Opinions on this "white paper"

I've been told that Roger Sanders is a VERY nice guy and extremely dedicated and helpful. I trust the person that told me this without hesitation. I know that Roger went WAY out of his way trying to help this person out in a time of need, so i have to respect him as both an individual and as a business owner.

Having said that, i don't agree with his theories on cables. The fact that most interconnects connect a source to a preamp or a preamp to an amp that has an input impedance of several thousand ohms is a given. Yet Roger is worried about adding what boils down to less than a few ohms in series with that makes me wonder. The only interconnects that i know of that add a very noticeable amount of series resistance to the circuit would be the latest Magnan cables. The earlier Magnan cables would not do this. Magnan is also the one most responsible for discussing / bringing to light the "time smear" and "skin effect" of cables within the audio spectrum. As such, David Magnan is either the greatest cable charlatan known to man ( according to Roger Sanders ) or he is someone that was way ahead of his time with various theories.

Knowing the little bit that i do and having seen / read about the construction of the cables mentioned, if i HAD to choose between either Innersound or Magnan cables to use for the rest of my life, i would go for several of the various cables that David Magnan has to offer without hesitation. Sean
>

Informative, insightful, well written. I tend to think when I come across like this, that I am right also.
I'll spare you, because they know a lot of things I don't. But I am sure there are quite a lot of designers that know more than they do, and I think they would disagree with them on the points you mention.
Knowlegde is universal, and belongs to no one person. Neither is b.s. No one person can know everything that anyone else knows, and there is always new knowlegde to be had.
I have two freinds that both took philosophy. They are good arguers and debaters, and can argue with sound logical views, and at the same time, be completely so incorrect in the search for the truth.
Case in point-you know that all well designed ic's don't sound the same. You know that you don't have to a/b with a swicth instantly to hear a difference, but with sound arguements, this can be made to sound not true.

This idea prevalent among audiophiles that no two components sounds the same is interesting for its logical conclusion, i.e., that two amplifiers that measure exactly the same will sound the same is fallacy because "measurements" can not measure what is really important. However, what about the exact same amp? Will no two amps ever sound the same? What about the various designers who copy work from other designers? What about wire when two manufactures source from the same supply yet claim their wires sound nothing alike? Surely, there is inconsistency on the part of our community about what sounds good, or even what is "well made". Ben Duncan in a past Stereophile remarked that the specific impedance of a cable and output impedances and input impedances of the source and receiver respectively determines the "sound" of wire, or any frequency anomalies we might describe as "sonic signature". To him the wire itself is not as important as is "impedance matching" the line to the source.
Just a few thoughts,
Keith

The incapability for "measurement" of the sonic differences between items, is not a lack on the part of the equipment, or listener. It is a lack on the part of the measurement personnel. They lack the understanding of how to properly measure certain audible characteristics, so they declare the differences to be psychological. This is extremely unscientific, and foolish.

Well, Twl, I wouldn't indict the measurement-makers so hard when the techniques, or even good ideas about what exactly to measure, may simply not exist yet regarding specific sonic qualities displayed by gear that is reproducing music programs. Rather, I would mostly condemn those among them who brazenly claim without pause that what they *are* able to measure settles the issue. (And I do happen to believe that psychology plays a fairly large role in aural perception.)

To Keith (up two), I would comment that your finding of a contradiction which belies audiophiles who claim to hear amp differences, where you say none can be measured, falls down on that last assertion. Your observation about their argument logically extending to different individual examples of the same model amplifier, as somehow being an analogous situation, is faulty. This is because two different *models* of amplifier will never measure exactly the same as each other, so your conclusion is drawn on a false premise. Two entirely different circuits/implementations will not produce the same output under all conditions given identical inputs. You may consider them to be close, but they won't truly be the same.