Cable comparison charts?

Do you love your family?

Prove it.

Do you love them more than I love mine?

Prove it. Give me a spreadsheet on all of that.

How do cable sound is NOT a spreadsheet question.

How cables sound is NOT a checksheet/checkmark question and answer set.

How humans hear IS a checkmark and factual scenario.

That says.. we humans EACH hear Things INDIVIDUALLY.

As our hearing mechanisms are similar, very very similar but the build of EACH is INDIVIDUAL.

And it is trained and bought into existence by our INDIVIDUAL neurology.

If any of what the thread OP asks for was real, then we’d all be dead corralled identical rubber stamp commodities that come out of a human pasta making mold.

There would be no intelligence, no life, no recognition of any form of consciousness or differential.

Note that we do not suffer the horrific dead eyed and dead minded fate of being a perfect replica of one another.

To get that checksheet and simplify the linear engineering mind’s desire for simplicity in cable choices, we’d all have to be essentially...dead.

Pretty durned hefty price.

All that one lives and celebrates would have to die and not be, in order to make for simple cable choices. A case where there would be no individual around to make the cable or the choice.

So... celebrate the complexity, it’s part of LIFE as you know it.

Seriously.

~~~~~~~~

Of course, some things are clear, when the differential is great enough... Like when some company comes along and utilizes a more complex physics, like actual fully blown quantum physics as a living breathing reality within the cable as the primary aspect of it's function. Where the cable is capable of completing the same similar task as wire.. but it does it totally differently. Unquestionably so. No marketing jargon and buzz word lip service. The kind of product that excites actual physicists as they know that it is real, that is the real thing. Let's see if anyone can figure out who that might be...

apologies. I’m having a weird morning.

Humans do tend to think the same when confronted with differences, that they lean in similar directions. If they allow themselves to be neutral about where they are coming from.

And, if they are good at communicating such in a common form of language and casting of the concepts. Kinda like trying to have a scientific method, a thing with purposeful commonalities. Language itself is it’s own form of an attempt in the direction of a ’scientific method’.

We all see an ’orange’ but we all see it differently. So it has the same label but internally, the interpretation is different.

If we are aware of this, the ’coloration’ from the individual, is minimized... in most cases, so a consensus of general direction can be obtained. but it usually can’t go any further than that...

Marketing will do what marketing does, so ....no spreadsheet.

The variance in human condition says that those aspects of individuation would hold more sway than the spreadsheet, as so few people know the origins of the sound characteristics of their own room.

Thus the given spreadsheet would have too much error to be useful, as utilized from the drivers seat of the individual.

Rather the spreadsheet is not in error, but the range variance, in individuals... is great enough... to make the spreadsheet almost useless for the individual humans using it.

The forum itself, in almost every single post available to be read.... should be enough evidence of that.

J Gordon Holt of Stereophile magazine tried, at one time, to make a common language for audiophiles. Many tried to hold the torch. It sorta took shape (over time), to those who are paying attention.

I tried to do the same for video, high end video, when I was steering Goo Systems on a day to day basis, and was exploring the cutting edge of video, as I was making said cutting edge. (eg, I still make the best projectors, in any realm of projection technology)

The cacophony of human noise and human projections on the AV forums made it impossible. Not unexpected. But I had to try.

Sound familiar?