Why pick on cables ?

[bigshot]

Everybody has a choice to which cult you want to join

Science is not a cult, and your subjective delusions belong to you and nobody else.

 

[Davesrose]

I suggest reading the audibility in cables paper before dissing it

I'm sorry, what "paper" are you talking about? The screenshot you brought up as absolute science? It's obviously a missive about Amir being mean with him. It's hardly a science paper. I'm supposed to think this is anything science based because there's a claim people are uncomfortable with uncertainty while the passage is about how Amir has done this author wrong?

 

[theveterans]

I'm sorry, what "paper" are you talking about? The screenshot you brought up as absolute science? It's obviously a missive about Amir being mean with him. It's hardly a science paper. I'm supposed to think this is anything science based because there's a claim people are uncomfortable with uncertainty while the passage is about how Amir has done this author wrong?

https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=979

BTW, Listeners can detect differences between cables that are IDENTICAL in FR. In other words, you're measuring the wrong parameter. FR does NOT tell anything about cable audibility whatsoever

 

[FreeWheelinAudioLuv2]

I love buying cables. Cable rolling rocks!

I love buying the newest and latest tips. Tip rolling kicks azz!

I love source rolling. Obsessed with it!!

I love audio. It's life.

My science is my ears. My reality is my proof. My recommendations is my currency. You either buy it or you don't. That's audiophilia, folks. You do you.

 

[perrew]

http://www.aes.org/forum/?ID=979&c=6281
""This DAC has two isolated buffered pairs of analog outputs — single-ended RCA and balanced XLR"

This to me sounds like a severe confounding variable in the experiment, unless it was the explicit intention to test balanced vs. unbalanced, which is not clear from the rest of the paper.

The abstract says:

"the present work was able to prove through direct psychoacoustic testing that two different analog-interconnect pathways can be audibly distinguished."

I think a fairer and more specific summary of the experiment, was that it was demonstrated that listeners can distinguish between balanced and unbalanced interconnections, which is interesting in itself despite being less general than implied here."

 

[castleofargh]

https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=979



BTW, Listeners can detect differences between cables that are IDENTICAL in FR. In other words, you're measuring the wrong parameter. FR does NOT tell anything about cable audibility whatsoever

Great, now it's Kunchur.
Just to be clear for those who sometimes care about facts. Beside the very many questionable aspects of his work(not necessarily easy to avoid when trying to control so many things and having to make so many almost arbitrary decision about the setup), and the easily misleading phrasing I suspect he uses on purpose to try and get research money from the audio industry, Kunchur himself explained in the comments(from the link above):

The wording of the conclusions and title state that "cable pathways" (which includes topology as well as the cables) and not just "cables" or just "topology" (i.e., balanced versus unbalance) produce an audible difference. As stated in the paper, to my knowledge, this may represent the smallest change in an audio system proven to be discernable through IRB approved blind listening tests.

The entire single ended VS balanced and associated cables may represent the smallest change in an audio system proven to be discernable... And that's from the mouth of maybe the most controversial researcher in the last few years for our hobby.

And of course nobody has ever claimed that if FR is the same then there can be nothing else audible. That's yet another fallacy to try and create an enemy that looks as nonsensical as your own posts. Nobody believes that FR graphs contain all the audible information of a signal, not for cables, not for anything. A FR graph tells us about FR and even then, the method used and the system used could severely limit the conclusions even about FR.
FR when changes are important, tends to be the main cause of perceived difference, but again, nobody ever said that FR was the only sonic variable(obviously).







The more you post, the deeper you fall into us vs them extremism, and the more you try to manipulate instead of convince through proper arguments. You keep playing the subjectivist vs bad absolutist card, but IMO, that too is BS. You're dragging subjectivists who for the most part did nothing wrong into your mess. Most modern subjective views still recognize that there is an objective reality, or at the very least, recognize that they're not god creating reality with their mind for everybody else. If your subjective reality is different from mine, and you keep trying to convince me that yours is the true real one, you're not a subjectivist, you're closer to a megalomaniac.
Anytime you acknowledge complexity and variety of situations and experiences, you right after make some outlandish generalization in the form of some statement so simple, absolute, and factless that even you should see the paradox and double standard involved.
This has gone on and on for a while, soooooo....

Modo role-play:
At this point I believe it pointless and a disservice to others to let you spam threads with no regard for fact, method, or logic in a subsection about sound science. It's harder and harder not to see you as a troll. I'm only locking you out of this one for now. But depending on how little effort you make to have a coherent argument in the rest of the section, it might extend to more threads and ultimately the entire subsection. It's extremely rare that I act on someone who doesn't repeatedly and violently insult people. Consider that, please.

 

[bigshot]

At this point I believe it pointless and a disservice to others to let you spam threads with no regard for fact, method, or logic in a subsection about sound science. It's harder and harder not to see you as a troll. I'm only locking you out of this one for now. But depending on how little effort you make to have a coherent argument in the rest of the section, it might extend to more threads and ultimately the entire subsection.

Thank you. You really didn’t need to go to the trouble of the explanation above this paragraph because he won’t read it, but maybe someone else will benefit from it.

I don’t think he’s a troll. I think he’s attention starved and even negative attention is what he craves.

 

[gregorio]

Now the troll has been thankfully booted out, this has less meaning but some might still be interested in a response.

Everybody has a choice to which cult you want to join (subjectivists that pursuit objectivity or objectivist absolutist).

What even are “subjectivists that pursuit objectivity”, isn’t that an oxymoron? And, I’ve never heard of an “objectivist absolutist”, I don’t think such a thing even exists. So apparently, my and everyone else’s choice is between an oxymoron cult and a cult that doesn’t exist, that’s a tough one, can I phone a friend? lol

At least, I'd rather learn from an actual professor on a university than self-proclaimed absolutists

Firstly, you’ve proven that to be a lie, you definitely refused to learn from me. Secondly, I’d rather learn about audio from an expert in audio rather than a professor in physics/astronomy who has repeatedly shown significant acumen in physics but a shocking level of ignorance (and dishonesty) in audio.

I suggest reading the audibility in cables paper before dissing it

I have read it and his two or three other papers on audio, where he makes basic mistakes even an undergrad would be embarrassed of. And, as already mentioned his paper isn’t about the “audibility in cables” it’s about “cable pathways between audio components”, can’t you even read the title of what you’re citing?

My science is my ears. My reality is my proof.

If you don’t know what science is, it might not be wise to post assertions about it in a science discussion forum. If you’re interested in the science/facts then by all means feel free to ask any questions you may have but making false assertions about science is not acceptable here.

G

 

[2leftears]

Folks,

Now that @castleofargh has taken the highly unusual action of locking @theveterans out of this thread, and made clear why (thanks; this 'debate' had run its course (p)ages ago), let's do the right thing and draw a line under it all since he can no longer defend himself against what he may well interpret as unfair criticism or even personal criticism, whatever your point of view. So no snidey last-word posts, please.

 

[colonelkernel8]

I love buying cables. Cable rolling rocks!

I love buying the newest and latest tips. Tip rolling kicks azz!

I love source rolling. Obsessed with it!!

I love audio. It's life.

My science is my ears. My reality is my proof. My recommendations is my currency. You either buy it or you don't. That's audiophilia, folks. You do you.

Neat. Go do that anywhere but here then. Thanks.

 

[bigshot]

I think more thread bans, including more frequent 24 hour and one week ones would solve a lot of our problems here. It would stop circular arguments that go on and on.