Quote:
NE CHERCHEZ PAS DOCTEUR, C'EST LA TETE...
pourquoi, un médecin pourrait aider ici, non?
peut-être un médecin de la langue anglaise.
Anyway, I believe that Ken answered the question without taking the high road, and I appreciate that.
Neither his word NOR anyone else's is the end all.
Regardless of the assorted definitions of the word fact.
Good day,
Cal
NE CHERCHEZ PAS DOCTEUR, C'EST LA TETE...
pourquoi, un médecin pourrait aider ici, non?
peut-être un médecin de la langue anglaise.
Anyway, I believe that Ken answered the question without taking the high road, and I appreciate that.
Neither his word NOR anyone else's is the end all.
Regardless of the assorted definitions of the word fact.
Good day,
Cal
fdegrove said:
Sorry, you're wrong. Statements of fact are statements of fact, period, regardless of whether or not they are hedged with "I think." Some "I think" statements are opinions, but certainly not all. That's just the way it is.
Please stop it right now or I'm going to stop this car and...
...wait - un - til - your - father gets home.
...wait - un - til - your - father gets home.
No, it's not. Let me illustrate: a few years ago, one of our Supreme Court justices gave a talk at one of our law schools. This particular justice says that he interprets the Constitution as written, not as he'd want it to be. A student questioner brought out the old saw about the Constitution being a "living document." The justice pulled out his copy, conveniently kept in a coat pocket, laid it on the table, looked at it for a moment, and observed, "Mine appears to be quite inanimate."
I have tried a similar experiment. I walked over to my stereo, put my ears down near the cables, and heard nothing. Switching cables, I repeated the test and still didn't hear anything. Conclusion: cables have no sound whatever. They're quite silent.
Hi,
Ha...semantics...Don't you all love that game?
Quite silent is a contradictio in terminis.
Something is either silent or it is not.
Cheers,😉
P.S. RHosh, I had my head examined and the good doctor said he thought it was quite alright....Somehow I didn't find that reassuring.
Ha...semantics...Don't you all love that game?
Quite silent is a contradictio in terminis.
Something is either silent or it is not.
Cheers,😉
P.S. RHosh, I had my head examined and the good doctor said he thought it was quite alright....Somehow I didn't find that reassuring.
Cal Weldon said:
'Specially when he does it while wearing that sexy cop uniform of his. Oooooooooh BABY!
se
RHosch said:
I am unaware of any requirement for me or anyone else here to support each statement they make.
RHosch said:
A poster here making blatant outright demands on this forum is underheard of in my experience. Why you seem to think it is your right to demand and insult is beyond me.
Not here, not with me, not on this internet, you can't demand a darn thing buddy.
Your wife, coworkers, etc. might have to put up with your demands and behaviour like this but we sure as heck don't.
Your behaviour in this thread is rude, common and uncouth and arrogant.
I bid you a good day, sir
I will make no further posts to this thread or on this subject
Ken L
Ah... the question is, is the fact is it just a answer.....and is the fact the truth...Can we have multiple facts for the same answer. Or maybe the facts is a questions hiding as the truth....
What do you think Grasshopper
What do you think Grasshopper
Ken L said:
There obviously is no such requirement. However, if you are going to make highly questionable statements of fact without offering any support for them, then expect some people to openly question them (and ridicule them if deserved).
I would not have used the term "demand" if fdegrove had not previously chosen it. I simply stuck with his terminology for the point of simplifying the discussion. Of course a "demand" here carries practically no weight, and of course there is nothing compelling anyone to respond to any "demands" made. The point was that asking for supporting evidence for or questioning a statement of fact is IMO perfectly appropriate, but not so in the case of opinions.
Are you going to fire me? Are you saying that I don't have the right to question any statement you make? You might not like the term "demand" and you might think my questioning is annoying, but I have as much right to post as the next guy (and I think my posts in this thread were sorely needed). As for not having to "put up" with them, don't read them. There is a forum function to facillitate that if you feel so strongly.
Not rude... but frustrated. Not arrogant... but protective. I read thousands of posts made about how wonderful somesuch cable or part sounds to a given individual without so much as a wince. You went beyond that by declaring that you have and can easily pass a blind test between two such cables. Such a claim would quite honestly rock the industry and also begin a serious (and expensive) effort to identify the causes of these differences if it were to be proven factual, so you can see why I view this issue as a bit more important than one man's "opinion." When I see statements made like this, I'll call them out. If you consider that rude, so be it.
Further, I fear that unsuspecting forum readers will see statements like the ones you made and take them as fact, which is precisely how they were framed and presented. So long as people are spreading misinformation I will attempt to clear the air. If you consider that to be arrogant, so be it.
As for common and uncouth, well... at least I'm not the only one now being accused of slinging insults around. Hope that made you feel better.
On the cheap but very good side:
I have had good success making interconnects using MCM 50-2180. It has a teflon insulator and good shielding. Kind of stiff to use inside a preamp though. Long runs of video and audio signal do fine. About $28/100ft. I have made a bunch of cables (>10) using this with MCM 50-2135 and 50-2134 ends. Pretty cost effective.
On the cheap but good speaker wire front:
12 guage Parts Express Sound King speaker wire is an interesting cheap but good speaker wire alternative to consider. Goes on sale now and then. I think 100ft went for ~$35 a few months back.
I actually would like to try the diy silver connects. I think it would be fun to compare and have in the system.
I have had good success making interconnects using MCM 50-2180. It has a teflon insulator and good shielding. Kind of stiff to use inside a preamp though. Long runs of video and audio signal do fine. About $28/100ft. I have made a bunch of cables (>10) using this with MCM 50-2135 and 50-2134 ends. Pretty cost effective.
On the cheap but good speaker wire front:
12 guage Parts Express Sound King speaker wire is an interesting cheap but good speaker wire alternative to consider. Goes on sale now and then. I think 100ft went for ~$35 a few months back.
I actually would like to try the diy silver connects. I think it would be fun to compare and have in the system.
The Radioshack 300 ohm antennae wire with the blue dielectric is very good for small signal where shielding is not a problem. It's cheap too.
well, well - Although I had not intended to post again
In other words you wish to sit in judgement and if things don't meet your criteria then you will ridicule the poster.
Vigilant Guardian of the Truth as long as it's your truth.
If you want to offer your opinions and have open discussion, then that is what this forum is about.
It is _not_ about ridiculing those with opposing viewpoints whether you hold them to be absolute truths or incorrect or not.
I do not mean what you said, I mean _how_ you said it.
Your manner in this thread has been rude and arrogant. If you cannot see that then I have no wish to ridicule you, I pity you.
Actually, I disagree completely with this. In fact, if this particular point would be proved _either way_ it would rock the industry.
The fact that you are not aware that this point has not been proven _either way_ is indicative of your wish to impose your own viewpoint on others. Something that is apparant from reading your posts.
It is misinformation to you but has been an accurate observation to me, and it is something that a number of knowledgeable people agree with.
In terms of clearing the air- had your manner been one of open discussion rather than ridiculing the poster, I would have suggested your coming to my house and seeing for yourself (the best alternative due to system differences) or bringing a set to your house or mailing you a pair to see if you still agree or disagree.
However, your behaviour and manner is such that I doubt I would seriously wish to pursue such an alternative.
While you have not stated in this thread - my guess ( and it's only a guess) is that you wish to prove to others that this is impossible yet it is not something you have actually _tried_.
I on the other hand have actually _tried_ it and voiced my preference and stated my informal observation - which is why I have a problem with your repeatedly saying I used the words test - I would not in any way consider my observations made under a controlled conditions worthy of the word test. Something you have misquoted me about _after_ I informed you of the fact that you were misquoting me.
So you disagree with my observations and therefore in your book that puts me and my preferences open to ridicule.
What a life you and those around you must lead.
Actually, it did and I do.
Have a nice day
Ken L
PS here is a link to a whole slew of people that disagree with you. Probably hundreds if not thousands of them.
Some of them are Pro Sound Engineers and do not sell cables but believe there are differences. In fact, very few of the posters there have anything to gain financially from the sale of cables.
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/bbs.html
If in fact I am wrong. I have plenty of company _grin_
RHosch said:
In other words you wish to sit in judgement and if things don't meet your criteria then you will ridicule the poster.
Vigilant Guardian of the Truth as long as it's your truth.
If you want to offer your opinions and have open discussion, then that is what this forum is about.
It is _not_ about ridiculing those with opposing viewpoints whether you hold them to be absolute truths or incorrect or not.
RHosch said:
I do not mean what you said, I mean _how_ you said it.
Your manner in this thread has been rude and arrogant. If you cannot see that then I have no wish to ridicule you, I pity you.
RHosch said:
Actually, I disagree completely with this. In fact, if this particular point would be proved _either way_ it would rock the industry.
The fact that you are not aware that this point has not been proven _either way_ is indicative of your wish to impose your own viewpoint on others. Something that is apparant from reading your posts.
RHosch said:
It is misinformation to you but has been an accurate observation to me, and it is something that a number of knowledgeable people agree with.
In terms of clearing the air- had your manner been one of open discussion rather than ridiculing the poster, I would have suggested your coming to my house and seeing for yourself (the best alternative due to system differences) or bringing a set to your house or mailing you a pair to see if you still agree or disagree.
However, your behaviour and manner is such that I doubt I would seriously wish to pursue such an alternative.
While you have not stated in this thread - my guess ( and it's only a guess) is that you wish to prove to others that this is impossible yet it is not something you have actually _tried_.
I on the other hand have actually _tried_ it and voiced my preference and stated my informal observation - which is why I have a problem with your repeatedly saying I used the words test - I would not in any way consider my observations made under a controlled conditions worthy of the word test. Something you have misquoted me about _after_ I informed you of the fact that you were misquoting me.
So you disagree with my observations and therefore in your book that puts me and my preferences open to ridicule.
What a life you and those around you must lead.
RHosch said:
Actually, it did and I do.
Have a nice day
Ken L
PS here is a link to a whole slew of people that disagree with you. Probably hundreds if not thousands of them.
Some of them are Pro Sound Engineers and do not sell cables but believe there are differences. In fact, very few of the posters there have anything to gain financially from the sale of cables.
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/bbs.html
If in fact I am wrong. I have plenty of company _grin_
I'll try to dig it up. The wire is two conductor spaced 1/2 inch apart with a blue dielectric foam and black jacket. It is almost flat as it is sold as 300 ohm lead in wire for antennae.moving_electron said:
Re: well, well - Although I had not intended to post again
Point well taken. To be blunt, I've too often seen comments such as 'easily identified the difference blind' thrown about. By your own admission, this was not done under controlled conditions yet you are certain that you could do it again and again. To the casual observer that certainly seems like solid evidence of audibility. I only wish that such evidence exisited.
My viewpoint is that audibility has not been proven, but if you were to read my previous posts carefully, you'd see that I also clearly stated that it can never be proven to be inaudible. Thus, I'm perfectly aware that the point isn't yet proved _either way_. However, I'm also perfectly aware that it can only be proven one way, and that if such proof was offered it would settle the question forever and open more serious research into the issue. All the evidence thus far gathered in a rigorous manner indicates that such a shaking of foundations is not likely to ever occur. There are perfectly good explanations for why people tend to hear differences that have nothing to do with the physics of the wire being used. Occam's razor seems useful to me in deciding which explanation is the most likely one to be correct.
It is misinformation to lead one to believe that you observed a difference under controlled blind conditions. If, as you have subsequently admitted, the conditions were not sufficiently controlled then you should not have not mentioned the blind nature of the "audition" (if you prefer that word more). It suggests proof of audibilty, which is misinforming the casual reader, as it serves as no such proof.
That would be a good guess, but an incorrect one. I have tried many, many things in various systems over the years. Quite often I have heard differences where there should not have been any. When controlling various influencing variables, those differences dissapear entirely. I'm well aware of the psychoacoustic nature of these things, having personally experienced it dozens upon dozens of times.
I'm glad you finally cleared the air. I can only hope that those who read your initial comments and believe there to be yet another case of someone hearing differences in cables under blind conditions have not become too disgusted with the ensuing discussion to have made it to this point. Hopefully they have now read your above comments, and understand that what you heard could well have been due to factors other than the cable itself.
I'll apologize at this point, as I do acknowledge that I came on too strongly. The "veil being lifted" was a bit much to swallow. I stand by my points, but could probably have toned down the abrasive nature quite a bit. I would never ridicule your opinion, but rather a statement of fact that I found quite ridiculous. I disagree not with your opinions, but rather with the validity of the observations you made.
Ah yes... audioasylum. Last refuge for people who believe socks stuffed with tin foil, cryogenically treated, and stapled to every power pole in the neighborhood will lift yet another veil from the sound of your audio system (and I'm only ever-so-slightly exaggerating!). If a million people believe jumping off a bridge is a good idea, would you agree? I rely on (1) observable and measurable phenomenon, and (2) my own opinions, instinct, and preferences. The thousands of posters on audioasylum and their anecdotal observations constitute neither of the above.
Ken L said:
Point well taken. To be blunt, I've too often seen comments such as 'easily identified the difference blind' thrown about. By your own admission, this was not done under controlled conditions yet you are certain that you could do it again and again. To the casual observer that certainly seems like solid evidence of audibility. I only wish that such evidence exisited.
My viewpoint is that audibility has not been proven, but if you were to read my previous posts carefully, you'd see that I also clearly stated that it can never be proven to be inaudible. Thus, I'm perfectly aware that the point isn't yet proved _either way_. However, I'm also perfectly aware that it can only be proven one way, and that if such proof was offered it would settle the question forever and open more serious research into the issue. All the evidence thus far gathered in a rigorous manner indicates that such a shaking of foundations is not likely to ever occur. There are perfectly good explanations for why people tend to hear differences that have nothing to do with the physics of the wire being used. Occam's razor seems useful to me in deciding which explanation is the most likely one to be correct.
It is misinformation to lead one to believe that you observed a difference under controlled blind conditions. If, as you have subsequently admitted, the conditions were not sufficiently controlled then you should not have not mentioned the blind nature of the "audition" (if you prefer that word more). It suggests proof of audibilty, which is misinforming the casual reader, as it serves as no such proof.
That would be a good guess, but an incorrect one. I have tried many, many things in various systems over the years. Quite often I have heard differences where there should not have been any. When controlling various influencing variables, those differences dissapear entirely. I'm well aware of the psychoacoustic nature of these things, having personally experienced it dozens upon dozens of times.
I'm glad you finally cleared the air. I can only hope that those who read your initial comments and believe there to be yet another case of someone hearing differences in cables under blind conditions have not become too disgusted with the ensuing discussion to have made it to this point. Hopefully they have now read your above comments, and understand that what you heard could well have been due to factors other than the cable itself.
I'll apologize at this point, as I do acknowledge that I came on too strongly. The "veil being lifted" was a bit much to swallow. I stand by my points, but could probably have toned down the abrasive nature quite a bit. I would never ridicule your opinion, but rather a statement of fact that I found quite ridiculous. I disagree not with your opinions, but rather with the validity of the observations you made.
Ah yes... audioasylum. Last refuge for people who believe socks stuffed with tin foil, cryogenically treated, and stapled to every power pole in the neighborhood will lift yet another veil from the sound of your audio system (and I'm only ever-so-slightly exaggerating!). If a million people believe jumping off a bridge is a good idea, would you agree? I rely on (1) observable and measurable phenomenon, and (2) my own opinions, instinct, and preferences. The thousands of posters on audioasylum and their anecdotal observations constitute neither of the above.
RHosch, a nice analogy to use in the future (my Easter present to you!) is that in an average bookstore, there are 5-10 books about astronomy and 5-10 bookshelves of books about astrology.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.