Interconnects and non-believers

jetter,

prof and teo, can’t help but notice that you turn most threads into a debate style forum. Were you "debatetateers" in your prior life?

Hi jetter,

I’ve long been interested in philosophical subjects (especially. but definitely not limited to, the intersection of science, religion, philosophy, skepticism, non-mainstream belief systems, etc), and so yes I’ve spent a long time having to debate and defend concepts against many very smart people who know how to drill down to find inconsistencies. This has ingrained a habit of checking my own beliefs and claims for inconsistencies. It also ingrained in me the desire, in the case I want to claim something, to provide supporting argument and not merely make assertions. That is often why a lot of my posts get long winded. I want to say "here’s what I want to get across, and here are the reasons to accept it").

That said: I believe you are being selective - though likely not intentionally - in thinking I turn most threads into a debate style forum.

If you surveyed my actual posts, you would find that the vast majority of them are not "debating." If you search for the threads I’ve created, you will see that not one of them is a "debate" thread.

With maybe one or two exceptions (e.g. fuses), the few threads were I have engaged in extended "debate" are those essentially set up for debate - were for instance someone has posted a challenge to a viewpoint I might support, or partially support, or which invites various viewpoints on a broader subject.

Look at this thread title and OP: you could hardly say that I would have been responsible for setting the stage for debate - the thread itself is an obvious, combative challenge to those with a differing viewpoint, right? Merely expressing my opinion I’m sure, though, may be seen by you as being an ornery debater? (I don’t know, you tell me).

And anyway, notice I did not in fact turn this into debate; I only made a joking reply and mentioned I wasn’t looking for extended debate on cables.

I might exchange with a few people here a bit more. But...that’s what we do here in these forums.

Some people are Car People. Other people are Focused on sound. Let’s call them Sound People. Some people are focused on circuits, some are focused on sound. You cannot serve two masters.

"Cannot serve two masters" I guess that means you have a one track mind?
IMO the greatest minds are those which CAN carry opposing views and work with them together. the synergy is often the way forward. Folks who have monolithic notions end up stuck on a dead end.
(That will be $200 for my thirty second therapy session, Geoff.)

PS I just made a 4 meter AC cord out of Carol 12 gauge and some Marinco AC ends laying around for ten years. Folks bothered me claiming Pangea cords SUCKKKK. So I decided to try a basic cord to compare, just for the Hell of it. Before I go spend $$$ on other 'better' (than Pangea) power cords.
Plugged in the unbroken-in cord just ten minutes ago. Sounds like music. (I will let it break in for a week before making any further pronouncements.)

Just to finish the thought, Lizzie, the others wind up with Pangea. 😀

geoffkait,

Wow! Thanks for the huge Strawman argument, professor!

Your consistency in misidentifying arguments and fallacies is remarkable. You are batting 1000! An achievement of sorts, I guess ;-)

Nobody said you can do better than the sound of the original recording.

I of course didn’t claim anyone was saying that. So...what a surprise!...you are yet again indulging in your hobby of attacking strawmen. What I instead argued was to consider the implications, the conundrum, contained within the understanding one can not improve on the sound of the original.** . That’s why I concluded with: "And then ask yourself if boutique audiophile cables are necessary for passing along extremely high fidelity signals." (Note, that does not contain the strawman you re-phrased this to become).

Presuming first that audiophile cables alter the sound....(and acknowledging that even the most hardened "objectivist" about cables would say you want to choose the right cable for the right job, lest it degrade the signal)

IF one has the view that cables are essentially just forms of tone controls, then, just as when you play with an EQ, it’s possible one cable can sound "more revealing" of what is on the recording - e.g. if the frequency contour favours the upper frequencies, more "detail" will be heard.

That concept of how cables can alter a sound system doesn’t produce the conundrum I referred to.
However, most high end cables are not marketed as simply being tone controls. They tend to be directed to claims that tickle the audiophile’s desire for Higher Fidelity.

So...

IF one has the view that audiophile cables result in "higher fidelity" of the signal - that is they *reveal* via lower distortion/higher fidelity information that goes missing on *regular* cables...THEN the problem I pointed to arises. Because, as I said, the high end cable could only ever be revealing information that was already conveyed by the non-audiophile cables used to capture the recording. In fact, you are hearing the capabilities of the *very worst* cables the signal ever passed through.

Hence it seems to be a conundrum of sorts to say the expensive high end cables have properties that make them "more revealing" for music in a hi fi system than the basic cables used for most recordings. Or, in other words, it seems rather odd for many audiophiles to think they require spending big bucks on high end cables because lower priced cables aren’t up to the job of conveying a high fidelity signal. They are using their high end cables to exalt in the signals conveyed by non-audiophile cables! So non-audiophile-grade cables *must* be capable of extremely high fidelity, which suggests the emphasis many audiophiles place on high end audio cables to achieve high fidelity *may* be based on some dubious assumptions.

** (BTW, that is on the presumption of fidelity to the original signal -we can of course alter the original signal through EQ, re-mastering etc to make it into what many would think to be "better" sound. But again, that’s not what we are talking about for the moment)