A while back, a friend of mine asked to listen to some music and his hifi sounded noticably better. He then revealed after I had noticed and commented on the improvement, than he had used better quality phono leads. No placebo. No imagining.
Dear me! jjj. Have you been smoking something again??
It's widely recognised, if there is any credence to the benefits of oxygen-free copper interconnects, and other exotic formulations that cost an obscene amount of money, the
audible improvements in sound quality are very, very subtle indeed.
Anecdotal evidence such as you've provided above is basically worthless without full details of the circumstances. People who specialise in getting objective assessments of the audible differences between hi fi equipment, arrange the listening environment very carefully. The comparisons have to be made within a small time frame, to avoid as much as possible changes in mood of the listener. It also helps to use a recording with which the listener is very familiar, is aware of every nuance. It is also essential of course that the listener is not aware of which equipment is in use at any given time.
Visiting your friend on one occasion and listening to a piece of music whilst in a particular mood, and having smoked a certain number of joints, then visiting your friend a few days or a few weeks later, and listening to a different (or even the same) piece of music, having smoked a different number of joints and being in a different mood, and declaring that the music sounds better, is fine. I'm happy for you.
But to declare that difference is due to the upgraded phono cables is just farcical .
Unless the original phono cables were defective in some way. It's always possible that the plugs had become corroded to some extent, or that the original cables were just very cheap and inadequately shielded and never gave the sort of performance that one would expect from a properly designed pair of phono cables.
I don't think anyone is saying, and I'm certainly not, that there is no audible difference between very cheap and inadequate equipment, and properly designed equipment at a reasonable price.
Other people may say that there is no difference between a 50D and a Phase 65+ back and the differences are simply the imagination of the deluded fool who paid for the way more expensive MFD back.
Never heard that before. Where did you see that? On this forum? I know that Michael did a comparison between the Canon G10 and the Phase P45+ and made A3+ size prints which he showed to a number of experienced photographers who couldn't tell the difference. Is this what you are referring to?
I think we all understand that at a size larger than A3+, the P45+ would identify itself, and if the nature of the subject were different, the smoother tonality of the P45 would have probably been apparent even at the the A3+ size, with icebergs at the Antartic, for example, or creamy smooth-skinned models.