Audiophiles should learn from people who created audio

I want someone to attack the liquid metal audio cables. And say they are somehow not new and not different. How they sound the same as wire and how they can't measure differently.

Please bring your scientists in tow. Please. I'm begging you. Bring entire university physics departments and multi-dgreed (science specialties) heads of scientifically based companies, people with multiple degrees and people who head their entire fields of physics and research. Bring them all.

The moment you ask them to rally and rail against this intrusion into your little war against audiophiles and their hearing of differences...concerning this liquid metal signal transferring technology, vs various wire in any form... is the moment they'll individually and as a group, look at you like you've got three heads. Not a single one of them will take it in inch further, or get involved with you..

Of course it's different. The entire edifice of science says so.

A liquid is almost a solid, but not quite. (A true fluid, fluid at the molecualr level, not a slurry full of gross chunks--a fundamental difference) The lattice is simply not there and thus the high delta interactives are not the same. Nor is the high current interactive stable (flipping the high delta equation [the mass equivalence aspect] on it’s head). The signal or load affects the parameters. The system is dynamic. Which wire cannot do. The math is basic and not specific as the specifics remain unknowns due to their incredible complexity.

Thus the scientists are invariably... incredibly excited ----to know more.

Experimentation is still in the beginning stages of definition, as it involves the current (it’s always changing and evolving--as per the norm in science) highest levels of math we use to describe reality. Including quantum mathematical systems/descriptives.

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-voltage-driven-liquid-metal-fractals.html
this first one..is >>>HUGE<<<. ok? The implications and pointed to directions/ramifications.... are huge. That one alone stinks like a thousand yet to be realized patents.

https://phys.org/news/2014-09-scientists-surface-tension-liquid-metals.html

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-liquid-metal-soft-robotics-closer.html

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-liquid-metal-discovery-ushers-chemistry.html (Liquid metal discovery ushers in new wave of chemistry and electronics)

and so on....(a hundred other news stories in physics)

Basically, electrically controlled quantum aspects-that range into mass related plasma considerations. So no, not the same as wire. Barely on the same planet.

No correlation between intelligence and visual skills, science says.

That is the implication of a new study which shows for the first time that there is a broad range of differences in people’s visual ability and that these variations are not associated with individuals’ general intelligence, or IQ. The research is reported in a paper titled "Domain-specific and domain-general individual differences in visual object recognition" published in the September issue of the journal Cognition and the implications are discussed in a review article in press at Current Directions in Psychological Science.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-11-visual-intelligence-iq.html

Same goes for hearing vs intelligence.

Appealing to authority or those who sound like they know something, does not correlate with excellent hearing skills. It’s all over the map.

Which shows that bringing a well spoken argument about how humans can’t possibly hear beyond measurements, is a full on red herring. When the evidence brought by many hundreds of thousands says different, then the well spoken argument means nothing.

Science agrees with this basic premise and point. At least in the idea of minimally tested theory (this is one test of many that have been done in this area). Which is all science can be, which is well tested theories, not facts. Einstein and Feynman and any scientist of renown you can quote -understand that science works this way. Science does not dictate reality into unknowns... it merely attempts to describe reality as witnessed. Nothing more.

Those who can’t ’see’ that, will continue to ramble and attack. Until they stop.

To be replaced by another who still does not get it.

Having been involved in work on video projection engines(how individual circuits I gear affects final outcome), both analog and digital, the optical intricacies (glass coatings, lens design, etc)..the screens, their placement, their design at the (photonic/atomic level)..the interlacing and associated scaling algorithms, and so on....basically the entire pathway..even the entire package of the image capture devices (including their fundamental physics) ..the entire package, in all it’s minute and interconnected overarching intricacies -and many aspects that folks don’t generally understand yet....and then going back to how people see...how they see differently...

....I can say that visual people suffer from the same complex issues as do the audio people.

I've done probably...1000-1500 'single cause analysis' tests in the video work in these mentioned areas. At least double that number in the world of audio. This is why I'm (now) in my 50's and getting into finally publishing works as product. The apprenticeship was fairly long it seems.... I like pure research, and selling product, building product - kills the fun of pure research. It's a grist mill, business is..it can ruin a mind and a life with ...well..what we see here in these threads. I avoided it as long as I could.

Science comes after observation. Observation is the origin point.

If the science ends up nullifying the observation and the observation persists, then the science may be wrong, ie, not sufficient to discern or negotiate the given situation. Science is a servant, a tool, a methodology, it is not an arbiter of reality.

The danger is that fallible humans tend to put dogma into science when science has nothing to do with dogma or projection of dogma.

If one finds themselves running in circles, then it is a problem of an incomplete question. As question and answer are a mirror of one another. Premise comes after observation and before science. Discipline of the mind remains integral to all.

Engineers and the vast majority of scientists are almost never (99.95% +) trained in the psychological and physiological aspects of mind, nor are they multi-disciplinarians, for the most part. The engineer is the most behind the eight ball in this scenario at hand. Realization, or discipline of mind - is key, here.

This complex question requires many disciplines to be discerned and fully negotiated in order to solve it. It is no simple question.

Otherwise the resolution of it would be in the record and all of us would have moved on and be wasting our time with some other misunderstood issue.

Isn’t it odd that the majority of posts are about the things that have the least sonic signature: electronics and cables (not to mention fuses, grrrr...), and far less about what matters more: speakers and, above all, the room. Room interaction does not even have its own category. Why?

As most people have no idea how important it is.

When they do understand how important it is, they have no idea what to do about it.

When they hire an expert on the subject, even the experts can screw it up.

It is a poorly researched area, with poorly explored complexities that are even more poorly realized in what they are.

Solutions are variable, to say the least.

The only expert I’m aware of who professionally guarantees his ’studio quality and beyond’ results from a closet sized space up to a pro level 3 million-10millon cube space... is my biz partner and friend, Taras.

He’s done the most impossible spaces you can imagine, that all other acoustics and noise control companies have walked away from, and will not touch. In my recollection, he has never failed in acing a job that is considered impossible.