Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

General Asylum

You haven't answered my posts to you in the past...

4.65.244.169

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display Email ] [ General Asylum ] [ FAQ ]

In Reply to: Re: Then why are you... posted by ro-s on September 24, 2002 at 00:03:48:

Howdy
How can you say that I haven't tried? You haven't even answered my posts to you in the past where I question your claims.
In this thread I'm complaining that you keep harassing people with your beliefs expressed as strong negative claims.
1) There is nothing wrong with having such beliefs, just don't impose your beliefs on people who are asking a question with a different belief system, e.g. your "I use copper cables" responses to people's question about "Which cable is better for …?" posts. By asking the question they have already shown that they believe there is a difference and they are asking for recommendations from others with experience in that area. They aren’t asking for an argument.
2) You are quite welcome to engage me/us about your beliefs, but start a new thread or join a thread where those beliefs are being discussed, instead of barging in on innocent questions.
3) You keep making strong negative claims, and you should be aware that proving negative claims is quite hard.
In the case you just brought up you are the one who claimed that there is no possible way for the low current in an interconnect to cause any form of burnin. This is a strong negative claim. You didn't respond to my suggestion of another mechanism for such burnin beyond the one you posted. To prove that the current in an interconnect can't cause burn in, you have to prove that any silly mechanism I/we come up with where it might, is impossible. This is very hard, there are a lot of creative people here :)
I've made no claims about interconnects burning in (in fact you might say I'm a IC burnin agnostic.) I have nothing to prove on this subject.
-Ted

Follow Ups:

Questioning is not disproving - ro-s 03:33:44 09/24/02 (4)
You have questioned my claims - ok. I can't remember that there was any "beefy" remark in your replies in which you have disproven any of my claims which are, by the way, in full harmony with the laws of
physics.
So I am still waiting for your proof that I am wrong. If you can't
do this you will have to accept that I won't change my opinion.
Why do you think I had to change my opinion before you give me
any relevant reason that I am wrong ? Your opinion is just another
opinion and I don't see why your opinion should be more relevant
than my opinion.

> > You didn't respond to my suggestion of another mechanism for such burnin beyond the one you posted < <
Please - the only difference of an interconnect which carries an
audio signal and an interconnect carrying no audio signal is
the audio signal. True ? True. Audio signals in interconnects are uniquely defined by
voltage and current over time.
Are you really suggesting that
there is a burn-in mechanism that works beyond the electrical
properties of a signal and thus without current ? I am very curious
how you want to change the physical structure of a cable by using
a weak electrical signal, but without using its current and voltage.
Any experiment in which you prove the existence of such a mechanism would be a major revolution of the modern sight of the world. Nobel award guaranteed !
- Re: Questioning is not disproving - Ted Smith 09:15:28 09/24/02 (3)
  Howdy
  You missed all of the points of my posts on this thread.
  -Ted
  - Here's a compromise - ro-s 11:35:46 09/24/02 (2)
    Why don't you just prove your claim ? Show
    me an experiment or a sequence of theoretical conclusions which shows that sending a low-current, line level audio signal
    (0.05 milliamps and a few volts or below) through a cable can change the physical or chemical structure of the cable in a significant way
    by using effects of the audio signal that are beyond its electrical
    properties, and I'll change my mind. And you will win the Nobel price in 2003 (and perhaps 2004 and 2005 to 2010, too).
    - Re: Here's a compromise - Ted Smith 09:57:41 09/25/02 (0)
      Howdy ro-s
      Hey, FWIW I liked your new post http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/59554.html .
      IMO it's Informational, useful and non-confrontive.
      -Ted
    - Re: Here's a compromise - Ted Smith 15:28:34 09/24/02 (0)
      Howdy
      You are welcome to your beliefs, mine are based on the scientific method, which includes observation. Yours are apparently an article of faith.
      Note once again: I never claimed that IC's break in. You claimed they didn't. If you can't see that therefore the burden of proof is on you, you know even less about the scientific method that I think you do.
      My goal isn't to win Nobel prizes, it's to listen to music. My methods work fine for me and others. I even get to hear things in 3D, apparently you don't :)
      -Ted

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Revolution Power

You can not post to an archived thread.