Here is what MIGHT be happening
which the tests have not proven. Let's say a cable mfg (any) found certain frequencies present some resonance. Now, testing their theory are one frequency that doesn't resonate doesn't mean that the cable mfg didn't find SOME frequencies that do. One would have to test ALL frequencies using the same test equipment and testing procedures that the cable mfg is using in order to see what they are talking about.
I'm not saying they are right on this, but I'm know how some mfg make claims and how some people interpret them and then try to conjure up a test to invalidate.
I've read plenty of articles where they said they did a blind test on cables and a coat hanger and that there was no difference. Well, my first reaction would to believe it, but I wasn't at that specific test and discussed how the test was set up to conduct the test. Sometimes, these tests are flawed to begin with and setup in a fashion where other factors (like a switch box and other cables) used that might negate anything that one cable does or doesn't do. I've heard expensive cables on a variety of systems where i heard no difference, and then I've heard some where there was a subtle difference, to some that there was a HUGE difference. It wasn't specific as to the cost of the cable in most cases or the cost the equipment. Things happen where one product might work better than another. Believe me, in some ways, I don't want to hear that a more expensive cable sounds better, but if I take one home, make sure I follow the mfg breaking in (if specified), I can then make up my own mind as to what I hear or don't hear. Sometimes, the differences I hear more clearly on some recordings than others, sometimes it's with certain equipment.
I bought a cable from Transparent recently and had a GREAT experience. Yes, I'm very aware of running cables as short as possible, but sometimes that can't be helped due to where you have your equipment, etc. Sometimes, you have to have long cable runs. Especially in large home theater systems. It can't be done any other way in a lot of cases.
Bottom line, if you are going to prove someone's claims to be false. My suggestion is FIRST find out what the specific claim is, then find out what test equipment and testing methodology and see what results the mfg saw and then see if there is a way to use that same test equipment and testing methodology on other cables to see how they might differ.
If you are using different test equipment, different testing methodology then you might be able to prove your point to some people, but not really disprove their point. Personally, I hate this squabbling and sometimes slanderous accusations against mfg unless you can go through THEIR testing procedures and have THEIR engineer in the same room doing these tests your self to find out WHY they might disagree with YOUR way of doing it.
A long time ago, I had bought my first high end CD transport (at the time) connecting it to a $1200 external DAC and needed a high speed coax cable. Not too many were on the market and I first bought a Monster cable that cost $100. IT worked. It was well constructed from my point of view and wasn't some cheap crap that most Japanese Sony, pioneer, etc transports come with. YOu know the type of cable I'm talking about. Now, I thought everything was just fine and walked into the dealer that I buy my equipment from and they had just received a couple of new (at the time) MIT Coax cables. The one's with those boxes in them. They game me a couple of demo cables. One was, at the time, their bottom end model that costs $150 and the Reference cable which was a LOT more money. They didn't say anything other than, "check em out". Now, at the time, I thought it was ridiculous to spend tons of money on cables, but paying a little extra for a well constructed cable makes sense just in terms of being more durable and maybe less likely to break. So, that being said, I connected the lower priced MIT coax cable and there is something that I'm VERY sensitive to and that is high end frequency distortion. I can't listen to music for long periods of time if there is harshness in the upper frequencies. Even when I go to concerts, the only speaker systems that I've been able to stand for long periods of time were Meyer, anyway, so I'm VERY sensitive to it. Well, I have to admit I heard less harshness on the $150 MIT coax digital cable than the $100 Monster. I then plugged in the MIT Reference cable and noticed the harshness was gone, but it had better low end extension. Now, I have taken college courses in analog and digital circuit design many years ago. I wouldn't call myself an EE or an expert in any way, but I'm not stupid about the subject either.
I've read the MIT white papers and some of their information on their patents and I've talked to people that worked their or have worked their about what the big deal is, and they explained it to me where it makes sense. I heard a difference in their cables. Did I end up buying the more expensive cable? NO. It was beyond my budget, but I did end up buying the entry level cable, and have enjoyed it ever since. I bought other MIT cables (not necessarily their most expensive) and have had good success with them. I also checked out a Transparent cable (their cheapest interconnects) and the difference (improvement) it made was HUGE. I couldn't believe it. It allowed me to listen to my system for longer periods of time and now I'm enjoying some older recordings that I didn't really listen to that much because my system didn't have that same listening experience. How much is the cable? I don't know, I couldn't tell you.
What I've learned is that sometimes the guilty party might be the people trying to disprove the snake oil salesmen with another type of snake oil by not sitting down with the mfg and going through THEIR tests and discussing it in an open and fair manner so they can respond.
Because you might be surprised one of these days with these articles that one of these mfg might show up one day with a slander lawsuit suing you for everything you have and shutting you down for good. Some of these mfg don't want to resort to that, but some might just get so upset with your claims, that they might.
To me, I tell EVERYONE. Test the products in question on your own system and see for yourself if there is a difference (good or bad). Testing a sine wave (which doesn't exist in music) isn't always a good test in the first place. When someone says there are frequencies that resonate. It might be CERTAIN frequencies. How do I know? When you play a musical instrument, some frequencies resonate differently than others because of how the instrument is made. You play a certain note on a guitar/violin, etc. and when you hit that one certain note, the instrument for whatever reason becomes alive. I've heard and felt that phenomenon, so maybe that's what is going on is CERTAIN notes are resonating and not ALL of them. So you might want to find out what frequencies are doing this rather than randomly picking one out trying to prove that they don't resonate. make sense?
