The most detailed speaker cable??

>>If he can hear more detail with the Nordost<<

This assumes *you* can hear more *detail.*

That's a logical leap worthy of its own Olympic event.

You haven't proven that.

You've just claimed you can --- on the internet.

Your claim, like your claim that you can hear inaudible amounts of
attenuation, is worth the ether it is printed on.

This is a classic "Emperor's New Clothes" test.

Before you can test to see if someone can hear something, you've got to have
proof there is something to hear.

You don't have that.

You want to "blow my mind" with an Analyzer? Then, why don't
you measure the Nordost cables so you have some idea about what you are
comparing?

Do some investigation for Pete's sake.

You don't know if you are *really* hearing any difference because you've
rigged your own tests, insisting on sighted tests. If you are hearing a
difference, you don't know if you are imagining it because you've done
nothing to eliminate the possibility of the "placebo effect." Do I
believe you are above such influences? Nope. You are human. And, let's not
forget you've already been caught making bogus claims about your hearing
ability.

It gets worse, even if you could prove to reliably hear a difference in a
double-blind test, you wouldn't know if you are *really* getting more *detail,*
or whether you are just getting a slight bump in the high frequencies, which
you are interpreting as more detail. Then making a Herculean jump to the
wrong conclusion -- that the audibly flat cables are losing detail.

So, even if you could pass the first threshold, proving you can really hear a
difference, you cannot pass the second, proving that it isn't just "
different" -- it is actually more "detailed."

Anyone with a graphic equalizer can bump the high end and make a system
sound more detailed. Does that mean it is losing signal when the high end
isn't bumped? Come on, use some logic.

You cannot quantify detail.

Don't you realize this?

It is just amazing to me how you can talk about Network Analyzers and such,
and then exhibit such scientific naivete.

I also find it rather ironic that some folks here have railed against trying to
"recruit" -- yet you are the one who keeps trying to get my
address so you can send me stuff.

Finally, by your comments, you don't even believe the Nordost cables CREATE
detail, so it seems to me you should concede that cables cannot create detail
and correct the cable enthusiasts.

Just like you should have conceded from the start that you cannot possibly
hear the difference between flat and .1db down at 20Khz.

That one blew up like a joke shop cigar.

But, you're right about one thing -- this isn't the way to get through to me.

why don't you measure the Nordost cables so you have some idea about what you are comparing?

But, Resbeck, those wires -- when attached -- are part of the circuit. Why measure them outside the circuit with a dummy load only?

You tell me how you're going to pass the first threshold, then the second, and
then how you're going to quantify detail.

Dunno really. One thing one could do is spectrum analyse what is on the source matl, what exits the final amplification stage, and compare to measurement of what's coming out of the spkrs, I suppose.

I guess most people would probably just sit & listen, hoping that the perceived acoustic differences (if any) would be significant and repeatable. The problem (and I agree with an earlier comment of yours) is that many speakers inside a room are notorious distorters anyway...

Empirically however, it's quite easy to effect some change just by changing the type of wire connection in the amp-spkr circuit... now, if the resulting amplitude response (and power response, I guess) seems to favour certain frequencies that were lacking before, it's perceived as more "revealing" (although, all that usually means is strengthening of upper end frequencies + some bass...).

Audio is one of my escapes, and I'm quite content to dabble in the voodoo and black magic aspect of it. I'm finding good arguments on both sides here, but by in large I won't let the science of playback limit my experimentation.

I agree with Rsbeck that many root problems in audio can be solved by changing components, but I also believe some problems can be solved by changing cables as well. Changing a component isn't always practical nor always desired. Sometimes one might be completely enamored with a component except for one small characteristic. I've found that as a final tuning device a cable change can sometimes take care of that.

I know some people don't agree that a cable should be used as a tuning device, that one should choose cables that pass along as much of the signal as possible and buy a warmer sounding amp if that's the direction you'd like to tune your system.

But for me, I find that approach limiting, since ultimate resolution is not my goal. I am impressed by detail, but I'd rather be seduced by the music. Besides, how can we determine at what point a cable crosses over from being veiled to artificially detailed?

We all have different tastes and priorities in music and audio presentation. We're all searching for the sonic balance that pleases us most. Some place detail and transparency over an organic nature, or vice versa. Just as in audio, I'd choose the dark eyed belly dancer over the blonde fitness trainer. They're both beautiful, but I prefer my music with hips.

I reserve most of my skepticism for religion and politics.