"Great RCA interconnects under $100?"

Pawlowski, I agree to disagree, so we're in agreement!

To add my own .02 cents to the specific recommendations. For my ears, in my system, I've been impressed by Signal Cables which can be had new for under $100, and on the used market Mike Sanders, Quicksilver Audio IC's (which are silver) between pre and amp, and Harmonic Tech Truthlinks between source and pre. Both may be just a bit over the 100 mark, but not by much. OK, I 'cheated'...send me packing. YMMV (as always). I'd add that cables, IC's and PC's are so system-dependent that making blanket recommendations seems a bit silly. As I've indicated, I'd disagree with a general statement that implies one is "better" than another. I'd agree with the specific statement that they can definitively affect the way the system sounds and they certainly may sound "different" from each other. "Better" is entirely up to the individual doing the listening. Someone who cannot hear any difference between a $100 IC and a $500 IC in a specific link in their system (and there may indeed not be an audible difference) may rightly consider that $100 a "great" IC . Who are any of us to tell them otherwise. That'd also make the $500 IC a "great" IC too, since it sounded the same, but at a cost of $400 more - here's where the words gullible and stupid may come to that person's mind. Of course they are certainly not "stupid, gullible, or inherently insecure", they simply cannot hear a difference and or don't believe the difference they do hear is worth the added investement. There are all too many people willing to be lead like lemmings off a cliff by others telling them what they should like, how much it should cost, whose stamp of approval to look for, blah, blah, blah. The best advice I've taken to heart in enjoying this and any other pursuit is to trust in yourself.

Of all the links in a system I'd say that cables, IC's and PC's have the most rapidly diminishing returns on investment. The markup on these items can be astounding, and for the margin of improvement you get for your investment the amount of money might be better invested in other aspects of your system. The difference between a $100 speaker, and a $2000 speaker is very likely going to be pretty profound, given a good system behind them. The difference between a "great" $100 IC and a $2000 IC is not likely going to be nearly as profound, nor are as many people going to be able to tell and or appreciate the differences made (especially at the expense of $1900).

I'd imagine that folks looking for great $100 cables are more practical people and aren't likely to put their priorities in a link which yields a very low rate of return on investment.

Like anything else, it's worth whatever someone wants to pay for it. In turn, this is just one person's opinion - I'd encourage you to form your very own, and in spite of our disagreement, I do respect yours, Pawlowski. I certainly don't share it.

Marco

If anyone can get Great RCA interconnects for $100, why would someone ever pay more.

No, is the answer.

You can get filtered water from your tap (assuming you have a simple filtration system), yet some folks are happy to pay several dollars for a glass of branded, marketed designer water (with or without bubbles). You can buy a pair of Levis at Costco for around $24, or find a pair of jeans with some designers stamp of approval on them for several hundred. Why people are willing to pay more is a far more complex answer than you are suggesting it might be.

As far as your further response to the question asked; I'd disagree to any such blanket response. It is entirely subjective, not to mention system and synergy dependent. You may get a hundred different suggestions, but the best advice I can imagine is just to try them out yourself in the application(s) you are wanting to use them in. A difference someone else claims to be able to hear, may be one that leaves you scratching your head wondering if you need better Q-tips. Either buy used and resell, or try the Cable Company's lending program. The answer to your question is entirely up to you.

Marco

Pawlowski - I'd suggest you re-read my post, as I don't think you understood it. I was not trying to compare water or jeans to IC's. I was using those examples to illustrate that people will pay more money for a given item for reasons far more complex than whether or not the item is actually "Better" than a cheaper version of it. I was addressing your original question as to why people would pay more if what they were getting weren't "better" - They'd pay more for all kinds of reasons.

Taken verbatim or not, I disagree with your blanket statement. It is an entirely relative judgment call and will vary from individual to individual. A quick search of archived discussions on this subject will reveal there are those who claim to be able to hear a difference, as well as those who cannot. For those who cannot, I'd say that great cables exist for under $100. Taken further, to those with arguably "golden ears", just look at the speaker cable shootout in TAS where they threw in a Home-Depot extension cord in the mix with much more expensive cables and discovered that the sub $50 solution did many things better than far more expensive boutique cables. I stand by my original response; it's all subjective and you should use your own system, your own room, your own music, and your own two ears.

Marco

Now a reality check: unless you have the same components & speakers as the original recording studio, then your system will never sound exactly the same. This is where HiFi systems become subjective, since the aim is to put a system together that sounds perfect to YOU and YOUR ears (and remember no two people's hearing is identical).

Here, here, Carl! I raise my morning coffee to toast your excellent post. I might add to your accurate statement above, that even if you had the same gear, connections, etc. it would sound different in a different room. Further still, even if you in the actual recording studio at the time of recording listening to the very gear the engineer was basing their own decisions upon, it may not be your...well, cup of tea! I'm taking off on your caffeinated beverage theme--I trust you don't mind. You may actually much prefer your very own home stereo that you've assembled through years of trial and error, and that stereo may sound very little like the the monitors in the recording studio. So much for "fidelity". Or as Jack said, "...Truth?!..You can't handle the truth!!!"

Being a great fan of fine time pieces, though not at all a fan of status symbols, I can say that I've never seen a Rolex I found in the least bit attractive, nor will you ever find one on my wrist. There are many very expensive watches I find stunningly beautiful, weird as that may seem to anyone who doesn't give a toss, and I do appreciate the aesthetics of that art, as well as the craftsmanship that goes into designing and building the works of those hand-built timepieces (although you never really see them unless you remove them from your wrist and pop the back off). Similar arguments can be made with the gear we're talking about (hand-made in small batches by passionate people who've put tremendous R&D time and dollars into producing something that arguably does the same thing as items far less expensive), though the direction here seems to be aimed more towards function than form, probably because no one actually looks at IC's much once they're installed. As far as the function aspect of the watch; well, although they may say the same time at any given moment, we all know the Rolex gives mo'betta time than the Seiko, eh?;-) And just like those fat cables in the back of your system, you'll get those knowing nods of approval from all the right people. And the women will smile and make eye-contact, right after they steal a glance at your crotch fantasizing about fat wire, the original Rolex Milgaus (the rarest and ugliest of all Rolex's offerings), and all that discriminatin' good taste that only the privileged few can afford. BTW, the Chinese-made digital watch on my cell phone that's hooked up to a wireless satellite network keeps pretty good time too. I bet it cost about $2 to integrate into the phone.

My coffee is drained, and it's time to go to work. You're absolutely right, it's all subjective. No right. No wrong. As XTC put it, "...it's always been the same, it's just a complicated game."

Marco

Do you think I should try to improve the system by finding cables which may help me improve the system further. Assuming of course that I can? I fear if I find a more 'neutral cable' it will reveal some shortcoming in my 'matching' and I have to start all over. :-)

Well thanks for the high praise, Newbee, but I think there are folks here far sharper than I with the tube gear. Boy, without getting very specific it sounds like you probably shouldn't play with something that's good already...or is it? Is there something still missing? I'm betting you're gonna' play some more, just by the fact that you asked the question. The old adage, "...if it ain't broke..." just doesn't apply to audiophiles. I'm all for experimenting if you have the time and patience, but then when do you stop and say it's good? Gee, that was a big help, wasn't it? One of the very basic things I've noted time and again about materials is that silver seems to me to be fast and revealing and seems to not be great in the bass region. Copper seems to be slower, but does bass betta'. Probably old news to you and anyone with much experience here. A broad generalization at best. FWIW, in my own last fiddling about with wires in my tube system, I kept ending up with silver wires between pre and amp, and copper between source and pre. I kept trying different permutations and always ended up back there.

As for watches, I still wind mine too...I like the ritual. Chrono too; vintage military, yet quite elegant in its simplicity. Oh, and my wife drives an older Passat - great car. Toilet paper? I like Charmin cause of that Mr. Whipple dude. I think he wore a Timex.

Marco