Sovkiller
Proved that despite its huge size the CD3000 can be shoved down one's throat.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2002
- Posts
- 12,902
- Likes
- 28
Quote:
I can substitute a few words there, and will be valid as well, but in a different approach...lets' see:
I don't know it all, I can't know it all, and nor have I ever claimed to know it all.
In your case maybe is not applicable but I could mention other which attitude is really arrogant that do believe they are always right.
Further, it is implausible and impossible for ANYONE to know it all.
We all know that, but they are so full of themselves sometimes that their attitude shows all the opposite...
So when someone says, "Cables have, will and could make an audible difference to anyone, anywhere, at any time, under any circumstance" - I must ask, how do they know it all? I'm afraid I'm just skeptical. What's worse, is when someone tells me I should just ditch my skepticism and believe someone like James Randi, and that he understands these phenomena better than others. To me, James Randi is just as kooky (read: suspicious) as the Machina Dynamica Teleportation tweak, or the Clever Little Clock...
What you CAN say, with some validity, is that there is a statistically low probability that someone may hear a difference...which is NOT any sort of conclusive proof, truth, or 'scientifically accepted' fact. Otherwise, you're providing JUST a subjective evaluation of some (hopefully) objective data - your honest opinion.
As indeed there should be less people able to hear those differences, as according to their arguments, you need a very good system, trained ears, the cables of course, and a golden ear to hear them, four conditions that must of the times are not together for the majority of us...see how it is a matter of seen the glass half full or half empty...BTW I do not like Randy approach neither, and I never said he knows it all, he is far from that OK?...I just mentioned the deal he made, which they did refused, not sure afraid of what, or why, as they were risking nothing, in comparison to a million bucks.
EVEN FURTHER, to equate some objective data value (R, C, N?), or a specific statistical relevance to a population as the sole indicator of a monetary/economic value is flawed as well. In short, the issue is MUCH more complex, and to say that some measurement should 'rule' the value of an audio cable is a reductionist attempt to limit the amount to information which may be relevant.
The monetary economic value is completely based only in the common sense, if you have it, bingo, but some of them simply lack of it IMO, there is no way in earth that my common sense will let me ditch $7000.00 on a pair of cables, if that will deprive me of the full enjoyment, so be it, will you agree or not? If you don't, please we have no further to discuss...
As well, to claim that ANYONE and EVERYONE who is involved or even potentially involved with an economic exploit which is not "backed-up" or "proven" by both "sound science" and "statistical relevance" is a snake-oil salesman is equally reductionist, and limits the amount of information which may be relevant to this discussion
The information should be provided by them in the first instance, and even if they do, again, do you agree that is logical to ditch such sums of money even if they prove they cables are the best on earth...could you offer me any kind of argument to make me understand the need of such tags...man it is hard for me to get the money OK? I was born poor, and will die poor, but not dumb...
| Originally Posted by yotacowboy /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't know it all, I can't know it all, and nor have I ever claimed to know it all. Further, it is implausible and impossible for ANYONE to know it all. So when someone says, "Cables have never, will never and could never make an audible difference to anyone, anywhere, at any time, under any circumstance" - I must ask, how do they know it all? I'm afraid I'm just skeptical. What's worse, is when someone tells me I should just ditch my skepticism and believe someone like James Randi, and that he understands these phenomena better than others. To me, James Randi is just as kooky (read: suspicious) as the Machina Dynamica Teleportation tweak, or the Clever Little Clock... What you CAN say, with some validity, is that there is a statistically high probability that someone may not hear a difference... which is NOT any sort of conclusive proof, truth, or 'scientifically accepted' fact. Otherwise, you're providing JUST a subjective evaluation of some (hopefully) objective data - your honest opinion. EVEN FURTHER, to equate some objective data value (R, C, N?), or a specific statistical relevance to a population as the sole indicator of a monetary/economic value is flawed as well. In short, the issue is MUCH more complex, and to say that some measurement should 'rule' the value of an audio cable is a reductionist attempt to limit the amount to information which may be relevant. As well, to claim that ANYONE and EVERYONE who is involved or even potentially involved with an economic exploit which is not "backed-up" or "proven" by both "sound science" and "statistical relevance" is a snake-oil salesman is equally reductionist, and limits the amount of information which may be relevant to this discussion. |
I can substitute a few words there, and will be valid as well, but in a different approach...lets' see:
I don't know it all, I can't know it all, and nor have I ever claimed to know it all.
In your case maybe is not applicable but I could mention other which attitude is really arrogant that do believe they are always right.
Further, it is implausible and impossible for ANYONE to know it all.
We all know that, but they are so full of themselves sometimes that their attitude shows all the opposite...
So when someone says, "Cables have, will and could make an audible difference to anyone, anywhere, at any time, under any circumstance" - I must ask, how do they know it all? I'm afraid I'm just skeptical. What's worse, is when someone tells me I should just ditch my skepticism and believe someone like James Randi, and that he understands these phenomena better than others. To me, James Randi is just as kooky (read: suspicious) as the Machina Dynamica Teleportation tweak, or the Clever Little Clock...
What you CAN say, with some validity, is that there is a statistically low probability that someone may hear a difference...which is NOT any sort of conclusive proof, truth, or 'scientifically accepted' fact. Otherwise, you're providing JUST a subjective evaluation of some (hopefully) objective data - your honest opinion.
As indeed there should be less people able to hear those differences, as according to their arguments, you need a very good system, trained ears, the cables of course, and a golden ear to hear them, four conditions that must of the times are not together for the majority of us...see how it is a matter of seen the glass half full or half empty...BTW I do not like Randy approach neither, and I never said he knows it all, he is far from that OK?...I just mentioned the deal he made, which they did refused, not sure afraid of what, or why, as they were risking nothing, in comparison to a million bucks.
EVEN FURTHER, to equate some objective data value (R, C, N?), or a specific statistical relevance to a population as the sole indicator of a monetary/economic value is flawed as well. In short, the issue is MUCH more complex, and to say that some measurement should 'rule' the value of an audio cable is a reductionist attempt to limit the amount to information which may be relevant.
The monetary economic value is completely based only in the common sense, if you have it, bingo, but some of them simply lack of it IMO, there is no way in earth that my common sense will let me ditch $7000.00 on a pair of cables, if that will deprive me of the full enjoyment, so be it, will you agree or not? If you don't, please we have no further to discuss...
As well, to claim that ANYONE and EVERYONE who is involved or even potentially involved with an economic exploit which is not "backed-up" or "proven" by both "sound science" and "statistical relevance" is a snake-oil salesman is equally reductionist, and limits the amount of information which may be relevant to this discussion
The information should be provided by them in the first instance, and even if they do, again, do you agree that is logical to ditch such sums of money even if they prove they cables are the best on earth...could you offer me any kind of argument to make me understand the need of such tags...man it is hard for me to get the money OK? I was born poor, and will die poor, but not dumb...
