[TopPop]

Quote:

Originally Posted by royalcrown /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually it's the exact opposite. You can only prove that things exist, and it's impossible to prove negatives - the scientific method is about discovery, not negation. Hence, the Santa Claus analogy given later. Unless you were being sarcastic, I couldn't tell...

Come to think of it, you may be right. Not about the Santa Claus thing (re: his existence!), but about about my response to it. If we found Santa Claus, we would prove that he exists. On the other hand, however, until he is found... we can't prove that he doesn't exist, like you said, I think.

So, wait, I was right in the first place. I can't disprove your old jolly fatman, but until you prove his existence, I don't have to believe it... ...?

I'm confused now.

All I know is that, in my field of science, very few things can ever be proven. Findings can be disproved, but we can seldom say that a certain event exists without a shadow of a doubt.

 

[bigshot]

It would be very easy to prove the audible effects of different types of cables. It would just mean careful measurements and establishment of audible thresholds. Guess what? All the basics were figured out at Bell Labs in the 1920s.

See ya
Steve

 

[breakfastchef]

Quote:

Originally Posted by royalcrown /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually it's the exact opposite. You can only prove that things exist, and it's impossible to prove negatives - the scientific method is about discovery, not negation. Hence, the Santa Claus analogy given later. Unless you were being sarcastic, I couldn't tell...

If we are going off on a tangent about 'burden of proof' through science, you are both right; and wrong - royalcrown and TopPop. Science is about discovery; it is about examining phenomena and both proving and disproving theory. Some will confirm popular notions while some investigation finds fault in the same notions. A true scientist will require substantive evidence to accept a finding as true and accurate. So, yes, science is all about proving negatives and positives as it applies to the language you have been using in this thread.

For me, my scientific proof are my ears. If I cannot hear it, it does not exist. I imagine the same could be said of every other Head-Fi forum member. For me, cables moke no difference unless they were cut by my wife to get me away from my headphone amp. Guys like me have it easy since we do not need to spend $500 on an interconnect.

 

[TopPop]

Quote:

Originally Posted by breakfastchef /img/forum/go_quote.gif For me, my scientific proof are my ears. If I cannot hear it, it does not exist. I imagine the same could be said of every other Head-Fi forum member. For me, cables moke no difference unless they were cut by my wife to get me away from my headphone amp.

Ahhh... the beauty of simplicity...

I agree whole-heartedly that the final test should be your own ears. If you have tried that ultimate test, and have come to the conclusion that, to your ears, cables don't make a difference, then I commend you for trying, and envy you for your less exacting hearing. I wish sometimes that my ears (or my tricky brain?) weren't so demanding.

Enjoy your music. I'm going to go enjoy dinner.

 

[royalcrown]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TopPop /img/forum/go_quote.gif we can't prove that he doesn't exist, like you said, I think.

Correct.
Quote:

Originally Posted by TopPop /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, wait, I was right in the first place. I can't disprove your old jolly fatman, but until you prove his existence, I don't have to believe it... ...?

Incorrect. Your original statement is (paraphrasing) "You can never prove things to exist"

I'm saying the opposite

"You can never prove things not to exist."

Quote:

Originally Posted by TopPop /img/forum/go_quote.gif All I know is that, in my field of science, very few things can ever be proven. Findings can be disproved, but we can seldom say that a certain event exists without a shadow of a doubt.

I'm using "prove" casually here - we're trying to see if a difference exists. Until we've proven a difference exists, we wouldn't say that, indeed the difference does exist. That sounds circular and confusing, and it is pretty convoluted to illustrate something: the basic claim is that a difference exists, with no proof to back it up.

Think about it this way: if a dude comes up to you and says he can jump 50 feet, your response would most likely be along the lines of "Yeah right. Prove it." He needs to prove the claim, because there's no way for you to definitively prove that he can't jump that high. He could show you, and then you could disprove his evidence by finding some crazy contraption that lets him cheat, but we haven't even gotten there yet. In the parallelism, it would be the guy just sitting there going "I can jump 50 feet in the air. I'm not going to show you because I know I can jump 50 feet in the air, and it's your job to show me how I can't jump 50 feet in the air."

Does that help illustrate the preposterous situation that has arisen?

 

[WindowsX]

I rekon someone did dummy head record from different cables with different FR. The fact that "cable may alter FR" can be true then. (Too bad I don't remember where it is)

 

[WindowsX]

hmmm.....
HD650 Silver Dragon cable is placebo
GS1000 Equinox cable is also placebo
ALO cables are also placebo
Kimber, Merrex, Cardas, Nordost, PAD, etc. are all placebo...

Let's stick with wire hanger, they're real

 

[royalcrown]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WindowsX /img/forum/go_quote.gif I rekon someone did dummy head record from different cables with different FR. The fact that "cable may alter FR" can be true then. (Too bad I don't remember where it is)

Sorry, that made no sense at all.

 

[breakfastchef]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WindowsX /img/forum/go_quote.gif Lets stick with wire hanger, they're real

Finally, someone being totally reasonable and rational.

 

[Maniac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WindowsX /img/forum/go_quote.gif hmmm..... HD650 Silver Dragon cable is placebo GS1000 Equinox cable is also placebo ALO cables are also placebo Kimber, Merrex, Cardas, Nordost, PAD, etc. are all placebo... Let's stick with wire hanger, they're real

Damn, I only got plastic and wood hangers, I've gotta go and get some wire hangers fast...

 

[TopPop]

Quote:

Originally Posted by royalcrown /img/forum/go_quote.gif Does that help illustrate the preposterous situation that has arisen?

Yes, thank you.

I still believe that cables can make a difference, though. Does that help illustrate the preposterous situation I'm in?

 

[LnxPrgr3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WindowsX /img/forum/go_quote.gif I rekon someone did dummy head record from different cables with different FR. The fact that "cable may alter FR" can be true then. (Too bad I don't remember where it is)

It can:
Speaker Wire -- Cable Resistance Too High?

Of course:

• It's not hard for cable to be adequate, at least for low-frequency analog signals (25kHz is not a high frequency in the scheme of things -- the thin wires in my SATA cables handle far, far worse)
• Different doesn't necessarily mean better

If a wire doesn't give me flat frequency response across the audio range (for an analog audio cable), it's broken, or at least inadequate for the job. If I need more highs, I'll trade my Sennheisers for Grados. If I put my headphones on and find myself listening to the radio without a radio receiver, I'm moving...

I just want my cables to do what I ask, without changing anything audibly. The question is, to how much trouble must I go to achieve this?

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TopPop /img/forum/go_quote.gif I still believe that cables can make a difference, though. Does that help illustrate the preposterous situation I'm in

I understand your preposterous situation. It's natural for humans to believe in things that aren't rational. If it *seems* true, you want it to be true. That's where the scientific method comes in to sort out the subjective from the objective.

See ya
Steve

 

[TopPop]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I understand your preposterous situation. It's natural for humans to believe in things that aren't rational. If it *seems* true, you want it to be true.

Okay, at least we're both on the same page and enjoying our music!

 

[feverfive]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif You aren't wrong. There are two types of cables... those that are conducting signal efficiently, and those that don't. If the level of efficiency is below the threshold of audibility, a cable will sound just like every other cable, if it isn't, you will hear a difference, and you should get a new cable. See ya Steve

It has taken me months to finally articulate it this way... I think there are differences in cables, but I agree: properly constructed cables sound the same. IF particular cables sound different, then they're doing something (due to poor construction/materials/etc.) to the signal that I don't want a cable to do. If I want to color my sound, I'll do it w/ something other than cables; for those that want tsuch coloration added by cables, more power to you. Just my opinion...