The rock strata show clearly, irrefutably, what appears to be sudden emergence of life, in a span that is so minuscule that it is a major problem to secularist scientists who hold to the prevailing theory; it's called the Cambrian Explosion, which literally is a leap from one strata to the next from forms such as single celled organisms and invertebrates to fully formed vertebrates of most classes. They have been desperate for well over 100 years to find a mechanism to fit this discontinuity of fossils into their theory.
Ridiculous attempts to manipulate the theory have been tried, including Punctuated Equilibrium. Most sensible people realize that this is nothing more than soft science, attempts to manipulate rather than accept the evidence presented in the rocks. The Cambrian Explosion fits perfectly with the other Flood evidence. But, we can't have that - and the implications of it - can we? No, we have to have fairy tale solutions to do anything but abandon a weak theory, with it's implications.
You see, the rocks and fossils do NOT show the classic branching tree form that supposedly happened. What to do? Try to revise the theory without abandoning it due to the hard evidence. Try to make it fit the fossils using ridiculous mechanisms that are not supported, such as pretending that morphological development happens until a species is found in the rocks, then magically no more morphological development! This is why they talk about "living fossils", because it's obvious that creatures now represented in the fossil record have never changed. OOOPS! Another problem to solve with weak mechanisms!
They have to keep trying convenient workarounds, even though they are unwarranted. They will absolutely not admit that the rock strata and fossils fit FAR better sudden emergence of life, and/or Flood. Gotta find any other workaround than to accept that. It's the same kind of mentality that gave us "Directed Panspermia" after decades of pushing the idea that life emerged on Earth, only to find the chemical nature of the rocks don't support it. OOOOPS! Now, they have to use a desperate gimmick to save the theory again. The pattern becomes quite recognizable over time; very weak evidence, but absolute adherence to a secularist agenda and so the theory will never be abandoned, regardless how much data the rocks and fossils show. That's called secularist religion, adherence to a particular form of fantasy.
Dr. Clarey says several times in the book that the rocks don't lie. Indeed, they don't. Appeals here to articles with admittedly controversial viewpoints on what are frankly, irrelevant discoveries that won't change overall the problem of the Cambrian Explosion, are very weak. Notice how none of my detractors have actually presented contradictory evidence pertinent to the book's argument. That's because they are not knowledgable enough to do so. Rather, they make general appeals and insults. Weak, really weak.
The community can see for themselves how I responded to the typical malignment of religion, but now we have the unwarranted insertion of politics again, likely in a bid to force moderators to eliminate the thread. Because we can't have solid, scientific evidence that refutes the populist theory. People of sound mind can clearly see what's going on here. |
My perspective on cables begins with the hard won recognition (Read putting thousands of dollars into cables temporarily, comparison of sets, reviews of sets of cables, and constant system building with those sets.) that cable manufacturers indeed know quite a bit about signal and power transmission. From that stems the suggestion that it may be beneficial if audiophiles would humble themselves to take the cable makers' suggestion to use an entire set.
What is accomplished of value in terms of assessing with intent to drive a system toward a desired sound by mixing cables? Nothing. No baseline, no means of assessment of what any particular cable is doing. It's pretending to act like you know what you're doing. Then, consider the irony that the cable mixer rails against the manufacturers as though they don't know what they are doing! This is the epitome of hubris.
My point is simply that, quite apart from ABX, which I have done and successfully selected the proper cables with far greater than 50% accuracy, as outlined in my review of the Audio by Van Alstine ABX Comparator), if one wishes to lay to rest the issue of perception of cable changes, swapping out one or two is not the ideal. Comparison of sets is the ideal, which imo most do not pursue due to the cost and work involved. That's understandable, but it's not supportable to suggest that mixing cables is advantageous.
One could, theoretically compare two discrete sets of mixed cables, and that might ( I would suspect with less certainty) reveal significant enough differences between the two mixed sets to convince in regards to efficacy of cables. But, that is of little advantage to the audiophile, who would gain no understanding of the contribution of any of the cables. The far more sensible option would be to compare entire sets, from which a baseline sound is found, then other cables can be swapped in purposefully. I have done this with many sets of cables to the degree that I know the innate sonic character of particular sets of cables, and can select from particular cables to tune systems. How is that supposed to be done with mixed cables, when you have no understanding of the sound of the cables?
Much of what I see happening in this hobby is considered proper form, but I see it as thoughtless consumerism. How else do you explain someone buying a cable in isolation from the set and thinking they have any idea of what it will do?
In order to properly assess cables and properly present them as having audible changes regardless of what measurements show, I would seek the maximum impact, not the minimum. Imo, that begins with putting some trust in at least a handful of cable makers who you regard as legit, design savvy, etc., then working with a full set to gain a baseline that is not fluid, and finally rotating out sets to hear fundamental differences.
This has been my MO for reviewing as well, but with the addition that I build many systems in assessment, as opposed to few systems.
I believe that were these principles to be followed, the debate could be resolved with more finality than the machinations that happen incessantly. |
djones51, please, read the book. One of the statements made repeatedly by Tim Clarey, the geologist author, is that the rocks don't lie. The record is there, right under our feet. The petroleum industry in its thirst for crude and gas has charted it all out as they poked thousands of holes into the land and oceans.
Flood: NOT imagination, but supported by study of sedimentation, plate tectonics, hydrology, and other sciences.
So, let's not play the game of marginalization by attempting to declare what I am discussing as "imaginary".
|
I’m deeply religious, reading a great scientific book right now called Carved in Stone which uses petroleum industry data to assess the Earths lithography. Yup, there was a global Flood. Mockers will always mock what they do not understand, and a favorite trick is to use a false dichotomy between religion and science.
Harley knows what he’s talking about. I confirm such things on a bi-weekly basis. If you’re not building systems, you don’t know, regardless of how much "science " you wish to appeal. |
djones51, I wondered who would step into the doo doo.
No one suggests that "dinosaurs" were on the ark. Reptiles, my friend. You have exposed your deep bias and ignorance. :)
|
I am comfortable taking a minority position, especially when it is supported by good science. Like the book I referenced. None of you have offered one spec of rebuttal. That's because your position is scientifically weak.
BTW, note that I was responding to the incessant (on this site) derogatory comments on religion and faith. Maybe others will step aside, roll over - not me.
I'm content to return the thread to audio. |
No, not a 40 day event, which is another misnomer. An approximate 1 year event. Runaway subduction of sea floor hypothesized, but not without data, i.e. young sea floor from spreading, as mechanism for flooding of shallow land masses and driving them apart. Volcanoes actively involved in later stages, called megasequences of deposition of layers. No conflict with observed rock formations, and elegant solutions to problems with classic unifromitarian theory, i.e. better explanation of overthrusts. |
Allow me to attempt to return to our schedule...
I concur with Harley; his experience mirrors mine, as someone who builds hundreds of systems. I have had occasion to review and compare many cables.
My simple contribution to this thread is this; I believe that the only proper assessment of cables, as per manufacturer's intent, is to do so with entire sets.
Further, I feel that comparison of fewer cables is of marginal help to the debate. I suggest that entire sets be compared, as this should reveal easily the distinction between them.
Failing that, I do not see much hope of resolution on the measurements/perception question. :) |
audio2design, Allow me to explain a bit more the discussion in the book by Dr. Clarey, which mirrors the biblical text. The text is quite clear that the initial "rain event" (but seemingly much more involved) was 40 days. There is discussion in the text of the water going down after 150 days such that the Ark was grounded, and then subsiding until about 1 year later Noah exits the Ark. There is no twisting and manipulation of the text going on; rather, there is discussion in the book Carved In Stone of how the geologic record supports the text.
The volcanic activity is discussed in detail in the book. The volcanic activity occurs in the fifth and sixth mega sequences, at about the time the flood covers all the land - and all the people on land, as well as animals, die from the flood. There is also discussion of why there are not many humans in the fossil record. I recall reading in another work that, at the time, perhaps 10-15 years ago, the total globally of discovered human fossil remains could cover a billiard table. That’s not much, so obviously there should be a reason why there are so little human remains if there was a Flood. The book does a credible job of explaining that.
One thing I found interesting is that typically dinosaurs are buried with sea fossils. Various explanations are given by uniformitarians for this, such as even though the forms of sea life perfectly match saltwater/sea life, they must have been fresh water creatures, because... a priori the Flood has been ruled out. Instead of handling the evidence as presented, excuses are made to dismiss the obvious fossil evidence.
For a proper model of the Flood one would have to account for the sea level at the time, and the land masses and their height. The book does all this. The action of runaway subduction is not a simple concept, and a great deal of attention is paid to discussing the principles involved in subduction and how the early sea would have likely interacted with it.
There are six mega sequences (tsunami action and aftermath) that are clearly identifiable in the rock strata. All of the particulars of the tsunamis and how they likely interacted with the land and to what extent in each megasequence- in fact, maps and charts based on the oil companies data - are provided extensively, again, showing the rock strata, both depth, which has been measured for each mega sequence, and material/type of rock, are discussed in detail. The data are presented for North America, South America and Africa, for the entire continents.
Consequently, from this perspective, there were not several exitinction events, but different "waves" of deposition of the dead animals from the megasequences. Objections to the concept of separate extinction events, including measurements that contradict the idea of meteor bombardment, are presented.
I think that scientifically inclined persons, whether skeptical or believing, would find it an interesting read. One thing is for sure; this is not a fluff, religious discussion without some rigorous data and expertise in interpreting geologic forms and events!
|
Here is yet another opportunity to return the thread to the topic of cables, as was presented by the OP. Can the ego of my detractors handle that I might have the last say in this matter. Can they stomach the idea that they could just shut up and let the presented evidence and arguments rest? We'll see.
So, here's another attempt to return to the topic; what of my discussion of using full sets of cables as the only legitimate way to work with cables, and to resolve the seeming impasse between measurements and experience? |
Of course, glupson, you will default to the most extreme, invalid comparisons, completely ignoring the context. What else would be expected of you? Pathetic. |
The community can see clearly that 1. I responded to the initial negative comments by others in regard to religion and audio. 2. I presented a book that has scientific backing (A degreed geologist, oil industry data from wells drilled, analysis of plate tectonics, etc.) which attempts to show a coherent analysis of the Flood and supports it with lithographic evidence.
Further, I have attempted to return the discussion to the topic at hand.
|
audio2design, thanks for your reply!
Are you taking the position that there is no discernible difference between cables, i.e. that if there is no measurable difference, then there Is no difference?
How many sets of cables have you handled? How many sets of cables have you compared in order to stake your claim?
You are suggesting the cable manufacturers are lying, "marketing". Correct? So, you give no credence to the suggestion that cable makers may know something about signal transmission? As if they do not design their individual products with such considerations in mind. I find that to be a simplistic argument.
My point is that the argument is between measurements and perception of differences as heard by the listener. If you want to demonstrate that there are differences, quite aside from the measurements, wouldn’t it make sense to swap out a full loom of cables versus just one or two?
Imo, your arguments regarding the "marketing" etc. are irrelevant to my suggestion. |
The period of glaciation was after the Flood, also seen clearly in the record. Read the book and learn.
No comment on this?
So, here's another attempt to return to the topic; what of my discussion of using full sets of cables as the only legitimate way to work with cables, and to resolve the seeming impasse between measurements and experience?
|
audio2design, I will clarify my question; have you ever compared entire sets of cables in a single listening session, swapping them with intent to see what the differences are?
It seems to me from your answer that you have not, but have conducted blind comparisons of particular cables. Is that correct?
I am uninterested in the pedigree of systems you have heard, and of the potential manufacturing problems of some cable makers, as I believe these are tangential, and not pertinent to my point. :) |
Oh, that's precious, the person with a degree in Anthropology saying, "
Anyone with a true understanding of basic science would recognize crazy twisted tales supported by shoehorned data using “lack of evidence” as a main postulate for a proof." There is not much more twisting of thin/debated data than in Anthropology. For you to be saying that of Clarey's book is laughable.
The book is not based on twisted science, nor "yet to be discovered evidence." It have said several times that the work relies up on the oil industry's data from the field, the wells drilled though the rocks globally, even down to several thousand feet, both on land and oceans, which allows analysis of the sea floor spreading as partial evidence of a global event. That is how the thickness, composition, etc. of the rock layers are known, and that the even was global. That's not "twisted", nor, "yet to be discovered evidence."
I don't give a rip what "most religious scholars" think. Many of these people are completely screwed up. The "religious" person today is typically biblically illiterate, as has been demonstrated here. I am not interested in popularity, nor fawning over desperate attempts to salvage an already falsified theory.
We would expect there to be all flavors of theologians and believers who are liberal, biblically ignorant, and scientifically ignorant of the Flood. Plenty of that on display here.
The community will note that my detractors continuously assert that I am pushing a biblical story, a Bible account. They desperately want the community to think this is non-science, mere stories, etc, that cannot be supported. It's their only chance at trying to get you to disregard it. Not so; I am promoting a scientific work that analyzes the lithography of the earth by using several hard sciences in order to do precisely what is done in the prevailing theory, attempt to reconstruct events of the past. It is easily seen that I am not relying upon Bible passages, but upon science and data from the oil industry. The data from the rocks is either going to support uniformitarian presuppositions, or it's going to support catastrophism, and it supports the latter, clearly, powerfully indicating a global Flood event. The data has been accessed now, through oil industry well drilling, and it's just too bad for someone has a problem with it. All the gyrations and objections are not changed by the data.
Plate tectonics was opposed by secular scientists for decades - until the evidence became overwhelming and they were forced to accept it. The same is happening now in regards to a global deluge.
Notice how these people just cannot let it go? Every time I try to return the thread to the topic of audio, they just cannot shut up. They cannot stomach the idea that I have data, have answered the critics, and am gaining credibility. |
The principles and oil field data is global, and the book emphasizes that the same stratification that is seen in the more thoroughly presented continents is consistent throughout the world. The detailed analysis of the deposition layers is specific to North America, South America and Africa. The same data could be presented about whichever continent one wishes, but in order to make the case, these three were analyzed in painstaking detail.
One might think that at some point the floundering attempts to discredit would peter out, and the conversation return to the topic of cables. |
Audio2sound, more like 80-90%. Read the article.
|
So, is there any strong objection to my insistence that working with comparison of entire sets of cables is the best method of demonstrating their capacity to change systems?
The objection that cables are hooked up to components should be seen as a moot point. Try listening without components, just cables.
I find that behind these objections lies one central thing, distrust of the cable makers. It is suggested that there is little evidence (oddly similar objection to the debate re: Flood and the geologic evidence), but if you open your eyes, you will see data from the cable makers. But, of course, this is waived away as "marketing".
The claim is made that the cable makers are not taking into account the interactions between cables and components. Perhaps for the most obscure makers, but I do not see that contention supported in regard to the larger, more science-driven cable makers. I am reviewing a set of cables now where L,R,C is everything.
So, it seems to me that if the cable makers are damned, then we have no basis to move forward. In that case, I say, keep on spinning your wheels! :) |
There is only so much time I give to mockery. I now turn my attention back to reviewing; several exciting products to work on. I have in right now a pair of speakers that I am calling a new genre, a class D amp, and a set of cables (You will note the consistency of method in reviewing sets) that are all top quality. As 2021 commences I am building rigs that have advanced quite nicely over my former reference.
Blessings to all my combatants and the community. :)
|
+1 russbutton, waiting for riding season!
Humorus anecdote; when I got my 2016 Yamaha FJ-09 I was surprised the first time the dealer started it up - it's a 3 cylinder and frankly, sounds like an oversized sewing machine. I thought, "What kind of kiddie sound is this?" But, the other aspects of the bike, the features and performance are very much to my liking.
OTOH, I very much dislike loud bikes and would not own one. So, I'll take the "sewing machine" sound with the very nice performance. I could switch out the exhaust for something more rugged, but then I'm heading toward the obnoxious end again.
One goal I have in riding is to protect my ears as much as possible. I always wear foam plugs and have a very good, full helmet as regards noise reduction. It's shocking how loud wind noise can be! I install as high of windshields as possible to block air for reduction of wind noise.
I do not depend on hearing when riding, as it is reduced in order to protect the hearing. I don't make a move unless I can see it.
HELP FOR RIDERS: I have no clue why this is not done OEM in the industry, but I always buy the small (approx. 1.5") convex mirrors for autos or trucks and put them on the cycle's mirrors! Superb extra coverage of field of vision! It allows full rear vision! Why cycles do not come with such as standard safety feature, I have no clue, but I would not be without them! :) |
"Diminishing returns " is the subjective excuse by budget Audiophiles for not putting more into their system. It's an excuse for Lower Fi. Pretending you're doing all that, without doing it. :(
Mostly, the phrase is used by people ignorant of the performance spectrum.
|
