Clearer Audio Silverline Optimus coaxial cable

[fr0g]

Why don't you stop trying to hijack my thread with your nonsense? It is clearly evident to me that cables can make an enormous difference to sound quailty. If you don't believe so, fine, that's your prerogative.

Ok, I am a firm believer that cables make no difference, given that your reference point is one that has the suitable electrical properties.

However, I was like yourself. I changed a few times, heard subtle differences, that as you say gave more emotion to the music.

But eventually I decided to do a proper blind test and got someone to help me.

Of all the cables I tested (from around £1 a metre for generic, fairly thick multistrand OFC cable, to one that cost around £15-£20 a metre with fancy weaved sleeve and pro looking terminations.

When I didn't know which cable was being used, I could not tell the difference...That was my epiphany and "doh!" moment. I now use whichever is the easiest to hide. And am a lot happier for it.

Until you test it for yourself you will never know.

I thought we were talking interconnects here, not speaker cables? Two completely different topics.

Not really. I did the same test with interconnects. I am now quite happy with the freebie black ones hich come free with much audio equipment.

That test I did with free, £20 a metre and £100 a metre cables...all identical.

 

[fr0g]

I tried to put it politely earlier trev, but using this language shows the real lack of intelligence. Your opinions, like the cable believers opinions, are just that, merely opinions, until you can prove the cable manufactures wrong in their claims, and then you will have the joy of taking them all to court with no chance of losing. Until then....you need to rein it in.

Not quite. It isn't just my opinion. It isn't merely subjective. Anyone that knows about anything about electronics can see right through all the implausible and impossible claims of these companies, but unfortunately the ASA is toothless and clueless. These companies can make any number of ridiculous claims and they get away with it. An example:

'The fact is though, that every element within a power cable will have some influence on the performance of the equipment it’s used with. Back in 2005 when we produced our first power cable we learned that every aspect of the termination mattered. The way the internal conductors were routed, the type and the direction of the fuse and strangest of all, the degree of torque applied to the screw that secures the cover of the plug to the main body.'

Utter tosh.

Haha! OK, I see how that looks as total peter, but to claim it as undeniably false, as a matter of fact, you have to provide the evidence to prove it as wrong. Until then, it is just your opinion, and you cannot claim it as otherwise. When a new member comes looking for advice, facts should be presented as facts, and opinions as opinions, it is inaccurate to say something is a fact without the actual evidence, and I think it is this that is winding most people up.

Absolutely. And differences between cables are certainly not facts. I have seen many publicised failures to iidentify differences and not a single positive result.

The upshot, cables make no difference (assuming competent cables). Any difference is up to the person claiming it to prove.

 

[radiorog]

Trev's reply in comparing a discussion I was having, with religion is really winding me up. I believe he is what is called a troll, whether he knows it or not. His point on religion was clearly a passive aggressive move to insult, without fear of comeback. It is insulting to me, as much as it is insulting to anyone who may be religious. Albert Einstein was religious, and I'm pretty he has proven himself to be entitled to opinions as much as trev. Where are the moderators??! this place is crazy!

 

[Gazzip]

Christ on a bike. WHY DOES IT MATTER!!!!?

Not a reply to #28. Reply to #27.

 

[TrevC]

I tried to put it politely earlier trev, but using this language shows the real lack of intelligence. Your opinions, like the cable believers opinions, are just that, merely opinions, until you can prove the cable manufactures wrong in their claims, and then you will have the joy of taking them all to court with no chance of losing. Until then....you need to rein it in.

Not quite. It isn't just my opinion. It isn't merely subjective. Anyone that knows about anything about electronics can see right through all the implausible and impossible claims of these companies, but unfortunately the ASA is toothless and clueless. These companies can make any number of ridiculous claims and they get away with it. An example:

'The fact is though, that every element within a power cable will have some influence on the performance of the equipment it’s used with. Back in 2005 when we produced our first power cable we learned that every aspect of the termination mattered. The way the internal conductors were routed, the type and the direction of the fuse and strangest of all, the degree of torque applied to the screw that secures the cover of the plug to the main body.'

Utter tosh.

Haha! OK, I see how that looks as total peter, but to claim it as undeniably false, as a matter of fact, you have to provide the evidence to prove it as wrong. Until then, it is just your opinion, and you cannot claim it as otherwise. When a new member comes looking for advice, facts should be presented as facts, and opinions as opinions, it is inaccurate to say something is a fact without the actual evidence, and I think it is this that is winding most people up.

There are people that deny the fact and theory of evolution in favour of a variety of imaginary being. This discussion is starting to look very similar.

Of course it's a fact that the direction of a fuse doesn't affect a mains lead. How can it?!!!!! The mains lead can't affect anything at all unless it's faulty in some way. Fact!

Why are you now bringing religion into it, and actually pointing the finger at me as if to say I am religious, and you claiming it as derogatory in the process. THAT...is very insulting! Mostly to yourself though trev, and I guess that is what hurts. You are trying to bring religion into a HiFi argument. That shows lack of clarity as well.

OK, so you claim it as a fact, this where you are wrong as you know, like you said_it is merely subjective. If it is fact, I am sure you are now going to post the results from the properly controlled experiments that show that fuse direction does not alter sound quality in any perceivable way.

Until you provide this evidence trev, you cannot claim it as a fact. Fact! You can however say it is most likely a fact.

The onus isn't on me to prove there are no fairies in your garden, the onus is on you to demonstrate that there are. It can readily be demonstrated that interconnects of normal contruction at line level (just copper or silver wire) have no effect on sound using measurements, and the same is true of mains cables. Even more so, because a mains cable has nothing to do with sound. The problem, and the reason nobody does these tests, is that is well known by those that understand. Even if such tests are done, the hifi religious won't believe them and the aftermarket cable witch doctors will carry on selling them the hifi elixir.

The truth is important.

 

[radiorog]

Christ on a bike. WHY DOES IT MATTER!!!!?

Not a reply to #28. Reply to #27.

Are you talking to me?

It matters because I come on here to discuss things I enjoy and want to learn more about. not be insulted. I enjoy intellectual discussion, and I don't necessarily mind when someone claims something to be factual when there is actually no evidence to back it up, but when that person then starts insulting others for there opinions without evidence based facts, it is hard to enjoy ones time here. Some people need to accept until things are proven to be fact, they have no claim to them being so. It is a schoolboy/girl error. It is a fundamentally and basic principle that is highly valued in discussion, as is not insulting others.

 

[Audioholic2013]

My question for this thread was about the Clearer Audio Silver Line cable, not if cables make a difference, not that I need to ask such a question, as I believe they do. This has turned into another cable bashing thread by the usual suspects, so desperate to convince the likes of I that I'm 'wrong'. Well, personal experience with cables and their effects on my system tells me all I need to know, thank you very much. In future, I shall refrain from asking about a particular cable on this forum as it gets quickly hijacked by 'Trevc' and co, that can't wait to insult those of us that disagree with them.

 

[radiorog]

I tried to put it politely earlier trev, but using this language shows the real lack of intelligence. Your opinions, like the cable believers opinions, are just that, merely opinions, until you can prove the cable manufactures wrong in their claims, and then you will have the joy of taking them all to court with no chance of losing. Until then....you need to rein it in.

Not quite. It isn't just my opinion. It isn't merely subjective. Anyone that knows about anything about electronics can see right through all the implausible and impossible claims of these companies, but unfortunately the ASA is toothless and clueless. These companies can make any number of ridiculous claims and they get away with it. An example:

'The fact is though, that every element within a power cable will have some influence on the performance of the equipment it’s used with. Back in 2005 when we produced our first power cable we learned that every aspect of the termination mattered. The way the internal conductors were routed, the type and the direction of the fuse and strangest of all, the degree of torque applied to the screw that secures the cover of the plug to the main body.'

Utter tosh.

Haha! OK, I see how that looks as total peter, but to claim it as undeniably false, as a matter of fact, you have to provide the evidence to prove it as wrong. Until then, it is just your opinion, and you cannot claim it as otherwise. When a new member comes looking for advice, facts should be presented as facts, and opinions as opinions, it is inaccurate to say something is a fact without the actual evidence, and I think it is this that is winding most people up.

There are people that deny the fact and theory of evolution in favour of a variety of imaginary being. This discussion is starting to look very similar.

Of course it's a fact that the direction of a fuse doesn't affect a mains lead. How can it?!!!!! The mains lead can't affect anything at all unless it's faulty in some way. Fact!

Why are you now bringing religion into it, and actually pointing the finger at me as if to say I am religious, and you claiming it as derogatory in the process. THAT...is very insulting! Mostly to yourself though trev, and I guess that is what hurts. You are trying to bring religion into a HiFi argument. That shows lack of clarity as well.

OK, so you claim it as a fact, this where you are wrong as you know, like you said_it is merely subjective. If it is fact, I am sure you are now going to post the results from the properly controlled experiments that show that fuse direction does not alter sound quality in any perceivable way.

Until you provide this evidence trev, you cannot claim it as a fact. Fact! You can however say it is most likely a fact.

The onus isn't on me to prove there are no fairies in your garden, the onus is on you to demonstrate that there are. It can readily be demonstrated that interconnects of normal contruction at line level (just copper or silver wire) have no effect on sound using measurements, and the same is true of mains cables. Even more so, because a mains cable has nothing to do with sound. The problem, and the reason nobody does these tests, is that is well known by those that understand. Even if such tests are done, the hifi religious won't believe them and the aftermarket cable witch doctors will carry on selling them the hifi elixir.

The truth is important.

I'm sorry trev, this is where you are totally wrong. If you were to start a scientific discussion with somebody about fairies, the onus would be on you to disprove them, if that was the agenda if the discussion, as much as the onus would be on the other party to disprove fairies. The other alternative is NOT to get into a scientific debate about fairies. This is a basic scientific principle you seem to have no concept of.....and you also insist on insulting people with other opinions by calling them idiots or brainless. I believe that behavioural pattern is unacceptable.

 

[Gazzip]

Christ on a bike. WHY DOES IT MATTER!!!!?

Not a reply to #28. Reply to #27.

Are you talking to me?

It matters because I come on here to discuss things I enjoy and want to learn more about. not be insulted. I enjoy intellectual discussion, and I don't necessarily mind when someone claims something to be factual when there is actually no evidence to back it up, but when that person then starts insulting others for there opinions without evidence based facts, it is hard to enjoy ones time here. Some people need to accept until things are proven to be fact, they have no claim to them being so. It is a schoolboy/girl error. It is a fundamentally and basic principle that is highly valued in discussion, as is not insulting others.

Really sorry radiorog. I was replying to the post before yours and got the numbers mixed up. I agree with your reply though!

 

[Gazzip]

My question for this thread was about the Clearer Audio Silver Line cable, not if cables make a difference, not that I need to ask such a question, as I believe they do. This has turned into another cable bashing thread by the usual suspects, so desperate to convince the likes of I that I'm 'wrong'. Well, personal experience with cables and their effects on my system tells me all I need to know, thank you very much. In future, I shall refrain from asking about a particular cable on this forum as it gets quickly hijacked by 'Trevc' and co, that can't wait to insult those of us that disagree with them.

Well said. Now back to your OP. What tonal adjustment are you trying to achieve with the Silverline cable?

 

[pauln]

I'm sorry trev, this is where you are totally wrong.

Surely you can't make a statement like that without proving it... or is another of your FACTS?

 

[radiorog]

Christ on a bike. WHY DOES IT MATTER!!!!?

Not a reply to #28. Reply to #27.

Are you talking to me?

It matters because I come on here to discuss things I enjoy and want to learn more about. not be insulted. I enjoy intellectual discussion, and I don't necessarily mind when someone claims something to be factual when there is actually no evidence to back it up, but when that person then starts insulting others for there opinions without evidence based facts, it is hard to enjoy ones time here. Some people need to accept until things are proven to be fact, they have no claim to them being so. It is a schoolboy/girl error. It is a fundamentally and basic principle that is highly valued in discussion, as is not insulting others.

Really sorry radiorog. I was replying to the post before yours and got the numbers mixed up. I agree with your reply though!

No problem at all gazzip, I was 50% sure you weren't talking me, its fine.

I think that one of the fundamental principles of scientific research, and probably one of the biggest attraction to science for me, is, no matter how outlandish a claim seems to be, it has to be proven before any real claims on it can be made. This surely IS THE first principle of scientific endeavour. This is what creates scientific research, and ultimately deeper understanding. the breaking down of components, cataloguing of data, and the resulting conclusions achieve knowledge and understanding. These are the building blocks of science. If people aren't applying these principles here...fine, just don't claim to be doing so.

 

[radiorog]

I'm sorry trev, this is where you are totally wrong.

Surely you can't make a statement like that without proving it... or is another of your FACTS?

Come on Paul. Didn't you read the rest of the post? If you did and didn't understand it,then fine. There is nothing for you here....I explained the principle quite clearly.

 

[Audioholic2013]

[/quote]

Well said. Now back to your OP. What tonal adjustment are you trying to achieve with the Silverline cable?

[/quote]

Smoother midrange, purer, sweeter treble, tight defined bass.

 

[Gazzip]

Well said. Now back to your OP. What tonal adjustment are you trying to achieve with the Silverline cable?

[/quote]

Smoother midrange, purer, sweeter treble, tight defined bass.

[/quote]

The system I was running it in was all Bryston (CDP; DAC; Pre-amp; Power Amps) and PMC IB2S's. All other interconnects were Van Damne tour grade. I bought it to try and put a bit of "life" in to my system and it certainly did that. It is not a relaxing cable, or at least it wasn't in that particular system and to these ears. Very transparent and revealing with a good fast and tight attack. I wouldn't call it sweet sounding but that could have been the rest of the setup to be honest. Bryston can be quite harsh in too big a portion.

 

[pauln]

I'm sorry trev, this is where you are totally wrong.

Surely you can't make a statement like that without proving it... or is another of your FACTS?

Come on Paul. Didn't you read the rest of the post? If you did and didn't understand it,then fine. There is nothing for you here....I explained the principle quite clearly.

As far as I know, if a person claims something like "fairies live at the bottom of my garden"; the existence of fairies being something that is generally accepted as being a nonsense, then the onus is upon them to prove it, the default view being that fairies don't exist. Similarly, if the generally accepted scientific/engineering view, overwhelmingly supported by many blind tests, is that adequately constructed cables sound the same then isn't the burden of proof on those claiming that they can hear differences?

Oh, and did you mistake my sarcasm for lack of understanding?

 

[radiorog]

ft

I'm sorry trev, this is where you are totally wrong.

Surely you can't make a statement like that without proving it... or is another of your FACTS?

Come on Paul. Didn't you read the rest of the post? If you did and didn't understand it,then fine. There is nothing for you here....I explained the principle quite clearly.

As far as I know, if a person claims something like "fairies live at the bottom of my garden"; the existence of fairies being something that is generally accepted as being a nonsense, then the onus is upon them to prove it, the default view being that fairies don't exist. Similarly, if the generally accepted scientific/engineering view, overwhelmingly supported by many blind tests, is that adequately constructed cables sound the same then isn't the burden of proof on those claiming that they can hear differences?

Oh, and did you mistake my sarcasm for lack of understanding?

Paul, maybe I didn't explain clearly enough, but I can't see how I personally could make it clearer. But you didn't get the jist. Like trev on this, you are incorrect. Please read my post again, I believe I explain it quote well. And also my next post, that no matter how outlandish a claim, it cannot be conclusively claimed as false until proved otherwise....this stems from the most basic of scientific research principles.

If you cannot prove fairies don't exist, you cannot claim to do so without conclusive evidence. The thing to do is not get into scientific debates on fairies.

 

[radiorog]

ft

I'm sorry trev, this is where you are totally wrong.

Surely you can't make a statement like that without proving it... or is another of your FACTS?

Come on Paul. Didn't you read the rest of the post? If you did and didn't understand it,then fine. There is nothing for you here....I explained the principle quite clearly.

As far as I know, if a person claims something like "fairies live at the bottom of my garden"; the existence of fairies being something that is generally accepted as being a nonsense, then the onus is upon them to prove it, the default view being that fairies don't exist. Similarly, if the generally accepted scientific/engineering view, overwhelmingly supported by many blind tests, is that adequately constructed cables sound the same then isn't the burden of proof on those claiming that they can hear differences?

Oh, and did you mistake my sarcasm for lack of understanding?

Paul, maybe I didn't explain clearly enough, but I can't see how I personally could make it clearer. But you didn't get the jist. Like trev on this, you are incorrect. Please read my post again, I believe I explain it quote well. And also my next post, that no matter how outlandish a claim, it cannot be conclusively claimed as false until proved otherwise....this stems from the most basic of scientific research principles.

If you cannot prove fairies don't exist, you cannot claim to do so without conclusive evidence. The thing to do is not get into scientific debates on fairies.

This is what science is!

 

[Gazzip]

Well said. Now back to your OP. What tonal adjustment are you trying to achieve with the Silverline cable?

Smoother midrange, purer, sweeter treble, tight defined bass.

[/quote]

The system I was running it in was all Bryston (CDP; DAC; Pre-amp; Power Amps) and PMC IB2S's. All other interconnects were Van Damne tour grade. I bought it to try and put a bit of "life" in to my system and it certainly did that. It is not a relaxing cable, or at least it wasn't in that particular system and to these ears. Very transparent and revealing with a good fast and tight attack. I wouldn't call it sweet sounding but that could have been the rest of the setup to be honest. Bryston can be quite harsh in too big a portion.

[/quote]

Just plugged this cable in to my current system for the first time. Definitely not laid back and still very revealing but rather better than I remember it being. I quite like it actually but perhaps not one for extended listening sessions.

 

[pauln]

ft

I'm sorry trev, this is where you are totally wrong.

Surely you can't make a statement like that without proving it... or is another of your FACTS?

Come on Paul. Didn't you read the rest of the post? If you did and didn't understand it,then fine. There is nothing for you here....I explained the principle quite clearly.

As far as I know, if a person claims something like "fairies live at the bottom of my garden"; the existence of fairies being something that is generally accepted as being a nonsense, then the onus is upon them to prove it, the default view being that fairies don't exist. Similarly, if the generally accepted scientific/engineering view, overwhelmingly supported by many blind tests, is that adequately constructed cables sound the same then isn't the burden of proof on those claiming that they can hear differences?

Oh, and did you mistake my sarcasm for lack of understanding?

Paul, maybe I didn't explain clearly enough, but I can't see how I personally could make it clearer. But you didn't get the jist. Like trev on this, you are incorrect. Please read my post again, I believe I explain it quote well. And also my next post, that no matter how outlandish a claim, it cannot be conclusively claimed as false until proved otherwise....this stems from the most basic of scientific research principles.

If you cannot prove fairies don't exist, you cannot claim to do so without conclusive evidence. The thing to do is not get into scientific debates on fairies.

Of course I know what you mean and I can do without the patronising attitude thanks. I'm not talking about some theoretical scientific argument. There must be zillions of things that can't be proven. I'm talking about the commonly accepted principle that the onus of proof is on the person making the claim and that has come about precisely because of what you are saying and the immense difficulty of proving a negative. Russell's teapot - isn't that the analogy used?

 

[BenLaw]

Beat me to it Paul:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Rog, the burden of proof is definitely on the cable 'believers'.

The evolution / religion thing is an analogy (and a valid one), no need to take it so much to heart.

 

[radiorog]

ft

I'm sorry trev, this is where you are totally wrong.

Surely you can't make a statement like that without proving it... or is another of your FACTS?

Come on Paul. Didn't you read the rest of the post? If you did and didn't understand it,then fine. There is nothing for you here....I explained the principle quite clearly.

As far as I know, if a person claims something like "fairies live at the bottom of my garden"; the existence of fairies being something that is generally accepted as being a nonsense, then the onus is upon them to prove it, the default view being that fairies don't exist. Similarly, if the generally accepted scientific/engineering view, overwhelmingly supported by many blind tests, is that adequately constructed cables sound the same then isn't the burden of proof on those claiming that they can hear differences?

Oh, and did you mistake my sarcasm for lack of understanding?

Paul, maybe I didn't explain clearly enough, but I can't see how I personally could make it clearer. But you didn't get the jist. Like trev on this, you are incorrect. Please read my post again, I believe I explain it quote well. And also my next post, that no matter how outlandish a claim, it cannot be conclusively claimed as false until proved otherwise....this stems from the most basic of scientific research principles.

If you cannot prove fairies don't exist, you cannot claim to do so without conclusive evidence. The thing to do is not get into scientific debates on fairies.

Of course I know what you mean and I can do without the patronising attitude thanks. I'm not talking about some theoretical scientific argument. There must be zillions of things that can't be proven. I'm talking about the commonly accepted principle that the onus of proof is on the person making the claim and that has come about precisely because of what you are saying and the immense difficulty of proving a negative. Russell's teapot - isn't that the analogy used?

Paul, 100% I wasn't being patronising. Where did I come across as? You have insecurity issues, as we all do, but that is a schoolboy error. I guess its hard to converse adequately sometimes online. Things like knowing a personscage you are responding to can sometimes alter how you phrase things, but I try very hard not to insult anyone, and I wasn't being patronising. You didn't understand the point I was making, that is all.

Sure, the onus of proof may be in the person making the claim, or the onus to disprove, but I didn't mention fairies, trev did. Going by what you are saying, you shouldn't make claims you cannot prove, and I agree with you totally. But I don't understand what your argument is.

 

[pauln]

You have insecurity issues, as we all do

[/quote]

You should stop digging Rog. (You know what I mean - as in digging a hole, just to be clear)

By the way, is that another "fact" - that everyone has insecurity issues? How could you possibly have a clue?

Anyway, bed beckons in my time zone. It's been fun.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

ft

 I'm sorry trev, this is where you are totally wrong.

Surely you can't make a statement like that without proving it... or is another of your FACTS?

 Come on Paul. Didn't you read the rest of the post? If you did and didn't understand it,then fine. There is nothing for you here....I explained the principle quite clearly.

As far as I know, if a person claims something like "fairies live at the bottom of my garden"; the existence of fairies being something that is generally accepted as being a nonsense, then the onus is upon them to prove it, the default view being that fairies don't exist. Similarly, if the generally accepted scientific/engineering view, overwhelmingly supported by many blind tests, is that adequately constructed cables sound the same then isn't the burden of proof on those claiming that they can hear differences?

Oh, and did you mistake my sarcasm for lack of understanding?

 Paul, maybe I didn't explain clearly enough, but I can't see how I personally could make it clearer. But you didn't get the jist. Like trev on this, you are incorrect. Please read my post again, I believe I explain it quote well. And also my next post, that no matter how outlandish a claim, it cannot be conclusively claimed as false until proved otherwise....this stems from the most basic of scientific research principles.

 If you cannot prove fairies don't exist, you cannot claim to do so without conclusive evidence. The thing to do is not get into scientific debates on fairies.

Of course I know what you mean and I can do without the patronising attitude thanks. I'm not talking about some theoretical scientific argument. There must be zillions of things that can't be proven. I'm talking about the commonly accepted principle that the onus of proof is on the person making the claim and that has come about precisely because of what you are saying and the immense difficulty of proving a negative. Russell's teapot - isn't that the analogy used?

Paul, 100% I wasn't being patronising. Where did I come across as? You have insecurity issues, as we all do, but that is a schoolboy error. I guess its hard to converse adequately sometimes online. Things like knowing a personscage you are responding to can sometimes alter how you phrase things, but I try very hard not to insult anyone, and I wasn't being patronising. You didn't understand the point I was making, that is all.?

 Sure, the onus of proof may be in the person making the claim, or the onus to disprove, but I didn't mention fairies, trev did. Going by what you are saying, you shouldn't make claims you cannot prove, and I agree with you totally. But I don't understand what your argument is.

Honestly Radiorog be as patronising as you want. Insult these idiots all you want they've ruined yet another thread.

Derailed it and added nothing to the forum.

Then actually expect people to be polite towards them...... Crazy.

 

[SteveR750]

I tried to put it politely earlier trev, but using this language shows the real lack of intelligence. Your opinions, like the cable believers opinions, are just that, merely opinions, until you can prove the cable manufactures wrong in their claims, and then you will have the joy of taking them all to court with no chance of losing. Until then....you need to rein it in.

Not quite. It isn't just my opinion. It isn't merely subjective. Anyone that knows about anything about electronics can see right through all the implausible and impossible claims of these companies, but unfortunately the ASA is toothless and clueless. These companies can make any number of ridiculous claims and they get away with it. An example:

'The fact is though, that every element within a power cable will have some influence on the performance of the equipment it’s used with. Back in 2005 when we produced our first power cable we learned that every aspect of the termination mattered. The way the internal conductors were routed, the type and the direction of the fuse and strangest of all, the degree of torque applied to the screw that secures the cover of the plug to the main body.'

Utter tosh.

Totally agree with your reasoning, but you have an unfortunate manner of conveying your opinion that often obscures your clear logic to more readers than it could do. Just saying.