On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:05:52 GMT, Lawrence Leung
wrote:
chung wrote in news:RKFLb.8211$sv6.21706@attbi_s52:
Transparency in a cable is extremely easy to accomplish.
No, it is not, unless you cannot or refuse to distinguish the differences
Yes, it is, and not one single person has *ever* shown an ability to
tell the difference under blind conditions.
Transparency in a cable is extremely easy to accomplish. You can
verify this by making measurements, or by doing blind listening tests.
You can buy cheap copper wires, or you can buy the same wires with
designer labels and pay. The choice is yours.
There is a problem here. By doing measurements or doing blind tests, you
can tell the difference but that would not give you audio transparency.
Yes, it does, and you can *not* tell the difference.
You cannot find the same cheap copper wires with designer labels, if you
can, prove it. That is a very irresponsible accuse.
It's not irresponsible at all, as no 'audiophile' maker actually draws
their own wire. 99% of it comes from mass-market suppliers such as
Belden, it's simply packaged in fancy insulation.
Typically I think 5% of my budget on cable is an absoulte minimum,
but I would not go more than 15% of my entire budget.
Why would there need to be a lower limit on cables? Why would a more
expensive system require more expensive cables?
A more expensive system suppose to have a higher definition, higher
ability to reproduce the original source, hence need better material to
transfer the sound to the speakers.
However, any old cable will do the job perfectly well.
What you have done is to provide amusement to some of us 
.
That is a little rude,
But accurate.................
I tried to be polite and objective...
Well, you failed, since your comments are completely subjective and
have no basis in electrical theory.
But, hey, if
I can provide amusement to some of you, that's good. Because some of us
here already laugh enough for other opinions.
Quite so...........
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering