Originally Posted by Riboge
You didn't ask me but let me answer anyway. No that's not fraud, which requires intent to profit from knowing deceit. If they believe as many do that some cables can be better than others and that theirs are among them then there's no knowing falsehood. One the other hand, what you have just said is libelous. Saying "they are a fraud" without any proof or even clear evidence of this in a deliberate attempt to harm their business, which is clearly your intent, is a crime.
Now I don't really care about that, but what I care about and what I wish were a illegal is your interference in reasonable discourse with repeated unfounded assertions based on nothing but intense 'faith' and in complete disregard of what others say. For instance, earwicker7 quoted an audiologist about the effect of ubiquitous variations in the shape of the outer ear, i.e., the range of normality, and how that makes what each person hears a bit different. You either don't read carefully or deliberately distort this into something about abnormalities of the ear and then refute that strawman. I point out that while everyone hears similarly in the most basic physical sense of performance of the inner ear but how that is a different meaning of "hearing" and issue than what they can hear in the way of more subtle analysis at higher yet still auditory levels of differences in what comes in that way. You just ignore this or can't understand what I said and just repeat the dogma you said before that fails to distinguish these two meanings.
Please at least think about what others actually say or please go away.
It isn't fraud if a cable maker claims their cables are better (whether they believe it or not), when they actually aren't?
So anyone who commits fraud can just say they believe in it and get away with it?
Those people that sold gas additives that were supposed to increase MPG but didn't, can say they believed in it, and get off without a hitch?
I doubt that...
And also, I can say that I asked Bill Gates about differences concerning the outer ear affecting our hearing ability, and he could say the same thing that earwicker's audiologist supposedly said.
Second hand information is not reputable. Does he have a link to a report, news article, section of medical book, etc. that supports his claim? How do we know his audiologist actually said that, or he's just making it up? What if he's just twisting his or her words?
Simply put, "my friend's uncles' aunt's sister's niece's friend's teacher's brother's audiologist said that if you clean out your ears every day, your music will sound better," is just as reputable as "my audiologist said that the outer ear can change the way people hear in noticeable ways," ie. they aren't reputable at all.
So, prove that our outer ear makes as big a difference in what we hear as much as he says it does. I tend to doubt it makes that much of a difference. And even then, you're not going to hear more than anyone else with normal ears if your ear is normal.
The thing with audiophiles is that we listen to the music more closely, and that is not matters. It's not that we somehow have better hearing than normal people, people who call themselves golden ears are just trying to feel superior to those around them, like someone driving a Ferrari for the status, or someone with a trophy spouse.
We listen and care about the music more than the average person, that is what differentiates us. We aren't better than the average person.