The most detailed speaker cable??

Granted, my reaction may be juvinile, but it is accurate. Rsbeck does not care what the facts are, he only cares to make his point. Look him up and you will find similar responses. The man asked for "detailed speaker cables" not a monolog on why he and anyone that does not think like Rsbeck is a moron. The points on equipment quality over cables are obviously correct. Key word obvious. What the gentleman wants is to not lose signal integrity. First he has quality gear. Second he wants our opinion based on our experience on how to maintain the detail of the analog signal. Rsbeck doesn't care what the gentleman wants or asked for. He is out to make his point which is fallacious. There is no denying that anything in the signal path can change the result of the sound we hear. Harnellt, good luck trying good things out there. It is one of the really fun things about this hobby. Try and buy let's all have fun just litening to great music.

I would add this -- which is really just summarizing some of the above thoughts.

First of all, Nelson Pass's article is well worth reading.

Second, if you can't measure qualities within *significant* audible parameters between two cables (see Rsbeck's comments above -- he is read right about audibility), then you will not be able to hear any difference. It's really that simple. There are a lot of products out there, some of which are outrageously priced and some of which are reasonably priced, many of which are constructed quite differently but that all do pretty much the same thing.

There's a bit of a "Timex" factor in all this. Now, I happen to have a "thing" for watches and have a few very nice pieces in my collection -- a Patek, a couple Rolexes, IWCs, etc. I love the theory and construction of automatic and wind-up movements. However, my Timex Ironman, bless its heart, is absolutely the most accurate of the bunch and, as extensive travel and sports activities have proven, it can take the proverbial beating and keep on ticking.

What's dressier and more fun to wear? An IWC Fliegerchronograph -- my favorite. What does the same thing -- tell time -- except better, and does so for almost 1/100th (!) the price? The Timex.

I have no illusions about that. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy the fancy stuff -- I do. It's much the same in audio cables -- with the exception that there are high profit-margin operations out there that would claim that a Flieger IS more accurate than a Timex.

It's a funny thing, because in the world of mechanical time pieces, it's all about the accuracy within the genre...and not absolute accuracy.

>>zip cord DOES roll off the treble response and it is audible.<<

ROFL. Yeah. Good thing YOU are not stubborn, huh?

>>Not only in amplitude, but also in terms of transient response.<<

You might as well say Zip Cord makes apples come out of your speakers, drop some jargon, mention Nelson Pass, and you'd be just as convincing.

>>Remember, i'm comparing this to a wide bandwidth, low inductance design.<<

More jargon. Zip Cord is either audibly rolled off or it isn't. And it isn't. There's no more debate about that. Anyone who has the facts and still wants to believe this just wants to believe it, no matter what.

It is hilarious that you keep spinning around trying to save face rather than just admit you made a little mistake, went off about a "roll-off" without doing any research, fibbed about what you can hear to try to cover it, and got your tail caught in a crack. Some people would have just said, "wow -- thanks for the correct, I guess I was thinking about something else." Or, "Man -- I guess I must have looked at the frequency response charts before I had my coffee."
Or, something.

You can drop Nelson Pass and as much jargon into the conversation as you want and it won't make the "roll-off" audible, won't give you the super human hearing you'd need to hear it. In fact, dropping irrelevant names is just more evidence that you're spinning.

An honest argument wouldn't need such stuff.

In legal circles, they refer to such behavior as "cognizance of guilt."

I wouldn't go that far, I would just call it throwing stuff at the wall to see what might stick.

>>The man asked for "detailed speaker cables"<<

And that's what we were talking about -- how to figure out what the guy needs to get the sound he wants.

The record shows that in the middle of this discussion, Sean showed up and posted a link to another thread and a different argument.

Hi-jacked the thread.

Also, what am I supposed to do -- have different beliefs in different threads?

LOL.

Is anyone else under this requirement, or only me?

Doesn't it make sense to you that I sound the same in various threads?

Have similar ideas in various threads?

Think about this for a minute.

Do you *really* expect otherwise?

I don't think you do -- I think you are the victim of your own unrealistic and wishful thinking, which is causing you to be frustrated beyond your own tolerance level. Sort of like cutting your own finger, pouring salt on it and then cursing the ocean.

>>Having said that, where would you recommend that i perform a blind listening test with others there to witness and confirm not only the results, but also that the tests were conducted fairly and honestly?<<

I have three answers.

1) If I were you and I wanted to have the best chance of passing, I would take the test in an anechoic chamber with perfectly flat frequency response, the most expensive speakers I could afford, and a friend who would tip me off to when I was listening to FLAT and when I was listening to 12 gauge Zip Cord.

2) If I were you, I would just drop this and move on because you cannot hear the difference between flat and .088 db down at 20Khz. Don't feel bad. No one can. You could multiply that by 10 times and you still couldn't hear .88 down at 20Khz.

3) I am getting a kick out of how far you are willing to take this rather than concede. Because you really only have three choices; Drop this and move on,
concede the point, or dig in and try to stave off the inevitable somehow.