Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:44:37 GMT, "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.


If by 'information', you mean a digital data stream, then it's simply
not true. In the case of analogue audio signals, the resistance of any
interconnect is inconsequential, and you need a very long run of poor
cable to suffer any loss of treble due to capacitance. So, your
'scientific logic' is neither scientific nor logical - as is the case
with the truly risible claims made by the cable companies.


Digital information can get 'lost', or simply not arrive, by virtue of
digital cables available in any PC shop. The resistance of cables is
real ('logical'), but may be of no audible advantage/disadvantage. To
describe cable difference as having no consequence is wrong - people buy
them.


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
. ..

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:16:59 GMT, "Mark R Penn"
wrote:


Isn't the harm that someone somewhere is getting away with a rip-off? The
fact that the "victims" can afford their losses doesn't really make it any
better I think.

Quite so.


At least with interconnects there's some scientific logic behind the
claims,
even if most people can't genuinely hear any difference.

Oh, Really? And what 'scientific logic' would that be, pray tell?