glupson, just a mild point to interject. I'm not interested in jousting with you verbally. I find that is not productive for us, nor the community.
There is a range, a spectrum of performance, you might agree. A panoply of words can be used to describe the spectrum, and related comparisons. I attempt to choose well, carefully so as to not be sensationalist or be accused of hyping products. The spectrum of performance is - using nifty, striking adjectives - humongous, nearly galactic (Those skeptics who disagree will, no doubt, think I'm being foolish and sensational). So, the range of descriptors imo has to be broad. Funny how typically when someone describes a sound/product as "poor" they are not ridiculed, for in truth most gear is not poor, but lesser than others. Words like "awful," "cold" etc. are used and they are every bit as extreme. Some even will claim that a relative sound was "broken" in comparison. They don't think twice about the fairly irresponsible way in which they have described the product, but when an exclamation of joy is uttered that suddenly becomes a lie.
Something to think about. :)
Trust is the issue here, as with all claims of nouveau items/methods, etc. I attempt not to damage my reputation, or "trust factor" with the community by making foolish or boated claims. Now, the Schroeder Method is imo, and the opinion of most others who have tried it, an outsized result - the outcome is "shocking", "spectacular", etc.
But it still comes down to one thing; it either works to some degree or not. Perhaps skeptics can get past raging about descriptions of its degree of efficacy as described by others, and focus on the either/or of the science, as is the topic of the thread.
To the community:
Now, as to the sought evidence, I am reminded of a jury trial in which I sat as foreman of the jury. There was plenty of circumstantial evidence imo to convict the defendant. However, some on the jury wanted nothing less than forensic evidence, and they would not accept even a powerful suite of circumstantial evidence. (Really showed me how scary it would be to have a jury deciding my future!).
A person here determines whether circumstantial evidence is acceptable, and how much is necessary. I suggest the descriptors be less important than the question of whether it works. I think the lower potential cost and ease of trying it should outweigh displeasure with perception of too fawning descriptions of its effect. Everyone is after the amazing, super-low cost method, tweak, etc. Here it is, and it is railed against; go figure. Basically, the skepticism also stems from a "too good to be true" perspective. Ones who use it and claim it's wonderful are unhinged, not in touch with reality, etc. That conclusion does protect one's foregone conclusion, however it precludes you ever benefitting, which could happen if you open up the slightest file for "Possible Error Re: Schroeder Method" in your mind. :) For some, on any given topic, their doubt and confidence are absolute. Ok, so be it. I can accept that. What I cannot accept is mockery by those who think they know, who refuse to try, and defensiveness when there is a strong reaction to their put-downs of others. What else would you expect when you verbally bully, make a joke of others? I stopped this cold on this thread by my question of epistemology of analogue; it shut everyone up. Why? Because we all know it's true. The hypocrites had nothing to say, because they saw themselves clearly in the mirror perhaps for the first time.
But, that wasn't wanted. Rather, the fighting, the insulting, etc. That's what some want here. I do not want that. I refuse to participate in that. I want progress on audio systems. The skeptics are encouraged to join me by trying Schroeder Method. But, at least if you aren't going to try, bridle your caustic mockery. And, likewise, perhaps our users will find the confidence to not reply in kind.
Anyway, some are comfortable with circumstantial evidence (i.e. observation by several users), and others demand a hard forensic explanation (measurements). I can respect both positions and I think the community should as well. Name calling resolves nothing in regard to the level of evidence someone considers necessary. That is why I engaged in discussion with Jhills versus derision. Now, we are chatting and becoming friends. He is going to try the Schroeder Method, though he doubts it will work. I applaud his willingness to test his doubt.
I do think Schroeder Method in some ways is an ideal acid test of the convergence of exploration of cables and theory, as the result imo seems to fly in the face of theory. By that I do not mean a change in effect would not be expected, as though I or other users are not scientific, but that the expected theoretical outcome is not the result. At least not in any instance to date that I am aware of.
Distilling this down; I find a chasm that cannot be breached between those comfortable with circumstantial evidence (observational science) and those demanding forensic evidence (hard/measured science). So, imho, the disparity will never be settled. Revisiting my observation that I find all audiophiles to operate with bias, the two together ensure that there will be many such threads in the future.
But, Schroeder Method could change all that! LOL Is that hyperbolic enough for our skeptics? ;)
So, which of our skeptics will try Schroeder Method besides jhills?
Man, here I am again spending too much time. I'm outta here for now.