[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodbac I'm with Phil, though- unless someone specifically invites the discussion, let's remember that this forum is supposed to remain free of the requirements of proof for things like this.

As much as I'd like to agree with you completely -- this could be a first for us -- I would say that the forum is to be "DBT-free." I also think that your suggestion that "this forum is supposed to remain free of the requirements of proof for things like this" is not entirely accurate. Instead, I would say that "this forum is supposed to remain free of the insistence that a DBT or other scientific evidence be offered anytime someone wants to discuss or offer or seek advice on cables, etc."

 

[rodbac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS As much as I'd like to agree with you completely -- this could be a first for us -- I would say that the forum is to be "DBT-free." I also think that your suggestion that "this forum is supposed to remain free of the requirements of proof for things like this" is not entirely accurate. Instead, I would say that "this forum is supposed to remain free of the insistence that a DBT or other scientific evidence be offered anytime someone wants to discuss or offer or seek advice on cables, etc."

I'm assuming you're meaning to say that this forum should remain DBT-free even if someone asks a question that would require discussion of them, in which case I'd ask where else you think the discussion should go.

I think I have to agree with you, though- the mods are the first and last word on the subject and if they say "NO DBT" (for whatever reason), that's what should be law whether someone's seeking a reasoned discussion or not.

I also don't mean to imply that I think anyone asking about cables is implicitly asking for the mention of DBT (et al) (and didn't really say that, I don't think). In other words, I don't think asking about cables necessarily "invites the discussion."

I do, however, think that when someone asks something to the effect of "is there any proof for things like this", then it's fully warranted to mention that no, there is not, and in fact there is overwhelming evidence against it.

 

[maarek99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodbac Then you're the perfect candidate to put all of this 'skeptic' nonsense to rest- you'll have no trouble whatsoever in a DBT and if I were you, I'd be eager to participate.

I could DBT at my home alone, but it's still just my word. We would need more people to participate in it to make it "scientific".

 

[rodbac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by maarek99 I could DBT at my home alone, but it's still just my word. We would need more people to participate in it to make it "scientific".

Actually, to be clear, no, you can't DBT at home alone by definition, and you'd need more than a few more people to make it scientific.

It would have to be set up to eliminate the explanations that exist for the reported phenomena (DBT), it would have to be repeatable (well-documented), and you'd have to be able to analyze your results properly, just for beginners.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodbac I do, however, think that when someone asks something to the effect of "is there any proof for things like this", then it's fully warranted to mention that no, there is not.

I'm glad about the DBT-free zone. A forum like Head-Fi isn't meant to discuss scienctific research, but just to exchange experiences. You can trust them or not, you always have to decide, not just in the context of cables. It's ridiculous to call for proofs in a forum like this. And of course it shows a certain fanatism. I'd call you the «Mike Scarpitti of cables». Did you know that there are anti-UFO fanatics?

 

[rodbac]

Quote:

And of course it shows a certain fanatism. I'd call you the «Mike Scarpitti of cables». Did you know that there are anti-UFO fanatics?

Ok, so now it's the person asking for proof who is considered the "fanatic". So noted.

Quote:

Did you know that there are anti-UFO fanatics?

There are anti-EVERYTHING fanatics. And?

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodbac Ok, so now it's the person asking for proof who is considered the "fanatic". So noted.

I wonder why you wonder. Considering your own statement:

Quote:

There are anti-EVERYTHING fanatics.

Of course there are all sorts of fanatics, not least in the form of hyper-rational people. For some of them everything that's not mapped by science is a threat and therefore denied.

 

[rodbac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ I wonder why you wonder. Considering your own statement: Of course there are all sorts of fanatics, not least in the form of hyper-rational people. For some of them everything that's not mapped by science is a threat and therefore denied.

You're not making sense now.

UFOs are an entirely different situation. Some of the strongest supporters of the idea, in fact, are the staunchest advocates of the scientific method (read any of Sagan's books for starters).

As a matter of fact, science is what dictates that we remain open to the idea! We know that there is intelligent life in at least one star system and we know that there are more stars in the universe than any of us can even begin to hope to comprehend- until we have proof otherwise, we know the possibility exists.

The only connecting thread between your UFO fanatics and people you want to portray as "fanatics" here is the fact that each of them don't believe in something. You're ignoring whose side has evidence here, which is the most important criteria (I'd submit) in deciding who's being "fanatical" (a term I've never used to portray anyone here, btw).

[edit]

You're also ignoring the fact that the factors at play here are indeed "mapped" by science extremely well. There is nothing unexplained going on with any of this- it's just that people don't like the explanation. It's not as fun.

 

[meat01]

I vote for other. Save yourself the money and stick with the stock cable.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodbac UFOs are an entirely different situation. Some of the strongest supporters of the idea, in fact, are the staunchest advocates of the scientific method (read any of Sagan's books for starters). As a matter of fact, science is what dictates that we remain open to the idea! We know that there is intelligent life in at least one star system and we know that there are more stars in the universe than any of us can even begin to hope to comprehend - until we have proof otherwise, we know the possibility exists.[/i]

Yes, that's exactly the point. Nevertheless there are fanatics on both sides, not just the UFO believers who are much more suspicious to be fanatics, but also people who are filled with hatred against UFO advocates. And these are people who see themselves as rationalists.

Quote:

The only connecting thread between your UFO fanatics and people you want to portray as "fanatics" here is the fact that each of them don't believe in something.

Correction: anti-UFO fanatics, UFO-nonbelievers, -deniers; which isn't the same as people who don't believe in anything, but keep an open mind nonetheless.

Quote:

You're ignoring whose side has evidence here, which is the most important criteria (I'd submit) in deciding who's being "fanatical" (a term I've never used to portray anyone here, btw).

I'd say it's you who's ignoring evidence, and you don't even notice it. There are much more audiophiles who can hear cable differences than such who can't, at least with Head-Fi as a reference.

Quote:

You're also ignoring the fact that the factors at play here are indeed "mapped" by science extremely well. There is nothing unexplained going on with any of this - it's just that people don't like the explanation. It's not as fun.

It's this point of view of yours which is fanatic IMO. You see nothing unexplained, all is explained extremely well, while there's in fact very few really explained in audio, on a certain level of sound quality. So modern amplifiers with different designs -- let's talk of solid-state -- produce very distinct sonic characteristics and at the same time almost indistinguishable measuring results. Something you've always tried to sweep under the carpet. I suspect that science would find an explanation in the end if the issue was of higher importance. And yes, cable effects are by far not mapped by science so far. And as much as you like to believe so, there's no physical law that forbids them to cause sonic differences. Keep an open mind!

 

[rodbac]

Quote:

Yes, that's exactly the point. Nevertheless there are fanatics on both sides, not just the UFO believers who are much more suspicious to be fanatics, but also people who are filled with hatred against UFO advocates. And these are people who see themselves as rationalists.

You're still missing the point: who would be the "rationalist" here? The person whose beliefs are based on the evidence or the person who wants to ignore that evidence?

Quote:

I'd say it's you who's ignoring evidence, and you don't even notice it. There are much more audiophiles who can hear cable differences than such who can't, at least with Head-Fi as a reference.

Incorrect- there is a mountain of evidence, and NONE of it is composed of anecdote from Head-Fiers. You fixed your own mistake with what follows your last comma.

I'm not trying to argue this point back and forth, Jazz- I'm perfectly willing to let sleeping dogs lie and leave this issue alone until you try to pretend there is something we don't know about a 20KHz electrical signal going across 10 feet of copper.

Quote:

I suspect that science would find an explanation in the end if the issue was of higher importance.

There is nothing without an explanation here. Sorry. If you don't like the explanation, you have to do nothing more than disprove it, which would be done point-set-match with one successful, repeatable DBT of adequately designed cables. Now all you have to do is talk someone with the resources into doing it (and there are countless numbers of them).

 

[jude]

This is a DBT-Free forum. It's not a "DBT-Free If You're Cool With That" forum.

 

[rodbac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jude This is a DBT-Free forum. It's not a "DBT-Free If You're Cool With That" forum.

End of discussion, then.

 

[PhilS]

Frankly, I'd like to see this forum go the way of the cable forum on audio asylum, which I believe is not only DBT free, but recently decided to ban posts that basically argue that science means there can't be any differences in cables. I don't have any problem with anyone offering opinions to the effect that (1) they didn't hear any difference with a certain cable, or (2) the slight difference they heard was not worth the money, etc., but repeated posts to the effect that "there is no scientific evidence that one cable is better than another," or "there is no scientific proof that one can hear differences in properly constructed cables," violates what I assume is the spirit and intent of this forum as much as a DBT argument. And virtually EVERY SINGLE thread on this cable forum where someone asks about trying a new interconnect or headphone cable is nowadays polluted by the same DBT/science arguments. Some of these arguments are very valid points, but it would be nice to have a place where we can be free of them and where the discussion is only about what we hear with our ears. If people want to argue the science and DBT, they should go somehere else, IMHO. (And I may be in there with them jousting with our worthy adversary, rodbac.)

 

[Darwin022]

Wow, ok, I go to sleep and come back to this

I guess I'll add "A UFO" and a "Debate" to my list of choices now...
Quote:

Originally Posted by Geek Whatever you buy, only go through with an aftermarket cable for the Sennheisers if you already like their sound, and just want to make what you already hear slightly better. I haven't ever heard a cable transform a piece of equipment's sonic qualities dramatically before. Cheers, Geek

I know this, I do like the way the 600s sound, It would be nice to have them at their full potential though. Thanks for your input guys.