cable cooker, do they work?

bomarc: this is your empirical "proof"? looks to me like you've studied scientology, not science. your "syllogism" suffers from the logical fallacy "post hoc ergo propter hoc." -cfb

I think that means "put that in pipe and smoke it!" either that or it has something to do with a proctologist;>).

Cfb, your response illustrates my point perfectly. You are now claiming the power to hover, something that I fabricated in jest. But how does this differ from the litany of cable claims we see made here so frequently? And this is our body of evidence that indeed significant differences in the sound of cables exist?

Cornfed: This is your response? If you think it's a syllogism, you should go back and read it again. Or maybe your understanding of the word "syllogism" is as weak as your grasp of the post-hoc fallacy.

Obviously, this is not a complete empirical defense. There isn't room, and for that matter I'm not really qualified to give it. The case I outlined draws on at least three different disciplines (biology, psychology, and electronics), and the research work spans decades. Anyone who really wants to understand this should start, as I did, with an introductory text on psychoacoustics. If you don't want to make that effort, that's fine. It's certainly possible to enjoy high-end audio without it. All I ask is that you respect the standing of those who have made the effort to participate in your discussions.

Bomarc, if you think that i'm living in "my own little world", i at least acknowledge the "chaos factor". I always welcome an exchange of information based on inquisitive comments or first hand knowledge that apply directly to the situation being discussed. Your lack of experience and willingness to learn, experiment or listen to different points of view with an open mind negates the ability of all but the most patient of people to try and discuss something with you.

On top of this, you think that you can neatly disect and pigeonhole everything through simple measurements. BUT, what if what you were using as a baseline was not a stable platform ? What if you baseline was only valid for one specific set of testing conditions ? All of your results and beliefs would be quite limited in scope and based on false precepts.

The reason that i say this that many amps WILL alter frequency response into various reactive loads. Since ALL speakers are reactive to some degree, figuring out how an amp of that type would work with each different speaker would be tough in itself. Adding the variables of different cables with their ( sometimes highly reactive ) impedance contribution to the circuit could only further skew the predictions or results.

Your "theories" pre-suppose that the reference source is stable into EVERY load known to man. It also takes for granted that if the reference source did deviate in any manner, those deviations would be linear and predictable based on specific levels of impedance and reactance. Since there is not an amplifier produced that meets those requirements, you are in effect living in your won fantasy world. As such, your theories presented in sections 2 & 3 are NOT realistic. You have based your whole argument on false precepts ( a "lie" in plain English ).

As to Doc's comments, i shouldn't have said that you guys were in a boat with no oars. You guys are in a boat that does have oars but you are afraid to use them since you don't understand all of the physics involved. Everything that you need to move forward and expand your horizons is right in front of you, yet you refuse to take advantage of it. Some things DO work even if you don't understand how it is done.

In terms of hovering or levitating above an object, some people CAN do this. Just because someone else believes / does not believe that they are doing this does not change what is happening or make it possible / impossible. Sean
>