@ Everyone... great discussion, especially now that we're all talking about listening experiences. And of course there's a subjective element involved, but (see below) one can also communicate the differences in how systems, cables, etc., sound in reasonably standardized ways. If I say the cable is very lean in the mid-bass, or mushy in the bass, or sharp in the treble regions, well, people will in general know what to expect.
@Keith R... excellent practical question that will help others...
Let's consider your real-world scenarios, involving raiding one's checkbook and living with the results. The Sophias with $7K cables will sound (my prediction) much better than Sashas with $2K or even worse, el cheapo cables. The Sashas will be throttled by the lesser, let alone the cheap, cables, that the deficiencies will tend to dominate what you hear.
Yes, the Sashas with cheaper cables will still have huge amounts of bass, but the subtleties across the spectrum won't be there, because they're not coming through the cabling. The speaker can't hallucinate stuff that isn't there, or compensate for smearing or distortion or coloration (This goes back to Myles comment to be sure not to forget the source. If it's not in the source...).
Keep in mind that as a reviewer, we get to try out everything, in all kinds of combinations, and I appreciate that most consumers don't have this luxury. On the other hand, years ago Alan Goodwin kindly let me borrow things over the weekend (meaning out Saturday night, back Tuesday morning) and I believe other high-end dealers will do the same.
My prediction is based upon the total transformation of my $1600 (used) Usher Be-718s (with the new DMD "diamond" tweeters installed) with the $7K cables that were purchased in anticipation of the Sashas. The results were tremendous. Applying the differences in reverse, so to speak, to the Sashas would be cruetly.
It's like going from 44 to 176 sampling rate, even more so.
@ DonH50... you think people from Missouri are skeptical? How about us New Englanders? And then there are the Quakers... Sure, there's a huge amount of marketing hype by all kinds of yappers trying to break in to the cabling, DAC, whatever, market, and that's fine. They have a right to earn a living. But this kind of vendor is not under consideration here, usually. We're talking about the established firms with decades of intellectual property, patents, and above all, listening experience.
@ Myles... the source of the conductors is usally a big secret, for obvious reasons... however, the incoming reels of bare wire are individually tested (at one company, perhaps others) for preferred directionality. And that's just the start. Their process is all about listening, listening, listening. Sure, they know a lot about engineering, too, but that's secondary.
The 4ft length was recommended by the manufacturer in this case, because the short length takes advantage of having monoblocks. I realize that other cable technologies are optimized for various lengths, such as the 10 ft Valhallas, but their topology, network, etc., is completely different from the ones I'm using right now.
@ FrantzM... one can become a skilled listener with a little effort (and it's going to be a lot of fun as well). No special knowledge, no invocation of the "laws of physics", just careful listening. That's what reviewers do. We're not paid to be fan boys; quite the reverse.
Get a first-hand understanding of the obvious differences in how cables sound, then work back to the electrical engineering that causes the differences. One really easy experiment is to take a 10 ft length on your favorite speaker cable, and then try a 20 ft length. What changes? the pile-up of colorations in the 20 ft length will bring to the fore the weaker (and perhaps harder to hear) colorations.
Trust your ears...
BTW are you aware that the laws of physics allow differentiation of 360 and 720 degree rotations? Pretty amazing, but the physical explanation turns out to be very simple. It's just not an everyday occurrence. First person with the correct explanation gets a special prize!
The far ranges of the laws of physics are pretty much alternate-universe material, and what they allow for is beyond the imagination of most mortal folk. So invoking LOP as a way of scoping down an argument to some kind of common sense perspective is probably the wrong way to go
To me, "LOP" means the sky's not the limit; it's just the beginning. And it gets wilder from there.
If by LOP you mean, it would be nice to have a model in terms of commonly-measured parameters that explains why cables sound differently, that's fine, and quite reasonable. And you'll see that it gets very complicated, quickly. This is not high-school physics; it's more like graduate school, and there's a lot of materials sciences arcana in addition to the standard EE parameters.
Just start interviewing cable designers and they'll tell you a great deal (a) about how their stuff sounds the way it does and (2) in some cases, why the competitor's cable sounds the way it does, in comparison. Most of these guys are lifer cable designers, musicians and recording engineers (all at once, that is). They really know what they're doing and quite dedicated (not hype artists, for sure). And they talk about both strengths and weaknesses, which is a good sign.
