I found a very interesting article on expensive cables....

[Feanor]

Given that cables should be chosen independent of system’s cost, I don’t see any reason why that statement wouldn’t apply to people with high level systems also.

I don't know that I agree with the premise. If we suspend disbelief for a moment and allow that "expensive" equates to higher quality, better resolving, whatever, then such subtle difference as there might be favoring more expensive cables, should be more apparent in the higher-cost system.

Then again there is the relative arguments that (1) more expensive cables are no more than proportionals to cost of the system as a whole, and (2) that the richer people who can afford the expensive system can also afford the expensive cables.

[Smokey]

I don't know that I agree with the premise. If we suspend disbelief for a moment and allow that "expensive" equates to higher quality, better resolving, whatever, then such subtle difference as there might be favoring more expensive cables, should be more apparent in the higher-cost system.

That is a fair statement if we suspend disbelief. But on the same note if we go by that assumption, then the statement....

"People with entry or middle level systems, are better to spend their money elsewhere than on expensive cables."

......also have to be suspended since it does not hold true anymor.

[Feanor]

That is a fair statement if we suspend disbelief. But on the same note if we go by that assumption, then the statement....

"People with entry or middle level systems, are better to spend their money elsewhere than on expensive cables."

......also have to be suspended since it does not hold true anymor.

I'm just not following, Smokey.

I practical terms what I'm saying is the listener will get better sound buying a $1200 CDP with, say, $30 Blue Jeans cable, than spending $700 on the player and $500 on the interconnects, or buying a $1500 amp with $50 speaker cable vs. $1000 for the amp and $550 for the cable.

Once you get into real high-end, say $3000+ components, bets are off.

[Smokey]

Sorry for being not clear. I think me and you are on the same page, but difference seem to arise when we are talking about higher end systems.

For example when you say that all bets are off when it comes to high end system, are you saying that for that type of systems, choosing cable should be system’s cost dependent?

[Feanor]

....
For example when you say that all bets are off when it comes to high end system, are you saying that for that type of systems, choosing cable should be system’s cost dependent?

Well sort of. That is, it is unlikely (though not impossible) that spending $500 on pair of cables will offer as much performance benefit as spending an additional $500 on an entry to mid-level active component, (CDP, amp, etc). Say a $1300 versus a $800 amp.

However the with high-end equipment, (as Kevio suggests, in this case at least), buying the $500 pair of cables might possibly provide your performance more than spending the same amount on an active component. Say a $3500 versus a $3000 amp.

[Smokey]

However the with high-end equipment, (as Kevio suggests, in this case at least), buying the $500 pair of cables might possibly provide your performance more than spending the same amount on an active component. Say a $3500 versus a $3000 amp.

Sorry Feanor, but I do not necessary agree with that statement.

You said you are going by assumption that more expensive cables provide better performance. But if we go by that assumption, then you also have to agree that expensive cable will also improve the sound of low and mid level system.

That is the reason I said your previous statement “people with entry or middle level systems, are better to spend their money elsewhere than on expensive cables” will not hold true if we go by above assumption. If more expensive cable can improve high end systems, it can also do the same for low and mid level systems. We can’t have it both ways

Actually what I'm suggesting is that in the strata of luxury goods there's not necessarily a positive correlation between price and performance. You could spend more for a CD player or cables and end up with lesser or equivalent sound in either case.

Marketers can take advantage of the fact that when we pay more we assume we're getting more and that assumption creates its own reality. They also understand that in luxury markets, many customers (whether they'll admit it or not) are actually looking to buy status. Performance can be secondary.

Excellent post. Lets hope Mr. P doesn't start calling you names too

[Feanor]

Sorry Feanor, but I do not necessary agree with that statement.

You said you are going by assumption that more expensive cables provide better performance. But if we go by that assumption, then you also have to agree that expensive cable will also improve the sound of low and mid level system.

That is the reason I said your previous statement “people with entry or middle level systems, are better to spend their money elsewhere than on expensive cables” will not hold true if we go by above assumption. If more expensive cable can improve high end systems, it can also do the same for low and mid level systems. We can’t have it both ways
...

Look, Smokey, (and Kevio), I never state any believe in a fixed relationship between price and performance. At best there is a loose correlation, and I'm not sure that this applies to cables at all.

Here is specifically what I'm conviced of:

• I hear no difference, certainly no significant differences, amoung decent quality cables I've heard; (these have been in the $30 to $300). In this regard I personally would be stupid to pay more that $30 in that range, depending on the length, etc.
• I'm included to believe that whatever differences there are amoung cables regardless of price, they are likely to be small. That is, the rule of diminishing returns will work with a vengence in the case of cables.

At best, cables are a minor tweak, (at worst they are jewellery). To keep things in perpective, if you are rich and can thus afford to spend money a lot of money on your hifi system, wasting it or not, then indulge yourself in expensive cables. If your a poor person, as I am relatively speaking, I say you're a fool to buy expensive cables.

Mr. Peabody evidently has extraordinary hear and can hear differences between say, Monoprice and Blue Jeans. Good for him, but I'll bet even he will admit that the differences are very small, especially compared to other components in general.

[Kevio]

I personally think it is dangerous to make assumptions about price vs. performance in audiophile equipment or luxury goods in general.

[angelgz]

Then again there is the relative arguments that (1) more expensive cables are no more than proportionals to cost of the system as a whole, and (2) that the richer people who can afford the expensive system can also afford the expensive cables.

No, that statement is incorrect. I can put together a reasonably high end system for $15-20k but if you add some of the ridiculous cables such as Pear Cable or Tara Labs "The Zero" then that would make your $20k system cost $40k. I really don't see the point of that. If I have an extra $20K, I'd probably save it to buy another pair of Genesis 6.1 or a Krell Evo amp but not cables. Opportunity cost buddy.

[E-Stat]

No, that statement is incorrect. ...but if you add some of the ridiculous cables

Such would hardly represent a proportional cost as Feanor worded.

rw

[Feanor]

No, that statement is incorrect. I can put together a reasonably high end system for $15-20k but if you add some of the ridiculous cables such as Pear Cable or Tara Labs "The Zero" then that would make your $20k system cost $40k. I really don't see the point of that. If I have an extra $20K, I'd probably save it to buy another pair of Genesis 6.1 or a Krell Evo amp but not cables. Opportunity cost buddy.

Uhmm ... I think you're agreeing with me. (Or is it me with you?)