michaelab
desafinado
Tone - allthough your "blind test" results are interesting they are not statistically significant - that is to say, you could have got the same results just by chance. It would be worth following up with a proper DBT with enough listeners and tests to be able to reach statistically meaningful results.
btw, I'm not questioning that you do R&D and take the whole thing seriously, clearly you do. However, if we're not dealing with known science and measurable electrical parameters then what does your R&D involve? If listening is the acid test then it would seem that trial and error is the only R&D that can be involved. It's one thing to start with the idea, for example, that lower capacitance equals better sound and therefore strive to reduce capacitance but if you don't even know what makes a cable sound better or worse then R&D has to be just "suck it and see". As far as I know no one has ever been able to correlate a particular electrical property of a cable (inductance, capacitance, resistance) to differences in sound so I don't see how cable R&D can be anything more than throwing darts in the dark and seeing where they land.
Chris (bottleneck) - I agree with you that I think that cables should not be regarded as components in their own right. They should be there to connect your components in the most transparent way possible. When people start using cables as "tone controls" it's a short route to madness. OTOH the same argument could be used for preamps. In theory they should be to connect your selected source to your power amp in as transparent a way as possible so by that argument they shouldn't be regarded as components either. In that sense passive pres meet that criteria much more closely than active ones (in theory at least). Did I mention I just got a passive pre?
Michael.
btw, I'm not questioning that you do R&D and take the whole thing seriously, clearly you do. However, if we're not dealing with known science and measurable electrical parameters then what does your R&D involve? If listening is the acid test then it would seem that trial and error is the only R&D that can be involved. It's one thing to start with the idea, for example, that lower capacitance equals better sound and therefore strive to reduce capacitance but if you don't even know what makes a cable sound better or worse then R&D has to be just "suck it and see". As far as I know no one has ever been able to correlate a particular electrical property of a cable (inductance, capacitance, resistance) to differences in sound so I don't see how cable R&D can be anything more than throwing darts in the dark and seeing where they land.
Chris (bottleneck) - I agree with you that I think that cables should not be regarded as components in their own right. They should be there to connect your components in the most transparent way possible. When people start using cables as "tone controls" it's a short route to madness. OTOH the same argument could be used for preamps. In theory they should be to connect your selected source to your power amp in as transparent a way as possible so by that argument they shouldn't be regarded as components either. In that sense passive pres meet that criteria much more closely than active ones (in theory at least). Did I mention I just got a passive pre?

Michael.