Originally Posted by anetode
Sensitive electronics are certainly a factor, no one test can adequately account for all variables. Nonetheless, there is a preponderance of evidence leading towards one conclusion. You can't simply dismiss this evidence because of a straw man argument that musical performance of cables can't be tested - it can and it has.
Again, we are all free to make up our minds however we wish, just so long as there is a mutual respect for opinion that doesn't dismiss the scientific method as woefully inadequate or an article of faith. Doing so would be unfair to the body of science responsible for giving us all these great headphones to begin with
I wasn't gonna say anything... you can ask Ben himself (the OP of this thread regarding my comments on cables and diy matters that I kept in PM's so as not to offend certain people) BUT you have unfortunately rubbed me the wrong way with your previous post so here is my rant. As in previous rants, please be warned what is contained below contains arguments that may be long (long winded as well) but have a tinge of truth that may (probably will) make you throw up, stop drinking, or just call me an idiot. But usually I'm not wrong (not right either but who knows).
1. There is no strawman argument from people who hear differences in cables towards scientific based people. In fact if you scour through my posts regarding litz braiding, different cable types, the solder used etc.. you will see that a majority of my posts regarding cables are based on scientific matters. But then again I don't belong to either camp, I'm more of a middle path guy.
2. The strawman argument actually COMES from the science freaks (sorry I gotta give you guys a bad name too). You guys are the ones saying that the cable makers/cable believers have no scientific evidence... CLEARLY that's wrong -and THAT is in fact a strawman argument. So instead of actually debating/attacking/countering these guys you create a mystical head-fier who beleives in the magic of cables without scientific proof...
3. Mutual respect? WTH? Really, you interjecting science as the be all and end all, while disregarding my experiences and perceptions of reality -You call that mutual respect? Really?Wow.
4. The scientific method is a piece of crap and if you did scientific research you'd know it. First of, if the scientific method works, that science is really just the process of gathering data, hypothesizing, experimentation, theorizing rinse wash repeat.. then you are admitting science is just a linear process. Now whats wrong with that you ask?
a. First off, that means no geniuses
b. Second, all you need to solve a problem is to throw enough bodies at a problem until its solved.
Now based on einstein, newton, watson and crick (sp) etc... we know a is not true. There are geniuses in the world. The reason there would be no geniuses in science are because the greatest inventions/innovations and changes in science have occurred in spurts. There are decades where nothing happens in science until a genius comes along to push science forward. Think Faraday with electricity, then Maxwell, and eventually einstein. If science was truly linear, then you would also realize that all the problems in the world, are simply lacking scientists and all we need to do is keep putting more and more scientists at finding a cure for cancer, for aids, for the swine flu -whatever. If scientists really followed the scientific method... then quite frankly the greatest geniuses in the world are all then failures of the scientific method. Hawking would be an obvious dumb --- so would maxwell and Poincare.
So there goes your nice and good working scientific method. Now to bring the argument to a close. The scientific method is at best a starting point, but realize that solutions to problems do not come from this linear progression, the come from the minds of true genius or from accidents. Answers come to mind as you synthesize information (actually I'm not sure) but from my experience and Poincare's words, its like your mind takes in all of these random facts and pieces of information and then it comes up with the answer -from nowhere. There is no linear progression to the answer, and if there was, you would technically have known the answer already and all you were doing is doing the steps to get to it. Think of deriving a formula. If you already know the end result, you can derive it from scratch. But if you're the one deriving say a new proof or equation, then all of that info would come from information that your mind puts together ie. ideas.
---end rant--- for now