What's unfortunate about this thread is that I think everybody started out with the best of intentions:

1) Merc and company suggested that for those who just dropped a grand on a new processor and are not loving its sound, they might be able to solve their problems with a relatively cheap fix.

2) Others feared that these new 950 owners were going to waste money on a solution that wouldn't actually make a difference.

And, unfortunately, when people put their money where their mouth is, emotions run strong.

The standard problem that Merc and others have raised with the ABX argument is that there hasn't been lots and lots of extensive ABX testing by many different people with lots of different ancillary equipment. Pro-cable-difference people argue that this means that there is insufficient scientific evidence to dismiss the possibility that cables make a difference. Anti-cable-difference people argue that if there existed any setup in which expensive boutique cables were clearly discernable from cheaper varieties, surely the well-funded cable companies would have published such results, given the huge financial benefits that such a published study would bring them. Thus, each side takes the LACK of evidence as supporting their claim. And, unfortunately, they're both right, though on different levels.

Given the multi-million dollar cable industry, more extensive ABX testing really should be done in order to put the issue to rest. But who would pay for it? The only public ABX tests I know of all suggest that differences between well-constructed cables aren't discernable. That likely makes the risk of failure for substantive experiments unbearable for cable companies. Moreover, in my opinion, is it not a viable option for audio magazines, who receive valuable advertising dollars from cable companies and sell copies by touting their "golden ear" reviewers, who are allegedly able to hear these differences. Anyone remember the $20 CD edge laser light blocking pens that made Stereophile's Recommended Components list?

Personally, I don't believe in the value of the esoteric cables because (1) not a single ABX test of which I know supports their making a difference, (2) physics suggests that their miniscule LRC differences are orders of magnitude too small to have discernable psychoacoustic effects, and (3) I've personally never been able to hear the difference in blind comparisons. I believe that my opinion is well-founded, but I know that it is not proof. My great concern is that heated discussions like this will be going on for a long time, because it is in no corporation's interest to scientifically test the validity of cable corporations' claims.

Merc requested some info on cable testing... this info was posted in the Interconnect forum: