Knowing full well Chord's reputation for making excellent-sounding products, I'm sure they sound great. And thanks for sending the link to the video. I watched the interview with Nigel with interest. In particular, his comment about changing "the spacing between the conductor and the shield" is fully consisent with point that Galen Gareis was making in his design brief for his speaker cables, specifically:
"Magnetic fields decay rapidly with distance; ratio of 1/x^3. The best defense is to MOVE the low frequency electromagnetic cables away from one another. The foil and even braid shields are higher frequency shields that are ineffective at much below 1 MHz. Magnetic fields lines need low permeability shield material (something a magnet will stick to) to route flux lines away from sensitive devices. A faraday cage is an example you can put something into to do this. Low permeability metallic shields are a pain to use (stiff and heavy). DISTANCE is the best remedy."
This is exactly what Nigel said that Chord did with the "Signature Reference".
They increased the spacing between the conductor and the shield because it makes the Chord cable perform and sound better for exactly the reasons that Garies cites above.
Nigel also commented that the new speaker cables are significantly less stiff than the older model, but added, "...relatively speaking.." This is also consistent the Galen's comment that low permeability shields are a pain to use, stiff and heavy.
I'm sure the Chord Signature Reference sound great; Chord is a solid engineering-based audio company with excellent credentials. But, respectfully, I'm not convinced that because Chord does it that it is a cable design paradigm or "central dogma." Digital coax, sure. Speaker cables, no. Personally, I'm an advocate for "fit for purpose" engineering. I don't see an advantage for engineering something just because you can. This is what Howard Hughes got caught up with with the Spruce Goose. And, particularly if it adds unnecessary complexity to a design embodiment, or, most importantly, if it adds undesired effects that then have to be compensated for.
I'll give you example. For years now, Audioquest has been installing Dielectric Bias System (DBS) units to their cables. They actually work, and reduce the time for burn-in. But, as they are battery powered and output 72 volts, it turns out that the DBS units also output RF. So, now, AQ had to modify the DBS units to a new engineering specification to include an "RF trap" to protect the cable from the RF that the DBS field elements themselves put out. :S
*-unrelated side note: Why do almost all audiophile product companies use terms like "Reference, Statement, Signature, Platinum, or Reference Statement or Signature Statement or Reference Signature, etc.? I find it amusing, but I digress.
