b4icu
No speaker’s cable maker, have a tiniest clue of what cable we need. They also do not know why one cable sounds better over the other. They have no idea what are the electrical (engineering) values that make one cable better over another. An absolute groping in the darkness. For that reason, they "invented" a lot of preposterous pleas to cover the misunderstanding and ignorance: directional cables, cryogenic treatment, cooper purity, skin effect, burn in and more. None would hold a scientific confirmation or any evidence. No other field using wires got such an attention. From NASA and space programs, to the highest level of airborne and military equipment, life saving medical equipment or cell phones. Only audio cables did.
>>>>>>>What a drama queen! In the first place you act as though all cable manufacturers are colluding or choreographing some sort of conspiracy designed to trick young naive audiophiles. But that is far from the truth since cable manufactures - in reality, not your paranoid fantasy - tend to develop and evolve their own theories and manufacturing processes over a long period of time based on their own experience. They rarely agree with each other. Many cable makers employ cryogenics, but some don’t. Most cable makers probably don’t control directionality. And there are many differences in purity and type of metal conductor among and within cable makers. You appear to be, judging by your own words, the poster child for anti audiophile naysayers.
Further, there is no requirement for “scientific confirmation,” as you call it. The most obvious mistake in your reasoning is that audio is the only field that is interested in how cables sound. capish? So you can throw out all the other things, military, NASA, hospitals, whatever. Follow? If you told the military or NASA they must use uber thick cables as you suggest they would laugh you out of the office.
No speaker’s cable maker, have a tiniest clue of what cable we need. They also do not know why one cable sounds better over the other. They have no idea what are the electrical (engineering) values that make one cable better over another. An absolute groping in the darkness. For that reason, they "invented" a lot of preposterous pleas to cover the misunderstanding and ignorance: directional cables, cryogenic treatment, cooper purity, skin effect, burn in and more. None would hold a scientific confirmation or any evidence. No other field using wires got such an attention. From NASA and space programs, to the highest level of airborne and military equipment, life saving medical equipment or cell phones. Only audio cables did.
>>>>>>>What a drama queen! In the first place you act as though all cable manufacturers are colluding or choreographing some sort of conspiracy designed to trick young naive audiophiles. But that is far from the truth since cable manufactures - in reality, not your paranoid fantasy - tend to develop and evolve their own theories and manufacturing processes over a long period of time based on their own experience. They rarely agree with each other. Many cable makers employ cryogenics, but some don’t. Most cable makers probably don’t control directionality. And there are many differences in purity and type of metal conductor among and within cable makers. You appear to be, judging by your own words, the poster child for anti audiophile naysayers.
Further, there is no requirement for “scientific confirmation,” as you call it. The most obvious mistake in your reasoning is that audio is the only field that is interested in how cables sound. capish? So you can throw out all the other things, military, NASA, hospitals, whatever. Follow? If you told the military or NASA they must use uber thick cables as you suggest they would laugh you out of the office.