@cleeds
If I hear an amplifier clipping, I don't need to compare to know it.
If I hear an amplifier clipping, I don't need to compare to know it.
The Science of Cables
It seems to me that there is too little scientific, objective evidence for why cables sound the way they do. When I see discussions on cables, physical attributes are discussed; things like shielding, gauge, material, geometry, etc. and rarely are things like resistance, impedance, inductance, capacitance, etc. Why is this? Why aren’t cables discussed in terms of physical measurements very often?
Seems to me like that would increase the customer base. I know several “objectivist” that won’t accept any of your claims unless you have measurements and blind tests. If there were measurements that correlated to what you hear, I think more people would be interested in cables.
I know cables are often system dependent but there are still many generalizations that can be made.
Seems to me like that would increase the customer base. I know several “objectivist” that won’t accept any of your claims unless you have measurements and blind tests. If there were measurements that correlated to what you hear, I think more people would be interested in cables.
I know cables are often system dependent but there are still many generalizations that can be made.
476 responses Add your response
"If someone is advancing/producing something for sale, is that really called a "hobby"?" Hobby, lifestyle, profession it doesn't really matter. What does matter is listeners are exploring their passion differently as these communities move away from the magazine reviews and on to their own discoveries, and are willing to share those explorations. I hope you guys can see this huge change taking place in the listening community, that you are a part of. Once you guys get past the ego bending I hope you realize how much expertise is here and how that experience builds (documents) many paths to both successfully and not so successful listening. There are not two people here who have the same sound in their home as the next. Do you guys realize that? Some of you here in all honesty are not pleased with what your system is doing. Others can't be more happy with the sound their getting. But one thing you all have in common is some music sounds good on your system and some doesn't. The more you look into the variables, and not plug & play, the wiser you are becoming about the audio signal and the audio chain. Your moving toward your system becoming a variable tool. Plug & play is the long way around, and some of you are getting that big time. Others not so much. but let me paint this What if you had lets say 5 different cables that you like, and if you could take the best of each one and combined them you would be happy. What's stopping you? While these guys have their technical go arounds, you could be using cable that is variable, and with a little work you could make it match your system perfectly. Not only that but as your cable continues to burn in you can tweak the cable to a new setting. This science is a variable one folks and everyday someone is finding that out. What about you? Do you really want to stay on spin cycle talking instead of doing? not I, been tuning a long time and have enjoyed watching people convert for over 30 years now Michael Green |
ieales Confirmation bias is ’experiencing’ a change where there is none.That is mistaken. Confirmation bias is allowing your conclusion to be influenced by your predisposed belief. That’s independent of the nature of any change. Confirmation bias appears to be what happened here. You first judged the cables based on appearance alone. Then you listened and concluded the same. You also stated: I did not say I compared them.So after your initial listen, you then did nothing to confirm whether your listening impression could be validated by anything other than your initial visual assessment. That’s classic confirmation bias. Having messed with the math, manufacture and sonics of multi conductor cables in decades past, an interleaved/interwoven construction clearly has electrical and sonic benefits.Again, an indicator of confirmation bias in this instance. |
@cleeds Confirmation bias is 'experiencing' a change where there is none. Having messed with the math, manufacture and sonics of multi conductor cables in decades past, an interleaved/interwoven construction clearly has electrical and sonic benefits. When I first saw them, I thought "Why would anyone build a cable like that and not interleave + and -?" Listening confirmed exactly what I experienced from previous exposure to the class. |
ieales Confirmation bias? Not bleeding likely. Please don’t read into what I didn’t write. I did not say I compared them.You first judged the cables based on appearance alone: "High End" means engineered for a purpose, not some charlatan's pipe concoction for visual/cosmic appeal. Nordost speaker cables are in the YFJ [You're Freaking Joking] category. First time I saw them I thought, "How bad would my system have to be for these to make it 'better'?Then you listened: First time I heard them, I was nonplussed. The $100k system was 'nice' but did not engage me playing Miles, Queen or SFO. Yawn.Now you say you didn't compare them to anything else. It sure sounds like a classic case of confirmation bias to me. What makes you think that it wasn't? Are you immune to the effect? |
@prof Here is a thought....if you had actually thought that there was a reasonable equivalence between my original statement and your "paraphrase" why make something up and then dress it up with quotes....why not, you know, just use the original quote, that would have been simple, and dare I say, intellectually honest and defensible. But no, that original quote was not good enough to express what YOU wanted to say, so you went that extra mile or two and made up your own quote and unwittingly and absolutely showed the true depths of your honestly, and this just after a mini-lecture on intellectual honesty ( and btw that depth of honesty that you displayed is one of the hallmarks of the mindset of dogmatic fundamentalists....as in, the reality doesn’t quite jive with my preconceived notions of what should be, so we’ll just cobble together something that does.....read, the big problem with dogmatic fundamentalism is that it is intellectually dishonest, and apparently not much unlike you...so I guess we can now safely say the conditional has now morphed into an affirmative eh...soooo.....nice shooting sparky, that was your foot you just hit ). And then to lecture on the theme of shameless....wow, coming from you after that display of intellectual "honesty", that is really the epitome of rich. And speaking of roughly paraphrasing, here is something from my past that fits nicely.... Son, I would stop whining about that F you just got on your paper. You have a much bigger problem. You just failed the course. |
taras22, You are clearly referring to your post in which you wrote: taras: So if you are happy with functional mediocrity go ahead and knock yourself out, but please don’t try to impose your rather dogmatic beliefs on others. And I paraphrased your implication as: Prof: "You are the one being dogmatic, and must simply enjoy mediocrity." Now you try to wiggle out of your own insult, as if my paraphrasing was inaccurate. As if your insult was merely "conditional" and not a direct implication. And yet you know very well I’ve mentioned many times I use Belden cables, and in this very thread I had just repeated that fact. And obviously I’m happy with them...or I’d change them. That I use and am happy with Belden cable is not an unknown, therefore your clumsy insult CLEARLY entailed that I am happy with mediocrity. And obviously declared me to be dogmatic. Your attempt to paint my paraphrasing as a dishonest characterization of your implication is just...shameless on your part. Ok, I’m done with responding to lame red herrings at this point. Carry on revolutionizing electronics! Looks like you’ve got some people who think you are a source of reliable information on that subject ;-) |
@prof What’s wrong with being intellectually honest, consider the points someone is ACTUALLY making, instead of making stuff up to disparage? And in that post you ACTUALLY make up a quote that is affirmative paraphrasing something that was conditional....that you then attribute to me. "You are the one being dogmatic, and must simply enjoy mediocrity." Exactly all your words not mine. But they really go well together don’t they. Well played. Intellectually honest indeed. |
taras22 You attempted your usual: "don’t be so dogmatic about science because science doesn’t know everything, scientific knowledge isn’t absolute, and even the greatest scientists got some things ridiculously wrong." I explained as I have to you over and over before, how utterly that misses the point. That’s all a given - it’s THE POINT behind being skepticism. Science is built on skepticism. As I’ve said so many times, people aren’t perfect therefore science isn’t perfect, but it is the most rigorous and intellectually honest method we’ve created for getting at reliable knowledge about the empirical world. That’s why, as I often point out to your diatribes trying to undermine science: the only reason we ’know’ previous science to be wrong was...doing better science. If you think you have something better than the scientific method to vet empirical claims, it’s up to you to make the case for this alternative method. Otherwise...enough with these red herrings about the obvious fact scientists can get things wrong. You retreat from that fact every time, only to show up and cast aspersions at anyone who adduces science in a way that challenges your cherished beliefs about cables. And you’ve ignored that I showed why the examples you gave of Newton and Kepler illustrated what happens when even great scientists go off the path of good empirical methods. Being in favor of a method of inquiry that asks for evidence for claims and bu it’s very nature, has skepticism about one’s own beliefs and and tentatively held knowledge is literally the opposite of dogmatism. But since this challenges your cherished notions about your subjective impression of cables, and you can’t actually rebut that fact, instead of admitting it you just move to repeating "you are dogmatic" over and over, in the vain hope it sticks. Oh...and the old standby: "You are the one being dogmatic, and must simply enjoy mediocrity." How novel. Its not only bad form, especially when you resort to calling the non-believers stupid or idiots or ignorant, but back-slapping self-righteousness is going end up really hurting your shoulder. Of course, I did none of that. Every single person, no matter how smart, can be fooled. That’s why the great scientist Richard Feynman cautioned scientists about empirical investigation: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." What’s wrong with being intellectually honest, consider the points someone is ACTUALLY making, instead of making stuff up to disparage? |
@cleeds Confirmation bias? Not bleeding likely. Please don’t read into what I didn’t write. I did not say I compared them. I hadn’t been into a Hi Fi store in about 15 years. Treated room. Magico S7s, McIntosh monoblocks, McIntosh pre, interconnects unknown. Nordost something speaker leads. Played "So What?" from LP "Kind of Blue". "We are the Champions" and some SFO suggested by salesperson, streamed. 2nd time, another store, Focal Sopra 1 & 2. Moon something electronics. My 3 tracks, all streamed. Both times, yawn. NOT what I expected. I recorded for a living. The sound in a good control room is as close to live as one will ever hear. I still get goosebumps after more than 30 years thinking about some sessions. Today I’m retired, but volunteer as production chair and put on 7 live shows a year. I took over sound check last year. Thus far, nothing but compliments on how much better the sound is this year. I strive for the live sound in the seats. When I hear a HiFi, that’s what I want, Row G, Center 21 & 22. I wanna be grabbed and made to pay attention. When cats hear my system, they say things like "Man, I can hear everything. It’s so precise. And I don’t hear anything. It’s just all there!" |
ieales "High End" means engineered for a purpose, not some charlatan’s pipe concoction for visual/cosmic appeal. Nordost speaker cables are in the YFJ [You’re Freaking Joking] category. First time I saw them I thought ...So you judged them unheard based on " visual/cosmic appeal?" That doesn’t sound like a high-end approach to me. First time I heard them, I was nonplussed.Confirmation bias, perhaps? |
@prof I would personally differentiate those cable companies from "High End" cable companies"High End" means engineered for a purpose, not some charlatan's pipe concoction for visual/cosmic appeal. Nordost speaker cables are in the YFJ [You're Freaking Joking] category. First time I saw them I thought, "How bad would my system have to be for these to make it 'better'?" First time I heard them, I was nonplussed. The $100k system was 'nice' but did not engage me playing Miles, Queen or SFO. Yawn... @taras22 Funny you mention that capacitance thingeeKeep digging. C is but one parameter. As in most things, there is no free lunch. Electronic design is about optimizing. The Schroeder method Increases C but decreases L & R. In some systems this could be an improvement, not so much in others. Then there are the 'Y' parameters and the routing/interweaving of multiple connectors. It all depends on the SUT [System Under Test]. Maybe I'll start the 'IEales Method' wherein I use 200' interconnects in counter wound ellipses around my listening position to better envelope me in the aura. Shheeeesh! |
And just another thought. In many ways our wee hobby is a "its just not good enough" thang. We have over the years been told, either individually, or as a group that our hobby and/or our particular way of undertaking it is foolish , silly, stupid, idiotic, don’t know the science, can’t understand the engineering etc etc but we have persevered and despite all the negative vibes we have, often inch by inch, moved the pile forward. In fact it could be that we have become so inured to this that it may well be now part of our culture’s DNA, or at least the minimum requirement for inclusion. So where was I going with this ?....oh yeah. OK, was once having lunch with one of the top noise/vibration control guys in North America who worked for the the largest noise/vibration control company in the world ( at the time ). He was still basking in the afterglow of just having received an Technical Achievement Oscar for an rather innovative use of one of their products ( it made film cameras much quieter and allowed for better recording ). So during the lunch I brought up the possibility of using said technique to modify stereo components. Well the rest of the lunch was dedicated to proving beyond a shadow of a doubt how that idea made absolutely no scientific sense. Formulas were throw out, scientific fact was cited etc etc. For some reason I didn’t back off and continued to pursue that avenue and eventually moved the pile forward enough that the gentlemen saw/heard my point of view and apologized for his earlier lambasting and then we laughed and had another beer. Read, stereo component noise/vibration control is now an accepted part of our hobby, despite all that day’s respectable evidence to the contrary. So here we are again, different song but the tune is very very familiar. And btw that product that won the Oscar, in base function it is not much unlike our very own GeoffKait’s Brilliant Pebbles concept....but that is another story for another time in a thread far far away. And here is the mornings entertainment.....and prof et al is the guy on the throne....and Mr Columbus is the everyman stereo dude...hope you like it, I do and it pops into my head every-time I come across a "cable" food fight, errr, discussion or something similar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgqW_hgpuEI |
And speaking of the One and Only True LCR, that trudgeon that the fundamentalists love to use to beat the non-believers about the head and shoulders so they will hopefully see reason, or at the very least just be quiet in the face of overwhelmingly superior knowledge. Well on the plus side of the ledger its really simple, its really easy to understand and thus allow the faithful adherents to appear intelligence when using it in an argument ( read, all the elements required for truthiness ). The problem with this is that LCR is very much more suited to dealing with DC, whereas audio signals are AC, and there is world of difference in terms of complexity between the two, the former is basically simple, the latter not so much. Find below a fairly good overview that will hopefully give some insight into the problems of applying something simple like LCR onto something like an audio signal which, as mentioned above, is an AC phenomenon. See this as an expansion of a Roger Skoff line from a quote introduced earlier. Though it doesn’t include the more complex and equally important issues mentioned earlier ....a short snippet of which is immediately below....then followed by the overview...
............................................................................................................................. What is the difference between resistance and impedance?Asked by: Venudharhttps://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae517.cfm |
| Post removed |
Outrageous claims by high end cable makers? Outrageous or simply the usual audiophile technical verbiage? Let’s take a look, shall we? Here’s an excerpt of the Valhalla 2 cable description from Nordost’s web site. Nordost is one of prof’s examples of “outrageous claims.” Now, I ask you, are these claims outrageous? “Over the years we have been able to develop cutting edge production techniques and technological innovations that both improve the quality and precision of our manufacturing process and propel the capabilities of our products to previously unattainable levels. The Valhalla 2 range benefits from the gains of those years of research and development in every aspect of its construction. While V2 cables remain true to the Nordost design philosophy, using silver-plated, OFC solid core conductors, extruded FEP insulation, a mechanically tuned construction, and asymmetrical grounding, the advances made from that jumping-point are astounding. V2 cables use Dual Mono-Filament technology, along with an innovative, proprietary connector called the HOLO:PLUG®, designed to be the best possible interface between the cable and component. The combination of these two ground-breaking technologies allows Nordost products to perfectly match our philosophy of low mass design, optimal signal transfer and perfect impedance matching.” |
@prof Have at it. OK. Here is your problem, at the most basic level you have confused science with its close relative applied science. The latter, also known as engineering, which generally defines its mandate with the term "good enough" whereas the former runs on the idea "its never good enough". Audio for many of us is hobby that involves pushing the limits ( its never good enough ) whereas for your preference, the pro side mentality, its more about just getting the job done ( like LCR is good enough eh ). So if you are happy with functional mediocrity go ahead and knock yourself out, but please don't try to impose your rather dogmatic beliefs on others. Its not only bad form, especially when you resort to calling the non-believers stupid or idiots or ignorant, but back-slapping self-righteousness is going end up really hurting your shoulder. |
My view is that we all want an audio reproduction system that permits the most revealing yet relaxed reproduction of music. I’m not sure that we are served by pigeonholing viewpoints to the disservice of that goal. Some designers have an intended objective about the criteria of the SQ they strive to achieve—and often that is not necessarily driven by monetary considerations. I’m not sure if articulating those objectives makes a difference to consumers. What matters to most is whether they have a smile on their face when they listen to their audio systems. |
I recall many of John Dunlavy’s emails from that 1996 time period. The DAL speakers pretty much had a 6 ohm nominal impedance. When he entered the speaker cable business, he believed his cables should reflect the impedance of his speakers. So he designed his cables to be an extension of the impedance of his speakers as seen by the amp outputs. John Ulrick, the man behind the Infinity Systems SWAMP and Infinity servoloop-controlled subs for the IRS and later the founder of Spectron Audio that designed the refinement of his class D amps, made a set of cables called Remote Sense cable that extend the negative feedback loop of the his amplifier all the way to the speakers to enable better control over the speaker. A lot of cable designers simply buy bulk spools of wire from a supplier and contract with a conductor weaver vendor and outer jacketing sheath vendor to throw a HEA cable together—whether PC, IC or speaker cable—and call it good. Other designers buy the conductor materials in bulk and refine them prior to creating their final cable products (either during manufactur like Teo Audio or post manufacture like MG through treatments). Why expend this effort, if not to control, fine tune or otherwise obtain their desired properties—whether measurable by test or by listening? With regard to the Schroeder Method, those who doubt its efficacy in improving SQ I suspect haven’t tried it with an open mind. The thread discussion on the topic didn’t start with what is labeled as the Schroeder Method thread described here, however. It is discussed in a few threads in the cable forum, most notably in the Teo Audio cable threads, for example. |
taras22 I'm sure it hasn't gone unnoticed by a number of others that, yet again, you posted some more nonsense about science and, when that nonsense was taken apart, you ignore the points (because you have no plausible replies) and retreat back to childish sniping. Well...whatever suits you I guess. Have at it. |
@ geoffkait Methinks more like a retreat way way way back to the safety of the trees, errrr, telegraph wires...when life was simple and all you had to consider was which berry, errrr, L and C and R....and you could still buy something with a buck....and men were men....and so on and so forth! Gosh, the simple life is so, uhhhh, simple. Reality on the other hand is all fiddly bits, and not at all simple no matter how hard and long you hold breath. or how blue your face turns. Much sorries, but that is, uhhh, reality. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
@ nonoise That was very nice but I was expecting a earth shattering kaboom or something like this.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8XeDvKqI4E |
All of this back and forth reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is2V3jm_Dxc&frags=pl%2Cwn . |
@ieales @prof +1 - keep on firing. Yup, yup, great spot on advice there eh....like don’t give up, just keeping blasting away, and who knows, eventually you might actually hit something. I mean, with infinite monkeys, and infinite typewriters, eventually a bible appears, right. I guess that is just part and parcel of that hopey thang one has when one is a true believer. And here is a word of caution from someone living in the real world, this here reality is finite, read it does not have an infinite number of the bullets, or arrows or stones or whatever you are using in that firing process. Just saying that so youse guys don’t get all disappointed and mopey when you run out of ammo or the target turns into something totally unexpected, which you know happens, and with amazing regularity if you look at the historical record. |
@prof e.g. capacitance Funny you mention that capacitance thingee. Maybe you should wander over and see how cable assemblies made according to the Schroeder Method are being reviewed. The users found the results fantastic, and this with a cable design that has double the capacitance of an ordinary "by the books" design ( read, none of the rolled off high end as predicted by the One True LCR deity). Its a mystery, or maybe its a miracle, or maybe alien technology direct from Zar-Dot. Bottom line extra-ordinary results are the result. |
ieales Many studios do use 'high-end' cables. I wired many with Mogami, Canare, Belden, Monster, etc. Agreed. Most of the studios whose cabling I know of, tended to use Canare or Belden or a combination for much of the equipment. (I had a bunch of custom-length cables for my own systems made by a supplier to local professional studios). But I would personally differentiate those cable companies from "High End" cable companies, which to me denote those in the audiophile-sales industry - the Nordost, Audioquest, Shunyatta's of the world - who charge far more, and make more extravagant and dubious claims, than the industry average prices for Canare or Belden. |
So we all (kinda) agree that cables have an impact on sound quality...we all want to hear the ‘pure, unaltered sound’ coming out of our speakers... how about the cables that were used during the recording session? I doubt all those record studios use ‘high end’ cables...Many studios do use 'high-end' cables. I wired many with Mogami, Canare, Belden, Monster, etc. Some spent as much on cable as the mixing desk. However, those same studios all have a different sound due to room, electronics and microphones. We often drove across town to record in a specific space for its sonics. The Complex, Sunset, Record Plant, Oceanway, Capital 'A', Village, or cross country to Hit Factory, Sony, or offshore to Monserrat, Abbey Road, etc. So when you get a piece recorded in multiple rooms, whose cable would you use? Change cable per disc? Track? Chorus? Add in EQ & compression by the earless A&R department in yet another facility. Add in sonic changes from watermarking, disc stamping, etc. Add in sonic thumbprints for player, pre, amplifier. Add in sonic bootprint for speakers. It's a wonder it's listenable at all. I just roll my eyes when I read equipment reviews where the kazoo on this or the conga on that or the calliope on the next had some particular authority. All that has happened is the endless series of colorations has aligned to what the reviewer thinks something sounds like. BUNK! >>> NO PLAYBACK SYSTEM ANYWHERE EVER SOUNDED LIVE <<< @prof +1 - keep on firing. |
iasi, Many skeptics would not say that cables have an impact on sound quality...but not necessarily in the ways many audiophiles believe. That is: a basic, well designed cable, properly chosen for the job at hand (e.g. capacitance etc for a given length/job)...is essentially transparent. That is, it's not the case that any time you change a cable the sound ought to change because "all cables 'sound' different." But, yes, choose the wrong cable for the job and you can get something like a tone control (e.g. rolling off the high end), so in that sense cables can sound different. That caveat out of the way. I have often pointed out that audiophiles swooning over the 'sound' of their latest expensive cable purchase are simultaneously swooning over the sound of the relatively basic, cheap, industry-grade cables used to create most of the recordings we listen to. |
cleeds, You keep raising that question, even though it's been answered a number of times. Here we go again.... You assume people skeptical about boutique cable claims haven't 'done the work.' But note that most of the skepticism comes from the engineering world in which people work with the electrical theories in question. It is from an understanding - theoretical and practical - of how electrical components work that many EEs and other technically qualified skeptics conclude many audiophile claims are bogus. The "work" on electrical theory and cables has essentially "been done."At least, this is a common position of most EE skeptics I've read. Further, there have been plenty of technically knowledgeable skeptics who HAVE done technical and blind testing of cable claims. Someone has posted quite a few here: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/ Science oriented web sites like Hydrogen Audio contain plenty of technical tests on audio components, including cables, and blind test results of all sorts of audio components. You can find more technical tests on Audio Science Review, and on Archimego's blog. More recently, skeptic Ethan Winer has proposed a null test for cable claims...and you can see videos of him showing the results. I myself have, as I've explained before, blind-tested cables and other devices. So this objection you continually raise...as if it had any force...just seems ignorant of all the reasons skeptics give for rejecting many of the claims from high end cable companies, and the knowledge, and work, those objections are based upon. |
prof
Claims about cables, especially extraordinary claims, ought to be able to pass the same vetting method as any other science.Agreed. But why is it that those who call for this vetting seem to always require that others do the work? Erik even has a thread called, "How I would measure audio cables" and he says it would be "super easy" to do. But: He can't be bothered. |
Congratulations taras22. Your post exemplified the kind of cluelessness about the nature of science that can lead one to pseudo-scientific beliefs. You’ve completely misunderstood the lessons of science in general, Newton in particular. Apparently you wish to use Newton’s incorrect calculation about the age of the earth to draw the lesson "See? Even great scientists can be wrong...so we can’t just go trusting science!" But anyone who knows a thing about the scientific method already knows you don’t use "Faith In Something Some Genius Revealed To Us." The whole point of science derives from the very fallibility of ANYONE. It’s the Method, not The Man. Just because a man was wrong...as every person who ever lived has been wrong about one thing or another....doesn’t give warrant for undermining the scientific method. Newton is actually the perfect example. Many acknowledge him as perhaps the greatest mind to have ever lived. And the lesson of Newton is this: When he applied his great intellect to phenomena that could be seen and tested by all, and created testable theories which could be reliably replicated by anyone, despite their religion or lack of religion, he revolutionized useful knowledge for humankind with his theories of gravity (and others). His theories were, and continue to be, used to successfully predict endless phenomena which work under those theories. Kepler’s laws were useful within their domain of accuracy as well. But what happened when each of those men turned their formidable intellects to the untestable realms of "Faith" "revelation" "religious belief?" Both men were fervent Christians who took ancient scripture as utterly authoritative. You got Newton working for 30 years on a religious treatise that languishes in obscurity and has helped no one, and produced no reliable knowledge. And in combination with ignorance of modern dating methods that they didn’t have back then, with taking the scriptures as historically accurate....you get total miscalculations of the type you reference, from both men. This shows how much it is The Method that is more important than The Man, and when you appeal to "people...magic or otherwise" for your authority you will fall in to all sorts of pot holes. Recognizing the fallibility of human beings within your method, writing skepticism and doubt in to the method, acknowledging that anything you think you’ve demonstrated could be in error and that others should seek to replicate or show where you are wrong, is the EXACT OPPOSITE of "fundamentalim" and "dogmatism." Understanding that human’s are error prone and taking that seriously in your method - e.g. controlling for sighted bias - is the EXACT OPPOSITE of faith or fundamentalism. That you mix these up is why you believe some of the things you apparently believe. And you also imply an incorrect lesson about Newtonian theories of gravity and Eisenstein. Newtonian theory was not removed by developments from Einstein and others...it was *improved upon.* It was accurate within it’s domain for the most part, but was incomplete as a description and a new theory was required to explain things Newtonian physics could not. It’s still a usefully accurate account at a certain scale which is why it’s still used for that scale. If Newton’s theory were simply ’wrong’ you wouldn’t be able to explain why it works so reliably as it does . In many if not most day to day level applications, employing the more elaborate general relativity theory won’t yield you usefully more accurate results, so Newtonian physics is a perfectly useful model for most day to day calculations. Whenever anyone appeals to science, you like to bring up bogus examples and ideas to sow a sort of mistrust in the appeal to science. It just shows a dedication to psuedo-science. And it’s particularly ironic because you are left to answer this question: In every case were ’the science’ has been shown to be ’wrong,’ incomplete or inaccurate....what method was it that uncovered those problems? You guessed it: science. It’s got a self-correcting mechanism built in that tends to weed out error over time. No one should get to have his own pet theory made safe - one that is not vetted scientifically - by trying the old "but they called Galileo Crazy" or"But Science Has Been Wrong Before!" trope, as if errors in previous science make unvetted pseudo-scientific claims less dubious Claims about cables, especially extraordinary claims, ought to be able to pass the same vetting method as any other science. That’s not a fact favorable to purveyors of expensive high end cables based on dubious theories, or to those who believe their subjective impressions can not be in error, which is no doubt why it receives some pushback |
@taras22 Say what you want - I’ll stick with real science, engineering and craftsmanship and the next flight I take, I’ll feel secure knowing that the airliner I’m on was designed and built by real scientists, engineers and trained and skilled craftsmen, using proven science and engineering. In fact, it was sound science that proved the world was not flat, not the true believers who condemned anyone who challenged their misguided beliefs....Jim @geoffkait Gee Thanks - good having you on my side ;-) ;-) ;-) ............Jim |
I cannot see the tweeks of AC, and cables as being band-aids.That's all they are. ALL interact with source and destination. NONE are 100% neutral. chaos theoryDon't make me laugh. The initial condition is OFF. The next condition is IDLE. IDLE changes with age, voltage, temperature, pressure and humidity for some transducers. There is no way some high resistance, poor charge density goop is going to ameliorate anything. More than likely, it is undergoing constant change ala the BBE Sonic Maximizer. |
ieales287 posts02-18-2019 11:13am It's bingo day at the seniors center.Sadly, there's more intelligence there than here or the freshman class at almost any college in America. The 'spiritualists' here remind of the BBE Sonic Maximizer from the early 80's. On poorly engineered program, it could be 'interesting'. On well recorded and mixed material with good sound stage presentation, it was a nauseating buck of mush. >>>>>Oh, sure, anyone can look around and find some absurd example like yours. Doesn’t mean anything. |
