So did we ever reach consensus on whether the disagreement is between whether all equivalent cables (RCA, XLR, Mains etc) sound the same irrespective of price or whether even the most ardent denier agrees there are differences but that the price discrepancy between doesn't justify the improvement being experienced?
One thing I've noticed is thtt if I were to change just one cable in my loom, I do struggle to hear the difference (there was one exception to that, which was between two different SPIDF cables I heard, where I experienced the less expensive cable, which was half the price of the other, as significantly better than the more expensive cable, so much so I got a refund on the more expensive cable to buy the cheaper one), but if I change them all, e.g. change all the mains cables or change all the interconnects, then I do hear a difference.
The degree of improvement I experience is not subtle, but at the same time, it's also the area that's hardest to get VFM (you have to invest a lot of time listening and sourcing options before you find something that does represent VFM).
Well...
I'd say: -
1. Few ears are great testers and cables rarely make a huge improvement - diminishing returns hit hard here.
2. Sometimes different is better and sometimes it is just 'different': we presumably all want 'consistently better' not merely different.
3. Cables may well have more unwarranted claims attached (audible or as measured) than any other bit of kit.
4. Human biases matter and allowing for them is hard. So is making a completely convincing one-term test.
5. Details of room and system will matter much more to SQ than cables.
6. Small changes can add up so that 5 X hardly-there-at-all can equal 1 X big improvement.
7. It is rarely cost-effective to pay more than a few % of the total system value for cables.
8. We don't know all that we would need to measure, analyse, model and predict the whole hearing process from CD to brain to a useful degree.
9. Given our aim of greater enjoyment, it is noteworthy how often that is connected with explicitly better sound quality.
10. Experiences may be transitory and subjective, but a decent consensus on kit is surprisingly common and usefully so.
11. Some who say they hear no real and consistent difference ever between A & B say that no-one else can; but not all.
12. Most who think some cables are consistently audibly better would draw a line above which they simply can’t believe any can offer VFM, but without strong consensus on where the line is.
13. The aim of many of the more Objectivist posters is simply to encourage scepticism about spending money on cables.
14. Arguments about measured reality versus subjective hearing are more credible if they are consistent in how they can be applied to cables and (say) amplifiers, CD players and streamers.
15. Not all cables are comparably well shielded, but it is not agreed whether that could ever matter.
16. For music enjoyment, if stated measurements and a consistent consensus differ on A v. B, ears eventually need to be given precedence, given how we hear.
17. Some suitable cables sound significantly better than other suitable cables, and it is not always the more expensive.
Arguments here have not changed anyone’s mind and won’t– that does or does not happen if and when sceptics ‘hear a difference’ they cannot explain away or believers suddenly ‘realise’ they aren’t ‘hearing a difference’ and never did and so it must be all Foo.
I think almost all who have commented here would agree with points 1 – 7. A majority probably agree with most of the rest too, but few will be as vehement on anything as the vigorous (I think) minority’s disagreement with the last 2. Finally, a few Subjectivists may think that point 13 is far from clear.
Despite my verbosity, I think that’s a summary! Is it any use?
