[beeman458]

Maybe you don't quite understand what digital is.  Lets define it.
 
Now you're condescending.  Your above is a good example of why one shouldn't debate the issue.
 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

It's like trying to argue someone out of their religion.
 
Now why would anybody want to do that?
 
???

 
Which is why I said that''s not what I'm here to do.  I'm not here to convince you.  I'm here so that other people will see this kind of argument and learn what they need to make up their mind.  I'm a proponent of rational thought and evidenced based reasoning, and I can't help myself but to promote it wherever I may be, even on a forum about headphones.

 

[beeman458]

"...and I can't help myself but to promote it wherever I may be,..."
 
As I wrote, issues of control; Borg like behavior.
 
"You will be assimilated."
 
It doesn't matter what anybody thinks as long as they're not twisting your arm and actively climbing into your game.
 
Which is why I said that''s not what I'm here to do.
 
I'm a proponent of rational thought and evidenced based reasoning, and I can't help myself but to promote it wherever I may be, even on a forum about headphones.
 
You do realize that the two above sentences are in conflict with each other?
 
What you haven't grasped, the anti-cable group, isn't basing their reasoning on facts but are basing their reasoning on deductions based upon flawed test data, based upon invalid test parameters to evaluate the data they're evaluating.  Convenient yes, debatable on a rational level, no.  So, in the end, there's no point.

 

[Head Injury]

I heard the Borg use only the purest of silver stranded power cables to recharge their cubes.
 
It's the difference between universal domination and an ***-kicking, I always say.
 
Remember the cube in the First Contact movie? Yeah, apparently they didn't get the memo and only used silver-plated cables. Look where it got them.

 

[beeman458]

That's because they're in an all fire hurry to conquer everything and they needed the speed of silver in which to do so.
 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by beeman458 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Now you're condescending.  Your above is a good example of why one shouldn't debate the issue.

Sometimes I come across that way.  That's the reason I came up my sig.  I probably could have phrased that post in a nicer fashion, but I'm just banging these things out without much proofreading.
 
More importantly we need to agree on the definition of something if we are to have a discussion about it.  Basically you seemed to be coming from a "digital = computer, computer = bad for music" sort of perspective.  I'm trying to tell you that the real world is mostly digital, therefore digital is capable of capturing the 'emotion' of real life.  One may argue about the resolution needed to capture all the detail of real life, but not about whether such a system is possible.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

What you haven't grasped, the anti-cable group, isn't basing their reasoning on facts but are basing their reasoning on deductions based upon flawed test data, based upon invalid test parameters to evaluate the data they're evaluating.  Convenient yes, debatable on a rational level, no.  So, in the end, there's no point.

Hey beeman! Mind telling us what test parameters are invalid and how they could be validated?
 
I feel like I'm in one of those terrible chat rooms where everyone's talking at once and there's always that one guy who comes in late and insists on cybering with everyone. Not sure why.

 

[beeman458]

I probably could have phrased that post in a nicer fashion, but I'm just banging these things out without much proofreading.
 
Fair enough.
 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

What you haven't grasped, the anti-cable group, isn't basing their reasoning on facts but are basing their reasoning on deductions based upon flawed test data, based upon invalid test parameters to evaluate the data they're evaluating.  Convenient yes, debatable on a rational level, no.  So, in the end, there's no point.

So you're saying The Tests Which Cannot Be Named are flawed and incapable of detecting the differences between cables?

 

[beeman458]

Hey beeman! Mind telling us what test parameters are invalid and how they could be validated?
 
Sure.  In an analogue world, even getting something right only ten percent of the time doesn't make for a negative; fail or guessing.
 
Since music is an emotional issue, tests need to be conducted at level of "Coming at you live from the brain."  And to what extent, brain centers light up.  No matter how much one wants, they're not going get empirical information at the level of asking one what they heard and basing conclusions on arbitrary pass or fail percentages.

 

[beeman458]

So you're saying The Tests Which Cannot Be Named are flawed and incapable of detecting the differences between cables?
 
There's no need to name any tests as they're all flawed or invalid; sighted, unsighted, double-blind, etc.  How can anybody debate flawed testing?  There's no point.
 
What I don't understand is why would anybody would find need to step on folks enjoying their cables other than it's some sort of power, insecurity thingy.  One doesn't get it.  Cool.  Another gets it, good for them.  What's any of it matter other than in the final, one group seems to not want another group to enjoy themselves?

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Hey beeman! Mind telling us what test parameters are invalid and how they could be validated?
 
Sure.  In an analogue world, even getting something right only ten percent of the time doesn't make for a negative; fail or guessing.
 
Since music is an emotional issue, tests need to be conducted at level of "Coming at you live from the brain."  And to what extent, brain centers light up.  No matter how much one wants to, they're not going get any valid information at the level of asking one what they heard and basing conclusions on an arbitrary pass or fail percentage.

So you say it's unfair that if a listener can't hear a difference between cables, we conclude that they can't hear a difference between cables?
 
And you're also saying that if the listener feels no different emotions between cables, that's not enough and we have to measure the brain to make sure there is a difference in emotions?

 

[beeman458]

So you say it's unfair that if a listener can't hear a difference between cables, we conclude that they can't hear a difference between cables?
 
Nope, didn't say that.  If somebody can't hear a difference, that doesn't mean they're not hearing a difference.  It's an analogue world.  All it means is the differences are below their noise threshold but that doesn't mean the differences aren't there.
 
And you're also saying that if the listener feels no different emotions between cables, that's not enough and we have to measure the brain to make sure there is a difference in emotions?
 
No, I'm saying that if you want the truth, you'll have to wire the listener's brain up and see what lights up.  Now you're in unequivocally valid territory.  Anything else is a waste of time because the way things currently are, it's all arbitrary.  Until tests are done in this fashion, there's no debate as it's all biased based subjectivity on the part of the test givers.

 

[Trogdor]

Quote:

Seriously though, why would you ever consider replacing your power cord with and aftermarket power cord. I can understand wanting to make one yourself, there's an enjoyment factor there, but buying an incredibly expensive power cord with silver contacts and diamond studded earrings just sounds CRAZY to me. From my understanding, there is no way your power is going to be any "cleaner" by having one of these cables. If you're power is dirty coming from your socket (which is highly likely) then a cable is worthless, invest in a AC/DC converter. Even if your fifty feet away from your socket that can't compare to the hundreds of feet of solid core copper in your walls, not to mention the cables going to your closest transformer. Am I missing something here?

To answer your original question:
 
No.  Not really.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

 
Sure.  In an analogue world, even getting something right only ten percent of the time doesn't make for a negative; fail or guessing.
 
Since music is an emotional issue, tests need to be conducted at level of "Coming at you live from the brain."  And to what extent, brain centers light up.  No matter how much one wants to, they're not going get any valid information at the level of asking one what they heard and basing conclusions on an arbitrary pass or fail percentage.

No, just no...  That's so wrong I'm not even sure where to start first.  It's not quite "not even wrong" but it's close.  Statistics has ways of working out if differences exist, even if one is not correct 100% of the time.  These kinds of tests never indicate anything better than chance guessing.  It's not just pass/fail because even though there is a definite answer and the claim is either true or not true, our limited senses and technology cannot give us a definite answer.  That's why error bars exist.  These tests do not positively prove that cables have no effect.  Positive proof exists only in pure mathematics.  The tests do show to a vanishingly small probability of error that any effect they do have is either 1) none at all, 2) completely inaudible, or 3) So tiny that only the best of golden ears can hear it.
 
The chances of cables turning out to have an effect the average audio enthusiast can easily discern are likely equal to to me seeing an apple fall upwards from a tree in my yard tomorrow and instantly having a flash of inspiration that completely rewrites the laws of gravitation and relativity in a fashion that is consistent with everything science know about them so far, and explains my one anomalous observation.  And I don't even have a apple tree in my yard.  The odds are very likely within that same order of magnitude.