Interconnect cable upgrade disapointment

I thought I would take a second to correct some of the last poster's inaccuracies, for the benefit of the original poster, so that the original poster can evaluate the recommendations to the extent that future choices are made. As to experience and training, I built my first ham radio and put up my first tower decades ago as a teenage. In other words I have been connecting parts of electronic systems for a long time with great success. I learned more than a bit about electronics from years as an amateur radio operator, from repairing aviation weapons control systems and radar in the USN, from an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, from decades working as a biomedical engineer in research designs and clinical applications, decades as a member of the IEEE, and many years teaching electronics both in the classroom and in the laboratory at a technical college part time in the evenings.

Amplifiers are amplifiers, frequency response is frequency response, interconnects between equipment do not 'know' what the signal is - whether it represents music, a nerve conduction potential, or the output of a radar receiver, is immaterial to the interconnecting cable. What is important in determining selections in such interconnections is an understanding of the frequency and time domain characteristics of the signal and the electrical properties of the interconnected devices. In other words, there is nothing particularly special about moving signals around in a an audio system. So, I present my opinion in these matters from a considerable background pertinent to the topic. As to comparing cables by listening to them, I cannot say that I have extensively engaged in that practice, - however, there simply isn't a lot of value to be assigned to such subjective unquantifiable endeavors, if there were we would likely see a large number of studies of the results published in professional journals.

As a sidelight, a trademark of a weak argument is the ad hominem attack. A trademark of a weak argument in a scientific or technical area is the extent to which the opinion relies on subjectivity without objective findings, relies on other than logic, and is presented in emotional terms, as these are of no relevance to technical subjects. When the original poster decides what probative weight to assign to the various opinions, he or she may wish to take into consideration these factors.

Musicnoise, you said, "As to comparing cables by listening to them, I cannot say that I have extensively engaged in that practice..."

My point exactly. Thank you for clarifying.

Seems like the original poster has already gone down the path of depending on someone else's subjective listening experience - the result is reflected in the subject line of the thread "interconnect cable upgrade dissapointment" - I doubt that he or she will make that same mistake twice.

Musicnoise, much depends on your confidence about how accurate someone else's hearing. I don't trust any reviewer. I certainly would not trust any objective standard.

Musicnoise

Your background is similar to my own, yet quite more accomplished, and it accounts for the reasoning or perspectives you espouse. I too, agreed with it for an exceptional period of time. In fact I thought it a big laugh when the subject came around.

Personally however, a whole bunch of experience in one area doesn't always relate to another very well. Subjectivity isn't a bad word... you can say it in front of mixed company and children without severe reprocussions.

i think much of the opinionated controversy on who's who, and what's best or better here, can and does enable other’s to glean both different perspectives and increases in system performance. However, it is not a thing which accounts for empirical measurements. always

There are exceptions to rules sometimes, as I recall from my math classes.

The impact of a rainbow simply has no measure, save for that which is attached to it by the viewer himself. Albeit, that phenomenon can be accounted for as to its origins.

I feel these, sometimes singularly so, accounts of change by introducing new cabling or for that matter tubes, into one’s system is akin to that same rainbow scenario. The impact the noted change delivers is assigned value solely by that person.

Wether I or anyone else submit some notion of our experience (s) and another takes it, in this case ‘Papajoe’, for some simple truth, doesn’t matter quite so much as does the experience the receiver encounters.

In sales, one gets far more “No thanks” than they do, “I’ll take it”. Not every I’ll take it statement I’ve made has been my best solution, nor even THE best overall.

If varying opinions, ongoing efforts to improve an audio system through the path of changing this or that now and then, or simple trial and error, weren’t the norm, it wouldn’t be considered a hobby. No one here has a crystal ball, calculator, or existential powers sufficient enough to proclaim any item as an exact right move for another as the variables in recreating a particular sound are to great. Unlike rooms, gear types, accouterments, ears, and yep, even O scopes, etc.

Slide rules and opinions both point towards a prescribed goal with equal merit. For quite a few around here and elsewhere, their ‘fun’ is in the doing… and not entirely in the end result, or the ‘being’. I tend to differ in that one respect though. I’m more an, “Are we there yet?” sort. Therefore my consternation level runs a mite higher at times and I’m more stayed and conservative with the moves I make to alter my rig.

So ya knock and no one answers…. Knock on another door. It’s only when one stops knocking which prevents knowledge and new experiences to be gained. The sum of our knowledgeable experiences does constitute the level of our wisdom.

I’ve found so far in the whole of my experiences in life, contempt prior to investigation is a definite bar to achieving gain…. And not everything makes sense at every turn. I’ve become reasonably suited to the notion that “Sometimes, it just bee’s that way.” Too.