Elizabeth, I invite you to try it; then we may not be able to get you to shut up about it. :)
If you have a better cable method or technology that pertains to the question of this thread, "The Science of Cables," feel free to promote/discuss it at length. Schroeder Method pertains directly to this conversation because 1. it involves cables, 2. It is nouveau, 3. It is imo testable informally, and I presume at this point formally, 4. It is not understood theoretically, and 5. It was in existence prior to this thread and was already amassing instances of success - in fact, to this point only success, i.e. no negative outcomes.
Aside from the arguing on this thread, I see little other objective ways to DO something to propel understanding and discussion productively forward. Perhaps some would rather rant and moan about others, but I am proposing a simple and imo quite effective means of opening up discussion not excluding or damning skeptics, but welcoming them to the party.
How’s that for a different approach? Instead of vilifying them I am inviting them. Note the thin response to those invitations so far. That, sadly, is to be expected when working with people who absolutely trust their intuition, whether it’s right or wrong. The multiple targeted invitations met with silence mostly are evidence imo that skeptics are not as interested in doing anything to challenge their own beliefs, but are more interested in attempting to overwhelm cable users with theory. That’s not going to work too well when the results are so easily heard. Whatever.
I know, I used to be a hard core cable skeptic.
Something tells me that if you had developed Schroeder Method you would be talking about it every bit as much as I do. Like when you got your system instead of buying a car - you couldn’t be shut up, endless chatter about it. It was nauseatingly monotonous, and imo you made some claims that I didn’t think were supportable, but I didn’t blame you for it, because it is wonderful when you discover something new. (Perhaps most of that was on Audioasylum, but I quit going there years ago.) So, forgive me if I enthuse quite a bit, because the double IC is something important, and germane to the thread.
An interesting piece of history, Elizabeth - I remember years ago on this site that you were quite lukewarm yourself about aftermarket cables. Finally, you tried and what do you think happened? Your attitude changed with experience. You are quite a different audiophile now than even five years ago.
Do you think I am unaware of how frequently I have invited people to try it? I have been building a case that shows right here the M.O. of skeptics. Slash and burn tactics with cables, but wait! An inexpensive, easy to do, purportedly quite significant means, an opportunity to either falsify or support their contentions - and only 1 is willing to try. THAT is the point of my multiple invitations to particular skeptics. They are proving right here how closed-minded they can be. Yet, it’s not too late if they want to show they are not entrenched.
I used to think I was so sharp, laughing at aftermarket cable fans for their stupidity at spending ridiculous amounts on cables... I have quite a story to tell about prejudging situations. The incident that opened up reviewing to me happened precisely because I chose not to arrogantly prejudge a speaker. That’s a story for another time...
Congratulations again to jhills, the only one who was willing to be open to questioning his interpretation of the situation and try Schroeder Method.
Elizabeth, thank you for sharing your opinion, and now that it has been voiced, I trust you won’t need to state it again. Please know that I have no desire whatsoever to enter into lengthy discussion about this post. :)
