Firstly, Frap, I don't know what you mean by "cables like MIT,etc." creating LCR changes--all cables create LCR changes to my knowledge, or I should say frequency shifts due to them. Secondly, in the last sentence, plating does subtly affect the LCR values. Thirdly, what I'm saying is alot cheaper than the high-end cables, in fact it will save you alot of money. Most of Dunlavy's points seem right (I say seem because I'm not qualified to evaluate it entirely). I still have reservations as to why he has to charge $1,000 for a 10ft pr of his new "LCR cable", but maybe I'm naive to production costs.
Regardless of the usually subtle effects LCR values have on the linearity of the signal with good electronics, cable money is still better spent on better electronics IMHO, unless you've got money to burn (note, not necessarily more expensive electronics either). And I find it curious that cable manufacturers have to resort to what I perceive as such devious marketing schemes: square wave graphs without amplitude and/or frequency being specified, our cable versus a generic "leading large round conductor", their speaker cables' specifications (when they actually get published!!) compared to a 24-28g speaker cable (as if anybody uses that--unless you happen to buy into the images and ideologies of the 47 labs sakura systems S$%^), cite *Hypothesis* to market a cable (the microdiodes and various crystal structures like), etc. and do nothing to take it to that next step and translate the physical or electrical characteristics of their cable (if the latter even gets shown) into scientifically audible terms (because to do so would probably show the cable isn't that signficant). As Dunlavy pointed out in other articles sometimes these facets/claims of cable design result in changes of .005db, hardly audible. Inductance is unlikely to cause shifts of 1/10 db (although it can be as high as a couple db, audible) and resistance unlikely 1/20 db (to my knowledge). Which brings me to another point. If all these other, what I consider, less significant/"high-end" aspects of cable design are so audible, conductor material, skin effect (significant with RF), plating materials, etc. that people can hear significant differences in them outside lcr values, how come no one has managed to find a way to measure the distortion they impart on a signal after 30 years? And this is now why we have solid-gold interconnects sold on the basis of "the detail of silver and the bass and authority of copper"--B.S. This is why we have science: to settle the battlefield of opinions with facts--and I don't see any for the other side (nor do I hear things that lack explanation), yet.
As far as the plating in the selector switch making a difference, firstly, I won't deny your/his experience, there may have been an audible difference. However, secondly, I don't know the circumstances surrounding the situation which would take into account all variables. Since selector switches are physical devices with friction, there may be something else going on, I don't know. As far as the pure silver being needed to get the "desired effect." I take it the "desired effect" is not a coloration sought(distortion) as it is a more accurate signal transfer and that the gold was distorting the signal in some way.
Sugarbie, as far as your tenors and vocal chords analagy, the shape of the singer's mouth/vocal cavity, and other factors affect the *timbre* of their voices which allows you to distinguish among them, even though they may all still be singing the same note-frequency/pitch. Incomparable analogies do not discredit Dunlavy.
Why does everyone quote the age old "if they measure the same they must be the same" All the scientific community asks is "if they measure the same but sound different why can't you find a measurement to explain the difference."
I forget who made this point early on, but it is a good point that MR. dunlavy only showed the placebo affect and not that people can't hear differences, only they think they hear differences. Good Point.
