The Science of Cables

Except for the fact that you contradict yourself by consciously choosing specific cables for the given system in hand ---to act as tone controls. You made a conscious sonic choice.

Those cables in that given simple system. that was a conscious sound aspect choice.

You made a choice of order of operations. Although it is one I would use first.... and those that chose more expensive cables.... have also made choices in the same order of operations. (what is important to pursue first)

Except being that they are now at the point where they look at various cables to deal with even more nuances within the issues -- than you are.

You go on ad nauseam on the same line like a big armed crab with exactly one hammer with one blow available. Repetition of your take and line, in no way makes you correct in the face of the overall minimum of many hundreds of thousands who disagree with you..

(Eg, that audioquest cables sales alone over the past 30 years exceeds that number by far, never mind the rest over the past 30 years)

@cleeds 
No, I'm not saying that Nordost cause clipping.

Clipping has a distinct sonic signature and one does not need to compare amps to determine it is happening.

Interwoven vs parallel cables also have distinct sonic signatures. I would have been shocked if the Nordost had sounded like interwoven, with which I am well familiar and prefer.

taras,

Except for the fact that you contradict yourself by consciously choosing specific cables for the given system in hand ---to act as tone controls.

Try looking up the fallacy "Begging The Question."

Then get back to me. 


(Hint, you are asserting that Belden cables do not pass a signal faithfully, when properly employed, and act as a "tone control' that audibly alters frequency response.  That type of claim is the very one under dispute.   You haven't remotely established that case that Belden cables as a matter of course alter frequency response...let alone in MY specific use case.  So, no, you don't just get a pass on such assertions.  Again...keep swinging at the air if that's what turns you on....)

I'm not a sceptic.
I don't believe in magic.

2C½(LR) - yup, that's a new filter.
Add in more LCR for Y - yup another new filter.
Change loop area - yup, that changes LC - yup, another new filter
Only a magician would expect no change

DO THE MATH