Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

In rec.audio.high-end, Greg Wormald had the audacity to say that:

> In article <fp5kuk01ne1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>  Sonnova <sonnova@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Well, The thing is that conductors follow some very fundamental rules
of 
>> signal carrying and they all relate to bandwidth and the source and 
>> destination impedances of the equipment at each end of the signal
carrying 
>> cable. 
>
> You see, this is where we part company. So everything that follows is 
> impossible for me to accept. If you accept the above statement then we 
> cannot discuss further.
>
> You seem to be making the assumption that all rules regarding the 
> reproduction of music via conductors has been discovered and fully 
> explained.
>
> I DO NOT BELIEVE that. My reading in the progress of physics tells me 
> that your statement is unlikely to be true except in the most general 
> way.
>
> Greg

I don't disagree that one cable or another can provide subjective
experiences that are more or less pleasant than another kind, and that
this
will differ among people.  

What I dislike is the pseudo-science trotted out to fool the unwary into
thinking these improvements in sound are objective aims of the mfgr's when
they are just unexplained tweaks of the sound that come with changing the
material and arrangement of the cables, and simply selected for their
subjective pleasantness. 

And then to siphon off these folks' retirement savings thousands of
dollars
at a clip for a sound that they eventually tire of anyway -- well, it's
pure
mountebankery, IMO.

*R* *H*
-- 
AWAKE! FEAR! FIRE! FOES! AWAKE!
        FEAR! FIRE! FOES!
                AWAKE! AWAKE!
                -- J. R. R. Tolkien