more 'snake oil'
The evidence is in my blog. As I said before the science says spend your money on speakers, then amps and the source when digital is unimportant, except with bit rates where higher is better. Cables are a definite no.
But since looks, image, surroundings, knowledge (through reviews) affects SQ, what is wrong with going to demos or reading reviews? Nothing.Just because the science says one thing does not negate the other.
So based on that knowledge, buy a super dooper cable if during a demo it sounds better, safe in the knowledge it really does sound better, to you, based on your experience. Does it really matter what causes the cable to sound better?
Totally agree in the context of hi-fi andf music; but maybe for some people understanding the science is their personal influence on SQ, and looks, reviews etc have no effect. It is impossible therefore for "believers" and "non believers" ever to reconcile their viewpoints, simply because their interpretation of the universe is triggered by different stimulae, effectively invisible to each other.
I'd just like to say +1 to everything that idc has said in this thread.
You know better than this Cno, you must be tripping up over your own arguments. Galileo didn't have to change because of what was 'known', it would be because of prevailing doctrine / dogma. The argument works against you, because it is an example of someone being forced to go along with 'belief' rather than 'evidence'. The evidence, I'm afraid, is all against things like cables making a difference.
Again, it depends on how you twist it (and to give you credit, you are good at twisting it!). Galileo had to fight his corner against a tide of people who "knew better". At that stage I believe he had strong evidence that needed further validating. If, as I believe will happen, it will be proved that there are perfectly sound scientific reasons for the differences I'm hearing, then my opinion will be validated. That is the only point I'm trying to make.
Just because creationists use it, is neither here nor there, and is getting away from what I'm saying....though it so happens to suit your counter argument. The "dogmatic" that I was referring to was not in what was said, but the way in which it was said. I feel strongly, but try not to bludgeon others into my point of view.
Until you actually try some of this and hear (or not) for yourself, I will never be able to convince you. I have heard the benefits many times and have converted complete cable sceptics ,who were totally convinced the improvements from the likes of mains cables were impossible (through our own blind tests). Religious fundamentalists are a red herring, as their views are not supported by science, whereas with this, the jury is still out.....I am hoping the likes of Shunyata will prove that there are sound scientific principals to account for the improvements that many hear.
You are a worthy adversary, who always robustly argues your point (and always likes to have the last say!)...but much as I've enjoyed the sparring, I don't think it's going anywhere, except round in circles.
One of these days you will realize I'm right!
Cno, the only evidence that points to analogue cables sounding different is the subjective observations of various people, everything else tells us that they do not differ, including the results of blind tests carried out on believers and non believers, and the basic scientific knowledge that that there is no correlation between cables and end sound.
Also, most that think that analogue cables effect sound quality believe that digital cables can too, and this is impossible, and indisputable.
So whilst there are opposing views on cables, only one viewpoint has scientific credibility, the other has been proven to be the culminative result of the factors idc has highlighted. It is a viewpoint with no credibility, albeit a harmless enough one.
Right, well that's that sorted.
You know better than this Cno, you must be tripping up over your own arguments. Galileo didn't have to change because of what was 'known', it would be because of prevailing doctrine / dogma. The argument works against you, because it is an example of someone being forced to go along with 'belief' rather than 'evidence'. The evidence, I'm afraid, is all against things like cables making a difference.
Again, it depends on how you twist it (and to give you credit, you are good at twisting it!). Galileo had to fight his corner against a tide of people who "knew better". At that stage I believe he had strong evidence that needed further validating. If, as I believe will happen, it will be proved that there are perfectly sound scientific reasons for the differences I'm hearing, then my opinion will be validated. That is the only point I'm trying to make.
Just because creationists use it, is neither here nor there, and is getting away from what I'm saying....though it so happens to suit your counter argument. The "dogmatic" that I was referring to was not in what was said, but the way in which it was said. I feel strongly, but try not to bludgeon others into my point of view.
Until you actually try some of this and hear (or not) for yourself, I will never be able to convince you. I have heard the benefits many times and have converted complete cable sceptics ,who were totally convinced the improvements from the likes of mains cables were impossible (through our own blind tests). Religious fundamentalists are a red herring, as their views are not supported by science, whereas with this, the jury is still out.....I am hoping the likes of Shunyata will prove that there are sound scientific principals to account for the improvements that many hear.
You are a worthy adversary, who always robustly argues your point (and always likes to have the last say!)...but much as I've enjoyed the sparring, I don't think it's going anywhere, except round in circles.
One of these days you will realize I'm right!
I think it's unfair that you say I am 'twisting' anything, but I agree we're unlikely to progress the argument much further, so I shall leave you to enjoy the golf 
.....so I shall leave you to enjoy the golf
Amen to that! 
I think it's unfair that you say I am 'twisting' anything,
It may not have sounded like it, but it was in fact a complement. You are one of the few people who really challenge any given argument to be completely water tight.....any weakness will be ruthlessly highlighted and a slam dunk ensues!
What I dont understand really is why nobody holds the manufacturers of speakers, amps, cd players etc to task for letting aftermarket third party cable companies muddy the waters and cream massive amounts of cash out of punters pockets.
There should be a universal standard of cable that is scientifically proven to transmit noise from one end to the other properly without electrocuting anyone, and then that gets put in the box with whatever you're buying. Its not difficult really.
Or is there some financial connection between the device sellers and the cable people? Am I being massively naieve here?
The market is now so saturated, there are even companies out there devoted to selling magic headphone cables that will somehow transmit your music the 2 foot from your phone to your ears so much better than the standard cable you've been using! Look, its all shiny and futuristic looking - it must be an upgrade!
What utter nonsense. People have become so totally unaware of whats really important. Just think about your favourite album and the moments when hearing it has had the most impact on you. Most of my treasured memories are not forged from times spent sitting like a startled rabbit at the perfect apex of a triangle between my speakers, straining like a mentalist to assess bass control and mid range bloom. No, they're mostly from hearing music on speakers in smoky bedrooms after graphic acts have been performed. EDITED by MODS - House Rules.
Form and content have become confused. Does this three hundred quid hdmi cable make the black on your giant tv seem, um, more black than it did before?
I mean, do you think there's a forum out there where kettle owners are debating the best mains cable to use for making the perfect cuppa?
How much money and time and effort is wasted on this tail chasing? If we had proper governments, they'd be employing people to kick any shyster making these claims.
And, to return to my earlier point about What hi-fi running a Big Question with only female participants - I would imagine a big reason why it would be so great is because the responses you'd get about cables and system matching would be actually quite astute:
Woman A: Why are you playing Radiohead?
WHF: Because this track demonstrates the full range of frequencies across the dynamic range
Woman B: turn it off, its making me sad
WHF: Now, would you say the treble is slightly more focused in this track than the last one?
Woman C: what's treble? Why are you making us sit in this room? I don't like those curtains. And just look at her boots!
WHF: Please focus on the music. Do you prefer system 1 or system 2?
Woman A: Do you have Take That's last one? I like Jason.
Woman A: Why are you playing Radiohead?
WHF: Because this track demonstrates the full range of frequencies across the dynamic range
Woman B: turn it off, its making me sad
WHF: Now, would you say the treble is slightly more focused in this track than the last one?
Woman C: what's treble? Why are you making us sit in this room? I don't like those curtains. And just look at her boots!
WHF: Please focus on the music. Do you prefer system 1 or system 2?
Woman A: Do you have Take That's last one? I like Jason.
So not anachronistic audiophiles but outdated stereotypes, then...
Woman A: Why are you playing Radiohead?
WHF: Because this track demonstrates the full range of frequencies across the dynamic range
Woman B: turn it off, its making me sad
WHF: Now, would you say the treble is slightly more focused in this track than the last one?
Woman C: what's treble? Why are you making us sit in this room? I don't like those curtains. And just look at her boots!
WHF: Please focus on the music. Do you prefer system 1 or system 2?
Woman A: Do you have Take That's last one? I like Jason.
So not anachronistic audiophiles but outdated stereotypes, then...
He's lucky Ms Newsome doesn't still work here, there'd be an ICBM with his IP address programmed into it by now.
Radiohead makes me sad too
Woman A: Why are you playing Radiohead?
WHF: Because this track demonstrates the full range of frequencies across the dynamic range
Woman B: turn it off, its making me sad
WHF: Now, would you say the treble is slightly more focused in this track than the last one?
Woman C: what's treble? Why are you making us sit in this room? I don't like those curtains. And just look at her boots!
WHF: Please focus on the music. Do you prefer system 1 or system 2?
Woman A: Do you have Take That's last one? I like Jason.
So not anachronistic audiophiles but outdated stereotypes, then...
Take That, outdated? Just look what they've done for Marks & Spencers and The Queen!
My point stands.
In your mind, maybe.
In your mind, maybe.
Lol. My mind is not to be trusted.....
Anyway, it's true. I think we can all agree on the following statements:
1) Snake oil doesn't taste very nice
2) You cant put three men or women in a soundproofed room and conduct double blind tests without getting into trouble.
Nobody has ever indentified a speaker cable in a blind test. Is that not indisputable evidence?
No!
Nobody had been measured running a mile in under 4 minutes before 1954......it didn't mean it was impossible though, as Roger Banniister went on to prove.
Also, most that think that analogue cables effect sound quality believe that digital cables can too, and this is impossible, and indisputable.
So whilst there are opposing views on cables, only one viewpoint has scientific credibility, the other has been proven to be the culminative result of the factors idc has highlighted. It is a viewpoint with no credibility, albeit a harmless enough one.