Why? I'm saying that the pebbles scam is exactly that because there is
absolutely no attempt to find ANY logical science behind it, and therefore I
don't believe the perpetrators themselves believe in the effects.

Interconnects are slightly different, in that there is a logical explanation
that can be put forward (even if unproven), and when you combine that with
some peoples firm belief that they can hear a difference, it gets difficult
to brand it a con a such. I'm not trying to justify claims made for cables,
so don't need to put any figures forward.

I think the difference is that the pebble people are almost certainly
sitting there thinking "he he he, we got another sucker who believes what we
tell him, even though we don't", while (some of) the interconnect people
will genuinely believe that their customers are lucky that they can hear the
same effect as they can.

But I'm not out to argue that interconnects are NOT a con. Just that if they
are, it's a much wider held belief and that the argument works because some
people can see that it makes sense.

I may be wrong, but isn't it true that at some point, the interconnects can
be bad enough to degrade, so therefore making them "better" must be a good
thing? I think most reasonable people's understanding is that they can't
make their system better using ever better and better cables, but that they
do need to be of a certain minimum quality in order to have no adverse
effect.

For the record (pun intended), I've never ever heard interconnects make a
scrap of difference, but still wouldn't use domestic telephone cable.

Mark

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...
In article , Mark R Penn wrote:
That with less resistance and fewer losses in the cable, more information
must get through. It may be flawed logic, or good logic with no
perceivable
real world benefit, I don't know, but at least it's logic that the
average
layman would find it difficult to argue against.

Give us some typical real world numbers for the physical effects and it
will
be very easy indeed to argue against them having any practical
significance
whatsoever.

Rod.