Okey Okey...I had a heated day today at work and people were getting to me. Trying to escape from my task I logged on to see what new info I can gather in this particularly good message board. I apologize Semi for being an idiot and "squaked" like a duck and beligerently stooped to name calling. I think that anger was misplaced. I am sorry Semi.
As always you guys have given me great insight on this interesting world of audio & HT. I give my many thanks.
What I was trying to say earlier is that I personally without bias or coersion (I was able to take home a used Kimber cable for no cost but returning it another day) Based on replacing my old 7 year monster cable with a Kimber 4TC I noticed a difference. A slight difference not necessarily a good or bad one but a difference. I replaced the wires about 5 times. I got even my fiancee to tell me if she noticed a difference. Both of us noticed that the Monster was a little flat, somewhat more lower frequency available. The highs did not come out as prominent as in the Kimbers. How do you account for that audible difference?
Also the other time I was at a friends place I noticed he had bi-wirable cables but had it connected regularly to his speakers with the plates connected to the posts. Without him knowing I split up his wires to the highs and lows of his B&W and took out the joining plate. I played a CD he had in his player. He mentioned to me about 15 minutes into the music he noticed a bit more sounds he never heard before. A bit more clarity. He ask me if I fiddled around with his system. I was really there because I was fixing his setup. He had his fronts and center correctly in his A channel but by mistake put his surrounds on his B channel. So when playing music I was wondering why he was getting stereo full surround without engaging his predated 5.1 AC3 ready Denon.
With respect to finding scientific studies on copper wire. LEt me look around and see with what I can come up with supporting the theory of better cables with technology.
