[1] Then you dont wake up and hear things differently, [1a] different would not to be hearing it more intense and annoying after a while then.
[2] If you could think that people are smart enough and have a playlist with reference songs that you have listened to hundreds of times for evaluating changes in system when new components are inserted, songs you know very well and you can focus on that one instrument and hear the one instrument different.
[3] Im confident in my hearing and
[3a] have an transparent system
[3b] where i have heard every change so far when trying new hifi components.
[4] So you think as soon you put on some HP and listen to your well known system with new ethernet cables there is going to be an Magical ilusion show?
1. Yes I do, as I explained, and so does every human being, although they may not be consciously aware of it.
1a. Huh, of course it is! If you hear something become more intense and annoying then BY DEFINITION, what you're hearing is "different". If you weren't hearing a difference then OBVIOUSLY you would be the hearing the same intensity and level of annoying, not more! Not surprisingly, you avoided actually answering the question (What do you think is causing that difference, a magic tap or perception?) and instead tried to define "different" as meaning the opposite. How does that make sense even to you?
2. Again, that's not the question I asked! If you play a music recording and then immediately play it again on the exact same system WITHOUT ANY CHANGES but you concentrate/focus on a specific/different instrument do you hear any difference? Without any exceptions I've ever encountered or heard of, all normally functioning humans do hear a difference or can very easily learn to if they've never tried concentrating/focusing on specific aspects/instruments of a music recording. So, AGAIN, what do you think is causing that difference, a magic system that knows what you're focusing on and changes it's output or, that your perception changes?
3. So, are you saying: A. That your hearing is never fooled, you didn't hear "faa" when you watched the video I posted, you can't perceive music or watch/enjoy a film and you're not susceptible to any of the aural illusions/biases to which all other humans are susceptible? Or B. That you are in fact a human being, you are susceptible to the aural illusions/biases of other human beings but you choose to completely ignore these demonstrated/proven facts and trust your perception of hearing anyway?
3a. Possible but unlikely.
3b. Sure with some components but not every component because some components either don't make any "change" or make changes well below audibility.
4. There's nothing "magical" about it, it's all proven/demonstrated facts! Again, I presume you watched the video I posted and you that you heard "faa" at times? You think maybe the video was made by a wizard using magic or by BBC engineers/film makers using standard film/TV equipment? But if you're asking me if I think there is going to be an "illusion show" then my answer is: Duh, of course there is, how is this not self-evident? Regardless of a new ethernet cable or anything else, "
as soon as you put on some HP and listen to" ANY audio recording (or use speakers), you WILL BE subject to an "illusion show". I can't believe I've got to explain this to someone professing knowledge in the subject, even to the point of publicly arguing about it but (sigh): With a 2-channel stereo system (headphones or speakers) we have just two sound sources, a left and a right speaker, however, much/most of what we hear appears to come from some position between the two speakers/headphones, often exactly central. So, do you think: A. There's an invisible speaker/headphone in this centre position or B. It's some "magical illusion show" or C. That stereo is actually a scientifically researched and calculated illusion patented by Alan Blumlein in 1932 that only works because it fools human perception?
[5] Who are you calling crackpot? Crackpot!
[6] The professionals are very good at making poor recordings quite often also so i hope you dont go and think your better then anyone else calling yourself a professional at certain times now. Maybe recording industry need stricter rules to follow that show them how to make better recordings and dont act on there own or what they do
[7] I think its also strange that you dont trust people and judge them beforehand as frauds.
[8] Dont worry about me i can think for myself.
[9] I find many of your views far-fetched.
5. Do you know what the word "crackpot" means? You've stated more than once that you trust your hearing, effectively that it is not being fooled and even mocked the idea that you are experiencing an illusion. You have therefore eliminated options "B" and "C" in the previous question, which leaves ONLY option "A" (there's an invisible speaker/headphone in this centre position) - If that's not "crackpot", then nothing is! I'm sure many flat-earthers think those of us who believe the earth is round are crackpots. However, they're the ones who are either ignorant of the proven/demonstrated facts or just choose not to accept them and so they're the ones who're crackpots!
6. Ah of course. You honestly think that the highly competitive professional positions of music recording, mixing and mastering engineers are based on who can make the worst recordings, that student engineers spend years studying how to make recordings poorer and that the recording industry picks the ones who're best at making poor recordings? Talk about "crackpot"! Oh, and engineers never "act on their own", they either "act on" instruction from the musicians and/or music producer or require approval for their actions from the producer, musicians or label. Clearly you have no experience and are ignorant of the "rules" of the recording industry and engineering roles, that shouldn't stop you from arguing with someone who does though, providing of course you want to be a CRACKPOT!
7. Not anywhere near as strange as you, continuing to make-up falsehoods/lies! It's a falsehood/lie because I do NOT "judge them beforehand as frauds". Also, if someone makes claims which clearly contradict the actual facts (without any reliable evidence) are you saying that you would trust them? Now that IS STRANGE! An example: If someone claims they've experienced seeing a flying pig we have 3 options: A. To assume they're ignorant of the basic principles of gravity and flight and have misinterpreted what they've experienced or B. To assume they are a fraud or C. We should trust them and accept that pigs really can fly! My personal default position is to assume "A", not as you've FALSELY stated "B"! However if it's a manufacturer making the claim, then my default position IS to assume "B", because it's almost inconceivable that they're ignorant of the basic principles of the equipment they're manufacturing. Your default position is apparently to trust them and accept that pigs really can fly. I don't need to personally listen to different ethernet cables to know there can't be an audible difference, just as I don't need to personally watch the life cycle of pigs to know that pigs can't fly!
8. No one can think (rationally) for themselves if they don't know or won't accept the proven/demonstrated facts!
9. Just as flat-earthers would find my view that the earth is round to be "far-fetched". Of course they're wrong, it's NOT "my view" that the earth is round, it's a proven/demonstrated fact. They're actually the ones with the "far-fetched" (or more accurately; ridiculous/lunatic) view and are therefore crackpots but of course they're never going to realise that unless they learn and/or accept the actual facts, which they won't because they're too invested in their view/belief, a crackpot catch 22!
[1] Listen.. because it's somehow critical to you to establish the why doesn't mean it is or should be to others. Reason why I said you're taking and making it YOUR
2. Intriguing. I wasn't aware of such case against the highly regarded Chord or any other audio business for that matter.
[2a] Assuming the description of what happened is accurate Chord's argumentation and testing methods are not so convincing to say the least :\
[2b] ... Chord's defence relies on ''the subjective nature'' which while rather weak, per definition can't be argued with. My take.
1. The "why" isn't necessarily critical but the "if" is: IF there actually is any difference/improvement. The "why" is important to some people and almost unavoidably so when it unequivocally answers the "IF" (which is the case here). So the question is; why are YOU "taking and making it YOUR", why do you want to suppress the "why"?
2. Why would you be aware? As you say, audiophiles hold Chord in high regard and obviously, neither Chord fanboys nor Chord themselves are going to publicise a case they lost, so who is going to publicise it? You would have thought that Chord's competitors would, but they can't, because they're in the same boat! So that leaves pretty much no one to publicise it. There's several cases of respected audiophile cable companies being caught red-handed and successfully called out on false claims but hardly any audiophiles ever get to hear about it.
2a. And there's the big red flag! There are "testing methods" that are highly reliable, cheap and relatively easy to perform (even for consumers, let alone for a manufacturer) that identify ALL differences and the results of which are rationally indisputable (ie. Completely "convincing"). So why didn't Chord present the results of such "testing methods" in their defence? In fact, why didn't they avoid the case in the first place and provide those results as part of their advertising? Why is it that no audiophile ethernet cable manufacturers ever publishes the results of such tests? It's because the tests prove there is no difference, as demonstrated in the test posted previously and by anyone who's done the test/tests themselves!
2b. Chord's defence relies on ''the subjective nature'' which is NOT "rather weak", it's completely inapplicable because they claimed actual differences, instead of imaginary/subjective differences based on biasing perception. So "per definition" not only can it "be argued with" but it SHOULD/MUST be argued with because at best it's misleading and at worst it's a cynical lie for the sole purpose of scamming consumers out of their money. My take!
G
