| Originally Posted by jax /img/forum/go_quote.gif Amen. It certainly makes almost any day oh so much more enjoyable. |
| Originally Posted by ib1dance /img/forum/go_quote.gif You don't comprehend the health benefits of music as I do then and you are in the majority. And you don't believe or perceive that your living in the Rhythm of life .Maybe you think that is a irrational point of view.But you will be like me a creature of timing,pattern,movement and Rhythm. Their is in rational medicine a place for music.Their are hospitals in America( so I have read ) & maybe else where that are using music therapy on patients. The idea that life is based on Rhythms is not new, the 'term' Rhythm is getting used more and more in popular science especially when studying the natural world. Medicine is a cure at best Dance can be a prevention Those whom disagree simply are those whom have not given their all to it. But hey it wasn't that long ago that the popular opion KNEW the world was flat. As has been mentioned in this thread reality is ont a subject of the human brain.Life is not a popularity contest. In fact usually it's the minority who adapt enough in order to survive. |
| Originally Posted by jax /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1. There's no house in the field. |
| Originally Posted by jax /img/forum/go_quote.gif Let me make this very clear: I did not set out to take any kind of position on cable-theory here. If you read my posts I have taken no position one way or the other on that subject. I have been addressing "truth/reality" vs individual perception of same. As far as your question regarding cables and electron flow, and indications that can be quantified scientifically; I am not specifically defending cables at all. What I have pointed out that does address this is that human perception of what is real cannot be quantified by a machine. A far as my specific personal opinions about cables - I did not get that was the subject of this thread, so have not even offered one. I thought the thread was asking a response to the article referenced. Regardless, that was what I was responding to broadly. I've been sharing my reaction to reading that list, and to reading this guy's stuff long before this. I have a sincere curiosity about where BigCW is coming from, and what specific experiences with cables have lead him to such venomous statements about cable manufacturers. That is why I asked specifically about that topic as it relates to his statements. I'd, once again, just point to the possibility that the means available to us may only reveal some of what is there and not the whole of it. Just like the means we had at one point and were so sure of revealed the earth is flat, that smoking cigarettes was a harmless activity, that blood-letting cured disease, and on and on. I understand that you and others choose to embrace the current state of the art in analyzing such things, scientifically. I choose to, at the very least, remain open to the concept that there is more to what "is" than we can possibly explain or understand. My understanding of history has convincingly proven that to be the case to me, as I've pointed out. I find life is a whole lot more interesting when one is open to possibilities, as opposed to be closed-minded and limited by the dictates of any narrow path dictated by what others tell me. If we were to just accept what "is" at face value then a solid object would be just that. With the electron microscope we've discovered that is not the case at all. Has science reached it's apex? Do we finally understand and know everything that "is". I don't think so. I'd also not dismiss the idea that how an individual actually perceives the world, filtered through their perceptions, personal experience and expectations, and the human mind (which we have a rather limited understanding of at best). I would not deny anyone their perceptions of the world any more than I would reject my own. That does not mean that I'd agree that someone else's perceptions of the world was the "truth"...nor would I expect mine was 100% accurate (I'd certainly hope that the fundamentals were fairly accurate to what "is" of course). As far as the items on that list, I have offered no response whatsoever. |
| Originally Posted by jax /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorrry if my wording is confusing. I was absolutely not trying to say that someone who did not care for "A" would necessarily prefer "B". What I was trying to illustrate is that the data generated by what some embrace as an "objective" representation of what these audio components do will not necessarily indicate one way or another various individual's preferences for it because there is more at play than what the numbers actually indicate. |
| Originally Posted by adrift /img/forum/go_quote.gif The issue with skeptics is not whether one prefers the perceived sound of cheaper cables over the other, but that... as far as they can tell, there is no perceived difference in sound, either measurably or experientially. Preference has nothing to do with it. At least vanilla icecream not only phenomenally exists, but there's no debate that it does have taste, and a distinctive taste at that. That we may disagree on the taste doesn't mean it doesn't have taste, but that's somewhat harder to gauge with the sonic reproduction of music played through expensive cables vs. cheaper cables. Nothing measurable nor any change in subjective experience. There is no preference because there are no options. No blonde/brunette, no vanilla/chocolate, simply cable/cable. |
| Originally Posted by adrift /img/forum/go_quote.gif I knew it!!! Cased closed. We can all go home. jax, take these pills and call me in the morning. |
| Originally Posted by jax /img/forum/go_quote.gif BigCW - I have a question, simply out of curiosity based on the drive and zeal of your stated mission. I've only heard you mention cables, so I'll just keep my query to that subject since you seem to feel strongly about it. Can you tell me what cables you've tried and what comparisons you've made of them, and in what sort of systems, in order to come to the tightly held beliefs you maintain? I'm just curious what experiences you are coming from to have such a strong drive regarding these matters. |
| Originally Posted by TheBigCW /img/forum/go_quote.gif None. I have heard sweaty sweat shop cables and homemade RCA cables made from RCA-terminated hefty coaxial cables. However, stating that I cannot make these assumptions is like stating that I cannot state that there is traces of water on the moon without having visited it. It's accepted scientific knowledge, and rejecting some accepted scientific knowledge while following others wholeheartedly is unusual (for lack of a better word) |
| Originally Posted by jax /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, let me get this straight. You are waging a veritable crusade of informing an ignorant and innocent (audiophile) public, based upon assumptions that you have made, with absolutely no actual first-hand exposure or experiences to base those assumptions on? Furthermore, you are willing to publicly speak of people you've never actually met, and know really nothing of, and label them liars and thieves and con men, simply based upon those same "well-founded" assumptions, that you hold as truth because you've deduced as much from reason, logic and established scientific knowledge (which you obviously must believe to have a firm and thorough understanding of)? Have I got that right? |
| Originally Posted by TheBigCW /img/forum/go_quote.gif Almost right. I wouldn't describe it as a crusade. I know plenty about these people (I think you'd agree you don't have to know someone personally to judge them, for example Kenneth Lay). Other than that, you're mostly correct. |
| Originally Posted by jax /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, you got some big cojones, I'll give you that. Can you just imagine if the rest of the world conducted themselves with that level of integrity? If the scientists, engineers and statisticians you evidently have such great respect for, or at least for the information they provide you, suddenly decided they could draw conclusions from their own personal assumptions, with absolutely nothing in the way of experience to back up those assumptions...just simply statements like, "well, that ought to be obvious to anyone. I don't need to check that out myself!" If scientists and engineers started doing that we'd be in a heap of trouble. If Judges passed sentences because things were obvious to them based on their own assumptions, who was guilty and who wasn't....well I wouldn't want to live in that world. IMO, this kind of thinking, attitude and posting does a tremendous disservice to your hobby, and to this forum. If you are inclined to post about things you have absolutely no personal experience with, in a tone that suggests to anyone that you do speak from experience, I would suggest you include a disclaimer that says that you're basing these conclusions entirely on your own personal assumptions. Making public disparaging statements about people you don't even know, based on assumptions, is not only ridiculous, it demonstrates an utter lack of regard for others, and again, IMO, has no place in public forums that are supposed to be about sharing personal experience and information in a friendly way. This is certainly a part of the reason why the Internet has become the worlds greatest resource for misinformation. By the way, I am not suggesting that you go out and replace your "sweaty sweat shop interconnects", which I'm sure do a fine job for you. I'm simply saying if you offer opinions that are based entirely upon assumption and heresay, you should say so. The words, "liar, thief and cheat" really have no place on a forum like this, unless perhaps you are clearly using humor. Again, IMHO. |
