"Cable Geometry"? Can you explain that, as I assume that is an Audiophile term.
I assume it means cable design or cable construction, but in the case of a digital coax lead, it's still surely not relevant, as long as the signal gets recognised as 0's and 1's at the other end it does not matter (if they don't get recognised e.g. because there is interference then they just get discarded).
Nothing audiophile about the term at all. While we're at it, why do you use the word 'audiophile' like its a dirty word? Anyone who takes an interest in the gear they use to play the music they love can (and should) consider themselves an audiophile. There's nothing snobby about the term. The very fact that you are reading this thread, and more so the fact that you're contributing to it as well, puts you very firmly in the audiophile pool.
Cable geometry is the shape and layout of the conductors, dielectric and shield. So, if it's a coaxial or some kind of multistrand. With some types of signal that's very important; it can reduce or even eliminate interference that might affect the cable or that the cable might be emitting itself.
In the case of analog cables (e.g. speaker cable, composite cables, even Scart and VGA) then I appreciate there can be a difference... between a low cost low quality and a decent cable (e.g. reduced interference etc),
Good, I'm glad you recognise this. Interconnects is the subject of this thread, and interconnects do come in both analogue and digital form.
...but with digital cables they either work or they don't. The difference between a £5 analog cable and a £50 could be quite significant, above that though (i.e. the really expensive cables) then no one is able to scientifically prove there is any difference.
The "It's digital, it either works or doesn't" argument is a gross oversimplification. But I'm not debating whether this or that HDMI cable is better/worse/no different from another. That debate has been done to death and no doubt will be again... and again... and again... ad infinitum. I'm also not here to debate whether esoteric cables are better for the signal than simple well made cables.
The point I'm addressing is this idea of the "
as long as it looks okay from the outside and works in my system then it must be okay" argument. In essence then it's the idea that any cable will do, which then comes back to the first point you raised about 'cable geometry'. More specifically my point is that so much budget interconnect cable is sold and bought without any real knowledge of what's actually inside. Call it the Hot Dog Conundrum if you will. Hot Dogs are cheap. They're tasty too, so what's not to like. But if you really spent any time thinking about what's inside just before you ordered one, would you still throw your money down? Would you consider that a healthy choice to regularly feed to your kids?
I'd like to see better standards in budget cables. IMO far too much of what's sold is either poor or wrongly specified for the job it is meant to do.
A big part of that problem is a lack of good information. This goes for the retailers and distributors who often have less idea of what they're selling than the customers who buy it. But it also goes to customers who are misinformed in internet fora and elsewhere resulting in the promotion of the bad idea that "It's all the same, mate" when it really isn't. Take a basic subwoofer cable. There are loads of places that will sell a 5m sub lead for a fiver or less. None I have found so far give any indication of the type of cable shielding though. The description might say 'shielded' but that's as far as it goes. Very few tell me if it's shielded with a spiral wrap or coaxial braid. They don't mention what the percentage cover is, and very few say what the conductor and the shield material are; whether it's copper or copper coated steel or copper coated aluminium or even just Mylar tape for shielding. There's just as much pointless rhetoric about irrelevant or insignificant points with cheap cables as there is with more pricey stuff. For example, you'll often see mention of gold plating. Here's a quote from an Ebay site selling a 5m digital coax cable for £3.50 "The cable has high quality 24K Gold plated connectors for the best possible connection and ultimate sound quality". Sorry, but a few microns of gold flash does bugger all to guarantee the best the connection or ultimate sound quality. The advert for that same cable makes no mention of whether it's a 75 Ohm lead at all. For every one person spending £50+ on a lead there must be hundreds if not thousands buying sub £10 cables and being conned in to believing that they're buying something decent at a bargain price when really they're just getting what they paid for.
It can be proved that Cars do 70mph though (or more for more expensive cars), it's difficult to prove that an audio cable actually performs better. Similarly I might pay more for a Rolex because the movement is better than a £5 watch, or that it is made of real gold or silver rather than being plated - compared to your Audio cables though, it cannot be conclusively proved that they sound better, the only thing that can be proved is that they are better constructed.
I'm not convinced your analogies are all that effective. Cars have pretty easy to verify specifications. For example, one wouldn't walk in to a dealership and expect the salesman to say that all red ones with chrome wheels are the fastest and are the ultimate in driving experience. As for the Rolex, it can be proved quite easily that a cheap digital watch tells the time just as well. What you're buying is a piece of jewellery with precision engineering.
I'm not arguing that audio cables sound better/worse. That's a debate for another time. I'd just like to see more care within the forum about recommendations and also to see an end for the 'race to the bottom' approach where quality is the baby that's thrown out with the bath water.
