Are audiophiles still out of their minds?

Just two things. Your negative or unsubstantial results actually don’t match what the majority of audiophiles experience with expensive cables, therefore your contention that expensive cables are not worth the price is unfounded. Two, your contention that blind tests reveal that all expensive cables are no better than cheap cables is either your own puffery and untrue or if you have been involved in a blind test, which BTW I actually doubt, that produced negative results I suggest it is simply an outlier and can be thrown out. Besides the tests you yourself (for some bizarre reason) linked earlier on this thread actually show the opposite - they show that there ARE significant differences among cables as heard by almost ALL listeners in the test. Hel-loo! Have you had your hearing checked recently?

cheers,

geoff kait
machina dynamica

Re your argument that for less money other alternative methods can provide more benefits with respect to sound quality than spending big bucks on super expensive cables, nobody said they couldn’t. However, if you wish to use room treatments as the alternative to expensive wires, a word of caution. Room treatments you know, like the tiny little bowl acoustic resonators, the Synergistic Research stuff, the Audio Magic stuff, Shakti Hallographs, SteinMusic Harmonizer, heck, even the ubiquitous Tube Traps ain't cheap, not by any means. I bet you think room treatment involves simply putting up a couple squares of SONEX.

Drac,

Regarding your comments 1,2, 3, and 5 you seem to lack an appreciation for how things work in a free market economy.

Operators capable of raising capital must set pricing on the products the capital is used to produce at a level that maximizes the net-present-value of all future cash flows generated by that capital (as determined using a discount rate equal to the operator's cost of capital) which in turn must maximize the rate-of-return on each dollar of the capital raised.

Those who employ capital must make such pricing decisions by assessing the price elasticity for the product in question and the incumbent capital required to meet the demand for any given price point. The cost to produce any particular product is only used to determine the floor for pricing to determine a go-no-go decision on the capital project.

Failure to employ rate-of-return maximizing corporate finance principals will quickly undermine the operator's ability to raise capital as such capital will alternatively flow to those who understand these concepts. 

What you describe harkens back to a Soviet style centrally planned economy where the cost of manufacturing is used to determine pricing. Maybe this is one small part of the disconnect so many have with your approach to things.

Regarding your comment 4, I must confess I oscillate between whether I think you really believe the things you say about cables (and as such simply need enlightenment as a scientific matter) or you understand how ill founded your positions are but nonetheless use them within the nebulas nature of the subject to berate those who's success you deplore.  All things considered, (i.e., your clear venom toward the affluent, juvenile treatment toward anyone who logically challenges you, and the weakness of your positions) I continue to lean toward the latter. 

Take the corollary of your position into consideration. In my experience I have generally found the correlation coefficient between intelligence and economic success to be greater the zero. On its face, your position argues that the most successful of the successful have happened upon their economic position in spite of the fact that you claim a correlation coefficient of less than zero. A pretty illogical proposition in my opinion.

I strongly encourage you to spend some time with the brain trust you purport to maintain to understand how inductance and capacitance not only impact current availability but influence bandwidth in analog cables; why skin effect is so critical in speaker cables (why I prefer Nordost btw); etc.etc.etc. The mere existence of snake oil is not justification for dismissal of all sound scientific principals. That behavior wreaks of an agenda. 

I nor anyone I have seen on this thread has argued the lack of existence of extremes in the distribution of outcomes for cables (Al articulated this most clearly). Some high priced cables are poor performers and low priced cables are exceptional. Further, some high priced cables company's are indeed selling snake oil and bling. This reality, however, by no means negates the fact that other high-end cables are engineered and manufactured to very high standards and perform accordingly. 

As I pointed out (and you chose to mock rather than acknowledge) there are 70,000 people in the USA alone who's time is valued to such a degree that it makes no economic sense for them to sort through the low priced cables to achieve the performance they desire. Such an endeavor would actually be more expensive not less expensive than going to a cable company with sound engineering and paying for their services. I refuse to believe you are incapable of grasping this concept but choose to ignore it because it stands in the way of your purpose here.

It is your refusal to embrace alternative thought and the absolute nature of your claims--that people who buy expensive cables are fools, retarded, etc.--that is the problem so many have with you and this thread. 

The point is, if I make something for $0.01 and, based on whatever marketing or voodoo or apparent added value I effectively attach to my product, I am able to sell it for $1.0M, then exactly what is the problem here?

In my world, good for me and good for the buyer who thinks he/she got a good deal.

stevecham2,273 posts06-19-2016 3:47pmWhat troubles me more than any price that someone can sell something and the price for which someone is willing to pay for something, is the reality that there are two sets of rules in our current so-called, but in reality no longer, capitalist society. One set of rules is for those of us who may complain about prices from time to time, but by and large play by a set of rules that is fair. We call ’em as we see ’em and expect a fair deal and quality.

Then there’s the set of rules that I’ll bet none-to-very-few-of-us has access to. Who here can buy a credit default swap for 7 figures or higher and gain from someone else’s failure? Who here can sequester $Ms in off-shore tax-free havens? Who here is able to buy or sell equities on secondary markets with nanosecond transactions? I have to place a bid and then wait hours before it is denied or confirmed, all the while the market shifts and moves out of my purview.

High prices, companies are ripping us off ... In order to support the high prices, there has to be demand. The problem is staring at you in the mirror.

Your disposable income is not keeping up with the JONES so priced out of the market. Instead of complaining, try improving your financial situation if goods are important enough or just content with what you can afford.

Don't want to get political but last 8 years has increased the gap between the rich and poor due to Quantitative Easing and No/Low interest rates.   Creating a bubble in hard assets that includes audio.    Many companies are doing well, Magico, VAC ....   Magico introduces a new version every 3 years and can't keep up with demand.

Same with access to financial incentives.  Is your account balance large enough to enjoy the special benefits?   

The point is, if I make something for $0.01 and, based on whatever marketing or voodoo or apparent added value I effectively attach to my product, I am able to sell it for $1.0M, then exactly what is the problem here?

In my world, good for me and good for the buyer who thinks he/she got a good deal.

It's basically rewarding results that will drive innovation, efficiency ... and eventually lower prices and a superior products for the end consumer.

For example in US Open golf tournament, winner gets $1,800,000. 3 tied for 2nd that gets $745,270 each ... So players will work to improve their game to win the grand prize if that's their goal.  

What do you propose, pie gets evenly divided between all the players? Then why bother improving their game if there's no EXTRA incentive to win?  A Bernie Sander's tournament?????