Among other things, the article talks at length about "audiophile cables," long a topic of my discontent.

In this month's issue of Sound and Vision a contributor pans tubes. (I sort of agree but not whole-heartedly, because I have not auditioned good quality tube equipment on high quality speakers.) But the tube world (which, looking at some of the prices, has got way out of hand) does not bother me like the cable world does. That is because those who use tube equipment do so because they **like** the sound of tube equipment. They don't (at least the ones with any sense) make the claim that tube equipment is any more accurate than solid state equipment. Perhaps they say that neither ss nor tube is perfectly accurate (like live music), and that they like the inaccuracies of tubes better. Fine.

The cable world, however, would have you believe that their ridiculously over-priced stuff is actually more accurate. Less skin effect, blah, blah, blah. As if they could hear any difference between their $100/ft 97% oxygen-free product and their 99% oxygen-free product! Puhleeese!

il type some again

::Cables::
∙Silver
∙Microdiodes
∙Skin effect
None of the 3 things seem to be an issue from what ive read.

::amplifiers::
Ive grown up with transistors,i think they sound fine! i havent heard a valve amp.Down here in NZ hifi is far apart.

::prices::
I really find it disgusting how the companys seem to be setting the price for cables, and theres this relativistic idea that lots of products are 'good'but you have to 'match' products with each other
< even if unconciously of similar $$$$ value matched up>

Im all for value for money,Top performance for dollar-ness
Kitset amps,DIY speakers,and choosign your own pros and cons when designing things,or using some one elses diy design :-)

Cheers!

• homepage