[LawnGnome]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rb67 /img/forum/go_quote.gif What this thread has turned into:

This thread has turned into timber making a desperate attempt for freedom?

 

[tin ears]

I spoke to a guy yesterday who had 10,000 songs on his Ipod. I asked him if he had compared the sound quality of the new premium Itunes downloads to the standard ones.

He said why should I, I have never been able to tell a difference between song burn rates and I have a really good stereo. Now reread my original post in this thread (if you can still find it)

 

[peelax]

Here is a nice list of common practices in "pseudoscience" from an article about homoeopathy. I find it quite relevant to this debate and believe most boutique cables most definitely involve pseudoscience. I'm not going to go over every point, so I leave it to the reader to fit together the pieces:

Quote:

* Ignore settled issues in science: We know a great deal about the behaviour of water (and evolution, and other contentious topics), but there are many efforts to introduce new science without ever addressing the existing body of knowledge. As such, many of the basic tenets of topics such as homeopathy appear to be ungrounded in reality as we understand it. * Misapplication of real science: Quantum mechanics is an undeniably successful description of parts of the natural world, but the limitations of its applicability are widely recognized by the scientific community, if not the general public. Pseudoscientists such as homeopaths appear to cynically target this sort of ignorance by applying scientific principles to inappropriate topics. * Rejection of scientific standards: Over the centuries, science has established standards of evidence and experiment to ensure that data remains consistent and reproducible. But these strengths are presented as weaknesses that make science impervious to new ideas, a stance that is often accompanied by... * Claims of suppression: Pseudoscience is rejected because it does not conform to the standards held by the scientific community. That community is depicted as a dangerous hegemony that rejects new ideas in order to perpetuate a stifling orthodoxy. This happens in spite of many examples of radical ideas that have rapidly gained not only acceptance, but major prizes, when they were properly supported by scientific evidence. * A conclusion/evidence gap: Many areas of pseudoscience do not set out to examine a phenomenon but rather have the stated goal of supporting a preordained conclusion. As such, they often engage in excessive logical leaps when the actual data is insufficient to support the desired conclusion. * Focusing on the fringes: All areas of science have anomalous data and anecdotal findings that are inconsistent with the existing understanding. But those anomalies should not obscure the fact that the vast majority of current data does support the predominant theories. In the hands of a pseudoscientist, these unconnected edge cases are presented as a coherent body of knowledge that supports the replacement of existing understandings.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif Now you are, once again, just lowering the level of the debate. Your use of sarcasm amuses me though, considering YOU sent me a PM warning me and informing me you deleted my posts for their sarcasm. But since you don't seem to be able discuss things very well, I see no point in continuing with you. Anyone who enjoys organized, or any, debating actually, knows a person has no defense when they resort to ad hominem. Which you have time and time again resorted to. You really need to step back and look at things before you fire off another reply. You are starting to look very very foolish.

Most of the specifics I asked you about you ignored. Why? Don't you want to discuss things openly? The paper I referred to was an actual paper. It was not on the web, but actual ink on paper, or I would have gladly posted a link. Sorry, I do not have possession of it, and have no idea if it's published on the web. So, I'm not being evasive with you. If you would respond point by point to the questions I asked you, we might be able to have a more productive discussion. Then again, maybe we should close the thread since the inevitable train wreck happened and the horse is dead... I'll tell you what, I'll leave it up to you. Do you want an intellectually honest discussion or not? Let me know.

 

[kwkarth]

Lawngnome,
My mistake was to confront you openly about your attitude since you didn't respond to the PM's that I sent to you. I shouldn't have done that. I apologize to all for having done so. I've undeleted all of your posts so everyone can review this entire thread and see for themselves how you have conducted yourself throughout. Then they can review all of my posts to see how I have conducted myself through the thread. They will see I screwed up when I started trying to confront you directly in attempt to have honest discussion with you, but prior to that I made appeals for reason and decorum. Now that everything is in the open, where would you like to go with this? Do you truly want an honest discussion? If so, then let's do it! We can even start a fresh thread if you like and get all of this cruft out of the way. Let me know. I'm willing to own up to my mistakes so we can get back on the right track.

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Most of the specifics I asked you about you ignored.

I've noticed this as well. I find it hard to stay interested in a discussion when my posts either get responded to with a one liner or ignored altogether.

One thing that I will suggest, though I don't have much interest in such an experiment myself, is that LawnGnome should try to make it down to one of the next big Hamilton meets. As long as he keeps an open mind about the test, we can compare a few different cables 'my way'. At that point if he perceives a difference we can construct some sort of scientifically valid test to see what we find.

Either way, the Hamilton meets are usually lots of fun with good people, nice gear and usually a few choice beers.

EDIT: Also, I have to ask [and please don't take this as some sort of attack on your character], have you tried different cables in your system at some point or is your argument based purely on theory LawnGnome?

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've noticed this as well. I find it hard to stay interested in a discussion when my posts either get responded to with a one liner or ignored altogether. One thing that I will suggest, though I don't have much interest in such an experiment myself, is that LawnGnome should try to make it down to one of the next big Hamilton meets. As long as he keeps an open mind about the test, we can compare a few different cables 'my way'. At that point if he perceives a difference we can construct some sort of scientifically valid test to see what we find. Either way, the Hamilton meets are usually lots of fun with good people, nice gear and usually a few choice beers. EDIT: Also, I have to ask [and please don't take this as some sort of attack on your character], have you tried different cables in your system at some point or is your argument based purely on theory LawnGnome?

LawnGnome and BigShot are known trolls in cable threads. They only preach that there is not a difference between cables, even though more and more people reporting hearing a significant difference between cables.

I have had these discussions in other cablethreads before supported with links and scientific evidence.

All they can come up with is: the differences are inaudible. That's it really. if they can't win if you provide enough "evidence", this oneliner is their prove.

I know for sure BigShot never heard any decent high end cables!

Don't waste you're time on these people. Their mind is set like cement.

 

[sugarinthegourd]

Quote:

Don't waste you're time on these people.

Yeah, don't mind the skeptics.

I have a green shirt that makes food taste more delicious. People say this doesn't make any sense! But I know what I am tasting. We did a test once where a friend blindfolded me and put some identical shirts of different colors in front of me and I put them on one at a time, and tasted some food with each shirt. Turns out that my red shirt made the food taste better that day, go figure! I think maybe the green shirt only works when I've been wearing it for a few hours. Rapid shirt changes confuse my tastebuds.

Anyway, don't let the skeptics and double-blind testers try to trick you with their sneaky ways! We know what we are hearing/tasting!

I'm going to go put my green shirt on now -- it makes my Lean Cuisine taste like a gourmet meal!

 

[rb67]

I wouldn't go so far as to say they are trolls. They are just simply as passionate about cables not making a difference as people are that they do make a difference. Since the only solid evidence that cables do make a difference is only anecdotal, (from what I've seen, ever) they (your "trolls") certainly have solid ground to stand on to refute cable claims and really shouldn't be labeled as trolls. (Although LawnGnome's conduct has kinda deteriorated through this discussion)

The one unfortunate thing I've found is that cable "believers" often take the comments of cable "non-believers" to be personal attacks, which they rarely are.

 

[sugarinthegourd]

Hey, did someone delete my last post??

Why? It was very polite!

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarinthegourd /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hey, did someone delete my last post?? Why? It was very polite!

Your last post was nothing more than flame bait as all can see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarinthegourd Yeah, don't mind the skeptics. I have a green shirt that makes food taste more delicious. People say this doesn't make any sense! But I know what I am tasting. We did a test once where a friend blindfolded me and put some identical shirts of different colors in front of me and I put them on one at a time, and tasted some food with each shirt. Turns out that my red shirt made the food taste better that day, go figure! I think maybe the green shirt only works when I've been wearing it for a few hours. Rapid shirt changes confuse my tastebuds. Anyway, don't let the skeptics and double-blind testers try to trick you with their sneaky ways! We know what we are hearing/tasting! I'm going to go put my green shirt on now -- it makes my Lean Cuisine taste like a gourmet meal!

It's ok to have a world view, it's ok to take a position on "cable effects," but it's not ok to try and impose your views upon another.

I will give you and lawngnome a couple more hours to clearly declare your intent. Do you want open and honest discourse, do you want to drop this thread, or do you want to continue to stir up trouble? Then I will take appropriate action based upon your response.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rb67 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wouldn't go so far as to say they are trolls. They are just simply as passionate about cables not making a difference as people are that they do make a difference. Since the only solid evidence that cables do make a difference is only anecdotal, (from what I've seen, ever) they (your "trolls") certainly have solid ground to stand on to refute cable claims and really shouldn't be labeled as trolls. (Although LawnGnome's conduct has kinda deteriorated through this discussion) The one unfortunate thing I've found is that cable "believers" often take the comments of cable "non-believers" to be personal attacks, which they rarely are.

I will let them declare their intent, and whether or not they're trolls.

It is good to be passionate, but with passion MUST come mutual respect and understanding.

If by solid evidence, you mean DBT's conducted under questionable circumstances, with improper controls and biases, then yes, they have a "body" of evidence, such as it is. If you're referring to standard electronics theory, I can only say that such may be admitted as partial "evidence" because we cannot claim to know how to measure everything that people can hear. Partial evidence is no more substantive than anecdotal evidence.

Nevertheless, I encourage intellectually honest discussion in the pursuit of the truth. I will not encourage the invective that we've seen demonstrated thus far.

 

[Quaddy]

i am not into the science of cable materials one bit, but comparing a silver portioned cable to an all copper, i personally can hear a warmer less fatiguing, clearer, sharper sound to vocals and tracks.

in fact i am beginning to like the sound of the copper over the silver portioned cable, as sometimes it can be a bit too harsh vs the copper.

IMHO silver for me gives greater detail and transparency.

IMHO copper is more warmer, bassier and musical sounding

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif I will let them declare their intent, and whether or not they're trolls.

Here's my intent.

When I started out in hifi, my brother and a bunch of his friends took the time to show me how things worked. They gave me advice based on their years of experience putting together stereo rigs, pa systems and designing speakers. They told me what mattered and what didn't.

Because of this, I made some very good choices of equipment very early on. I'm still using my first turntable and the first speakers I ever bought. That solid advice saved me a LOT of money... money I was able to spend on other things- like music.

The guys who mentored me also shared with me their philosophy of being a hifi nut. They told me it wasn't about fancy equipment to impress your friends, it was about making your music sound great. It's all about the music.

They taught me how to do a systematic and organized listening test. I can tell you that I have irritated many stereo salesmen when I plunked myself down in a listening room with a yellow pad and a pile of CDs and spent half a day deciding on what I was going to buy. But I've never been disappointed with any of my purchases.

Logical thinking and systematic approaches to comparing equipment is the way you efficiently determine the weaknesses of your system so you can address them. Randomly chasing theoretical and anecdotal improvements get you nowhere except broke. Discussion of logic and sound ways to compare and measure qualty of various components is totally germaine to the discussion of sound gear. Banning discussion of scientific testing principles because you personally find the concept to be wrongheaded is nothing more than an attempt to stack the deck. (Another logical fallacy.)

I hope that my ability to share what I've learned in the past 30 years helps someone make smart choices on their own. The audiophile press, web and sales community is doing a criminally bad job of guiding people. All they seem to care about is generating revenue selling snake oil. Someone has to stick up for the individual hifi nut and arm him with the info he needs to put together a great rig without going into hock.

See ya
Steve

P.S. Peelax's quote was great.

 

[Sir Nobax]

I always love these "YES" "NO" "YES" "NO", discussions.

It is very easy to test if cables make a difference, just ask headroom to re-test the frequency (+ all other) graphs with a other cable.

Until the day I see such results I think all is in your head.

Btw, it is fun to see that a metal with a warm color (amber/orange), "sounds" warmer then a metal with a cold color (white/silver).
What a coincedense!!!!