|
Home
/ FAQ
/ News Classifieds / Events |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer |
Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
87.185.116.197
In Reply to: RE: Blind listening test of power cords - and reactions to it. posted by carcass93 on September 25, 2009 at 08:19:27
> Blind listening test of power cords - and reactions to it.
The reactions posted here are indeed revealing. What do you think a neutral observer rather than a committed tribal member would make of them?
N/T
> But you're not talking about yourself, hopefully.
Not really because I have observed the audiophile phenomenon for a while. I was referring to people that have not adopted audiophile beliefs and therefore feel no urge to defend the tribe in the manner of the posters here nor those that have adopted an anti-audiophile position.
I would suggest that even though such a person may not follow the details they will be able to see the behaviour. A group of people with shared beliefs that they feel sufficiently insecure about to chase off those that do not share them, crow about it afterwards and even, apparently, stalk them to sites which do not share the beliefs.
And that's been pretty common around here. This thread is like audio itself; if they want was is easy to pick up rather than the truth that lies beneath, they probably don't belong here anyway, and I'd have to go with Carcass' "don't give a damn" reply.
As for Richard, he and I may not have agreed on things audio but we did agree that music was more important than the system. So in the grand scheme of things, we agreed on 90% of the most important matters concerning what comes out of loudspeakers. I hope he's happy at H/A - and he should be because he's among like minded people. Recently my opinion of H/A has changed a bit. I still have to weed through faulty conclusions and BS but there are some tidbits there that are useful. And our friend AJ is having a very nice argument regarding the need for "room conditioning" that I'm dying to see concluded. H/A isn't all "music is incidental" and "everything sounds the same"... but I do admit to getting quite a belly-laugh out of most of it.
> That would be people that aren't looking beneath the surface
So on the surface we have an unpleasant, unintelligent bigot but under the surface we have... I notice that you have not said what we have and I am not sure I want to go there anyway!
> As for Richard [...] I hope he's happy at H/A - and he should be
> because he's among like minded people.
I am not so sure that he is. Driving off unwanted audiophile silliness and audiophile bashing are not the same thing. The former is a requirement for the site to survive in its present form (like keeping DBTs out of the cable asylum) but I would judge that the latter is unwanted by most but it seems to be growing. The problem is not really to do with audiophiles but an influx of people that want to bash audiophiles like Arnold B., JJ and Richard and a small number of regulars.
> And our friend AJ is having a very nice argument regarding the need for
> "room conditioning" that I'm dying to see concluded.
Yes he has revealed himself to be a bit faith based when it comes to acoustics. I am guessing this is from following some of Linkwitz's writings on the subject bu the latter has demonstrated a willingness to adapt to new evidence/information and so...
... wrinkle in his brain made by the cap he's wearing, proclaims himself impartial "audiophile behavior observer", we just take his word for it. Right...
Gosh, I sincerely wish there was somebody on "the other side" worth talking to...
> Gosh, I sincerely wish there was somebody on "the other side" worth talking to... <
There is. Those people just stay well away from here. An R/E friend of mine, after my telling him about some of the BS that's spouted here about R/E's being "it all sounds the same" people, once told me that my computer has an "off" button and I should push it before wasting my time on this site. But he did surmise that such people are probably the reason there is so much recorded crap out there these days.
I should listen to him but this place is like a car wreck. I want to look away, but I just can't....
... both worth many thousands of dollars, they apparently do so only because they want to show off (or they like how the boxes look) - it all sounds the same still.
Edits: 10/01/09
> > I am guessing this is from following some of Linkwitz's writings on the subject but the latter has demonstrated a willingness to adapt to new evidence/information and so...You certainly know your onions... By the way, has anybody ever accused you of being very patronising ;^)?
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Edits: 10/01/09
> but under the surface we have <
...someone who got as much as he gave. I've been around here for quite awhile and, all that time considered, the bashing has gone both ways. And I'm not talking about just the two in question.
> but an influx of people that want to bash audiophiles like Arnold B., JJ and Richard and a small number of regulars. <
At H/A??? Admittedly, I haven't spent a lot of time there yet but Arnie and JJ appear larger than life from what I have seen. I consider Arnie in particular to be well beyond the fringe, which is in keeping with what I see as the main thrust of the forum. And your use of the term "audiophile" for those two would seem to be in conflict with your earlier, less than complimentary description of it. Or are you some kind of island in this battle?
> Yes he has revealed himself to be a bit faith based <
As is everyone beholden to one faith or another. The sensible person can tell in which areas his faith is unsupported and in which his faith has been rewarded by facts.
... that I'm not giving enough.
Will work on that - promise.
Now I have to clean the Pepsi out of my keyboard! :)
Don't worry, man - few people can reduce someone to a quivering mass of demented insecurity the way you can! LOL
- Aberfeldy 12
- Glendronach 12
- Aberlour 15 Double cask (haven't seen this one in stores in NJ or PA).
Of these, Aberlour is of course the most impressive, probably on par with 16 y.o. I had tried before. Then Aberfeldy, and the most generic is Glendronach. None of these probably is your cup of tea .. err... glass of scotch.
Just been sticking with the old familiars Highland Park, Talisker, Lagavulin and an occasional Glenmorangie. I've actually been drinking more Armagnac lately, as I got hooked on XO-grade cognac which I can't afford. Armagnac is less expensive and still comes in XO.
You sure do seem to have a keen interest in the various personalities. Not to mention a pretty clear belief system.
A post by "Patsoe" there makes most sense to me - room nodes don't coexist with "accuracy", so AJ's argument is at least partially faulty (more like completely, in my opinion).
I thought it was an interesting argument, and one that I've never heard before. I make no comment on its accuracy. I'd have to say I'm a believer in "room nodes don't coexist with accuracy" but I'm guessing AJ has more to say on the subject. The guy builds and alters speakers so I'd have to say that gives him a leg and two arms up on me, and I'm curious what else he comes up with.
N/T
" I don't care that much about the music - it is merely incidental..."
They are in a different world than I.
rw
As opposed to many of us who claim "it's all about the music" when so obviously there's much more to it then that.
Otherwise, it's difficult to explain your "I'll side with any scum, as long as it shares the same beliefs that I do" position.
Case in point: posts by your favorite "well-spoken" piece of dumbshit Peter H-son in this thread, and your defending him.
"Otherwise, it's difficult to explain your "I'll side with any scum, as long as it shares the same beliefs that I do" position."
I'm a subjectivist and am into rock music much like you yet I think you're about the biggest waste of bandwidth posting in this forum.
So much for your reasoning.
But to me, you're just another unintelligent person that regularly disgraces this forum with meaningless, useless blathering, with the main objective seemingly to contradict anything and anyone.And by the way, I'm not into ROCK music (at least, not into what is commonly considered rock music). Your routine talking about something you have no idea about just confirms my point above.
Edits: 10/01/09
> As opposed to many of us who claim "it's all about the music" when so obviously there's much more to it then that. <
There's an old saw about the audiophile with the $300K system, every tweak imaginable, room treatments up the wazoo, supports every audio mag and goes to every show, and has 20 audiophile LP's that make up his entire music collection. I don't need to mention the titles of the LP's - you already know the titles.
At any rate, I met such a person a couple of years ago (I thought the story was made up!). The REALLY funny thing was that he rarely turned the stereo on during the short time I knew him and said that he probably spent less than an hour a week listening to music. I honestly don't believe that the staunchest "objectivist" cares that little for music.
There are nutbars on both sides of the debate.
I know a guy something like that but his rig was somewhere around ten grand. He had some Near speakers and the damn things sounded so bad on so many recordings there were only a few worthy of being played through them. He tried to tell me his system was too good for most recordings so he only had few, the cream of the crop, the best ones.
Whatever people believe what they want to believe or at least what their dealer told them.
(nt)
What is "DBT pseudoscientists"?
Nobody is dumber that the idiots here.
There is no difference whatsoever between the audio mystics and the wackjobs in this video
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
--Charles Darwin
Now, send me your credit card...
...who's the idiot now?
"Looks like your posts below have been deleted..."
Then you know more than I do.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
--Charles Darwin
I'm so dumb, I don't even know the definition of "audio mystic"! But even I know that some cables, amps, preamps etc sound different than others! ;)
"But even I know that some cables, amps, preamps etc sound different than others! ;)"
That is a fallacy. A piece of wire and an amplifier are very different things. I have not said a word about the latter.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
--Charles Darwin
Then say something now. You attacked us - what is your weapon?
"You attacked us - what is your weapon?"
Is that to me? I attacked nobody. I defend.
This thread is an attack on reason, skepticism, critical thinking and science.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
--Charles Darwin
It is a critique of a lunitic fringe that pretends to be skeptics, critical thinkers and scientific.
Being called "lunitic fringe" by your kind is a badge of honor.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
--Charles Darwin
Edits: 09/30/09
Huh?
"My kind?" what would that be?
Who said anything about you? I was refering to the lunitic fringe on Hydrogen Audio. I'm talkin about the folks that would say you suffer from a mental illness and need treatment because of your beliefs about audio. Don't think so? Tell ya what. Go to Hydrogen Audio and post your veiws about the levels of resolution of vinyl vs. redbook CD. I dare you. then after you have been accused of being anti science, a true believer and mentally ill get back to me about how those folks are real skeptics, and defenders of science and rational thought.
"Go to Hydrogen Audio and post your veiws about the levels of resolution of vinyl vs. redbook CD."
Why would I do that? I do not force the issue here or anywhere else. Maybe I have just run into sucky CD players? Maybe the digital fans have only heard sucky CD players?
That's not important.
You have people here making outlandish claims. That is not so bad. But then they resort to name-calling and try to bully people into believing their nonsense. How does that make them different from ANY religious fundamentalist?
They believe their failure is the failure of science.
Passing a DBT is the easiest thing in the world, if there is a difference.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
--Charles Darwin
to get a better understanding of exactly who and what is actually being criticized. You jumped into this thread seemingly thinking it was about you. I assure you it wasn't.
"You have people here making outlandish claims. That is not so bad. But then they resort to name-calling and try to bully people into believing their nonsense. How does that make them different from ANY religious fundamentalist?"
I don't think the claims about some of the folks at Hydrogenaudio are particularly outlandish. I think if you were to get a first hand taste you would find yourself in agreement with much of what is being said here about those folks.
As for name calling... it does not make one a fundamentalist. You have done your fair share of it on this thread.
"Passing a DBT is the easiest thing in the world, if there is a difference."
This thread isn't about passing dbts or about cables or about you. It is about a particular group of lunitic fringe objectivists and their distortions of real science and of subjectivists and of audio in general. We are talking about a group of people that would call *you* mentally ill and in need of mental treatment because of your beliefs about audio. I only suggested you engage them in a conversation about the resolution of vinyl vs. Redbook CD so you could get a first hand taste of what it is we are criticizing in this thread.
"You jumped into this thread seemingly thinking it was about you. I assure you it wasn't."
Two wrongs. I'm not a narcissist. I do not think the world revolves on me.
"I don't think the claims about some of the folks at Hydrogenaudio are particularly outlandish."
Nor do I. I'm talking about the outlandish claims made by the wire fetishists.
"As for name calling... it does not make one a fundamentalist."
Not what I said at all. I said that carcass93 and his ilks are bullies. If you do not submit to their belief system, you are a coward and should go fuck yourself. His words, not mine.
"This thread isn't about passing dbts or about cables or about you. It is about a particular group of lunitic fringe objectivists and their distortions of real science and of subjectivists and of audio in general."
I say pigs can fly. You say No. I then say you are a lunitic fringe objectivist.
I do not think pigs can fly any more than I believe the cable fetishists' claims. The only difference between those claims is BELIEF.
A Christian is likely to believe somebody who says Jesus has talked to him. The Christian is far less likely to believe somebody who says Buddha has talked to him.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
--Charles Darwin
Then you posted to the worng thread. There was no talk about cables until you brought it up. The thread was about some folks on Hydrogen Audio. You jumped in and started slinging insults. Do you walk into a bar and punch someone in the face and then feel outraged and wronged when you get punched back? How is it that you, the guy who fired the first insult, have any business acting all righteous about others insulting you? Were you just in need of some attention? Did you think you were contributing in some way? why are you even posting on this thread?
"Then you posted to the worng thread."
Not at all.
"There was no talk about cables until you brought it up."
Yes, there was. "Some poor soul decided it would be good idea to post results of his positive test of power cords on HydrogenAudio."
"The thread was about some folks on Hydrogen Audio."
Almost. The thread is about the folks on Hydrogen Audio WHO DO NOT SHARE THE BELIEF OF THE CABLE FETISHISTS. If the folks at Hydrogen Audio would have bought the cable fetishists' superstitious beliefs, there would have been no thread.
I could go to the Hydrogen Audio forum (I assume it's a forum) and start a thread saying pigs can fly. I'm sure the folks there would call me an idiot. Then I could come here and bitch about it. Same thing and just as retarded.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
--Charles Darwin
> > > Then you posted to the worng thread.> > >
> > Not at all.> >
> > > There was no talk about cables until you brought it up.> > >
> > Yes, there was. "Some poor soul decided it would be good idea to post results of his positive test of power cords on HydrogenAudio."> >
yeah, that is what they do there. but apparently it's only OK if the results match the beliefs. Apparently this is something you have in common with the nut jobs on Hydrogen Audio. no wonder you took it personally. here is a clue about real science. There is no cherry picking based on whether or not one *likes* the results.
> > > The thread was about some folks on Hydrogen Audio.> > >
> > Almost.> >
Nope. It was exactly about them.
> > The thread is about the folks on Hydrogen Audio WHO DO NOT SHARE THE BELIEF OF THE CABLE FETISHISTS. If the folks at Hydrogen Audio would have bought the cable fetishists' superstitious beliefs, there would have been no thread.> >
In a way you are right. It was about them pretending to be scientific when if fact they were acting like religious zealots who only embrace science when it conforms to their religious beliefs. Apparently you endorse such behaviour.
> > I could go to the Hydrogen Audio forum (I assume it's a forum) and start a thread saying pigs can fly. I'm sure the folks there would call me an idiot. Then I could come here and bitch about it. Same thing and just as retarded.> >
Or you could go there and post your beliefs about vinyl resolution vs. Redbook CD and see what it is like to be faced with someone like you. I think you owe to yourself to walk a mile in the other guy's shoes. Maybe you will learn a thing or two about arrogance and self righteousness.
"yeah, that is what they do there. but apparently it's only OK if the results match the beliefs. Apparently this is something you have in common with the nut jobs on Hydrogen Audio. no wonder you took it personally. here is a clue about real science. There is no cherry picking based on whether or not one *likes* the results."
False. There is no such result. Hydrogen Audio has all the science on its side. The only thing you cable fetishists have is your superstitious belief. You lose.
"Or you could go there and post your beliefs about vinyl resolution vs. Redbook CD and see what it is like to be faced with someone like you. I think you owe to yourself to walk a mile in the other guy's shoes. Maybe you will learn a thing or two about arrogance and self righteousness."
That makes no sense at all. That's like asking me to become a Creationist so I can experience what it feels like to get my ass handed to me by science. I have no more issues with science than I have with Hydrogen Audio.
You are committing the same fallacy as all the other wackjobs on this forum.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
--Charles Darwin
"False. There is no such result. Hydrogen Audio has all the science on its side. The only thing you cable fetishists have is your superstitious belief. You lose."
You sound like a creationist talking about radiometric dating. There *was* such a result. It was reported on the thread at Hydrogenaudio. How do you like them cherries? We know which one's you are picking.
What sicence is on their side? Do tell us what at Hydrogen audio has ever been published in a scientific peer reviewed journal. Do you know how real science actually works? Your assertion that they have real science on their side strongly suggests otherwise.
"It was reported on the thread at Hydrogenaudio."
By the likes of you.
Wackjobs on this forum have given us "Scientific evidence of power cables reducing signal distortion."
That is NOT science.
"Do tell us what at Hydrogen audio has ever been published in a scientific peer reviewed journal."
You really are that stupid, aren't you?
You do not need science to reject claims that pigs can fly or that the earth is flat. That is not how science works.
YOU are the ones making outlandish claims. The burden of proof is on your side. The rest of us have no reason to believe you until you do. Why would anyone believe you more than the people in the Penn & Teller videos? You are all the same as far as I'm concerned. Neither one of you has a skeptical bone in his body.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
--Charles Darwin
as well as any religious zealot ever argues their position. Let's review some of the highlights of your insightful arguments.
"By the likes of you.
Wackjobs on this forum have given us 'Scientific evidence of power cables reducing signal distortion.'"
> > Do tell us what at Hydrogen audio has ever been published in a scientific peer reviewed journal.> >
"You really are that stupid, aren't you?
You do not need science to reject claims that pigs can fly or that the earth is flat. That is not how science works."
"YOU are the ones making outlandish claims. The burden of proof is on your side. The rest of us have no reason to believe you until you do. Why would anyone believe you more than the people in the Penn & Teller videos? You are all the same as far as I'm concerned. Neither one of you has a skeptical bone in his body."
Why should I bring a sword to this battle when you are some eager to fall on your own?
I can't say I have seen any better examples of the logical fallacy of ad hominem. Bravo!
... is fine, as long as it's him doing the swinging.
Truly selective perception and memory, in best objectivist tradition...
"Nobody is dumber that the idiots here" was a response. Before that I tried to figure out what this thread is about. The initial post made little sense to me. More precisely, why on this forum? The true believers on the cable forum would surely be much more receptive.
But you knew who the "idiots" were.
You come here and insult the intelligense of everybody with your outlandish claims and superstitious belief. Then you get insulted because we are not stupid enough to buy your nonsense.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
--Charles Darwin
> Is that to me? I attacked nobody. I defend. <
Ok. What's your defense?
> This thread is an attack on reason, skepticism, critical thinking and science. <
How so? You seem to be ok with sonic difference in amps and preamps but stop at cables? As mkuller asked, are you saying that it is physically impossible to change the sound of a working cable? Your claim regarding this thread is noted but unsupported. So, support it. I'm listening.
N/T
First, I do believe everything should sound different. That being said, I suspect some differences are below human audibility. Of course, this threshold varies from person to person. I personally have heard greater differences among preamps and amplifiers than cables and accordingly, have spent greater resources towards them.
Donald North
...some might even say "scientific".
> > ...some might even say "scientific".> >
Then they would be wrong.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
--Charles Darwin
...no sense of humor or the ability to recognize sarcasm.
Oh, but you know "science" when you see it...
> > Oh, but you know "science" when you see it...> >
No, I do not know science when I see it. Plato was a bore, to quote Nietzsche.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
--Charles Darwin
"How so? You seem to be ok with sonic difference in amps and preamps but stop at cables? As mkuller asked, are you saying that it is physically impossible to change the sound of a working cable? Your claim regarding this thread is noted but unsupported. So, support it. I'm listening."
Putting words in the mouths of people show extremely bad taste. I have said NONE of those things. I have made NO claim.
I stop nowhere.
It can be hard telling any difference between amplifiers in blind tests: The Blind leading the Deaf
If you want to sell me that cables make a difference, all you have to do is prove it.
If you do not want to prove it, fine.
I don't go to the cable forum proving to them they are wrong. All I ask in return is that you do the same and post this thread where it belongs.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
--Charles Darwin
> All I ask in return is that you do the same and post this thread where it belongs <
It belongs where it is. I'm asking you if there are scientific reasons that prove that no working 10 ft speaker cable or 1 m interconnect can ever sound different from another working 10 ft speaker cable or 1m interconnect. I say "working" to stipulate that the cable in fact moves the signal from point A to point B to differentiate from others using the word "broken"... as in that oft-heard declaration, "all cables sound alike unless one is broken".
How is this not a technical/scientific question? I'm not stating here that cables absolutely make a difference; I'm asking if you believe that they cannot.
> If you want to sell me that cables make a difference, all you have to do is prove it. <
I don't. It makes no difference to me if you believe it or not. Even if I posted my proof, you wouldn't believe it (not that you necessarily should). It's up to you to prove it to yourself if you have any interest.
One cannot prove a universal negative with statistics. The problems are to show that audible differences exist and under what conditions.
"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
> One cannot prove a universal negative with statistics. <
Where's the evidence that it's a universal negative? That's what I'm asking. Why do you need proof of audible differences? There must be some reason that your fallback position is that cables can't sound different (excluding length, guage and the usual suspects). What is that reason? Why is it so hard to believe that different cables affect sound in different ways?
You're the one that wanted proof for a universal negative. I quote from above:
"I'm asking you if there are scientific reasons that prove that no working 10 ft speaker cable or 1 m interconnect can ever sound different from another working 10 ft speaker cable or 1m interconnect."
As I pointed out, the problems are to show that there are any audible differences and under what conditions.
"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
I guess we all have our crosses to bear. This is not a "problem" for me. I enjoy my perceptions despite the lack of scientific support for them. If you can't do the same I feel sorry for you.
I do point out that Kerr asked a scientific question.
"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
"Why do you need proof of audible differences?"
That's easy: to see if claims of audible differences can be substantiated.
"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
Kerr asks:
"Why do you need proof of audible differences?"Pat answers:
"That's easy: to see if claims of audible differences can be substantiated."
I guess we all have our crosses to bear. This is not a "problem" for me. I enjoy my perceptions despite the lack of scientific support for them. If you can't do the same I feel sorry for you. You seem to "need" scientific validation for your subjective perceptions. Or is it you think others "need" to prove these things to you? They don't.
gosh I feel like I am repeating myself here.
Edits: 10/06/09
What has a desire to see if claims of audible differences can be substantiated have to do with how one enjoys music, performs music, and so on?
"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
yeah right. Is this just your last word fettish rearing it's ugly head? You aren't even trying to fake having an argument.
That's what this forum is supposed to be about. Do you have a problem with that?
"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
i do have a problem with your dishonesty though. If you ever decide to stop the bullshit and actually have a technical or scientific discussion about audio it would be quite refreshing.
But you are not, are you?
I am too busy listening to music, performing music, doing philosophical research, taking courses, as well as helping out with the house work, cooking, lawn work, shopping, and so on.
"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
Let me guess - right between doing philosophical research and taking courses, right?
If you interpret that as a demand, that's your problem.
"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
N/T
.
"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
Imagine the time requirement to provide proof! Untold multitudes of tests run by Tom Nousaine personally, an AES peer reviewed paper etc etc. That's a major investment in time. I guess it's really silly to make demands for proof, since nothing short of the above will suffice.
I'm comfortable in the knowledge that not everything sounds the same and I guess the "objectivists" are comfortable with their beliefs. All's right with the world.
rather than finding out for yourself.
.
"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
What is extraordinary about hearing differences in cables? Maybe you don't have "proof" you can hear the difference but I am sure that even you have experimented with cables and found at least subjectively that there is a difference, no? Time for you to pony up and tell me what you "think" you hear. I am not interested in you proving what you can or cannot hear at this point.
What CAN you hear the difference between?
I will go first if it makes it easier for you:
I can hear the differences clearly between speakers, room treatments, amps, preamps, sources (eg. different DACS/transports or different phonostages/cartridges/turntables), interconnect cables, speaker cables, digital cables, power conditioning or none but not so much with power cables and therefore I have about zero invested there. I don't hear conclusive evidence about tuning feet or racks either and so I have very little invested there as well.
Does what people think they hear qualify?
"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
Why not?
> What is extraordinary about hearing differences in cables? <
That's the question I was trying to ask earlier. Why is this considered extraordinary? Either there are thousands of "extraordinary" people that can hear differences in cables, or it's simply not an extraordinary feat.
I'll take your list and add the words "in some instances" to almost all of them. I can't always discern differences between certain components. That doesn't mean they aren't there; it just means I haven't been able to pick them out (talking about sighted auditions here).
...that forced choice DBTs do not remove small audible differences?
Validation and sensitivity.
If it was real science, you could.
Audio DBTs are at best pseudoscience and at worst parlor games to make audible differences disappear.
"Can you show me evidence that forced choice DBTs do not remove small audible differences?"
What?
"If it was real science, you could."
Gibberish.
"Audio DBTs are at best pseudoscience and at worst parlor games to make audible differences disappear."
You are a wackjob.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
--Charles Darwin
(nt)
If it's attack on anything - that would be on ignorance, closed-mindedness, pathological cheapness, and stupidity. All demostrated by cretins like yourself.
a fanatical devotion to the catholic church! Start again..... among our weapons....
"That is a fallacy. A piece of wire and an amplifier are very different things. I have not said a word about the latter."
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. So we can all be on the same page, please tell us more precisely what statement you believe to be fallacious. It would also help if you included your reasons for this belief.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
...R, C, L than another - will it sound different?
"will it sound different?"
On one extreme we have those who believe EVERYTHING makes a difference.
I do not believe that everyhing makes a difference. But at SOME level things start to make a difference. As far as we know, traditional cables do not reach this level.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
--Charles Darwin
Try to understand - you don't know ANYTHING, actually.
Your kind only THINK you know.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
--Charles Darwin
(nt)
(nt)
N/T
Now - GFY.
Thanks for making MY point.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
--Charles Darwin
Some other things you apparently don't have, either:
- audio-related knowledge or experience
- manners
- brains
- balls
- ability to follow simple directions (i.e. GFY)
x
Both sides of the river, there is bacteria; there must be meaning behind the moaning, is this living?
nt
...let's take Andy1919, AJinFla and RBNG as the fringe and we well know their craziness here.
Tell me about the craziness you see on the other side...
Go to Stereophile forums, general rants and raves. Check out the "new angle on and old discussion."here is my position as stated on that thread
"One of the many things I find so ironic about this whole thing is that I have no issue with people who freeze things, bring clocks into the room (clever or not) wear tinfoil hats or put tin foil all over their components or use any other tweek and claim that their system sounds better to them. I have no problem with that. That is a personal perception and if wearing a tinfoil hat makes your system sound better to you so be it. I'm certainly not against enhanced enjoyment of one's hobby. I don't ask people to ever prove their perceptions with blind tests double, single or triple. It's silly. It's about enjoyment of casual listening is it not? Fact is when we listen to our systems for the joy of listening to music we do so with our biases in full play. That is true whether one is an objectivist who has spent a lifetime doing ABX DBTs or subjectivist who thinks freezing a picture of a friend or family member makes the system sound better. Either way or anything in between the biases are all in play. That's a result being human. Live with it. You have no choice anyway.
It's not enough for you to be right. The "enemy" must also be wrong. I have a fancy high end TT and tubed electronics.(go figure) I certainly "percieve" improved sound with these components. If JJ were to say that my percieved improvements were all bias based would that change my perceptions? I doubt it. I know my perceptions are affected by biases. Just like everyone else. It is what it is."
And here are a few things others say about me and my POV on audio.
"
Another terrific post that debunks all that Scott has represented as his stance on this matter. What is so absurd (we could only wish for some small bit of irony from Scott) is that if Scott actually felt no animosity toward anyone who freezes "things" he wouldn't display such enmity toward May. Frezing "things" is not something May sells, it is given away free of charge. Therefore it can't be what anyone charges for their products that upsets Scott's apple cart. It isn't that Scott objects to the perceived results anyone achieves by freezing "things" - at least that's what he wants us to believe. The only real reason then that Scott should be so intent on insulting May is that he could not hear any improvement when his friend treated his system and room with Belt devices. He is therefore in the same boat with Buddha who also cannot hear the effectiveness of the Belt devices. And that's what really pisses off both of them.""I hear what you're saying, brother Jan. And I [i]too[/i] have considered the idea that Scott may not actually be human. I suspect he's one of those alien drones, like in The Terminator, who transmogrifies himself into a likening of anyone in his general vicinity, to further his agenda. Buddha says Geoff is a prankster, so the impressionable Scott internalizes this, and runs with it. Scott has so psyched himself up with this idea, that anything Geoff himself says, convinces him that he is right.
[i]
Geoff: "I used to sell my pebbles in a jar, but now I ship them in a plastic bag".Scott: "A-HA!!! So you ARE responsible for the crop circles in Kazakhstan!!! I KNEW it!! I just KNEW IT!!"
[/i]
Moreover, Buddha insults May, so Scott sees this and does just the same, insulting May in an irrational fashion, like as if she's personally responsible for every girl rejecting him throughout his formative years. And I don't think there's any doubt that if jj said it is a scientific fact that the moon landing never happened, Scott would be on a forum somewhere insisting to people that the moon hoax theory is true. So I realize the Scot-bot has no opinions of its own, but what I'm wondering is, if it can be reprogrammed to fight for audio good, instead of audio evil? To represent thoughtful, intelligent, progressiveness in the community, instead of mindless knee-jerk reactionism it was programmed for? I'm going to study the schematics of the Wheeler model tomorrow, and see if there is a way to access its flash bay. Will let you know. Or let's put it this way, if the Scot-bot starts posting about aligning his screws to earth or asking about the best fishing line for suspending his cables, assume that I've been succesful."
"And then you called May a crook and the Belt concepts bullshit. Nicely done, Scotty!
So, whether Orb finds it difficut to believe or not, many of us who have watched you bob and weave through this forum find it impossible to believe. You are just one more in the long line of holes who have insulted anyone who disagreed with you and then claimed you were the one making peace.
Didn't buy the goods then and I'm not buying them now."There is much more but this shopuld give anyone a tatse of the lunitic fringe on the other side of the aisle.
Edits: 09/30/09
but thanks for the reminder! Your stated position still reads as a breath of fresh air.
I don't have a clear definition of what constitutes a fringe...
Perhaps, someone who just blindly accepts marketing hyperbole vs the naysayer, "there can be no differences," RBNG type.
I hope that I'm not thought of as being in either extreme.
I do agree that sometimes the more passionate will set up lots of straw men to attack with....
Cheers Analog
Both sides of the river, there is bacteria; there must be meaning behind the moaning, is this living?
nt
nt
nt
Post a Followup:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Go Green ]
[ Take5 ]