Starting with the presumption that the thin RCA type interconnects where its obvious there is little in the way of meat in the video cable as it 'appears' the same as the audio cables - in a 3 cables in one set of audio l & r and video - are not the proper cables to use for feeding composite video.... then WHY do manufacturers include those interconnects with their systems? If I'm buying a $700 Sony STR-DA4ES - it comes with those skinny composite interconnects. It has been mentioned that its fine for audio but not for video. If thats the case, why don't the manufacturers spend an extra $20 and put beefier interconnects into their boxes for the higher-end systems? Or is it that those skinny interconnect cables for composite video, are in fact, perfectly good for video signal transmission, as determined by the product engineers? It just seems to me that either one side is needlessly cutting a few pennies that don't mater, for the sake of marketing in hopes that consumers won't notice the difference, even though they are buying a higher-end system, OR the need for thicker cables is somewhat over-rated.