The main point is that I enjoy listening to music and the system I'm using although rather cheap sounds great to me, (all used buys.... Thorens TD166 MKII with a few mods, Pioneer A400X, Marantz CD-63 MKII KI and B&W DM602s).
Looks like a pretty tight setup to me.
The original post I made was serious and I wanted to know if the digital interconnects I have should produce a better sound than cheapies or should I invest in some dedicated analogue interconnects.
I know. I never addressed it, I would just add that, if you're happy with things as they are it's not necessary to try normal "analog" interconnects (as opposed to digital like you've said), but consider experimenting if, now or down the line, you can do so cheaply, or especially if you can borrow a pair from a dealer or friend - just to determine whether or not you feel you hear a difference that's worth spending money on. There are lots of inexpensive but great options in cables. In my experience they often yield subtle improvements, but those little differences can make all the difference in the world, so to speak.
I have to admit I was playing a little on the last two posts as it seamed to be getting a bit serious. If anyone takes offence at the comments I must appologise.
It's hard to tell in these situations (online communication), but I suspected that might be where you were going with it. Unfortunately nearly any thread that touches (just touches) on the subject often turns into an argument, some productive, others not at all. In this forum things aren't allowed to get out of control, same for the site in general, but here the point is to allow discussion of experiences with things like cables without being mocked or told you're imagining things.
Both sides of this perennial argument suffer from one or the other at some point or another. What about the "unexpected result" to a sighted subjective cable swap? They seem to get mentioned often enough - usually in the vein of "I never expected this $6.99 cable to perform as well as my Acme Silver Garden Hose which cost me my left testicle and a promise of a first born."
"Psychoacoustics" is a real effect as well, but the number of people who know nothing about it, and yet throw it around, at least equal those who quote dubious explanations about "cable break in" without any scientific knowledge.
The tragedy is that nobody on either side seems interested in figuring out what is really happening - those who hear a difference don't care, because they find what pleases their ears (which, contrary to the common belief, is not necessarily the highest dollar value item). Those who don't hear a difference (or never bother to try anything different to see what happens) have no interest in finding out why there seems to be such a mass psychosis in such a varied and widely distributed population of people. Manufacturers don't care so long as people buy their products.
And, of course, Real Science(tm) costs money, and there are no government grants forthcoming for this study (though I often wonder if there's anything in the Canadian NRC files....)
I think you've summed it up nicely here. In the past I've stopped short of selling off testicles for upper-tier cables, probably the wise choice. You can only do it twice.
The one thing I don't entirely agree on is that nobody is interested in finding out what, if anything, is behind the changes many of us say we hear when using various tweaks, cables, etc.. I think the skeptical crowd is often more interested in a scientific explanation and tangible evidence beyond the subjective experience of listening, and many on the other side of the issue (like myself) are satisfied with whatever gives results we feel are best. Like anything, this is not black and white, and in truth I'd be really interested in knowing what exactly is going on with some of the more counter-intuitive things I've heard in hi-fi audio. If this information remains elusive, I won't lose sleep over it, however.
