So the thread has been reduced to denegrating women as illogical frustrating creatures. Where would one find evidence to support this supposed "rational scientific" opinion? Do we have another court case here built on circumstantial evidence? I am sure we could find " vast numbers" of people we can call as expert witnesses.
Do speaker cables need a burn in period?
I have heard some say that speaker cables do need a 'burn in', and some say that its totally BS.
What say you?
What say you?
1,164 responses Add your response
andy2, That is unfortunate. I have been lucky to have met different ones. Maybe it does help that I grew up with a few of them so I am biased. You are basically implying that "non-believers" are not honorable people. It brings a conclusion that they are not honorable because they disagree with you or things you claim. Vatican is more open-minded than that. |
Over time on this thread, so-called "non-believers" have been asking for explanations grounded in science and rational thinking. The problem is the non believers are non-technical people and non-honorable people. They use the word "honor" as a tool but they themselves don't actually know the meaning of the word since it's entirely foreign to them. Like a blind from berth will never knows the concept of color. |
The problem is the non believers are non-technical people and non-honorable people. They use the word "honor" as a tool but they themselves don’t actually know the meaning of the word since it’s entirely foreign to them. Like a blind from berth will never knows the concept of color. Huh? Gotta watch them homonyms. 🐈💩🐍🐈😱 Oh, you should watch those class-based generalizations. In logic and in law, such is regarded as arbitrary, capricious, irrational and illogical. |
andy2, I see that you are bitter, but do not let it get the best of you. I am not sure what your definition of "technical people" would be, but you are making a very generalized statement about people you have never met nor you know anything about. You are on a slippery terrain with that and risk discrediting yourself and your technical explanations. There have been at least two posters over the last few days who clearly showed, without much arrogance, that they do handle technical terms and concepts quite well. The claim that "non-believers" are non-honorable is probably not worth honoring with further response. |
From odd syntax and the implied love of Jerry Lewis, I think this is our antagonist. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FWBUl7oT9sA |
They use the word "honor" as a tool but they themselves don't actually know the meaning of the word... Could you elaborate on that one? Not only how they manage to use something they do not know at all, but how they use it as a tool. Tool for what? Not to mention that your definition of "honor" would be helpful in this. |
Ha, ha! Enter a word, e.g. "pie"syl·lo·gism/ˈsiləˌjizəm/noun
|
Here is why truth and pretty are not mutually inclusive. Ms. Kate Upton is pretty but not truth since you're not with her. You probably are with Ms. Plain Jane which is not pretty but it's truth since you're with her. Simple things lawyers can understand since his goal is to earn money to be with Ms. Kate Upton someday. |
Well our technology is not all that and a bag of chips. We still use fossil fuels and can barely get off this planet in a rocket. Science can't prove what we hear because science has not advanced far enough especially with sound. Take the late Julian Hirsch. Bless his heart he was only trying to take the mystery out of our components. If it measured good . ITS GOOD!!!. Now we know he was wrong because a component can test bad and sound great. So all these so called test instruments can't correctly tell which component will actually sound better than another. Remember the THD wars of the 70s and 80s. Manufacturers got THD levels real low to prove their product sounded better than the competitor. My point is, that relying on test instruments is not so cut and dry. Not black or white. We need more technologically advanced methods for cable testing. |
It’s not really that science hasn’t progressed enough to be able to explain some of the things audiophiles talk about. Things like cable burn in. It’s just that science doesn’t really care about that stuff. They’ve got “bigger things” on their plate. Gibbs bosons, gravity waves, whatever. AND they’re double parked. There is no time. One reason why science will not entertain audiophile stuff like quantum chips and wire directionality and fixing audio systems by telephone is because science thinks it’s above such considerations. Those guys want to talk about “real science.” They don’t want to get involved with a bunch of whackos. You know, like Einstein. |
I have posted this a long time ago. I had just bought a whole system set of silver cables Kimber KCAG. I had burnt then in for 24 hours in a rush to hear them. They were very detailed but edgy and a little shrill. I kept playing them for a month. I then switched them out and cooked them for a week. After that they had smoothed out a lot. |
andy2, Add Ms. Kate Upton to the list of people you unintentionally offended. Not that she will ever know, but in theory. I have been trying to decipher your post that contained her name. It is really not that easy. It appears that most of us have different idea about the meaning of word "truth" than you do. "Truth" simply did not fit in there so I tried to substitute it with "true". No luck, still did not fit. I am sure that your intention was to present the truth in that post but were unsuccessful. You see, if you did not have such a negative view of eloquence and allowed yourself the option of presenting the truth eloquently, we could have understood. Speaking of cable burn-in, don’t you just love it? It makes the world go around. |
| Post removed |
Add Ms. Kate Upton to the list of people you unintentionally offended. Not that she will ever know, but in theory. I wish she knows. Maybe it’s a turn on for her :-) Do you know if she has sold her soul to the devil? Will she demand her lover doing the same? Hm... unfortunately I will never know. So in that sense, if I didn’t hear a tree fell in the forest, it didn’t exist. |
| Post removed |
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.” |