Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Admit it: You weren't paying attention to sonic differences because you didn't expect them and they weren't the goal of the procedure. Moreover you don't hear differences among cables anyway.
|
Admit it? I would have thought that was abundantly clear from my post.
Regardless, your point is specious, at best, for the very reason stated in beefy's post.
Would I have heard differences if I were specifically seeking them? Perhaps. See? I'm willing to admit that. But here's the difference, I am aware that there are myriad possible reasons/explanations for such perceived differences of which the "science" (in quotes because, c'mon, it's been a pretty unimpressive display) mentioned in this thread is but one; placebo and psychoacoustics are just as likely, as are tin ears, and the list goes on.
The consistent vehemence (and, frankly, arrogance: "I believe it; therefore, it is so!") with which cable believers deny that their n of 1 findings could also be attributable to placebo effect, among other possibilities, confuses me. The only accomplishment of such denials is the damage to the believer's credibility.
To all you believers out there, your credibility is not increased by the death grip with which you hold on to your beliefs as "proof." Rather, it is only your willingness to accept and confront the reasons that you might be wrong that will really strengthen your arguments.
JaZZ and others, I don't question whether you perceived a difference in sound. Rather, I question your conslusions about the reason for that perceived difference. That debate rages on, and will continue to do so. And certainly nothing in this thread has moved the discourse forward.