Howabout some Kaiju instead then Nonoise?
Better?
Better?
Interconnects and non-believers
For anyone who denies there are differences in cables, I have news for you.
There are vast differences. I just switched interconnects between my CD transport (Cyrus) and DAC (Schiit Gumby), and the result was transformational. Every possible parameter was improved: better definition, better soundstaging, better bass, better depth etc.
I can’t understand how any audiophile with ears can deny the differences. Is it delusion or dogma?
There are vast differences. I just switched interconnects between my CD transport (Cyrus) and DAC (Schiit Gumby), and the result was transformational. Every possible parameter was improved: better definition, better soundstaging, better bass, better depth etc.
I can’t understand how any audiophile with ears can deny the differences. Is it delusion or dogma?
400 responses Add your response
+1 Elizebeth I think Elizebeth's evil post, not her evil evil post that I did not see, is one I think is very true. And from the way I read it I do not think it is directed at anyone but at a type of response. That one of an arguing to be arguing perspective and not one of a informing or sharing perspective. One is tiring and one is fun and enlightening. This is a hobby even if you spend 5mil on a component it is a hobby, if you make it more than a hobby, that's on you not on everybody else. |
elizabeth, The amazing thing I find is some folks think their wisecracks and insults, or carefully constructed arguments... Elizabeth, is this comment directed at my posts? Can you show me where I’ve been insulting people? And if you investigate the thread to find examples, please pay attention to the posts directed at me. You may well find some insults coming from that direction. For instance, it seems here you are implying writing such as mine to be "drivel." How magnanimous do you think that is on your part? Do you not care that maybe I’m writing about things I care about? ...make a dent in anyone’s beliefs. First of all: whats the matter with simply representing one’s OWN beliefs, and why we hold them? Again, here is the imbalance I keep pointing out. Anyone can write as much as they want how their new cables obviously made a difference and/or include appeals to technical claims for one cable over another, and make all the claims they want about why "obviously cables sound different!" But if I or someone else explain why we are being cautious about such conclusions, well then we are cast variously as dogmatic, proselytizing, evangelical, impinging on people’s "freedom to enjoy" and even ...gasp...being Machiavellian (that was a particularly fun histrionic characterization on Teo’s part). So anyone has a right to express their views and why they hold them, don’t you agree? The question is: why do you seem to not blink an eye when one view is constantly put forth (cable differences) but bristle so much when another view is expressed and defended against challenging questions? Isn’t this very thread title and OP a call out challenge to people who may be more skeptical? Further, how would it be wrong, in either case, to wish to present good reasons for a position? And if someone finds those reasons convincing, if it changes their mind...what’s the harm? What’s so wrong with having things you believe challenged? On EITHER side. They do not. All the written drivel has not changed one person’s notions. That’s a common theme, but it’s not true. Sure, in any typical discussion or debate, someone’s view is rarely changed in real time, especially between the people arguing one side vs another. But over time people certainly can change views. I was more of the mind that everything might make a difference when I got heavily into high end audio - and felt I heard all sorts of differences (audio cables, AC cables, isolation feet, etc). But observing interesting debates on the subjects got me challenging my own assumptions. It also spurred me to try blind testing on my own. It was extremely enlightening and has informed some of my skepticism ever since. I’ve seen numerous audiophiles say the same about their journey. (Though fewer of them tend to hang out on a place like Audiogon). Further, not everyone is dogmatically stuck in one camp or another. Many of these discussions can be viewed by people who haven’t made up their mind, and seeing different viewpoints defended can influence their own point of view, either in the short or long term. But, again, before you characterize other people’s writing as "drivel" and implicate them as being insulting, I’d ask you to consider how you just wrote...and look at many of the posts directed at me (some of which have been removed, though...) Cheers. (BTW, I never feel insulted by anyone, whether they mean to insult me or not. What would be the point? They can either explain where I’m wrong, or they can fall to insults or mischaracterizations). |
| Post removed |
Teo, Your response turned on attributing this argument to me: It simply means that you can't hear it.. You made that up. Simply, made up the move from "I didn't hear it" to projecting the conclusion "therefore others could not hear it." Because I argued no such thing. I'd never make such a ludicrous argument as "I didn't hear it, therefore no one has ever heard it and the phenomenon in question isn't real." Which is why I've been quite careful NOT to make such an argument. (And you skipped every caveat, such as that I started out saying speaker break in seems to have some plausibility to me). So...when you can settle down, read what I'm actually writing and properly represent it or respond to it without strawmannirg my position...then maybe we can have a fruitful discussion. For instance, can you actually point to anything I've written or argued that is B.S.? I'm not saying I haven't written anything that isn't mistaken, but strawmaning someone isn't a way to move things forward. |
Could not agree more Elizabeth. I was your typical non believer, would not even entertain the idea, used whatever power cords and ic came with the equipment and speaker cable was basically car stereo speaker cable...lol. Then I bought a CD player that came with an aftermarket set of ic, Audioquest I think, and I tried them out compared to el cheapo ones I normally used and that was it. All I can say is that ignorance was financial bliss....lol. Stepped off the cable merry go round for now as I have more than good enough cables imho for now. But yes I saw the light on cables and fuses as well. But that is a story for other well worn threads. |
The amazing thing I find is some folks think their wisecracks and insults, or carefully constructed arguments... make a dent in anyone’s beliefs. On EITHER side. They do not. All the written drivel has not changed one person’s notions. Not one. The many YEARS of written threads just like this one thousands of threads, probably millions of words typed... The ONLY thing I have read, or heard changing anyone’s mind, had been when a ’non-believer’ finally maybe even accidentally, hears a wire, cable or cord that they themselves can easily hear a difference. Then they see the light, and finally accept that wires cords cables might sound different. That is the only way. I know of no one who has drifted from believing in cords and such having differences, to the side all wires are the same if the electrical parameters are the same. Not one. But from non believers to believers? plenty, including myself. |
| Post removed |
@prof Yeah, speaker break in seems a lot more plausible to me.It simply means that you can’t hear it.. and thinking that others could not hear it... is a sin of thinking that your hearing is as good as anyone else’s... or that their hearing is not better than yours or better trained than yours. A sin of logic omission combined with projection. You are very smooth with your straw man projections, very nicely couched. But make no mistake, they are still straw man projections, moments of pronounced airs of superiority in their undercurrent. The kind of subtleties that make it very obvious that you know something, at the very least, about couching speech in terms that are missed by most.. as being the linguistic subtleties that they really are -which is ’manipulative techniques’ in literary expression. Some might call it Machiavellian, even. In some circles it’s called ’neuro linguistic programming’. You keep committing logical fallacies that are long tailed in written scope, where it takes more than a single point in analysis or thought for some to see. |
Just a generalization; if your amp is solid state and constructed of select parts, the power cord will make a larger relative difference than the other cables. If your amp is tubed and made from top tier parts, the IC between preamp and amp will make the most relative difference, with speaker cables a close second. |
Given: Difference in sound - SS vs. Tube Difference in sound - between tubes of the same type e.g. 6SN7/5692 Difference in sound - between different power tubes e.g. EL84, KT88, 300B. Personal preference in speaker sound/choice. Difference in sound - Vinyl vs Digital Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera The science notwithstanding; is it not possible for one to hear differences in interconnects? |
fsconicsmith, of course I remember you. I really appreciated your contributions regarding the 0/93s! And thanks for the kind words. On cables: I have tried to make it clear that my own view is far from settled, and that I’m not claiming there aren’t ever differences in sounds among cables. I'm in no position to know such a thing, let alone believe it. Rather, I think I still have good reasons for not placing a strong emphasis on high end cables in my system - that is spending a lot of money on cabling. Which is a different thing. Cheers. |
Hey Prof, d'you remember me? Prolly not, but that is OK. I am the guy with the DeVore O/93's. Along with a lot of others, I admire your ability to write about and describe the unique attributes of various loudspeakers. You are superior in doing that than most professional reviewers. It struck me a discordant when I first saw you post, in another thread, your conviction that wire is wire and your absolute belief that anything other than basic cabling is a waste of hard-earned money. My subjective experience over many years and many systems is that it all depends. With some electronics (which for some reason tend to be solid state) and speakers, the cabling makes only subtle differences. With others, often but not always tubed, the cabling makes a very large difference in sound character. I am being careful not to claim that some cabling is superior in certain systems, only that they make a greater change. I happen to believe that often these [greater] changes are qualitative but I would never insist that someone else either would have to agree or be wrong. Assuming separate components, the IC's between preamp and amp and from amp to loudspeakers tend to be most critical, but again, there are no "always". I do find it surprising that with all the loudspeakers you have auditioned, that you have not noted the importance of cabling but then again, it does not seem that you have experimented with cabling nearly as much as you have mixed up loudspeakers. Last thing; I feel zero compulsion to convince anyone that dismisses cabling of their mistake. I got where I wanted to go. At the end of the day, everything is different for everyone-listening room, electricity, gear, goals, tastes, everything. It is amazing that there is any common ground at all and mostly the common ground is the music and the piece of kit being discussed. After that, it is random. A free-for-all like the food fight in Animal House. |
cleeds, Thanks for your answer. Here are some thoughts that come to mind when I read it. The best approach is to use the same techniques that have proven effective in the rest of your life. After all, deceit and propaganda are everywhere. That would be reasonable advice only insofar as someone has been using ’proven effective’ techniques to begin with. Obviously a great many people fall for deceit, propaganda, scams and a huge number of other errors. You don’t want to say "keep using the same technique" to them. So it seems we would need to refine this advice to discern "effective" (or reliable, more reasonable) techniques of inquiry vs ineffective/unreliable.
I admit I don’t get this reference to "fear." If we were talking about the hobby of cliff climbing, well then yeah. But I can’t remember the last time I felt "fear" related to my high end audio hobby (except perhaps fearing dropping my speakers when transporting them). Would you like to elaborate on what role you think "fear" plays in high end audio? understand the subtle distinction between illusion and delusion. If you can avoid being fooled by illusion, then you are not much at risk for delusion. Generally speaking, an illusion is a mistaken prima facie inference from a misleading sense stimulus. A delusion is a mistaken belief held despite what should be motivating evidence to the contrary. Being aware of one does not protect against the other. You can be deluded and experience illusions. You can understand some things to be illusions, but be deluded simply by an error-strewn thought process that leads you to a conclusion you will not give up. On the other hand, one can fall for any number of illusions, but so long as one is open to error-correction, this will not amount to delusions based on those illusions. But I take what I infer to be an implied point: that being fooled by an illusion is not the same as being deluded. I would certainly endorse that! It’s one of the mistaken assumptions I have to keep battling. Suggesting someone may be falling for a perceptual mistake doesn’t suggest they are "deluded" or "deluding themselves." They just don’t mean the same thing. However, IF someone persists in a belief derived from a perceptual mistake, and that belief is incorrigible in the face of any counter evidence, then it can cross into a form of self-delusion. Which, again, suggests the relevance of having an error-correction technique. Avoid snap judgments and evaluate "expert" advice carefully. Do at least some of your own research. That means not simply reading the opinions of others, but diving deep enough to conduct your own analysis. In audio, that means you are going to have to do some of your own, first-hand testing. Agreed. That all makes sense. Though, as before, it also needs the context of what constitutes "good research," "reliable testing methods" etc. After all, Flat Earthers would endorse every word of what you just wrote as well, as they question expert views, think about it themselves, do their own tests etc. The problem is, they are operating on various faulty assumptions, and poor methodology. Hopefully we would want to avoid that in the realm of high end audio. But it often seems like this is not the case. Thanks again for your thoughtful reply! |
prof How do you think we could determine hype from substance, and just as important, self-delusion from reality? The best approach is to use the same techniques that have proven effective in the rest of your life. After all, deceit and propaganda are everywhere. First, ditch the fear. It's a negative emotion that can cloud your judgment. Second - and this is important - understand the subtle distinction between illusion and delusion. If you can avoid being fooled by illusion, then you are not much at risk for delusion. Avoid snap judgments and evaluate "expert" advice carefully. Do at least some of your own research. That means not simply reading the opinions of others, but diving deep enough to conduct your own analysis. In audio, that means you are going to have to do some of your own, first-hand testing. The truth tends to be revealed over time. Those who seek instant answers are the ones most easily fooled. |
You know, it’s nice to be skeptical. I am a very big skeptic. But the difference, I think, between me and a lot of skeptics, especially self styled skeptics, is that eventually I get down to business and try to figure out what the ding dong is going on myself. After all, it doesn’t make sense to be so overly skeptical of an idea, a device, a product, a phenomenon forever or rely on others to figure it out. Or perhaps not care if the issue ever gets settled as that would end the debate and spoil the party. 🍻 Skepticism is a human trait, not a lifetime occupation. At some point don’t you have to roll up your sleeves and take matters into your own hands and try to get to the bottom of things? You can’t leave it to others to settle whatever beef 🍔 you may have. This is the difference between skeptics who talk a good game, who know the Skeptic’s Handbook inside out, and skeptics who are curious enough to take the bull by the horns. 🐃 I am rather suspicious, naturally, of any self-proclaimed skeptic who maintains that audiophiles are deluded or that products are hyped. This “Uber Skepticism” is ill conceived and unwarranted, in my opinion. This is not evidence of a questioning mind so much as someone who just enjoys asking a lot of questions. At some point it’s probably time to fish or cut bait. 🦈 your friend and humble skeptic |
Nelson Pass has a lot to learn on this topic. IC`s: 2xVivanco KX-710 pr lenght, only inner cores connected. Makes the ultimate* IC, rca or xlr. One single KX-710 makes the ultimate digital coax. *100% inaudible Too bad I can`t upload pics here or I would have shown you how to do the rca`s. WBT-type plug |
rvpiano, Sorry, didn't mean to wear you out. Don't respond if you don't feel like it, but if you even just ignore my last post to you, I would still be curious about your answer to one question. You'd said there was a degree of hype and self-delusion in our hobby. How do you think we could determine hype from substance, and just as important, self-delusion from reality? |
aalenik, Though you were joking, to be clear I’m not remotely angry and felt I was being conciliatory. And I understand you aren’t asking me to believe just on your say so. (No more than I’d ask you to believe anything just because I say so). I’ve known and/or spoken to a great number of audiophiles, high end salesman and manufacturers (as I suspect any of us have who have been in this hobby for many decades) and I think most manufacturers believe in their product and their various claims, and aren’t trying to hoodwink people. That’s why I’d written: "And btw, it doesn’t even have to be cynical or deliberate: people selling high end speakers certainly can and do believe in break in." That said...when it comes to cables, given one can find companies charging up to $10,000 for an ethernet cable, I reserve the right to a special level of suspicion about the cynicism hiding in the audiophile cable industry. |
This thread has taken a nice turn from the usual cable threads with a LOT of very well written and thoughtful posts by numerous contributors without too much heckling and sniping. I still think I believe I know what I hear though.....lol. Just one question....how in the world do you find the time and state of mind to put together such powerful and long posts. I tend to get a little lost after a couple of paragraphs when I am composing. Hope you have some darn good music in the background for stimulation! |
One more thing (Boy, am I long-winded today!)... In these forums, you see an awful lot of skepticism about the HEA industry. Some of it is - no doubt - justified... especially about certain dealers. OTOH, over the past 10-12 years I've had the opportunity to become acquainted with a number of audio designers, distributers & dealers. MOST of them are really nice, honest folks who love music and want you to enjoy it. (And, yes, they hope to make a lot of $$ helping you enjoy it.) Don't assume that ALL of them are just in it for a buck. A few are! But most of them are a lot more like you. (Don't you wish you could make a living in HEA, or whatever your favorite hobby is?) I'm not saying you can trust ALL of these people. But don't paint them all with the same brush. The majority really are good guys. |
PROF - Thanks for the quick reply. Now you're going to get all angry with me about burn-in (LOL). All I can tell you is what I've heard, in blind tests and unscientifically, and I can guarantee that I'm not delusional. I never believed A/C cords could make a diff. until I'd heard it ... over and over. Not asking you to 'believe' anything (except that I'm sincere). But see if you can get a blind-test listen yourself. Might change your mind... or not. |
Yeah, speaker break in seems a lot more plausible to me. I'm not sure though about the magnitude of the effects. I never noticed speaker break in on any speaker I've owned, (and I'm a careful listener) so I just have to infer what I can from outside information. I mean, my system can still "sound" different at different times to me, and my speakers are far past any break in period, being years old. So I bet, in my case, it's more down the changes in my mood, state of mind etc and how it affects my perception, than to the system (as our minds and perception are vastly more plastic than the likely changes in a system day to day). I don't claim answers; I'm trying to figure my way through high end audio like anyone else. |
Prof - I understand your skepticism about burn-in. All I can tell you is that I've heard it's effects by testing identical interconnects after one set spent 48 hrs. on a cable-cooker. There were 5 or 6 people there. We all clearly hard the difference and could identify the 'cooked' cable. And only one of us knew which cable was which. We did that test specifically due to skepticism (like yours) that maybe you just "get used" to components & cables, rather than any real burn-in. But Prof, speakers?? You've got to be kidding. They're essentially motors with moving parts, and there WILL be physical break-in, always. If you know a dealer, this is an easy blind test too. Have him set up two pair of the same spkrs - his broken-in demos and a pair straight out of the box. I'll be very surprised if they sound the same to you. Now, I'll agree with you that for most applications, wires do not need break-in. They conduct electricity very well 'out of the box'. But there's something different (more!) going on when they're used in audio. We're probably (IMHO 'clearly') dealing with things that a heart monitor or a computer don't 'care' about. At least that is what I've heard many times over many years. |
Prof - Maybe I’ve been unfair to you, as your last post makes much more sense than your original reply to me To refresh your memory, my suggestion was to let people make up their own minds. Now, it seems like you’re agreeing with that. I agree 100% with you that NEITHER side of the cable debate should ’crusade’. So, yes, when you turn my quote around it is EQUALLY valid. I went back and re-read the OP, and I can see your point. Honestly, he sounded to me like someone who just now realized that cables can make a difference and wanted to share. (That last line about "dogma or delusion" was 100% unnecessary.) Sorry about this long post, but I’d like to clarify a few things... I think each person should determine for themselves whether they hear differences in cables, how any such differences present themselves and whether they are worth the price of the cable (or indeed, if they are an improvement). I personally DO think cables affect sound, and I think there are scientific explanations as to why they do. Some of these are known, and some we have yet to discover. I also believe that when you observe a difference that you cannot measure, ’science’ means to look for new measurements, rather than assuming you already know everything there is to know about the physical universe. The reason I believe that cables affect sound is that I’ve HEARD it many many times, not due to any ’dogma’. I do believe in blind tests, and these differences do show up blind or otherwise. In fact, they are often so evident that no blind test is really needed. Though I still use blind tests to decide on preference, if that is not clear (or to confirm it). I also like to get a few other sets of ears in the room to see if they hear what I do, MOST IMPORTANT... 1. There ARE newbies on these forums who will accept your (or someone’s) opinion as a "more experienced audiophile" rather than listening for themselves. It may be impossible for them to audition for themselves... or they may just be lazy. But I KNOW it happens, because I have people tell me "what [they] read on Audiogon. So it IS important that we not close any minds here while expressing our opinions & experiences. 2. The other thing that drives me crazy, and IMHO ruins threads like these are these ’flame wars’ between certain posters (you know who you are) that serve no purpose for the rest of us. Guys, exchange e-mails and go at it. We’re trying to have a discussion here. Any time you're telling somebody they are "wrong", or throwing shade & snark, or comparing the size of your "credentials", you’re wasting everybody else’s time and ruining the thread. This is about audio, not you. BTW, thanks to the posters who endorsed my common-sense solution of letting everybody figure this out for themselves. Thanks for being open-minded, and Happy Listening to Everyone! (Prof, Peace!) |
I'm with sisyphus51, prof is boring. I'm on this thread because I hear differences in break-in periods of components (parts of electronics, wiring, speakers) and believe in differences between them despite possible identical electrical measurements. There is (are multiple) something missing still in the scientific community in it's ability to measure acoustic and electrical properties relevant to each other. I do not hear break-in periods of vibration devices such as Stillpoints or acoustic treatments such as Synergistic Research HFTs or Hallographs. They are inert with no electrical properties that require a break-in period. |
| Post removed |
OMG! What is with these overdrawn disertations [sic]? How incredibly tiresome they are! Tiresome to some; thought provoking, nuanced, and highly intelligent to others. Including me. As I said in my post in this thread dated 6-6-2018, expressing respect for the OP and his findings as well as for what Prof has had to say: .... Is it any wonder that dramatic consequences would result from changing to a cable that is simply a cable from a cable which includes passive electronic circuit elements and whose expressly stated purposes include intentional introduction of effects on tonal balance? Regards, -- Al |
rvpiano, I believe you regard science as a kind of religion in itself. Then you believe wrong. Science, and my attitude towards it, is the furthest thing from religion; it’s an anti-dogma stance. (Dogma is pretty much antithetical to learning and knew knowledge). Scientific knowledge is provisional, always ready to be revised on new evidence; the opposite of unquestioned knowledge held dogmatically. Unquestioning faith in current science leaves no room for discovery. I have no such "unquestioning faith" and in fact my views on science are born of questioning, as is science itself. The idea that this leaves no room for discovery is incorrect, to say the least. As if we’ve learned everything there is to learn? Who would hold such an absurd notion. May as well tell scientists and engineers to must pack it in and go home then. The fact is, the long hard road to science has taught us a lot about our foibles and science is our best attempt to correct for them (not perfect...just our best method so far). Nothing science tells us is Absolutely True - it’s all provisional, ready for revision should new evidence arise, and it’s all ready for new discoveries (which of course are made all the time). So the ideas you are imputing to me are your own concoctions, and certainly don’t represent my view. You ignore the possibility that the tools of measument may not yet be sensitive enough to assess what a large community of audiophiles recognize. Amazing. Once again: YES perhaps some (or many) people are hearing things like differences with cables, AC cables, capacitors, burn in etc. I’ve simply pointed out that there are *some reasons* for caution about many of the claims and that there are *variables involved* that many audiophiles are not taking into consideration when declaring such differences. If you flip a coin and say "Well, it landed heads so that means it’s raining outside now" I am not going to say IT IS NOT RAINING, because it may well be raining outside. But I will rightly point out "that’s not a reliable method of determining the weather." Similarly, if you are just putting new cables in to your system and declaring they make an obvious sonic difference, I’m not declaring "WHAT YOU HEARD WAS FALSE" but rather: there are some problems with that method that make such inferences unreliable." (E.g. sighted bias, and other issues). And the further we get in to areas of controversy, that are disputed by people with relevant technical expertise, the more caution is warranted in such subjective reports. Now...could audiophiles be hearing things that science can’t yet measure? That’s always a possibility. But the problem is EVERY fringe belief system says the same thing. Talk to psychics, or New Age religions, or any of the countless unscientific medical claims (homeopathy etc) will tell you the same thing. They think based on their subjective experience their claims are true, but "science can’t currently demonstrate these things." It is the calling card of quackery and crackpots everywhere. So in order to ascertain whether it’s *more* than quackery (which it could be) it makes sense to ask things like "what is the technical explanation and does it make sense?" and "how have these claims been tested? Any control for bias effects? etc. And if an audiophile is going to claim "I can hear things that science can't measure" then he would have a burden of proof. You don't walk out of a hearing exam only having scored up to hearing to 13K, but still declaring "I can hear to 22K, you just couldn't measure my hearing acuity." That won't fly. If an audiophile makes any similar "this is true but you can't measure it" claim, and the only basis he has was "I'm sure I heard it" then...there are problems with this. It doesn't separate itself from the possible-quackery crowd.
Then tell me, please, what a good method would be to separate hype and self delusion from reality. If not by asking for compelling technical explanations/measurements or controlling for known variables...how? Will it just be your word against the other guy? But you carry that to an unreasonable extreme. So you say, but you haven’t demonstrated anything unreasonable about it, yet. How would you suggest we evaluate "hype" claims from plausible claims, and whether a sonic difference is due to self-delusion (or bias effects) vs being "real?" (And I wonder if you think the standard medical study controls - which take human bias seriously in their methods - are "too extreme.") Your disclaimer at the end does not really counteract the main thrust of your argument. Well, since you did not seem to understand the main thrust of my argument, it’s hard to give your statement much credence. Everything I argued is consistent with my final statement, that I was not claiming any definitive views or demonstrations about the audibility of the claims made in this thread. Please, try not to think in black or white. It’s possible for people to have nuanced views on these things that don’t just fall into dogmatism of one kind or another. |
prof, While I acknowledge many of your assertions are plausible, I believe you regard science as a kind of religion in itself. Unquestioning faith in current science leaves no room for discovery. You ignore the possibility that the tools of measument may not yet be sensitive enough to assess what a large community of audiophiles recognize. You believe they are all gullible addicts that fall for the insatiable advertising of greedy charlatans; that a kind of mass delusion is at work. I think you protest too much. You have a contempt for the sellers of audiophile equipment that almost borders on paranoia. I do agree there is a degree of self-delusion and hype in the hobby. But you carry that to an unreasonable extreme. There is just too much agreement among a great number of listeners that a lot of the phenomena you disdain is real. Your disclaimer at the end does not really counteract the main thrust of your argument. |