3 things I learned from using MANY interconnect cables

@stevecham - My systems has been almost exclusively Blue Jeans Cables until recently because I consider them to be a quality product from a high value company. However, when I replaced their LC-1 interconnects with Audioquest Chicago my system was transformed in a way that I didn’t think was possible. I have not played with any other interconnect brands, but I don’t see myself using BJC cables in my reference system anytime soon.  At this point the only thing left is  my BJC speakers cables.

@johnson0134 - I really late to this party, but found your post to be interesting.

1. The price was NOT indicative of the sound quality unless you go very cheap (less than $100). I think this point is self-explanatory so I am not adding any elaboration. 

Comment: This makes total sense to me as the price of any product should based on the materials used and time spend to produce it along with the market value for the item.  Using more expensive materials and more complex construction doesn't in any guarantee and better cable.  I would expect that a more expensive cable within the same brand should be better for any reputable company that isn't just selling snake oil.  Also, some companies like Blue Jeans Cable have a business model that's based on value rather than appearing to be a boutique brand, so it's possible that their products can be a much better value.

2. Disconnecting and re-connecting the cables had a very positive impact on sound quality, which will affect any AB comparison. If you are comparing two pairs of cables that had comparable sound quality, the new cables will sound better because the connection would be fresh.

Comment: If true, it's easy enough to disconnect and reconnect a cable when doing comparisons.  It seems like this would lead people to prefer the new cable over the old one, so I'm curious how often people try a new cable and immediately do not prefer it.

3. In my experience, the cables were NOT system dependent. This might raise some eye brows as it goes against the commonly held belief so I am going to explain a bit here

Comment: I think that cables can be system dependent, but I think listener preference is likely a much more significant factor.  The science of cables is hard to nail down, but the fact remains that whatever a given cable does it'll always do, so if the listener likes the resulting sound it's expect that they will continue to like it.  The system dependent aspect comes when the rest of a system is already too far in the direction that the cable brings out and it's always possible to have too much of a good thing. When it comes to cables being in different parts of the audio chain, it's an apples to oranges comparison.  From what I know about gain structure in pro audio applications, it makes sense that you'd want the best cables closer to the source as any noise/distortion will be a more significant portion of the total signal that will later be amplified.  In a very general sense, this is why phono cables are much more finicky than speaker cables.

@geoffkait he lost his marbles a long long time ago!

Here’s one for you. Bill has ten marbles. Paul takes three of Bill’s marbles. John takes two of Bill’s marbles and two of Paul’s marbles. Then he gives two back to Bill. How long before Bill loses all his marbles?

Sometimes, the pseudo-science on these forums is astounding ...

"It had a wider frequency range..." Really? What exactly do you mean by this? Did you measure it using appropriate technology? Is a wider(r) frequency range actually a good thing?

Noteworthy in the above is the fact that the Capacitance doubles and the upper Cutoff Frequency (where above which the signal begins to be attenuated) almost doubles. So in the event that we “double-up” our audio cables, we actually extend their bandwidth – albeit we are talking in the region of radio frequencies so there is no real benefit there with respect to extending the fundamental audio bandwidth.

What IS significant though is the fact that all of the above leads to a potential reduction in reflected energy and/or standing waves within the cable, and that is because of two primary factors. By lowering the Character Impedance and consequently, raising the Cutoff Frequency, we “push” or force any potential reflections up to twice the frequency at which they would otherwise occur. That then leads to two other outcomes. First, higher frequencies find it more difficult to propagate down the length of any conductor due to the “skin effect,” and are therefore usually attenuated more with respect to those that occur at lower frequencies. As a result, lower magnitude levels of reflected energy translates into less interaction with the Source and Load circuits. That means less potential for the formation of any associated Phase Distortion artifacts as outlined above.

What is being talked about is the cable generated and cable specific noise that occurs in cables, and which can be reduced by simply expanding the bandwidth of the cable. And please note that it was this particular issue that pushed tele-communication companies to adopt fibre-optic networks ( the old wire networks were producing so much cable generated reflection that it was obscuring signal when under heavy load).

And btw it is this extended band-width that seems to the basis of the success of the Shroeder Method style cable ( and shameless plug...our own cables which have a very unusually broad bandwidth )

Hope I expressed that correctly/clearly.