[haloxt]

Look at how these anti-cable people have derailed this thread. There is no way in hell I will ever do a real post in a cable thread so long as these jokers are around. Seriously, just give pro-cable people a private thread where we can cuss and vent out our frustration.

Not to mention, didn't you say you noticed a difference from the audio-gd power cable, mbd2884? Or you changed your mind?

 

[null_pointer_us]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yotacowboy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Fortunately, you could be wrong - and there lies the issue. "Faulty premise" or not, everyone might be wrong sometimes and we may even be wrong more often than not. Some people are aware of this, and post using terms such as "YMMV," or "IMHO." I've yet to see similar compassion towards the complexity of reality in many posts claiming to bear a "truth" or a "fact". Remember, our scientific constructs are inherently estimations, and therefore inherently incomplete. Clinging only to "rationality" as a predictive tool or argumentative device is worthwhile, but is, too, inherently incomplete.

I wasn't "clinging only to 'rationality'" or demanding proof of subjective impressions of analog cables; I merely explained that subjective impressions of the relative SQ of digital cable are absurd because they are logical impossibilities (i.e. "observations" which are in fundamental conflict with the things being observed). Why people keep completely misrepresenting what I'm claiming immediately after I've specifically explained it, for the umpteenth time, is beyond me. However, these continual straw men, and all the insulting remarks that accompany them, are misleading and offensive. As promised, your post is getting reported to the moderator.

 

[Aimless1]

Null, you don't seem to handle disagreement well. Perhaps if you spent less time trying to win and more time sharing your views as to why or why not there should be a separate forum/thread protecting cable believers and/or a special sticky as PhilS proposed, we might further the progress of this thread.

PhilS, I apologize for anything I've done to derail this discussion. As I thought about this thread I was reminded of statement that makes sense to me, but not to everyone:
"You may have the right to do or say something, but it may not be the rightthing to do!" In the final analysis I believe this is the crux of what you're getting at. The lack of courtesy of one cable camp to the other actually makes a protected zone for cable believers necessary IMHO. Others are free to disagree (and no doubt they will).

Whether we continue with the current system or establish a protected cable believer forum, I pity the moderators trying to enforce some decorum of courtesy. I'm sure they would rather not be cable cops.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG POPPA /img/forum/go_quote.gif olblueyez, these guys just kill me with zero proof of their own to prove their point.

Well, I have a moderately long thread detailing the lack of notable measurable differences between vastly different cables, of course it is just a small sample of all cables but it does include several different topologies, combinations of materials and connector types.

I can also point to my own positive DBT ABXing of small differences between CD players, my own inability to detect cable differences under the exact same test circumstances (comparing cables from 77c to $139) and the inability of anybody to do the same with samples of recordings made from different cables made publicly available. They are on my thread if you would like to try them.

The same process was used to compare both CD players and cables and the protocol, though crude, allowed differences between CD players to be detected reliably, negating an argument against the AD quantizaton stage, yet for cables the differences were not detectable. The differences between cables were an order of magnitude lower than those between CD players.

More to the point even the small measurable (but inaudible) differences between cables were only small differences in amplitude on different *random* frequencies, there was no pattern to the differences, no cable exhibited a roll-off, a suck-out or a low-end attenuation compared to any other. The cables behaved in exactly the same way, Silver, Silver-plated, Stranded copper, Solid copper, 77c and $139 and points in-between , all functionally identical.

Investigating the CD player differences I found that simply adding the average amplitude differences across the audible spectrum to the quieter samples made even those differences go away.

 

[olblueyez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG POPPA /img/forum/go_quote.gif olblueyez, these guys just kill me with zero proof of their own to prove their point. Why is it on the guy's on the other side of the fence? Mmbd2884 has never proven his point. Just made opinion!

I know it, thats why I am always there to point out what they are really doing. If someone was going to prove all cables sound the same it probably would have been done years ago. Another reason I stay is because it took me a lot of money and time to hear these differences and someone who has no experience, no cables to compare and this person is going to ask me for "PROOF". My answer to that is invest in your own hobby and then you come and tell me if you can hear a difference. I have the proof I need, go get your own proof=experience.

YES, lets have a section for cable "Impressions".

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif I know it, thats why I am always there to point out what they are really doing. If someone was going to prove all cables sound the same it probably would have been done years ago. Another reason I stay is because it took me a lot of money and time to hear these differences and someone who has no experience, no cables to compare and this person is going to ask me for "PROOF". My answer to that is invest in your own hobby and then you come and tell me if you can hear a difference. I have the proof I need, go get your own proof=experience. YES, lets have a section for cable "Impressions".

Actually in this community and elsewhere such as the Rec.Audio hierarchy you will find several audiophiles who have expensive stereos, have many years listening experience, have experimented with expensive different cables and stll concluded that they find no audible differences.

To suggest that the cable skeptics are all just people with cheap stereos, poor ears and no direct experience is quite incorrect and I am sure deep down you know this to be true.

Similarly there are people with modest systems and minimal listening experience who believe they have found differences between cheap cables.

 

[hybris]

I don't think you'll ever solve this problem completely. How about starting with moderators that pay a bit more attention and moderate/delete posts with personal insults plus PM the posters warning them that they'll be banned if they repeat n times.

And when someone sounds "sciency" in a cable impression post, the cable belivers can simply ignore his post - and I'm sure whoever tried to save the world get tired of it quite quickly.

 

[PhilS]

This thread is becoming a nice example of the problem I identified at the beginning of the thread. This thread is not intended to be a discussion about whether cables make audible differences. It is intended instead to be more of a discussion about "procedure," for lack of a better word, i.e., what guidelines or structures, if any, should be employed to address the problems identified in my initial post -- which problems have been observed by many others.

Please, let's not make this yet another thread with discussions about whether cables make an audible difference. If you want to discuss that, I'd ask that you start another thread -- hopefully in the Sound Science forum. And I think it is possible to address the "procedural" issue without delving into the "audible difference" issue, which will only start fights.

Thanks for your understanding.

 

[haloxt]

You sure you want to censor anti cable people, PhilS? Because there is no proof of cable differences.

/sarcasm off

 

[null_pointer_us]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aimless1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Null, you don't seem to handle disagreement well.

Well, that is the difference between perception and reality. I welcome disagreement; however, no one seems willing to discuss the claims I've actually made. Everyone who tries to counter what I've said begins by pretending I said something else, no matter how many times I point out the difference. It's truly frustrating. If I respond, I get blasted for disruption; if I don't respond, people just assume that the claims being falsely attributed to me are the ones I made.

Quote:

Perhaps if you spent less time trying to win and more time sharing your views as to why or why not there should be a separate forum/thread protecting cable believers and/or a special sticky as PhilS proposed, we might further the progress of this thread.

That's a good observation, but I already shared my views on this subject and stepped back. As I've said before, there's room for disagreement and personal impressions in analog cables, because that's where those observations are quite possibly real. Possible = valid premise for discussion. Since then, I've been primarily focused on defending myself from people who persist in distorting my viewpoints or the discussion itself. I should point out that, when other people are being insulting, my responses aren't the sole cause of disruption.

Quote:

I pity the moderators trying to enforce some decorum of courtesy. I'm sure they would rather not be cable cops.

This I can agree with. On any forum, I hate even thinking about reporting posts, but some stuff is just way up over the top, and the bottom line is that I can't keep responding to every mischaracterisation. I'm very grateful to you for writing a nice, polite post that didn't automatically cast me into some anti-cable stereotype if I hadn't responded. And you gave me a chance to explain what's going on. Hopefully there will be less of the pro-/anti-cable talk and more of the how-can-we-agree-to-disagree-without-misleading-or-ignoring-each-other talk.

 

[keesue]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacd lover /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here is where I think the line should be drawn. If any OP requests in his opening post that no posts questioning the validity of cable differences be made .... their request should be respected.

I think this says it all. In one of my first posts, I recounted the incident in San Francisco when Monster introduced their speaker cable in an invitational focus group to test their notion that cable made a difference in sound. That demo ended up in an acrimonious fight where the non-believers were vociferous in their ridicule of those who heard. This was in late 1976, if my memory serves me correctly, when the concept of paying more for anything other than lamp cord was foolish and to acknowledge a difference in sound was herectical. An industry was born. My post was to say that nothing has changed since.

PhilS raised a good point which was summarized by sacd lover quite succinctly. I would welcome the notion of the skeptics refraining from ridiculing and objecting to cable reviewers so they can share their impressions with other like-minded people without insult. It would be so much easier to appreciate their views without having to wade through endless objection and argumentation. I have always found it a fasinating area of the hobby.

I standardized on Mogami for my interconnects because that's what the studios use. I felt safe in that expediture. They were cost-effective and most importantly [for me] allowed the diversion of my spend to higher end equipment. I posed the question if there could be a difference given the studios use Mogami, not as a challenge, but to hear the impressions of those who do. I am not closed-minded to the notion. In fact, I bought those prototype monster speaker cables that day before I got ta steppin'.

I'll defer to the snipers now...<end of dribble>

 

[null_pointer_us]

keesue, as I said before, that'll end up in situations where people are claiming to hear differences in things (i.e. digital cables) where those differences are not just doubted by some people, but a logical impossibility. So that suggestion would only work properly for analog cable threads.


Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif You sure you want to censor anti cable people, PhilS? Because there is no proof of cable differences. /sarcasm off

Well, he's not advocating censorship, nor AFAICT does anyone actually believe he's advocating censorship. He's just stating that it's off-topic, in this thread. And so is the sarcasm, and this response to the sarcasm ... understand?

 

[Aimless1]

Agree or not, many people simply do not care about the science, DBT, logic nor proof. They do care about what they hear. Therefore it simply does not matter if they are right or wrong as it relates to proof, from their POV.

They simply want the ability to post unmolested by those who believe otherwise. IF someone begins a thread requesting no discussion of the science behind cables, should they do so without be challenged, harrassed and harrangued? I've noticed many skeptics think this is unacceptable for what appears to me (a cable skeptic) self righteous reasons. I believe otherwise. I believe they should have that right. For them subjective opinions are valuable and meaningful. Logic, DBT and scientific facts have no bearing for them, nor should it be part of the discussion when asked not to include it.

Many here seem to believe if it is wrong (as defined by them) then the opinions should not be allowed to stand unchallenged. Again, I disagree with what to me is an extreme position. To me, this is akin to the NRA (National Rifle Association) and their politics in action. My way or the highway is what I hear.

I seem to recall the pendulum had swung towards the cable believers originally. Now it has swung to the cable skeptics. IMHO it needs to swing back to neutral ground where both sides can express their views individually, freely without hassle from the other "side". There will no doubt be many threads where both are welcome to post.

 

[keesue]

Quote:

Originally Posted by null_pointer_us /img/forum/go_quote.gif keesue, as I said before, that'll end up in situations where people are claiming to hear differences in things (i.e. digital cables) where those differences are not just doubted by some people, but a logical impossibility. So that suggestion would only work properly for analog cable threads.

Point well taken on digital cables as I would tend to agree that most would have a harder time with that one; however, I think the same principle of respect can still apply. If the poster hears a difference, I think that opinion should be respected media notwithstanding. And please note, I do not object to contrary viewpoints, I am just ratifying the notion of a healthy dose of respect.

 

[haloxt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by keesue /img/forum/go_quote.gif My post was to say that nothing has changed since.

The definition of sarcasm must've changed in the last 30 years, because I have no frickin' clue what null_pointer_us just said.

Now I am dead serious, can we have a private anti-anti-cable thread where we can use profanity? There's such a bad taste in my mouth right now that's the only kind of cable thread I feel like posting in for a long time to come.