Power Cable with a "soft" top end

hi tvad:

your stereo system has changed over time. what is the context in which you observed the performance of the kubala sosna power cord ?

that is, did you attach the power cord to all possible components--digital, preamp and amp ? did you have multiple components of each genre available upon which to base your conclusion ?

finally, please define warm . as i understand the term, it implies an attenuation in the treble frequencies and a slight boost either in the upper bass or lower midrange.
warmth , as i see it is an instance of coloration, euphoic in particular.

by the way, i want to complement you on your consistently reasoned and unpolemic comments regarding a variety of subjects. you are an asset to audiogon--a voice of sanity.

hi jafox:

it has been suggetsted that the dominus cords are not attenuating the treble. while you presented your experience with dominus and kubala sosna cords, is it possible that both are extended, but that one is less exteneded than the other ?

i have auditioned many dcca power cords and have reviewed thier cables. i did not detect any softness in any of their power cords.

as someone who has auditioned production and custom dcca line cords, i can say categorically, that none of his line cords are soft. while they are not frequency imbalanced, they are closer to neutral than soft.

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.

ambiguity , or lack of communication is often exacerbated when a term is used in a relative manner. thus, if "soft" is precisely defined, there is no misunderstanding. soft is difficult to define. as i understand it,it is a vague adjective, meaning somewhat unfocused. how unfocused, i don't know.

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

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.

let's take a term like loud. it can be both qualitative and quantitative in nature.

suppose i define loud as 85 db of sound pressure. thus unless there is 85 db of sound pressure the word loud would not applicable. in addition there is the quantitative louder, obviously 90 db is louder than 85 db.

the word "soft", not in the sp sense, but in the focus/defocused connotation is also quantitative and qualitative. in this case it is difficult to measure focus and almost impossible to define soft in quantitative terms.
the word "soft" is highly subjective, ambiguous and amorphous.

if you and i audition the same stereo system, our perceptions will differ. thus many audiophile terms which accrue from listening experiences are not necessarily useful to a third person who does not share an experience.

in the case of line cords, if i replace line cord a with line cord b, i might describe the effect as softening the sound or i may say that my stereo system sounds "soft", in the qualitative sense. if you share my experience, you may disagree with my perceptions. you may say my stereo system does not sound "soft" and you might also say that the affect of introducing line cord b did not produce a softening affect.

this hypothetical situation raises the question i indicated, namely the validity of audiophile terms.

their usage is often accompanied by inconsistencies within and between listener experiences.