nonoise,
Thanks, but I found your post fairly confusing, not sure exactly what you wanted to argue. Because it seemed at some points you acknowledged that standard cable used for the recording transmitted 100% of the signal...and then at another point seemingly leaped to the idea you want a "better cable" to transmit that same information in your stereo system.
The way you got there didn’t make sense.
So, as you said:
Right. The incredible sound of many recordings that blow audiophiles away was easily transmitted via run of the mill cables.
Wait...how can using a "better cable" in your stereo system "reveal more" than what is on the source (which was captured by, for sake of argument, standard Belden cables)? That seems impossible. You can't reveal "more" of what wasn't there; the only thing there to "reveal" is what was transmitted by the original, basic recording/mastering cables.
Can you clarify your argument for me?
Thanks.
Thanks, but I found your post fairly confusing, not sure exactly what you wanted to argue. Because it seemed at some points you acknowledged that standard cable used for the recording transmitted 100% of the signal...and then at another point seemingly leaped to the idea you want a "better cable" to transmit that same information in your stereo system.
The way you got there didn’t make sense.
So, as you said:
The music residing in that recording is there even if it came across on some run of the mill Belden cable.
Right. The incredible sound of many recordings that blow audiophiles away was easily transmitted via run of the mill cables.
The better cable will reveal more of it.
Wait...how can using a "better cable" in your stereo system "reveal more" than what is on the source (which was captured by, for sake of argument, standard Belden cables)? That seems impossible. You can't reveal "more" of what wasn't there; the only thing there to "reveal" is what was transmitted by the original, basic recording/mastering cables.
Can you clarify your argument for me?
Thanks.