I'm inclined to agree - but I'll expand that to say that I prefer to avoid components that "subjectively change the sound"..... (by that I mean that they produce an arbitrary change - and whether you like that change or not is subjective).
I tend to look at all this stuff from an "old school engineering" point of view. If I have a preamp with tone controls, and I set the switch to "tone controls off", I expect that preamp to be "a straight wire with gain". The switch is labelled "tone controls on" and "tone controls off"; it is
NOT labelled "you set the tone controls" and "we set the tone controls for you".
From the "system designer" perspective, there are parts of an audio system that are
SUPPOSED to alter the sound (equalizers; tone controls; room treatments) and parts that are
NOT supposed to alter the sound (preamps with their tone controls set to bypass; interconnects; speaker cables). I'm sure, if you look hard enough, you can find someplace that says "an interconnect is supposed to transfer the signal between two components
WITHOUT CHANGING IT".
Note that I am
NOT getting into the discussion about whether certain interconnects
DO indeed sound different (or not); what I'm saying is that they are not supposed to. The interconnect is supposed to transfer the signal, accurately and without change, from the output of one component to the input of another - and, if this doesn't happen, then something is wrong. (It could be that some other component is excessively sensitive to the cabling, or that the cable is so far outside "normal" design guidelines that no "normal" component could be expected to ignore it's presence.) It is the result
AS A SYSTEM that is defined here. I haven't met many engineers who would tell you that "the purpose of an interconnect cable is to change the way something sounds"; it just isn't in the "Cable Design Guide" books I've seen. In fact,
EVERY design spec I've seen is pretty specific about keeping the electrical parameters such that they
DON'T interact with other equipment - at least as much as is practical. What I've seen are things like "the best interconnect would be to solder the two pieces of equipment directly together; interconnects are a compromise to practical considerations" and "the best interconnect is no interconnect".
Again, this statement is intended as a statement of
SYSTEM DESIGN. If you have a certain piece of equipment and find that the sound does change when you change the wires, then we can have a serious discussion about whether the equipment is faulty (or badly designed), and so is overly sensitive to the wiring, or whether the interconnects are faulty (and so have "unreasonable" electrical characteristics). The way a systems designer would phrase it would be: "The sound of an audio system shouldn't be changed by changing interconnects; if it is, then something is not working correctly, or there is some sort of issue where several things are not working properly together." Now, since nothing on Earth is absolutely perfect, including audio systems, such things are bound to happen in the real world - which makes this sort of a discussion in philosophy.
Now, here's my take on that situation - from the point of view of a "system designer".....
When you're connecting multiple devices together into a complex system, you generally start out with some sort of goal. To me, the goal of a "high fidelity" system is "to accurately reproduce the sound of the recording" (I seem to recall that as fitting with the dictionary definition of "high fidelity"). Obviously, our hearing, and our priorities vary, so the "best compromise" on that goal will be different for different ones of us - and some of us have the somewhat different idea that the goal is "whatever sounds good to
ME" rather than "objective accuracy". What I'm going to say here works the same for both, though. Now, as a system designer, with a goal, there are several reasons why designing a system with a bunch of components that interact with each other, often in unexpected ways, is very difficult. Think about the difference between building a "stone wall" out of all irregular stones and building one out of cement blocks.
In general, the benefits of cement blocks are pretty obvious:
1) They are interchangeable (this is a biggie)
2) They are of an appropriate shape (you're stacking rectangular blocks, and not rounded blobs)
Now, back to audio.....
Let's assume I have a preamp that's somewhat sensitive to cables, and a bunch of different cables, and a power amp that's sort of sensitive to preamps and interconnects, etc. (you get it). In order to reach a certain specific design goal, I'm going to have to either a) measure everything to a zillion decimal places so I can calculate how they'll work with each other or b) basically start trying random combinations until I find one I like. And what if one of those components or cables fails, or if I decide I need to upgrade it for some other reason? The whole process basically starts all over again.
NOTHING is
MODULAR; change one part and you have to change
EVERYTHING - or, at least, address the possibility.
Now, let's assume that I have an uncolored (neutral) sounding preamp - one which isn't especially sensitive to cables; and I have a bunch of cables (which all sound the same - at least with that preamp); and a neutral sounding power amp. Instead of having to find a single "magical" combination that works just the way I like, I can pretty much replace that preamp with another one (as long as it sounds equally neutral - or even more neutral), and I can use any cable, and any power amp.
If you built that stone wall out of individually chosen river stones, and one somehow crumbles to dust, you're going to have a real project finding one to exactly fill its place. It could take years, or you could end up having to tear down a significant part of the wall and rebuild it if you can't find an exact replacement. In contrast, if you used cement blocks, you can just pop down to the hardware store and buy a new one. (And, if that hardware store is gone, you can probably buy a "standard cement block" at the next one down the road.)
I honestly believe that many audiophiles have the same mentality as the guys who prefers to use river rocks - with all the "fun" and "challenge" of carefully selecting each stone for a perfect fit. They get a sense of accomplishment out of matching several components so that the flaws and imperfections of each cancel out "just so". I guess what bugs me about the whole deal is that some audio equipment companies seem intent on
DELIBERATELY making flawed components. Just imagine how you'd feel if you paid someone to paint your living room white but it turned out a little on the pink side.... and, when you complained, he suggested that you purchase a pair of blue tinted eyeglasses from a friend of his - because the glasses would cancel out the tint of the paint. "We've got some paint that's a little pinkish; and the light bulbs we chose happen to be a tiny bit yellowish; but, luckily, this company in Tasmania makes these $289 glasses that happen to cancel out the pink and yellow just right......" (Does this sound a lot like "buying certain cables because they sound good with a certain preamp"? It should.)
SO, TO ME, PHILOSOPHICALLY, I place audiophiles who go the whole "match the interactions" route in the same category as my old buddy who spent twenty years building his stone wall; by every weekend going out and finding just a few "perfect stones", and painstakingly setting them in place. He has fun, and he has something to do on weekends. Personally, I want the wall done (I want a finished system that I can
LISTEN TO); I'd rather take the modular approach. I'd rather pick each component individually based on "as perfect as I can get it". It just makes for a lot less work, and usually a better result. So I'll take "the preamp that doesn't sound any different with wires - as long as they're pretty standard", and I'll pair it with "some wires that are pretty standard" and a power amp that's "as close to dead neutral as I can find - and afford". And, if I
WANT to change my system EQ, I'll buy a preamp with tone controls, or an EQ, or REW, and a microphone, and some cool software. (Because interactions between components and things like cables are
UNPREDICTABLE, it's very difficult to, well, predict them. This leads to a lot of trial-and-error... which, as I said, lots of people seem to enjoy. OK, answer quick, which 2 meter interconnect will get me a 2 dB roll off at 18 kHz if you put it between an ARC-SP-3a preamp and an XPA-1? I hope that nobody here would suggest that I should
BUY several wires, based on vague claims about how they worked with other people's equipment, and spend my time and effort to try and figure it out for myself.)
And, since I spend less time trying to find items that specifically cancel out each other's flaws, I can spend more time trying to make sure that each individual component is the best I can find (or afford). For example, instead of trying to find "the wire that sounds just so with my preamp", I can buy any one of several that sound the same with my not-especially-sensitive-to-wires equipment. To follow my example above, I can paint my room with the whitest white paint I can find, light it with the purest white light bulbs, and wear clear eyeglasses - and I can try to improve any one of those things without having to spend a lot of effort trying to predict how they'll interact with each other (and, luckily, there are actual measurement standards for light color and paint color).
Since this analogy works sooooo well
I'm going to go on with it. What if I want a pale blue wall? Would it be easier to pull out a big box of paint cans in various colors, and my old box of Christmas lights, and my old collection of colored sunglasses, or would it make more sense to start with some bulbs that are actually white, than hold up some paint chips until I find a color I like, then go to the paint store and order my color - matched to close tolerance on their new mixing machine? You can feel free to disagree with me about which one would be "more fun", but I'm pretty sure which is easier, and which is most likely to get me a predictable result.
Personally I find it a whole lot easier and less expensive to avoid components that are cable impedance sensitive.
Cheers
Gary
Note that I am NOT getting into the discussion about whether certain interconnects DO indeed sound different (or not); what I'm saying is that they are not supposed to. The interconnect is supposed to transfer the signal, accurately and without change, from the output of one component to the input of another - and, if this doesn't happen, then something is wrong. (It could be that some other component is excessively sensitive to the cabling, or that the cable is so far outside "normal" design guidelines that no "normal" component could be expected to ignore it's presence.) It is the result AS A SYSTEM that is defined here. I haven't met many engineers who would tell you that "the purpose of an interconnect cable is to change the way something sounds"; it just isn't in the "Cable Design Guide" books I've seen. In fact, EVERY design spec I've seen is pretty specific about keeping the electrical parameters such that they DON'T interact with other equipment - at least as much as is practical. What I've seen are things like "the best interconnect would be to solder the two pieces of equipment directly together; interconnects are a compromise to practical considerations" and "the best interconnect is no interconnect".
I'm going to go on with it. What if I want a pale blue wall? Would it be easier to pull out a big box of paint cans in various colors, and my old box of Christmas lights, and my old collection of colored sunglasses, or would it make more sense to start with some bulbs that are actually white, than hold up some paint chips until I find a color I like, then go to the paint store and order my color - matched to close tolerance on their new mixing machine? You can feel free to disagree with me about which one would be "more fun", but I'm pretty sure which is easier, and which is most likely to get me a predictable result.
Buy audio gear like Warren Buffet buys companies - if what the company (or gear) does can't be explained simply and understandably, then move on. 