It seems that some audiophiles have repurposed the word 'loom'.
+1
I don't like it when words get "repurposed." When did "spend" become a noun?
It seems that some audiophiles have repurposed the word 'loom'.
It seems that some audiophiles have repurposed the word 'loom'.[/QUOTE
Not really. The term "loom" has been used for decades in auto and aircraft industries when referring to wiring.
In he past I was a "one manufacturer" proponent. Over the past year or so I have modified my position based a bit. I am currently using Transparent Opus on my amps, speakers and pre-amp. On my digital gear I have found I like Shunyata product. Now I haven't tired Opus on the Vivaldi stack but I am very happy with the mix on product I am currently using.
Many audiophiles believe that when wiring up one’s system it is best to use the same model and brand of speaker cables and interconnects and power cables throughout the system. These folks believe that the sonic goodness in that model and brand of cable is maximized by having all of the wires the same.
Here’s an interesting perspective https://positive-feedback.com/Issue66/reader10.htm
This is an excerpt of my interview with Jim White on cables:
While Jim has heard some expensive cables produce amazing results, Jim does not believe in the philosophy of necessarily using only one brand and model of cable throughout one’s entire system. Just because a cable is expensive doesn't mean it is necessarily the best for a particular location in the system. Judicious cabling yields the best results, says Jim.
Jim said he believes that there will be an optimal cable to use to connect any two components, but that it is not possible to predict in advance, based on input impedance and output impedance, or based on cable resistance/capacitance/inductance characteristics, which cable this will be. Jim suggested trying different cables between each pair of components, and to be largely design agnostic and brand agnostic, and to judge primarily by ear.
Great article, putting great detail in explaining dynamics, tone, and space - contrast, content, and context. A great read, independently of the brand (Transparent Audio) endorsement.
Many thanks!
Disclaimer - I am a TA OPUS owner!
Do you consider this an independent or a biased opinion/review?
This is an excerpt of my interview with Jim White on cables:
While Jim has heard some expensive cables produce amazing results, Jim does not believe in the philosophy of necessarily using only one brand and model of cable throughout one’s entire system. Just because a cable is expensive doesn't mean it is necessarily the best for a particular location in the system. Judicious cabling yields the best results, says Jim.
Jim said he believes that there will be an optimal cable to use to connect any two components, but that it is not possible to predict in advance, based on input impedance and output impedance, or based on cable resistance/capacitance/inductance characteristics, which cable this will be. Jim suggested trying different cables between each pair of components, and to be largely design agnostic and brand agnostic, and to judge primarily by ear.
Gents, ( and ladies if there are any on this forum... ), I would like to know what we consider to be 'neutral' sound. Is there really any such thing! I ask this, as my musician brain is very confused with what this term means when to comes to reproduced music. Is the sound of my Taylor guitar reproduced through your system...at levels that are never going to be the same as what I am playing 'live' -neutral? Is the same sound of my EC Strat played through your system...neutral ( to what...the sound picked up by the microphone, the sound modded by the engineers board, the sound of my particular PUP ( pick up for those less into these things) in use that day, the sound of my cables from guitar to amp...which BTW matter immensely!)
and so forth...
If we are listening to a full orchestra in a large hall ( which we have no chance of truly imitating in our considerably less than hall sized rooms) can we really state that the sound reproduced is 'neutral'?
Considering that another Jim (Jim Smith - "Get a Better Sound" ) considers that we need a significant amount of time to listen to each cable and we should avoid quickly connecting and disconnecting cables, we can consider than any absence of guidance will be equivalent to an audiophile lifetime just listening to cables.
Fortunately, in reality most cables show well known sound characteristics and we usually have access to some advice on matching that will help and shorten our choice.
And yes, I fully agree that technical details will not help choosing cables, except for discarding some extremely high capacitance cables in some combinations.
It is a highly misleading simplification to claim that cables do not significantly change frequency response. Yes, in static measurements they probably don't, but music is not a static signal. If we can consider cables dark, bright, warm etc. sounding as you say, then they *do* act as tone control -- and they are used by audiophiles as such.
It depends on experience. If you can recognize issues and not mistake resolution for artifact then you don't need to take as much time. Time allows the system to fatigue you, or not...
Many do not recognize issues and artifacts as "well known sound characteristics", which makes it harder to evaluate the cables.
Really enjoyed that link!Jim was also addressing the mechanical stability of cables.
BTW, not everyone agrees that the objective of sound reproduction is a "neutral sound". What you and some others are calling "issues and artifacts" is what many people may consider lsitening experience enhancements. Diversity is the essence of the high-end. Just look at this very interesting and somewhat challenging site just posted by Elliot G. https://www.audiosystemsoptimized.com/when-neutral-isnt-right-for-you
WBF is a great space to discuss this different views.
Jim was also addressing the mechanical stability of cables.
BTW, not everyone agrees that the objective of sound reproduction is a "neutral sound". What you and some others are calling "issues and artifacts" is what many people may consider lsitening experience enhancements. Diversity is the essence of the high-end. Just look at this very interesting and somewhat challenging site just posted by Elliot G. https://www.audiosystemsoptimized.com/when-neutral-isnt-right-for-you
WBF is a great space to discuss this different views.
Instead of asking whether the sound of your system is accurate, I’d suggest another, far simpler question of you:
Do you MAKE TIME within your busy schedule to listen to music from your home audio system?
This is interesting and needs more investigation. I believe in some cases the cable may actually change the measured frequency response but the larger effect is from what the cable adds in terms of artifacts and/or warmth, which is probably not measurable in terms of frequency response but does change our perceptions.
*Sorry for not multi-quoting, I didn't know I was going to respond to as many folks!
Let's cut to the chase, it was the increasing use of negative feedback that engendered ever-lowering distortion figures. Negative feedback is a perfectly good mathematical technique that works very well. But the designer has to realize that the circuit may not sound good even if its measured THD (total harmonic distortion) is very low. If the designer pays attention solely to the THD value, he may not realize that sometimes the "good-sounding, lower harmonics" get suppressed at the expense of the "bad-sounding, higher harmonics". Research by Norman Crowhurst points out that feedback mostly reduces the level of the 2nd and 3rd harmonics, leaving the upper harmonics more or less alone, or sometimes at higher level than before feedback. It doesn't take very much level of a 5th, 7th, or 9th harmonic to make the sound "bitter", "dry", "clinical", "cold" "small" "dynamically limited" or "harsh". This is all part of the psychoacoustics of distortion and masking.
Yes, I agree... this is why I have different options with different amounts of warmth added via gold as an alloying element. However... if you like brightness, grain, accentuated leading edges, or harshness I can't help... you'll need to consider other options.
This statement from your link is excellent imo:
To take this further, it is often FATIGUE that makes you not want to listen to your system. The problem with artifacts such as brightness, grain, accentuated leading edges, or harshness is they stimulate the nervous system's fight or flight response, often unconsciously, and this is fatiguing. This isn't what we're looking for in an activity that is relaxing and meditative.
So, while it's true some do consider fatiguing artifacts to be enhancements, this is often seen in folks with a lot less experience and leads to them not listening to their system as much, getting rid of it, or changing it so it doesn't irritate them.