Quote:
Ethan?

If you send me the two cables people could distinguish every time, I'll measure them and tell you how they differ.

--Ethan

If one pair of cables has been cryo'd what then? Better get out the trusty electron microscope. :-)

Cheerio

Quote:
If one pair of cables has been cryo'd what then? Better get out the trusty electron microscope. :-)

So you "believe" that a cable that sounds different won't also measure differently? That's some premise there Geoff!

Also, just to be clear on cable differences generally, the only thing a cable can do is degrade the sound. It's not possible for any cable to increase fidelity. So when two cables sound different, one or both are losing fidelity.

The most likely way a cable can be lousy is by having high capacitance. Inductance is also a cable property, but you'd have to go out of your way to add enough inductance to have an effect at audio frequencies. Further, high capacitance affects some systems more than others. Any professional grade device will be able to drive relatively long lengths of normal wire. But some boutique audiophile gear is lame, having too high of an output impedance, and that's where cables can indeed sound different. If two wires sound different, the one with less highs is the culprit.

--Ethan

"So you "believe" that a cable that sounds different won't also measure differently? That's some premise there Geoff!"

Nice Strawman Argument. Sorry, that's not my premise, where did you ever get that idea?

So you don't want to tackle the cryo question? Can't say I blame ya.

Cheerio

Quote:
We had a second-room system made up of a Modwright CD/SACD player

I think this may be the culprit. From the ModWright web site:

Quote:
Complete Replacement/Redesign of Stock Analog Stage with ModWright

Quote:
Sorry, that's not my premise

Then what exactly is your premise?

Please be as clear as possible!

Quote:
If two wires sound different, the one with less highs is the culprit.

Quote:
In that case the cable that sounded "better" is probably also the cable that had the lowest capacitance.

Quote:
... the only thing a cable can do is degrade the sound.

Quote:
We had 100% repeatability, 'accuracy,' and preference for the Purist Audio design interconnect.

Obvious improvement in spatial representation (imaging) and feeling of air around instruments.

Oh, yeah ... too!

Everything I said makes perfect sense and is consistent with Buddha's report. Everything you said was, well, you didn't actually say anything at all, let alone refute me. How typical. You and Geoff would make a perfect couple.

--Ethan

"Then what exactly is your premise?"

Do I have to have one?

LOL, no, you do not need a premise. Please continue as you are. I'm glad what you write at least makes sense to you.

Sarcasm seems to be your strong point.

Cheers

No.

Quote:
... you didn't actually say anything at all

Not to those who are willfully blind, nothing said that is outside their scheme of "what I want to know/what I want to ignore" is within their ability to understand.

However, what I posted says it all - with your help, of course. Careful you don't trip over another contradiction. And, no, I won't explain that while being as clear as possible. You read it and work on it for awhile.

Quote:
You and Geoff would make a perfect couple.

Don't start that stuff again, Winer. Your pseudo-homophobic undies are showing. What is it they say about those who protest too much?

Oh, yeah. Now, about that "refuting you" think you keep asking for ...

Uh uh.

Quote:
What I may think of as "enhances spacial cues" may to Ethan be "degrades the sound less."

If "degrades the sound less" still means the aftermarket cable is perceived by 100% of the listeners as "better", that means "better" cables do matter.

The idea that "cables can only degrade" seems almost indisputable to me. It is also rather unobjectionable, since it leaves room for better cables "sounding" better (because they degrade less than other cables). To be more explicit: it leaves room for improvements by switching cable.

There is one theoretical exception, though (that I can see anyway): cables, like other equipment, could possibly add distortions to sound in ways that make music more pleasing to a particular listener. If this is possible (and I have no idea, honestly), "degrading less" may not equal the subjectively "best" cable. If our standard for "best" is whether it transfers the signal most accurately, rather than subjectively sounding the best, then this isn't really applicable. (Disclosure: I'd rather enjoy my music than just know I had the most accurate reproduction - Ideally, I could have both simultaneously).

I'd be interested whether anyone else has a theory regarding how cables can make something sound "better." Other than the "pleasant distortions" theory, I don't see how a cable can improve upon what is coming out of the source gear. You play the hand you're dealt, and cables transfer the signal they get.

Just one note: I'm not saying that people who prefer certain pleastant distortions are somehow unworthy or inferior. Heck, I use "TOOB" gear and I like it. (Although, some of my tube gear is just the highest-fidelity stuff I've owned, so it probably distorts less than my previous SS stuff anyway). I wouldn't be shocked or disappointed to find out that I preferred some distortions because they sound pleasant. Maybe person A has a hearing condition that makes them .005% more sensitive to certain higher frequencies than most people, and thus wants them "rolled off" or something...

That's pretty much my thinking as well. If the source material is substantially flawed, preferring a less transparent cable can enhance the enjoyment of listening to music that you otherwise enjoy.

While not a purist or devoted to absolute fidelity to the source, I do admire and expect technological advances to be concentrated to achieve that end. In this regard, JGH was and is correct in eschewing the pursuit of colored sound as opposed to fidelity. Still, as soon as cost is factored into the price of producing the gear, balancing strengths and weaknesses in putting together a component system becomes a matter of what flavor the listener prefers with the music they enjoy the most. That's where cables can be used as modest tuning devices.

Quote:
"So you "believe" that a cable that sounds different won't also measure differently? That's some premise there Geoff!"

Nice Strawman Argument. Sorry, that's not my premise, where did you ever get that idea?

So you don't want to tackle the cryo question? Can't say I blame ya.

Cheerio

Molecular compaction.

"Molecular compaction."

That might be true, in any case it doesn't really answer the original question, which can be divided into two parts:

A. How can the tester know if the cables under test have been cryogenically treated, assuming the tester is even aware of the possibility?

B. In listening tests, can cryogenically treated cables outperform untreated cables that have superior electrical characteristics?

Cheers

Quote:
The idea that "cables can only degrade" seems almost indisputable to me.

Yes, by definition even.

Quote:
it leaves room for improvements by switching cable.

Yes, but only when 1) the other cable is outright lame or defective, or 2) the driving amp is inferior and can't handle normal amounts of wire capacitance.

I'm surprised nobody commented on my assumption that the output stage "mod" done by ModWright is probably making the CD player worse. If you think about it, this is the same logic as "cables can only degrade." Here, we start with a perfectly functional CD player that I'm sure has a properly designed output stage. It escapes me how adding toobs can do anything but degrade the quality.

Quote:
cables, like other equipment, could possibly add distortions to sound in ways that make music more pleasing to a particular listener.

There is such a thing as euphonic distortion, but a cable can't add that. All a cable can do is affect the frequency response and, if it has too high resistance, lower the signal level. A bad solder joint or poor crimp can cause distortion, but that's a different issue. And I don't think anyone would enjoy that kind of distortion.

Quote:
I'd be interested whether anyone else has a theory regarding how cables can make something sound "better."

Doesn't Bybee make some contraption that is inserted into the path of speaker cables? I always imagined it's a resistor / diode circuit that adds distortion, but I don't really know. And if it's true, it's not a cable anymore but a passive device intended to degrade the sound in a "pleasing" way.

--Ethan

Quote:
I'm surprised nobody commented on my assumption that the output stage "mod" done by ModWright is probably making the CD player worse.

Why comment on something merely biased by misguided opinion and not based in anything realistic? You're "sure" the player had a propely designed output stage. As you would say, please clarify this and be as specific as possible. Have you ever owned or tested this player? If not, how are you "sure" of its design?

Quote:
All a cable can do is affect the frequency response and, if it has too high resistance, lower the signal level.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Quote:
The idea that "cables can only degrade" seems almost indisputable to me. It is also rather unobjectionable, since it leaves room for better cables "sounding" better (because they degrade less than other cables). To be more explicit: it leaves room for improvements by switching cable.

I concur Judicata.

Quote:
There is one theoretical exception, though (that I can see anyway): cables, like other equipment, could possibly add distortions to sound in ways that make music more pleasing to a particular listener. If this is possible (and I have no idea, honestly), "degrading less" may not equal the subjectively "best" cable.

Again I concur. It is possible for a cable to add distortions on it own.

Quote:
If our standard for "best" is whether it transfers the signal most accurately, rather than subjectively sounding the best, then this isn't really applicable.

If the cable were to transfer the signal in the most pristine way and it subjectively sounds worse, I would suggest that some other component has problems in the system.

Quote:
I'd be interested whether anyone else has a theory regarding how cables can make something sound "better." Other than the "pleasant distortions" theory, I don't see how a cable can improve upon what is coming out of the source gear. You play the hand you're dealt, and cables transfer the signal they get.

I also don't see how an inferior cable could improve upon the sound of the signal unless it is compensating for some flaw in a piece of equipment or the recording is subpar, or personal taste.

Quote:
Maybe person A has a hearing condition that makes them .005% more sensitive to certain higher frequencies than most people, and thus wants them "rolled off" or something...

Hearing is different in people as you mentioned. Capacitance probably does not the high frequencies unless the IC capacitance is quite high, but maybe a little. For instance, if the output impedance (Z) of the Modwright changes from 100 ohms to 2k ohms, and the interconnect capacitance (IC) is 50pf, the change in high frequency response is only .02db or so at 100khz. If the capacitance is 250pf, then the change in high frequency response is approx 0,4db at 100khz. At 20khz this would amount to 0.1db or less.

The tube used in the Modwright is a 5687, with plate impedance of 2k ohms (not counting the plate resistor). Theoritical, max gain, u is 20. However, with only 6db of gain (gain of 2), and feedback used to lower the gain, I would guessimate the output impedance would easily be less than 1k ohms. Even at 1k ohms, this would mean the change in frequency response with a 250pf IC would be less than .05db at 100khz. At 20khz, the change in frequency response would be approximately .02db or less.

More of a problem is the materials used, termination construction, dielectric absorption (DA) from the insulation etc.

Hope this helps.

Quote by Jan Vigne:-
>>> "If "degrades the sound less" still means the aftermarket cable is perceived by 100% of the listeners as "better", that means "better" cables do matter." <<<

Buddha's reply to Jan :-
>>> "Yes!
I admit to leaning toward Ethan's way of describing what they do - 'degrades the sound less' is more accurate in my mind than 'enhances the sound,' but I agree with you otherwise.
Fun, though, experiencing the same sound and looking at the varying semantics!" <<<

Quote by judicata :-
>>> "I'd be interested whether anyone else has a theory regarding how cables can make something sound "better."" <<<

************

Looking at it from the aspect of "degrading the sound LESS" rather than "enhancing the sound".

Judicata asks whether anyone else has a theory regarding how cables can make something 'sound better'.

Yes, they have. WE have. But as has been evidenced so many times in the many audio Forums, it is extremely controversial. I think one starts with the clues given by many people's descriptions and with the descriptions given by the people in Buddha's listening experiments.
I.e "Obvious improvement in spatial representation (imaging) and feeling of air around instruments."
One can only describe 'improvements in spatial representation (imaging) and feeling of air around instruments' if one is able to 'hear/resolve' more of the musical information. You DON'T get all that from 'distortions being added'. 'Distortions being added' would be more likely to be described as "harsh, aggressive, shouty" sound.

The concept we put forward is not that the cables preferred were "degrading the AUDIO SIGNAL less", it is that the cables preferred were "degrading the LISTENING ENVIRONMENT less". You see, it is a case of "being able to throw an intellectual switch" and see something from a different angle. And, anything which 'degrades the listening environment less' will be preferred to something which has a greater detrimental effect within the listening environment. The controversial part (theory) is that it is the human being who is doing the reacting - NOT the audio signal !!! The less adverse effect the cable has within the listening environment (and therefore, in turn, the human being reacting less adversely) the less the human being will react adversely, the better the human being can resolve more of the information contained within the music which has ALREADY been presented into the room by the loudspeakers.

In two separate 'postings' from the CES, Jason Victor Serinus talks about some exhibitors being "willing to step out on a limb and display products that are decidedly outside the box" - "for those unafraid of thinking outside the box." Far too many of the regular 'posters' on the Stereophile Forum are "afraid of thinking outside the box".

Back to the subject of cables. Geoff Kait mentions the 'cryogenic' treatment for cables. Ethan has already made his beliefs clear regarding 'cryogenic' treatments for ANYTHING !!

To quote Ethan :-

>>> "Just as bad are magic hockey pucks, too-small room treatments that defy all that is known about physics, power "conditioner" products, amplifiers that claim to use no negative feedback (I guess the designers enjoy 10 percent distortion?), cryogenic products and processes, and so forth." <<<

One of the cables referred to in the Stereophile Show reports was described as "the conductors having been annealed and then frozen" - this is in 2009 !!!

The interconnects and speaker cables which Keith Howard reviewed in Hi Fi News were described as 'having been annealed and then cryogenically frozen" - this was in 2001 !!! The cables Keith Howard described so - "listening to cryogenically-treated speaker cables and interconnects proved to be an astonishing experience."

In Martin Colloms Hi Fi News articles "The Cable Controversy" he refers to extensive experiments conducted by Peter Belt who 'listened to' numerous metals used as conductors i.e copper in all it's configurations ( single solid core., stranded, multi fine stranded, bunched, twisted, plaited), silver, brass, steel baling wire and the best sounding metal of all was Pure Lead (Pb). Martin describes Peter as finding all the metals 'sounded better' after "annealing all the metals" (in the gas oven at 275 degrees F - Gas Mark 3 !!). What Martin did not go on to describe was Peter's next procedure which was to 'freeze' the metals and the plastic insulation material and gain yet further improvements in the sound from each of the various metals and plastic insulation !!!!!!! Martin's article was dated 1984 - some 24 YEARS AGO !!!!!

The Cable Controversy is STILL going on. Primarily because so many so called 'engineers' refuse to listen to what people are describing - i.e that they can HEAR differences in cables and wires - even though those differences do not show up in any measurements.

Logically, IF the differences in the sound could be proven by measurements, then those measurements would be shouted from the rooftops !!!!!

I would strongly suspect that IF Ethan tried 'measuring' the cables which the people Buddha has referred to liking the sound of, he would find no differences in the measurements between those cables and other well respected cables, even though they sounded different !! The MAJOR problem is when Ethan AND others will not carry out LISTENING experiments for themselves - experiments such as using the simple technique of taking two identical (construction and sounding) wires, keep one untreated as a control and putting the other one through the freezing/slow defrost procedure using a domestic deep freezer and THEN listen to both !!!! Experiments using the lower (more complicated) cryogenic treatments can be tried later, the technique of using a domestic deep freezer is so simple for ANYONE to try !!!!!!!!!!!

30 years into the Cable Controversy, Ethan's response to Buddha's latest 'posting' is "If you let me have those same cables, I will MEASURE them !!! Note, Ethan's response is NOT "I will LISTEN to them" !!!

Surely 30 years into the Cable Controversy it is pure arrogance to believe that 'measuring' is ALL that is required to discover what is 'going on' ?? When, over these past 30 years, numerous skilled 'measurers' must have tried repeatedly to 'measure' - looking for some answers ????

If there WERE easy answers from measurements, then there would be no controversy surrounding cables. If there WERE easy answers from within conventional capacitance, resistance, inductance, dielectric theories, then there would be no controversy surrounding cables.

Regards,
May Belt.

sasaudio - Thanks, very informative. I'm now smarter .

Quote:
sasaudio - Thanks, very informative. I'm now smarter .

Your welcome Judicata. Glad to add some info that might help.

"Doesn't Bybee make some contraption that is inserted into the path of speaker cables? I always imagined it's a resistor / diode circuit that adds distortion, but I don't really know. And if it's true, it's not a cable anymore but a passive device intended to degrade the sound in a "pleasing" way."
--Ethan

Thass so funny!

May: I don't know that Ethan has ever outright refused to listen to anything. In the instant case, the "LISTENING" has already happened (as Buddha described), so Ethan offered to measure them - which had not been done yet (as far as we're concerned). I'll also note that he didn't say Buddha was a liar or anything, and just accepted that the listening had happened. I don't speak for Ethan, but I imagine he's agree to listening experiments. (Ethan?)

Second, I'm not sure I understand your hypothesis regarding the improvements of cable. If cables "improve" on the spatial representation/imaging compared to another cable, then it would seem that it distorted less. If it "improves" imaging by expanding spatial representation that isn't coming from the source (i.e., it is not in the source material), then it is distorting. I'm not being snarky - I'd appreciate it if you explained where I misunderstood.

Quote:
May: I don't know that Ethan has ever outright refused to listen to anything. In the instant case, the "LISTENING" has already happened (as Buddha described), so Ethan offered to measure them - which had not been done yet (as far as we're concerned). I'll also note that he didn't say Buddha was a liar or anything, and just accepted that the listening had happened. I don't speak for Ethan, but I imagine he's agree to listening experiments. (Ethan?)

Second, I'm not sure I understand your hypothesis regarding the improvements of cable. If cables "improve" on the spatial representation/imaging compared to another cable, then it would seem that it distorted less. If it "improves" imaging by expanding spatial representation that isn't coming from the source (i.e., it is not in the source material), then it is distorting. I'm not being snarky - I'd appreciate it if you explained where I misunderstood.

Hi Judicata,

Your comment mentioning spatial imaging reminded me of an interesting experiment several of us conducted several years ago in northern Indiana.

We were comparing ICs in a very expensive audio test setup. IC X and Y had slightly different capacitances, but not profound and no gimmicks included. If you are familiar with the Stereophile test 3 CD, track 10 compares mics in an auditorium. At one point with each test microphone, one gentleman is 50 feet back from the mic and walks towards the microphone. The SP technology speakers were about 5 feet in front of the wall.

With X ic installed, the gentleman would not go behind the front wall (wall behind the speakers) and obviously did not move much when coming forward toward the mic. With Y ic, the gentleman sounded waaaayyyy back behind the wall and approached the mic in a realistic manner. Much more realistic when compared to real world live listening.

Thanks for inadvertently reminding me of that experiment.

Quote:
May: I don't know that Ethan has ever outright refused to listen to anything.

Exactly. I'm glad to listen. Hell, I'll gladly listen first to see if I hear an obvious difference. If the difference is easy to hear, then the next step is to measure to see why they sound different. And if no difference is heard, then the next step is to measure anyway, to see if there really is a difference.

If no difference can be measured, and people report hearing a difference, then the next step is a blind test to see if they can really tell or just think they can. If they pass that reliably, then the next step is to look for something else that should be measured. To the best of my knowledge it's never once gotten that far. Long before that point the believers make up lame excuses for why blind tests are not valid.

Seriously, if the difference is that obvious when sighted, but not when blind, that just proves my points.

Quote:
If cables "improve" on the spatial representation/imaging compared to another cable, then it would seem that it distorted less.

There is nothing a wire can do that will affect imaging, unless the left and right channels are different which should not happen unless the wire is lame. When someone hears a difference in left-right imaging or depth, that pretty wells proves acoustic comb filtering is the real issue. As you probably know, I'm convinced that comb filtering is behind all manner of things people report that make no sense scientifically.

--Ethan

Quote:
Aloha,

Last week was CES/T.H.E. Show, and since that offered us a steady stream of audiophiles upon which to perform our evil experiments, we tried a few things.

One thing we tried...

Only the person changing the interconnects knew which was which at any given moment, and we changed people doing the changing so there would be less chance of a 'tell' if one person did it every time.

We had 100% repeatability, 'accuracy,' and preference for the Purist Audio design interconnect.

100%.

Quick question Buddha. Do I understand you correctly that no one except the person doing the swap saw, or at least knew which ICs were connected when the tests were performed?

>>> "As for mistaking a home freezer for 'cryogenic treatment'....lordy." <<<

Oh, Please !! I am not THAT stupid to mistake a home freezer for cryogenic treatment.

What freezing, using a home freezer, did was to point us in the direction where we should be investigating more thoroughly !!!!!!!!!!!!!! As did 'baking' the metals used as conductors in the domestic gas oven pointed us to the fact that annealing had beneficial results (soundwise) !!

In EXACTLY the same way that when Louis Pasteur discovered how to simply stop the wine he made 'going off' pointed him in the direction of realising that there were what he called 'vibrios' "in the air" - which, in turn, led Dr Joseph Lister to investigate if there might be "germs in the air" which could cause septicaemia !!!!!!!

>>> "Interestingly, the interconnects both remained in the LISTENING ENVIRONMENT the entire time." <<<

Yes, they were both in the listening environment at the same time BUT they were not BOTH pulsating, 50 to 60 times per second, AT THE SAME TIME !!!!!!!

Regards,
May Belt.

Quote:
There is nothing a wire can do that will affect imaging, unless the left and right channels are different which should not happen unless the wire is lame. When someone hears a difference in left-right imaging or depth, that pretty wells proves acoustic comb filtering is the real issue. As you probably know, I'm convinced that comb filtering is behind all manner of things people report that make no sense scientifically.

DOUBLE ROTFLMAO!!!

Damn you, you beat me to it.

:-)

Which is exactly why you two make such a great couple! You both have very strong opinions based on total ignorance, and lack the technical and verbal prowess to express anything of substance. You two make me triple ROFLMAO.

--Ethan

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Aloha,

Last week was CES/T.H.E. Show, and since that offered us a steady stream of audiophiles upon which to perform our evil experiments, we tried a few things.

One thing we tried...

Only the person changing the interconnects knew which was which at any given moment, and we changed people doing the changing so there would be less chance of a 'tell' if one person did it every time.

We had 100% repeatability, 'accuracy,' and preference for the Purist Audio design interconnect.

100%.

Quick question Buddha. Do I understand you correctly that no one except the person doing the swap saw, or at least knew which ICs were connected when the tests were performed?

Correct.

Thanks Buddha.

Quote:

Surely 30 years into the Cable Controversy it is pure arrogance to believe that 'measuring' is ALL that is required to discover what is 'going on' ?? When, over these past 30 years, numerous skilled 'measurers' must have tried repeatedly to 'measure' - looking for some answers ????

If there WERE easy answers from measurements, then there would be no controversy surrounding cables. If there WERE easy answers from within conventional capacitance, resistance, inductance, dielectric theories, then there would be no controversy surrounding cables.

Regards,
May Belt.

May, So how do cable "designers" come up with a recipe that works? It appears that measurements mean nothing so some sort of magic potion has to be found, and this would presumably be the reason for high priced cables.....the old trial & error method?
I am not a cable designer or even pretend to be one but I am very curious as to how these exotic cables are made.

>>> "Anyway, nobody who handled the interconnects noted them to be pulsating, even while music was playing." <<<

What on earth do you mean - not pulsating - even when the music was playing ?????

Regards,
May Belt.

Quote:
Which is exactly why you two make such a great couple! You both have very strong opinions based on total ignorance, and lack the technical and verbal prowess to express anything of substance. You two make me triple ROFLMAO.

Great comeback, Winer, just great. Guy, there's nothing of "substance" that can be said about your idea of cables.

Ethan; "Here's a hole. It can only be round. Want me to tell you about comb filtering?"

Where do you start with that?

>>> "Second, I'm not sure I understand your hypothesis regarding the improvements of cable. If cables "improve" on the spatial representation/imaging compared to another cable, then it would seem that it distorted less. If it "improves" imaging by expanding spatial representation that isn't coming from the source (i.e., it is not in the source material), then it is distorting. I'm not being snarky - I'd appreciate it if you explained where I misunderstood." <<<

In our viewpoint such information as the 'spatial representation' IS on the source material, HAS been 'handled' perfectly adequately by the audio system, HAS been presented into the room by the loudspeakers, IS in the room but cannot ALL be resolved correctly because the human being is reacting adversely to so many of the things which have now been introduced into our modern environments - things which we never evolved to 'deal with'. Which now do not allow us (human beings) to 'sign off' our environment as 'safe'. Which, in turn, means that we remain 'under tension', therefore not able to fully resolve all the information which is available to us.

But, and this is where the differences come into the equation - i.e differences in the sound. We (human beings) react differently to different things in the environment - so (hypothetically to try to make a point) we could react quite adversely to a cable made from copper wire with PVC insulation around it, pulsating away carrying an audio signal or the AC power but react LESS adversely to a cable made from the metal silver with PTFE insulation around it. So, having had the experience of listening with the copper wire/PVC insulation cable in the audio system to then substitute it for the silver wire cable with PTFE insulation would mean that we would be reacting LESS adversely, be under LESS tension, and be able to resolve more of the information ALREADY in the room !!!! The end description of the perception of the new sound would therefore be "Oh, the sound is much better. With (as the people in Buddha's group described) - "Obvious improvement in spatial representation (imaging) and feeling of air around instruments."

Regards,
May Belt.

>>> "The cables were never pulsating." <<<

How can cables carrying an audio signal NOT be pulsating ????????????????????

Are we splitting hairs here over a word ???? What word would you prefer to use, Buddha, to describe movement of energy (AC or audo signal) along a cable ???? I am open to use another word for better clarity !!!

Regards,
May Belt.

May,

I think Buddha is interpreting your question to mean that they were pulsating kinetically, thus the person switching cables were able to feel the pulse. He is answering that the person switching the cables could not feel any kinetic energy from the signal cables.

Quote:

As I've mentioned in the past, the laser light makes the room sound better.

Whew, for a sec there, I thought you rented out the hooker suite in the MGM Grand.