Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

On Feb 20, 7:27 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Peter Wieck" <p...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:fpg2r60221b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> > f) I would posit that most hearing-individuals here could
> > distinguish the difference between very badly made "patch
> > cords" with construction and design flaws and the
> > very-bestest-most-expensive-oxygen-free-
> > silver-patch-cords-rolled-on-the-thighs-of-virgins-by-the-first-full-
> > moon-after-Walpurgis-Night.
>
> Then you've never actually tried the relevant experiment with enough
> experimental controls to obtain a reliable result.
>
> Patch cables are so non-critical in terms of their mission, that barbed
wire
> slipped through wet noodles (for insulation) would perform identically
to
> sliver/teflon ones. So would 3/8" rusty steel rebar separated with wet,
> wooden clothespins.
>
> Not only would there be no audible difference, but it would be
challenging
> to find a measurable difference.

Mpffff.... Not quite. I have been in massively RF-rich environments
that patch cords such as you describe would be rectifying all over the
place. I spent three years as an on-site project architect at the UofP
hospital back in the day - and trust me, crappy patch cords (and
crappy components) picked up no end of garbage. Long hours and my own
office accorded me the privilege of setting up a system on-site.

So, I state with direct experience that well-made "cables" do make a
direct, discernable, measurable, observable, audible difference. After
that, we are at the margins. And that - to me - remains unproven.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA