opaqueice wrote: > Robin Bowes;275514 Wrote: >> If, if, if ... > > There is no "if" (except maybe in your head). You can buy cables for > a few dollars which will perform as well or better as any audiophile > cable, no matter how expensive.
As usual, you're missing the point, perhaps deliberately choosing to do so. Can you claim that *all* cables sound identical? No. Therefore there is always a conditional clause in any of your claims, e.g. "Cables are totally irrelevant to audio performance *so long as they meet certain basic performance requirements.*" For the third time, I think that v. expensive cables are a waste of money. But, I think that it *is* important to use good quality cable/interconnects; these do not have to cost a lot of money. >> No, the real problem is that you consistently post highly polarised >> opinion as fact. > > The truth hurts - sorry. It's not my fault the debate has gotten > politicized. It's the fault of those selling snakeoil, and those > that fell for it. That's not my point at all. You're just as bad as the snake oil peddlers - you represent the opposite extreme of opinion, but post as if your views are fact. They're not. >> Yes, there are some v. expensive cables out there that will not >> perform any better than good quality cables costing much less. > > There are no v. expensive cables out there that will perform better > than good quality cables costing much less. Er, would you care to explain the logical difference between what I said and what you said? >> No, not all cables are "good quality", therefore cable *can* make a >> difference. >> > > Sure - cut them in half with shears and they won't work very well. By your resorting to such ridiculous statements I can only assume that you're running out of ideas to defend your views. Hardly surprising really. R. _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
