Otherwise, you are contributing nothing other than your own unsubstantiated charges - which then, of course, become part of the tired-ness that you supposedly decry.

Yes folks, once again another of these stoopid/tired posting wars has degenerated from the ridiculous to the sublime - and why is it always CABLES?! Is there something intrinsic to wire that prompts the unqualified to hold forth and theorize ad nauseum about why things just CAN'T be so? Could it merely be that wire appears so simple on the face of things that those who would be rightly abashed about such postulating when it comes to say, amplification or digitalia, suddenly feel no inhibitions to flaunting their ignorance? (Check out the above post about voice-coil wire, the function of which [in conjuction with magnets, natch] is the transduction of an electrical signal into mechanical motion - where is the analogy to speaker cables in that?!) Look, (most of) you and I aren't EE's, seasoned audio designers, theoretical physicists, acousticians, philosophers, professional musicians, stereo store owners, magazine reviewers, etc. This means that we lack some measure of both technical expertise and observational experience (not to mention writing skills - geesh, didja ever see such a bunch of inelegant drivel? Makes wading through it all a real chore), so all of this hoo-ha is basically one big masturbatory geekfest, something for which we audiophiles are admittedly well-qualified. But none of the foregoing handicaps should prevent any of us from having an opinion, of course (just don't believe your own hype), so here's mine: Anyone who pays too much for cables, or any other component, relative to the resulting sound of their system AND their ability to pay to play, whether because of status climbing, sales pressure, advertising, neuroses, tin ears, penis envy, whatever, gets exactly what he or she deserves. This ain't the news of the world, people - ever hear the phrase "caveat emptor"? Or "there's one born every minute"? Please, save us from people who would save us from ourselves. Additionally, anyone who thinks that they will avoid these pitfalls AND build a great-sounding system on the cheap because of something they've read or "reasoned" without bothering to LISTEN and DEVELOP an EAR for MUSIC and its reproduction will also get what they deserve, namely bad sound. I personally will never spend "mega-bucks" on cables, or any other part of my system, for the damn good reason that I don't have that kind of scratch. But I'm not so arrogant, or insecure, as to want to think that mine will sound just as good as those that are "over-priced", either. (Rather, I take my consolation in the fact that many of the rich guys actually have no taste in music, and only have goofy "audiophile" software with which to listen to their mega-systems . . . he who laughs last . . .)

I love these cable threads. If you don't, then don't read them. I also like playing with cheap stuff and have even found a $40 per pair (actually sold as singles) interconnect that I prefer to Nordost Blue Heaven and Kimber Silver Steak (and above that $200 retail price point I won't go). You've never heard of the interconnects I use, and won't hear of them from me either.

Now, I've tried that Radio Shack Gold A/V cable that John Dunlavy wrote about a long time ago. I always thought it was a good bet for an inexpensive system, but maybe not.

I recently bought a Radio Shack $25 phono preamp out of curiosity, and figured what better to use with it than the Radio Shack interconnect? The sound? Well, a lot of groove noise and grain, forget about dynamic range. So then I connected a pair of Audioquest Ruby 2's. Much better, a lot less grain, almost listenable. I've always thought the AQ Ruby was sort of dull, designed to roll off edgy transistory highs from low cost cdps and amps.

So here's the question: Is the Radio Shack cable better than the Ruby because it reveals the true nature of the Little Rat phono preamp or is the Ruby better at carrying a signal? I have a hard time believing that the Radio Shack cable is the source of the coarse and grainy sound from Little Rat. How would a cable add grain?