Stewart, you're far too aggressive. It's not "my" logic, it's the logic that
is generally accepted by the cable buying layman.

My only point is that for cables, you CAN give a logic to the average layman
that will cause him to say "hmm, makes sense to me", while for the pebbles,
most will say "bollox" when presented with the idea. I therefore believe
that the pebbles can be categorically stated to be a con, while for cables
the debate will go on forever. That's it; my only point.

Mark

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
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.

"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?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering