No, it's just the recognition that some people aren't wired for rational, logical thought and when they can't recognize something as blatant as this article is built upon, then there's just no hope of explaining it and getting them to understand it.
Best I can do is recommend you read up on "non sequitur," and if after reading the article again, you still don't "get it," you simply never will.
se
Why? What has that to do with anything I've said?
Again, what has that to do with anything I've said?
Yes. Poor anyone who doesn't see the industrial strength non sequitur of that article. its not often that you come across stuff that's so blatant. That you can't see it just demonstrates that you're not very good with rational, logical thought. That's consistent with your asking why I don't write research papers or have "significant test equipment." You obviously can't see how irrelevant it is.
The frustrating part is that people whose brains are wired this way simply can't understand it so there's no way to "fix" it.
se
You're the one with the head in the sand. I didn't put it there. So chalk this one up to "self-inflicted."
se
If you think that article is just fine, then I wouldn't want to be on your debating team.
So just what is your understanding of "non sequitur"? Don't just paste something from a Google search. What do you understand it to mean?
se
My curiosity stirred, who is this Roger Skoff? Found Roger Skoff Enjoy the Music.com Reviewer's Bio - obviously, absolutely nothing under the hood, couldn't work his way out of a paper bag ... 
At the moment I'm asking what the underlying false premise is, and haven't got an answer on that - then, I'll worry about whether the conclusions follow.
My curiosity stirred, who is this Roger Skoff? Found Roger Skoff Enjoy the Music.com Reviewer's Bio - obviously, absolutely nothing under the hood, couldn't work his way out of a paper bag ...
If he wrote the article, he obviously can't.
XLO? Oh, he's the guy who ripped off a cable design of mine back in the '80s.
se
His underlying false premise is that human hearing is perfect and without limit. Or is that a premise you agree with?
se
If you don't believe that human hearing is perfect and without limit, then Skoff's non sequitur should hit you squarely between the eyes and make them water.
se
Pretty much, yes.
Skoff claims that if a cable is anything less than perfect, it will be heard. However the underlying premise behind that claim is that human hearing is also perfect and without limit.
So if you believe that human hearing is in fact not perfect, which you stated you did, then Skoff's argument falls under its own weight of illogical nonsense.
A cable does not need to be perfect to be audibly transparent, it only needs to be "less imperfect" than human hearing. Which has been the case for about a century or more.
se
Last edited:
Okay, you could "get" Skoff for not being a touch more precise, and saying that "it can be heard, by some people, under some circumstances". Having dealt myself with that very issue from my earliest days, that is, that the cable connection can be "heard" if it is not sufficiently "perfect" I understood what he was saying. And how I get around it is by making the cable link sufficiently "perfect", so that it's no longer part of the problem.
Edit:
And I agree. The argument is, what is the level of competence needed for the cable link, for that to be the case.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.