Power Cable with a "soft" top end

the problem with audiophile terms is that soft to one may be neutral to another. i can only speak from my experience as a listener and reviewer.

I find that the problem with audiophile terms is that people tend to use them in absolute terms rather than relative to another product under evaluation.

Mr Tennis, there can be no absolutes in this game. It's simply not possible. Nobody here has the tools nor the power senses to relate to anything here in absolutes. The best we can do is to compare a product under evaluation to one whose "levels" of performance we are familiar.

There is no communication issue when one reports the findings of two SPECIFIC problems. At least the test can be repeated by anyone through the purchase or borrowing of the 2 products. No test can be run where a product is described by nothing more than a list of words.

"Soft" is indeed difficult to define. But the differences of this parameter between two products should allow us to determine which one is "softer".

If we find that we do not agree with a reported conclusion, that is a different issue altogether. And ultimately, this latter issue all but makes many comments here moot other than we learn the likes/dislikes of the reporter.

my comments about the dcca cable imply that the cables are not unfocused.

Yes, until sometime in the future you hear this cable compared to another which ultimate has more focus. Then you will conclude your current cable is unfocused. Such is progress.

threre is a dischotomy here. either a cable is soft or it isn't. if the term is to be a valid descriptor it must be consistent. thus, if i audition a cable in my stereo system and say it has the characteristic of being soft and you attempt to corroborate my findings, by replicating what i did in my system and you come to a different conclusion, the term is invalid. many audiophile terms are invalid unless there is a definition and the application of the definition is consistent.

when eliciting opinions about the sound of a compoent, without objective confirmation, the results can be subject to disagreement.

thus, there are two problems, namely differences in stereo systems and differences in perception. such a state renders many "audiophile" terms invalid, in the psychometric sense.

a term like "bright", reasonable definable and subject to measurement is an example of a useful term. one must not confuse the sound of a component from the sound of a stereo system. it is wise to consider the affect of a component upon the sound of a stereo system, rather than claiming knowledge of the sound of a component, which is impossible to attain.

thus, one can say that stereo system a sounds less focused than stereo system b, and yet cannot say that a particular line cord is unfocused.