09-01-12: Sabai
Better does not mean neutral to me because I have no idea what neutral means when referring to audio cables. I don't think anyone has ever elucidated this term in such as way as to elicit agreement on its meaning -- and agreement on what cables reach this standard. Since all cables are altered or colored by their make-up I think it is obvious that no cable can call itself neutral.
Hello Sabai - I agree with you that the meaning of the term 'neutral' is controversial. Personally, I understand 'neutral' to mean 'degree of absence of coloration.' And I understand 'coloration' to mean 'audible inaccuracy.' If neutrality is thought of as a matter of degree, then the fact that all components (including cables) are colored doesn't invalidate 'neutrality' as a concept. Even though all components are colored, some are less colored (i.e. more neutral) than others. IMO, of course.
In a
long and contentious thread, I proposed that the neutrality of a component, including cables, can be judged with the following method...
If, after changing a system element, (1) individual pieces of music sound more unique, and (2) your music collection sounds more diverse, then your system is contributing less of its own signature to the music. And less signature means more neutral.
That method implies that judgments about neutrality are always relative, never absolute. But a relative judgment can still be valuable, IMO.
As to the question of why there is so much disagreement about cables, I believe the answer is that the audible characteristics of cables are largely
extrinsic, and therefore system-dependent. This is of course a common observation about cables, and to a lesser extent about other components.
IME, what is true for cables is true for tweaks. Their audible characteristics are largely extrinsic, and therefore largely system-dependent. Perhaps even more so than cables. That may partly explain why there is so much disagreement about tweaks.
Bryon