|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: I am not saying cables don't make a difference. posted by Monstrous Mike on June 17, 2003 at 12:34:13:
If you look at his web site concerning twisted wire vs Coax, he said and I quote:"After listening to cables with identical materials (Coax and twisted pair), and LCR (Inductance, Capacitance and Resistance) parameters within an acceptably similar range, but different physical geometry's, it was determined that a twisted pair cable with overall shield (a telescoping arrangement) was superior to a coaxial or triaxial type".
That is how he has determined that twisted is better than coax, just by listening. So if I listen to a coathanger and a coax cable, and determine that coat hanger sound better, then that makes it truth :)
Follow Ups:
I gave you the beneift of the doubt with regard to how insulting you were actually trying to be vs. mere insensitivity with regard to your original posted question. But this post leaves no doubt. This is a personal attack, and this kind of post is not allowed at AA.I know that the AR cable forum naysayers encourage such posts, and regularly get away with them at AR. But this is not AR.
Consider this a warning from the Moderator.
I am going to address this as best I can, so that if you are merely being encouraged by the buffoonery at AR, that you have a chance to stop acting in such a manner. I think that this is more than fair, and more than reasonable.
First, many of your statements here are not based on your own expriences with regard to high performance audio, but are based on what YOU believe is logic and/or physics. Perhaps some of it is second hand propoganda from older hard-line naysayers. You need to realize that many folks here have been down that road, initialy felt that "such and such could not possibly make a difference", and then, when we encountered the real world, and found out it did, had to come to grips with certain undeniable facts of audio life.
I myself felt the same way you do when I first finished college, and felt that the only parameters that mattered for cables were the classic textbook LCR variables. Period, no further consideration.
But like many, once my system and my expereince with audio developed past the simple "plug and play" el cheapo level, and I started to get some hands on experiences, as well as some actual design of audio components, I found out that a lot of what was taught was just a very simple beginning, and NOT the end of the journey.
Just as one discovers that a real world power supply is NOT that perfect battery portrayed voltage source with no sag, no output Z and no noise or ripple, one finds out that the parts themselves are not ONLY resistors, not ONLY capacitors, not ONLY inductors, etc. They ALL have parasitic aspects that affect their operation at other than power line frequencies.
These secondary or parasitic parameter aspects also affect cables. The capacitance is not a pure capacitance, it has DA, DF, and other less than perfect behaviors. This holds true for all of the basic parameters, they are not opure, but rather, have secondary aspects.
So engineers and technicians that found themsleves hearing cable sonics had to go through a learning stage where they puzzled out some of the reasons and the wherefores of it all. Some just take it on 'faith', and do not make a serious attempt to quantify it or understand it. They just know it occurs, and allow for it. Others delve into it as thoroughly as they can, in the true spirit of science and engineering, in an attempt to correlate what they hear with what they measure or resaon out. There are those that go intom denial, and try to pretend with themsleves that it really doesn't occur, and tell themsleves, it is OK if it is a personal preferrence, but they are still denying that it has any basis in reality, rather than accepting or seeking.
Some of this was recently discussed at:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/3784.html
and the subsequent thread that followed.There are a LOT of engineers that either hobby or workin audio, and realize that there is more going on than mere THD, FR and S/N. They found out the hard way, that to amke a product, or their system sond the very best, they had to go beyond text book, beyond simple meter reading, and really sweat the details.
As for your comment about me merely listening, the listening was under controlled blind conditions, and represents literally hundreds of man-hours at that point (I have probably racked up thousands by now) of controlled listening tests.
However, that gets dismissed by some, those who seem to never accept ANY evidence except a good solid whack along the side the head (hey, no, wait a minute I must have hallucinated that, there is no pain, there is no pain...)
Additional evidence is present in the form of the widespread acceptance and positive comments about the DIY cable designs I make available.
Folks generally concede that the twisted pair with overall shield sounds better than the stock coax. Same materials, similar capacitance, etc. In fact, the DIY designs are the proof of the pudding, so to speak. They are validation of the listening results, as well as the reasoned and logical desing based on those listening tests.The result is audio cables that sound as good as aftermarket retail audio cables in the several hundred dollar range or higher. At one hundredth the price.
Finally, you do not seem to do very much in the way of a background check, in terms of what has been posted before, what a given inmate posts about or their opinions, and you do not seem to bother to look up and read some of the various references and citations provided.
If you are going to post here, or at any message board, it would behoove you to find out a few things before you decide to "enlighten" anyone else.[ So if I listen to a coathanger and a coax cable, and determine that coat hanger sound better, then that makes it truth :) ]
Steve Eddy would agree with this, it would sound good to you, and therefore be an inviolate preference, not subject to any one elses disagreement. This has been discussed too, see:
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/206918.html
as well as a recent thread here with posts from me and Steve.However, I have addressed my methods and why my listening was much more than just listening and making a snap decision.
So you have to decide, if you are going to try and get along with peope, or just want to act uncivilized. Uncivilized behavior at AA will eventuallly result in steps being taken to protect the other inmates.
If you honestly feel that audio cables do not need to be any better than Belden 1505F, then fine, but do not try to force this one anyone here, most people here are not going agree, and all you will do is come off as an uncivilized jerk.
BTW, you should consider Belden 88281 (Todd Krieger's favorite coax), similar to your favorite, but with foamed FEP teflon insulation rather than foamed PE, and with a solid center wire, which some folks swear by as superior to stranded.
In case you did not realize, you can get a free sample of 88281 from Belden, just call 765-983-5200, ask for Customer Service, and request a 6 foot sample, so you can make two 3 foot cables for stereo. You may have to sweet talk the 56 feet, their normal sample length is 3 feet. (Which is enought to make a digital interconnect, which Todd also says is the greatest). Then you could try it for yourself, and see if the dielectric made a difference for you, in your system, at this point in your audio experience curve.
Maybe it won't for now, but it would not cost you much to find out, and you would be able to hang onto them, and see if later on, the sound became noticable with syustem upgrades or more listening experience.
I have to say, the folks who want to try and preach the gospel of no audible differences, but flat out refuse to even try some high performance cables, are the ones who deserve no respect or consideration in my book, they can't even be bothered to go through the motions of testing the hyupothesis, they are not scientists any more, just pseudo-science bullies.
All that rambling and condecending commentary and yet, you have yet to show where the laws of physics won't hold up, as Tony mentioned.
You have to consider ALL the physics, not just the simple parts, or the easy parts you can understand.
.
""you have yet to show where the laws of physics won't hold up, as Tony mentioned."" JBC""You have to consider ALL the physics, not just the simple parts, or the easy parts you can understand.""JR
What in god's name are you talking about??? ALL the physics??
Tony did not mention what part of physics..Juts that price/physics do not correlate...
""or the easy parts you can understand.""JR
Whoa...That veiled insult passed by me, for sure..I missed it completely..
Jon, you are going further down a path, trying to justify your knee jerk...
Why not just apologize and move on??
TTFN, John
There's a consistent chant from Tony and others here that the entire physics of cables boils down to lumped LCR parameters, that this is somehow established fact, and that any other thinking is voodoo.And yet you ask Jon what he's talking about?
But the thing that blows me away the most is this:
"That is how he has determined that twisted is better than coax, just by listening. So if I listen to a coathanger and a coax cable, and determine that coat hanger sound better, then that makes it truth :)"
FOR GOD"S SAKE!! IT'S AN AUDIO SYSTEM!!! It has NO value outside of the way it sounds. If the coat hanger sounds better than a caox cable, then YES it is a superior interconnect (in THAT system, at THAT time, for THAT person).
HOWEVER: Jon would then try to understand WHY it sounds better. Tony would simply suggest that the listener must be wrong.
Peter
"There's a consistent chant from Tony and others here that the entire physics of cables boils down to lumped LCR parameters, that this is somehow established fact, and that any other thinking is voodoo."So far, he has been unable to conclusively demonstrate otherwise, just speculate.
""There's a consistent chant from Tony and others here that the entire physics of cables boils down to lumped LCR parameters, that this is somehow established fact, and that any other thinking is voodoo.""PeterYes, some definitely feel that is the case..Some who do ask for proof otherwise, some ask for possible explanation..Some reject the pseudoscience explanations that are given. To me, Tony has come across similar to what I felt..That yes, standard EE pretty much covers it, but yet, there are many unanswered questions; for me it's e/m field theory of wires.
""And yet you ask Jon what he's talking about?""peter
Yes..Because Tony stated the lack of correlation between the laws of physics and price tag.. as in, the extreme priced cables sometimes have ad hype which is in complete disregard to physics.
If Jon, Tony, myself, are going to react to other posts or ideas within a thread, an explanation should be given..I concur with Tony in that physics and price tag do not correlate..the statement within the thread is what I responded to..
Jon came back with "well, ya gotta learn the physics, because the easy stuff you can understand isn't enough..
Well, I gotta say..the physics guys here (not me) run the most advanced machine on the planet, and they cannot explain how cables can sound different..Doesn't mean they don't sound different, just that they don't know why.. So statements like "you really don't understand the physics"...Hmmmm.
The coathanger thing is a reference to some guy using two and a trash can to run digital audio, and using some test algorithm to determine that every single bit in the stream made it through intact..no errors..I personally prefer something that looks a little better in my living room.
""If the coat hanger sounds better than a caox cable, then YES it is a superior interconnect (in THAT system, at THAT time, for THAT person).""peter
Agreed. And that is what Tony called the individual's "truth".
""HOWEVER: Jon would then try to understand WHY it sounds better. Tony would simply suggest that the listener must be wrong""peter
No. Tony pointed out that one's truth may not be another's. And that Jon's pushing of one cable geometry or dielectric type or stranded/no stranded as being superior to another may not in fact be the "truth" in all cases..
I would tend to agree that Jon would try to figure out why..
Cheers, John
I think a large part of it is that the model that Tony (and Jitter, and many of the naysayers) is willing to settle for is way too simplistic.By reducing the model to ONLY basic LCR parameters, the physics is no longer real world enough to give an answer about audible differences.
You will not acheive a match between the model and the real world down to better than -90 dB without all the other known factors included.As for apologizing, I think that Tony is the one who owes the Cable Asylum inmates an apology, for his trolling posts. And now you, for your characterization of my posts as "knee jerk".
""I think a large part of it is that the model that Tony (and Jitter, and many of the naysayers) is willing to settle for is way too simplistic.""JRSo, in other words, you are NOT reacting to his posting where he states a lack of correlation between price tag and physics, but to the model you believe Tony has with respect to cables?
Hmmm.
""By reducing the model to ONLY basic LCR parameters, the physics is no longer real world enough to give an answer about audible differences. You will not acheive a match between the model and the real world down to better than -90 dB without all the other known factors included.""JR
Based on the assumption that cable differences can be heard, yes I completely agree..basic LCR does not explain it.
""As for apologizing, I think that Tony is the one who owes the Cable Asylum inmates an apology, for his trolling posts.""JR
He asked a valid question, one which many posters answered in good spirit, with a good bit of discussion..You are the one calling it a troll..
""And now you, for your characterization of my posts as "knee jerk".""
Why? You did a knee jerk..You, either by association, or by classification of questions, have assigned Tony into a category..You then, in THIS THREAD ALONE, either insulted or abused Tony in an unwarranted fashion at least SIX times..Without Tony having said anything to deserve it..
So, yes, your's was a knee jerk. Perhaps you prefer the term unwarranted abuse?
And, I see that you, rather than going back over the posts to understand exactly what I'm talking about with respect to your treatment of Tony, have spent your time attempting to justify your behavior..
And you expect an apology of someone who is pointing out consistently bad behavior on your part??
Perhaps you should go back over this entire thread, and re-examine how you have reacted throughout...
TTFN, John
[ So, in other words, you are NOT reacting to his posting where he states a lack of correlation between price tag and physics, but to the model you believe Tony has with respect to cables? ]Yes.
I would be foolish indeed if I were to deny the physics, ALL the physics, when properly modeled. Unfortunately even such a proper model would not tell us what it would SOUND like.
I have been posting thoughful replies, not knee jerk. If you go back and look at it without the AR bias voltage applied, perhaps you would see that what I was posting was not quite as 'insulting' as it seems from that biased POV.
I do not consider the "AR" bias in my postings here...There is an obvious history extending far beyond my experience..I see only you degrading Tony's experience, education, understanding..here..You have done so from the first time I saw Tony posting here..
And, you do so from a platform of inacurate understanding of physics, filled with assumptions, suppositions, maybe's...
You stated in a previous post that you consider only postings at AA, without regard to what is done at AR..And I agreed, that you do indeed follow that, w/r to me at least..
Of course, YOU are the one to continue to refer to AR, how you are received there, as a justification for how you treat some here..
""I have been posting thoughful replies, not knee jerk""JR
Hmmm..thoughtful replies??? Do I have to go back to all your posts and copy them here again....the six I copied, and the four more JBC pointed out???
No Jon, what you have done is not thoughtful, not warranted, not useful...You appear to only be responding in that fashion to reduce the stature of those who believe differently from you..
As a fellow forum participant, that would be ok..We are all big boys here..
What you do, however, is not acceptable...Using your position as moderator to quash people who do not agree with you, like Tony..
That is all I ask you to re-think..
""I would be foolish indeed if I were to deny the physics, ALL the physics, when properly modeled.""JR
Nobody has said otherwise....So why do you feel it necessary to say this???
""Unfortunately even such a proper model would not tell us what it would SOUND like.""JR
Again, nobody has said otherwise..
Tony said physics does not correlate to price tag..For you to go on about all this other stuff is diversion...you blasted him six times (ten if you include JBC) over something we all agree with...WHY???
Knee jerk is the automatic reaction to a stimulus...You did so to Tony's post, where none was required..
And you attempt to justify it by categorizing him (your words).
As all can see, you justification falls flat..
TTFN, John
Few ever claimed NO audiable differences. Some may believe they are too small to accurately identify on a consistent basis. The means to either prover or disprove this is off limits in discussion here.
""I gave you the beneift of the doubt with regard to how insulting you were actually trying to be vs. mere insensitivity with regard to your original posted question. But this post leaves no doubt. This is a personal attack, and this kind of post is not allowed at AA.
Consider this a warning from the Moderator.""JRNow lets see..Why not review the history of the thread..
Tony Said:::
""Electrons can not behave differently in a $1000 cable than a $100 cable because of price tag. They will follow physic's law in the cheaper cable as they do in a more expensive cables. You can not get around Physics law.""TM
In other words, the laws of physics are inviolate..He didn't say anyone doesn't understand them, or that they don't believe them..
And YOU respond:
""Your interpretation of what the limits of the "Physics laws" mean in terms of cable parameters and sonic performance does not seem to be springing from a font of experience.""JR
I challenge any physicist on the planet to disagree with Tony's assertion that the laws of physics are inviolate..(I assume, of course, that physicists will probably the best positioned to answer that question)..He did say that price tags do not change the laws of physics w/r to cable sonics..
""Despite an huge amount of posturing and posting, not one person has ever provided the data for how what we hear fully corrrelates with what has been measured or what has been determined to be our thresholds and limits of hearing. That is the case for a reason, the fact that no researchers have actually done this yet!""JR
On that, I feel we can all agree..nobody, not you, not me, nada, nuttin..
""How many esoteric audio cables have you actualy listened to on a fine system""JR
And how does that work into the laws of physics being inviolate??
""Until you have heard what can occur with decent cables on a fine system, what you post is mere extrapolation based on a decided lack of experience with high end audio, as well as common audio technical issues. Obviously, to say that coax is the ultimate interconnect, and that a twisted pair with an overall shield is worse, points to a decided lack of real world experience and exposure to what actually happens out there in the real world of high performance playback""JR.
The laws of physics do not depend on how many cables or systems he has listened to..
""That is how he has determined that twisted is better than coax, just by listening. So if I listen to a coathanger and a coax cable, and determine that coat hanger sound better, then that makes it truth :)""TM
Lets see...Wasn't this a quote from your website??
""As for your comment about me merely listening, the listening was under controlled blind conditions, and represents literally hundreds of man-hours at that point (I have probably racked up thousands by now) of controlled listening tests.""JR
He did NOT say "merely listening" He said just listening, as in, you have no measurement data to support your assertions...Gee, didn't YOU just say that???Hmmm Lets see..Oh, hear it is....again.....
""Despite an huge amount of posturing and posting, not one person has ever provided the data for how what we hear fully corrrelates with what has been measured or what has been determined to be our thresholds and limits of hearing. That is the case for a reason, the fact that no researchers have actually done this yet!""JRPerhaps this is the "personal attack"???:
""The difference between cables becomes indiscernible when a cable address all of it specification as cable (such as quality shielding, low loss and capacitance, quality connections and tight grip on both ends). ""TM
Nah..Oh HERE I FOUND THE PERSONAL ATTACK!!
""This is the fundamental difference bewteen audio and these very high frequency signals. Sheer frequency is not the only factor, and once again, your lack of exprience with these matters is all too apparent.""JR
and here:
""Your interpretation of what the limits of the "Physics laws" mean in terms of cable parameters and sonic performance does not seem to be springing from a font of experience.""JR
and here:
""How many esoteric audio cables have you actualy listened to on a fine system""JR
and here:
""what you post is mere extrapolation based on a decided lack of experience with high end audio, as well as common audio technical issues. ""JR
So, you are right...There were many personal attacks on this thread...As moderator it is your responsibility to police this forum, to prevent anybody from those type of personal attacks, especially from someone who consistently does such..
Unfortunately, they were all posted by you...
Cheers, John
Jon...you are abusing your position as moderator..I have asked you many times to rethink your position..
[ I challenge any physicist on the planet to disagree with Tony's assertion that the laws of physics are inviolate. ]Are you really that naive?
What Tony was implying was that the "Laws of Physics" say that cables do not sound different. That was the only reason for his posting of what would otherwise be a tautology.
And if you thought I was challanging this kind of statement at face value, meaningless as it would be, then you ARE naive.
[ The laws of physics do not depend on how many cables or systems he has listened to. ]
See above, it was NOT just about the "Laws of Physics".
[ He did NOT say "merely listening" ]
He said, "just by listening" in what was obviously a deragatory manner.
Again, if you want to try and hide your head in the sand, and pretend that it was not meant in that manner, then you are not being realistic at all.If you are going to label the statements I made as personal attacks, then I suggest that what you want to write off as mere statements about the "Laws of Physics", and "just listening", etc. are also definitely in the category of attacks. I find it odd that you will defend Tony, but want to hang me. By your definitions, either there were none, or some, but you can't have it both ways John.
I would characterize what I posted as observations and questions. However, taken out of context, or with a biased eye,
I am sure that someone can get all worked up about it. Witch hunt time.[ Jon...you are abusing your position as moderator..I have asked you many times to rethink your position.. ]
How little you know with regard to the issue of moderating. It is highly likely that anyone interested enough in the subject to take over for me would be much less tolerant of posts from the likes of Tony.
Instead of immediately moving or deleting the post, it was allowed to stand, and despite the antagonistic tone of the post, most of the folks responded in earnest, with what I feel was commendable restraint. Then, once Tony started responding to what was initialy a post asking about listening issues with his bizarre statements about "The Laws of Physics", which were clearly intended to denigrate, it was clear that his intent was not so innocent, but rather was in fact, a troll of sorts.
Then, in point of fact, I posted a reply which attempted to explain some things to Tony, rather than merely deleting his
post, or asking to have him banned. Not many would have been this lenient. Yet you seem to feel that I am the one who should be apologizing to Tony for his trolling, and that I should "rethink my position". If I have any real flaws in these matters, it is probably that I have been too lenient for far too long, and allowed threads, subjects and the like to go on long enough that they get into trouble with enough volleys back and forth.You may not realize it, but I receive numerous complaints with regard to the AR regulars posting here, as well as the semi-regular trolls from folks like Tony. Neither are truly welcomed by the vast majority of the inmates.
""[ I challenge any physicist on the planet to disagree with Tony's assertion that the laws of physics are inviolate. ]JE""Are you really that naive?""JR
Nope..I work with the best ones..Ask them...I have..
And the best of them spend a lifetime trying to prove the laws wrong, or embellishing on them.. Some succeed, and are invited to Geneva. Others just add to the existing body of knowledge.""What Tony was implying was that the "Laws of Physics" say that cables do not sound different""JR
What he SAID was physics does not correlate to price tag..YOU are the one assigning "implying" to his statement..
""If you are going to label the statements I made as personal attacks, then I suggest that what you want to write off as mere statements about the "Laws of Physics", and "just listening", etc. are also definitely in the category of attacks.""JR
The law of physics stuff was certainly not an attack..He said price tag didn't correlate to them...period..
Just listening, yep..that could be interpreted two ways..I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt...you didn't..obviously a difference of mindset and perspective.
""I find it odd that you will defend Tony, but want to hang me.""JR
You shouldn't..If he were to post that you had no understanding of what you were talking about, you obviously have no experience or education in these matters, I'd be all over HIM...But such was not the case..It was only you saying such of him..
If he posted incorrect info, I'd be up there correcting it. (assuming I see the thread of course.).
""By your definitions, either there were none, or some, but you can't have it both ways John.""JR
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here Jon..But I will react equally to denigration and put downs from either "side" as it were.
""Jon...you are abusing your position as moderator..I have asked you many times to rethink your position.. ]""JE
""How little you know with regard to the issue of moderating.""JRI am aware that I wouldn't want to do it, as it is impossible to please everyone..But I do know that you post comments dissing people that a moderator SHOULD take exception to..and as you are the moderator, and you do not take exception to the dissing, then that is abuse of the system..Unless one of the rules of being a moderator allows such one way treatment.
"It is highly likely that anyone interested enough in the subject to take over for me would be much less tolerant of posts from the likes of Tony.""JR
In other words, you tolerate him so that you can tell everyone how little he knows??
""with his bizarre statements about "The Laws of Physics", which were clearly intended to denigrate""JR
He said the laws of physics are the same regardless of price tag..
YOU feel the same..You provide DIY solutions which you claim are better than the extremely priced product..So you are saying the exact same thing..Why you chose to take exception to Tony saying it is beyond me..
""Then, in point of fact, I posted a reply which attempted to explain some things to Tony""JR
Yes, Jon, we all read them...I pointed out six places where you dissed him..his understanding, his experience..That is supposed to be against the forum rules..
""it is probably that I have been too lenient ""JR
As I recall, the first time he said he doesn't believe cables sound different, quite civilly, I might add, you threatened him with censureship and banishment...I do not consider that as being "lenient".
""You may not realize it, but I receive numerous complaints with regard to the AR regulars posting here""JR
I'm sure you do..
As I'm sure the moderators at AR receive w/r to your postings over there..
I of course, make the assumption there is a moderator over there..although I've see no evidence to suggest it..
I look forward to a more even handed approach to moderating..and I certainly wouldn't relish the job..
TTFN, John
What do you want?Do you really think Tony had any interest in this discussion other than to stir up controversy. I notice that he immediately posted over at AR wondering if his troll would be left to stand. I seriously don't understand what his point or purpose can be other than to stir up controversy. And yes, I would have either deleted the thread or moved it to Prop Head. The Cable Asylum was created for people to talk about cables and share experiences, not to defend their positions constantly. It wasn't created for trolls to try to get the moderator's goat.
If Tony wants an 'intelligent conversation' and wants to talk physics, why didn't he post at AR or on Prop Head?
That is how he has determined that twisted is better than coax, just by listening. So if I listen to a coathanger and a coax cable, and determine that coat hanger sound better, then that makes it truth :)
If that wasn't a sarcastic, personal attack, then please explain what it has to do with the discussion?
"Electrons can not behave differently in a $1000 cable than a $100 cable because of price tag. They will follow physic's law in the cheaper cable as they do in a more expensive cables. You can not get around Physics law."TM
Yeah, right. Who cares? This statement is nothing more than troll bait. Sure, the electrons follows physics laws, but what's that got to do with the cables in question? Different geometries, different materials, different results. It's completely irrelevant! And what does it have to do with how the cable sounds?
The laws of physics do not depend on how many cables or systems he has listened to.
No, but it surely goes a long way toward having some relevant personal experience to share.
Jon...you are abusing your position as moderator. I have asked you many times to rethink your position.
Jon has had the most difficult forum to moderate. From time to time, moderators have to make tough decisions. From the feedback that I get, a small group doesn't like some of those decisions. Another larger group would rather see more action and see it happen faster. Personally, I don't see abuse here as I've already said that I'd have not allowed this to go this far.
In any case, be careful what you wish for.
""Do you really think Tony had any interest in this discussion other than to stir up controversy.""RMCan you absolutely say he had no interest?
""I notice that he immediately posted over at AR wondering if his troll would be left to stand.""RM
He wondered if his "post" would be left. And I agree with you in that his post on AR asking that question should have been re-thought..
""I seriously don't understand what his point or purpose can be other than to stir up controversy.""RM
Well, ask him..
""That is how he has determined that twisted is better than coax, just by listening. So if I listen to a coathanger and a coax cable, and determine that coat hanger sound better, then that makes it truth :)
If that wasn't a sarcastic, personal attack, then please explain what it has to do with the discussion?""RM
While I personally didn't care for the wording either, he is indeed stating that to each's experience, "truth" in hearing is in the ear of the beholder.
""Sure, the electrons follows physics laws, but what's that got to do with the cables in question?""RM
Tony made a statement that price tag and physics do not necessarily correlate..
""Different geometries, different materials, different results. It's completely irrelevant!""RM
I believe those attributes are what the manu's push as the reasons their product sounds better. And, those attributes are discussed at length by all here..
""And what does it have to do with how the cable sounds?""RM
Everything...We just don't understand the tie in...
""The laws of physics do not depend on how many cables or systems he has listened to.JE
No, but it surely goes a long way toward having some relevant personal experience to share.""RMAgreed..and if he had stated "relevant personal experience" is not necessary because of physics, I'd have been all over him too..
But the opposite would be to reject him because he didn't have a certain threshold of personal experience. Which is also not what you want to do. (not telling you, I'm stating what I think is your position).
""Jon...you are abusing your position as moderator. I have asked you many times to rethink your position.""JE
""Jon has had the most difficult forum to moderate. From time to time, moderators have to make tough decisions.""RM
Agreed. and agreed.
""From the feedback that I get, a small group doesn't like some of those decisions.""RM
That is to be expected, and something would be wrong if nobody expressed that.
""Another larger group would rather see more action and see it happen faster.""RM
The line between constructive feeback and radicalism, that is for you to decide..radicalism never produces the intended result.
""Personally, I don't see abuse here""RM
A changing of subject here, to show the flavor of what I speak...
Rod, please do not consider this an insult, this is to show the abuse I speak of..You are uneducated in you ability to see what others have experienced here in that respect..You do not have the critical thinking ability, nor the social skills to make a clear determination in that regard..And, your command of english is, shall we say, lacking? Your inability to clearly see the abuse is a result of your own failings. You need experience with a thesaurus with more resolving power..
That statement would clearly be construed as abuse..(Well, I tried to make it that way, but I'm not too good at it).
""In any case, be careful what you wish for.""RM
I am being very careful in what I wish for..And I repeat...I want Jon to re-think his position..
I am not advocating his removal as moderator, which is what you seem to be implying of me..I am asking him to re-think the knee jerk attacks he uses towards people who do not believe the same as him.
I'm asking him to trade places for a while, and consider how his behavior towards others would be received if it were being directed towards Jon.
""From time to time, moderators have to make tough decisions""RM
Absolutely, and the decisions I've seen him make w/r to deletions and movings, I've not taken issue with any, even though some were towards me (arguably warranted, but hey, it's a judgement call).
But, as moderator, he also must police his own attitude. And place his own agenda on the shelf..
So, as to your first question?
""What do you want?""RM
I want to frequent a forum where ALL abuse is dealt with accordingly. Not selective enforcement..
I want a place where I can say "I don't hear a difference", that being based on personal experience (not mine, I speak in generalities here), and not be lambasted by the moderator for stating that observation, and being threatened with censorship or banishment. Civil posters who state such should be treated as well as someone who says they can hear a difference..
In fact, there are many instances where people who do state "differences" abuse those who don't, but for that direction, there is no moderation..
I only ask for one set of rules..
Thanks for responding, Rod..I realize you didn't have to..
"Nah..Oh HERE I FOUND THE PERSONAL ATTACK!!"Ya missed a couple John, you're slipping....
See below:
I gave you the beneift of the doubt with regard to how insulting you were actually trying to be vs. mere insensitivity with regard to your original posted question.AND
I know that the AR cable forum naysayers .....
AND
... so that if you are merely being encouraged by the buffoonery at AR, that you have a chance to stop acting in such a manner.
AND
First, many of your statements here are not based on your own expriences with regard to high performance audio, but are based on what YOU believe is logic and/or physics. Perhaps some of it is second hand propoganda from older hard-line naysayers.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: