"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:duJbc.68694$JO3.39664@attbi_s04...
Bruce Abrams wrote in message
news:Mx_ac.156391$Cb.1611810@attbi_s51...

*snip*

Ergo, the better the quality, the more closely
perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences. Comparisons
between two brands of high-end cables are less likely to show
differences than comparisons between cheap cables and high-end cables.

Perhaps you could explain the reasoning in the above statement. What is
it
that a "high-end cable" does better than the "cheaper stuff" that would
make
it sound different?

You can read the product literature just as easily as I can. They
explain in the literature what features the cable has.

I assume you're award that product literature and ad copy frequently have
nothing to do with reality. I'm not interested in what the company says the
features are. Can you really profess not to be biased while engaging in
sighted listening in light of the above statement? I'm interested in what
you think a "high-end" cable does better than the "cheaper stuff." What is
the difference between good and cheap cables? Simple question.


I bought this one:

http://www.monstercable.com/productPage.asp?pin=129

1 m. pair - 3.28 ft. ILR2-1M 102310 $99.95 pr.

The product you purchased makes several rather extraordinary claims
including the fact that a Microfiber dielectric somehow contributes to
"faster transients and greater clarity." It's interesting that the company
offers no explanation as to the mechanism that allows said microfiber
dielectric to work its magic. They also make mention of using "multiple
guage high and low frequency wire networks for accurate, natural sound
reproduction." On its surface, this sounds like a great technical
achievement, yet again, there's no explanation as to how it works. If you
were marketing such a product against competition from the likes of
Transparent, MIT, Kimber, etc. (think Coke & Pepsi) wouldn't a "blind taste
test" be the best proof of your claims? Why do you think that not one
single high end cable company includes such a blind test in the advertising
materials even though it would clearly represent the holy grail? Think
about it. All the high-end cable companies are competing for dollars
primarily from audiophiles, not from average consumer electronics purchasers
who will settle for the "included-in-the-box" interconnect that came with
their CD player. If Transparent could market their product by claiming that
"in blind comparisons, 9 out of 10 audiophiles prefered our product over
Cardas", don't you think they would?

I compared it to an older Monster cable that was about half that
price.

You mean that you read their literature on their newer cable, compared it to
their older one, and found their ad copy spot on? Amazing.

You suggest a measure of quality. Can we define
"quality" in this context? If two pieces of wire measurable pass a
signal
equally well and are sonically indistinguishable under controlled
conditions, what other qualitative measure would you apply? Does it
make a
difference if one is 12 guage Home Depot speaker wire and one is Kimber
Black Pearl? You stated that, "...the better the quality, the more
closely
perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences." What if the
quality of the "cheaper stuff" was already adequate to be functionally
perfect for the application?

It isn't. I could tell the two interconnect cables apart, easily.
Better imaging, transient repsonse, etc.


Here's an example of what I mean: 802.11B runs at 11 megabit, while
802.11G
runs at 22 megabit, so G must be better/faster, right? Well if the only
thing I use my wireless network for is internet access and my internet
bandwidth is 5 megabit, is G better? Only in technical sense, as I will
perceive no benefit.