Harley quote

@nonoise I disagree. It’s all about how you think critically about things, how you determine evidence to be reliable, and how you evaluate it.

Whatever the subject may be.

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? 

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. 

As crazy as things are NoNoise, they really don’t worry me much. A little fear of the people is good for government. What worries me more is that Trump almost won again, not because people really like him (other than a select group), but because the democrats once again ran (railroaded in) an establishment candidate who I see doing little to advance much of anything. Don’t forget though, that many people liked quite a few of the things that Trump did or wanted to do, including stronger border controls, reduced unskilled immigration, standing up to countries that are not trading fairly, reducing bureaucratic overhead and over regulation (yes he made some stupid moves there too). Even lowering corporate taxes was a great idea for competitiveness and ended up repatriating huge sums of money. Those things were not just wanted by his hard line supporters but a very clear majority of Americans.


Unfortunately, for every good thing, there were 2 crazy things.

So 4 years of a candidate that will tell most of the people what they want to hear while likely going against what most of the people actually want (and I don’t mean just traditional Repubs).

A very significant majority are not okay with what happened in Washington and the majority accept the Repub election results.

I have to disagree with you on one thing, where this conversation went is exactly where you are worried. Beliefs before reality. It got us into this mess.

Real science ... even including the statement "we really don't know", which does not mean we will never know, just "we don't really know now".

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/12/marine-fossils-may-instead-represent-early-land-dwellers

Your good doctor just chooses to believe these things happened and happened recently. That he associates with the charlatan Ken Ham .... well that says it all.

I understand, but sometimes you just have to let some things go.
Myself, I'm going to try to stay away from contentious debates here and concentrate on the really serious stuff going down in recent days.

All the best,
Nonoise

nonoise6,659 posts01-11-2021 7:46pmA person's religious beliefs and views should never be conflated with their, say, audio views.  To use that as some kind of proof that since one is questionable or suspect, the other might as well be is ridiculous.

I didn't go after someone's audio views based on their religious beliefs, but I may go after someone's lack of reading comprehension based on their posts.

Very clearly, I used it to illustrate how people often will let their beliefs, religion, audio, or otherwise dictate their perception of reality. Not reality, but their perception of it.

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.   :) 

Hey I didn't bring religion in to this but to ignore quackery about the age of the earth or global floods is to ignore quackery about Qnon and ballot stuffing. There has been enough ignoring this kind of nonsense . We need to get out of the damn dark ages.

I feel the same way about certain political beliefs and look where it's always gotten us. On another note, I wonder just how long Admin will allow a religious debate/argument to continue in comparison to how long they let the political ones. I guess all it will take is one comment too many on a view that conflicts with Admin, which is what they did with politics.

Again, have fun and best of luck,
Nonoise

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!

A person's religious beliefs and views should never be conflated with their, say, audio views.  To use that as some kind of proof that since one is questionable or suspect, the other might as well be is ridiculous. 

Or, to go after someone for their beliefs because you just lost an argument on another matter is a just plain dumb thing to do.

What's next, those who believe that someone lost a legitimate election are not to be believed when they comment on an audio related matter? This isn't a slippery slope, it's a giant downhill skiing event. Have fun.

All the best,
Nonoise

I believe there was a global flood at some point somewhere. I am just not sure how big that globus was.

Not having read the above mentioned book, are the findings that support global flood from all over the Earth, or they are limited in locations? Anybody knows?

“There were these giant reptiles called dinosaurs that actually did go on the ark..."

'No one suggests that "dinosaurs" were on the ark. Reptiles, my friend.'

What am I missing in this flood?

And again this an awesomely representative post of how people will twist information to suit their outcome. The good Dr. uses where it suits him an absolutely literal interpretation of the bible.  However, when it does not suit him, he makes it a whole year event.  This is the same thing audiophiles do. If an "expert" says something that disagrees with their world view, they totally discount him/her. If they say something that agrees, then they will quote it ininfinitum.


If volcanoes were spewing enough to create those levels of layer deposition, everyone would be dead, many times over unless purely a localized event (even continent wide) and we know when those were. 


Runaway subduction of sea floor ... lovely, we will just ignore the massive tsunamis that would result, which with that level of subduction even surface waves would be enormous.  Of course, if there is massive subduction, water does not just appear out of no where, so that only causes localized flooding, but if you are going to ignore reality why not go all in.

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. 

Oh no, you opened that can ..

douglas_schroeder2,813 posts01-11-2021 1:50pmdjones51, 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. :)

“There were these giant reptiles called dinosaurs that actually did go on the ark — and they came off the ark,” said Clarey, whose One Foundation-sponsored talk Friday on the GCU campus, called “Genesis, Global Flood and Giant Reptiles,” spanned the gamut of his research on the Bible’s great flood and how dinosaurs fit into the Bible story.

Clarey believes only about 60 kinds of dinosaurs existed, not the roughly 700 species recognized by secular scientists. Just like we have dogs of different breeds, he believes dinosaurs thought to be different species actually were just different breeds.

“Nobody argues the ark wasn’t big enough. They (those in the secular world) just think it didn’t happen. It’s just a fairy tale,” he said.

“How do you get this exact same rock type that was supposed to have taken millions of years and deposit it with nothing else, nothing below it, nothing above it?”

The sandstone can be found not just across North America but Jordan and a slew of other countries.

“How do you have events that are worldwide without a worldwide event?” he asked, referring to the great flood, which would have deposited the sandstone.

He also spoke of Redwall limestone that goes into Canada, all the way up to Greenland and Alaska.

“How do you have limestone that covers half the continent all at one time?”

This is how even a highly educated person can allow their beliefs to cloud their mind. There is enormous evidence for moving tectonic plates and that the shape of the land has changed considerably over billions of years. We still see plate movement. Far far far far more likely that sediment is the result of tectonic land shift, things formally underwater, no above, and vice versa. It has long been accepted that a large portion of North America used to be a sea (under water).  But if he is using a flood (that only lasted 40 days and nights) to justify there being sandstone in many places that are now land, they that sandstone should be literally everywhere, but have you heard of the Canadian Shield? Vast expanse of igneous rock not a hint of sandstone.  Since he claims the flood was recent, there is no way it would have eroded away either.

Again, this portends to audio. We have vast amounts of information that shows that digital, especially high res digital is vastly superior to vinyl, its not even close, vastly superior at recreating an analog waveform. However, because some really like vinyl, and it sounds better to them, they are unable to let go of the belief that it must be superior at analog reconstruction even though all the evidence says otherwise. To support that claim, they literally make up things about digital (even a few PhDs), and assign qualities to vinyl/analog that are simply not at all true.

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.   

Boy, someone just lost their last shred of credibility.

And for the profession they're in, credibility is very important...

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.  :) 

BTW, I'm not denying that measurements don't matter. My perspective is that there seem to be some aspects of audio reproduction that are not captured by our current equipment, measurements, or even combinations of measurements that are meaningful.

That does not mean to me that we might not someday find the measurements that explain the differences in the quality of sound reproduction. I'm talking about this from the perspective of what we currently have available as of today.

Calvin such a long post to tell us nothing other than you liked the way certain cables looked. Next time try listening without looking.

+1 to the comment from @jaytor 

" If a particular listener prefers one product over another, that's ALL that counts."

I've been listening to 5 USB cables with the express objective of figuring out how little I can spend on a USB cable and still get music that sounds good to me. Several of the cables were loaned to me by a friend and the less expensive cables were purchased by me. The cables were:

Generic HP printer cable: Free with printer (I found it still wrapped in our drawer of computer stuff)
Belkin Gold: $15
Pangea Audio Premier SE: $50
Shunyata Venom: $100-200
Phasure Lush: $253

The cables were connecting a Pro-ject Stream Box Ultra S2 streamer and a Denafrips Ares II DAC.

I started listening with the Shunyata Venom cable as a default of something that is widely mentioned as being decent in sound and did so for two weeks. I burned in each of the cables for about 100 hours before listening seriously (streamer, DAC, amplifier all on but with volume turned down). First, I wanted to hear the generic HP printer cable as the extreme case to understand whether cables make any difference at all.  That HP cable sounded so awfully bad that I lasted only about an hour with listening to that cable. My specific impressions were:

generic HP printer cable:
Sound feels shut-in and veiled.
Trailing edge of notes have an overhang.
Treble is a bit harsh.
Bass sounds tubby. 

A brief synopsis of my listening notes on the other cables was:

Belkin Gold: Not bad at all in isolation, but lacking a bit in richness and detail versus the higher priced cables. I had high hopes for the inexpensive Belkin as it was a former The Absolute Sound recommended product in 2013.
Pangea:  More detail than the Belkin, but also somewhat harsh in tone and a bit congested in sound (more detail, but detail was not easy to understand)
Shunyata: Very solid all around (detail, smoothness of tone, timing, fullness of sound)
Phasure Lush: Unfortunately (as this was the most expensive of all of the cables) this sounded best of all. It did everything as well or better than the Shunyata Venom cable but also had conveyed a beautiful, organic sounding tone quality for acoustic instruments and voices, but still conveyed the edge in Kurt Cobain's voice better than the Shunyata and Pangea cables.

Perhaps the most telling takeaways for me was that even though I had five cables that I could use, I ALWAYS wanted to go back to the Phasure Lush cable. I'm listening to Trevor Pinnock playing Bach's The Well Tempered Clavier on harpsichord and thinking/feeling just how beautiful this sounds. I can say that with different USB cables, the Ares II DAC was definitely more/less listenable & more/less enjoyable for me. Can that difference be measured by the equipment and measurements that current science is aware of? Maybe...Maybe not. Would I rather spend my time listening via the Phasure Lush USB cable than the other cables I tested? Definitely.  

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 have no idea if there is a sound difference caused by any component in a YouTube video. First I would want to know what controls have been implemented. They need to be level matched within .1db or 1% or one will be louder than the other and humans have a preference for louder. 

@djones51 - if you want to select products based on the way they measure, that's certainly your (and anyone else's) prerogative. Personally, I'd rather choose products that sound good to me, regardless of what the measurements say.

Measurements can be a useful engineering tool, but they are only useful to a point. Measurement technology continues to improve like everything else, and our understanding of what measurements are useful and important also changes.

Just as an example, whitecamaross has been publishing youtube recordings of his system with different amps and cables. I suspect these amps and cables measure almost identically, yet even listening through cheap earbuds on an ipad from youtube, you can hear the difference in the way they sound.

So what measurements are causing this sound difference, and how would you figure out what measurements to look for to get the sound of one vs the other?

What we perceive is all in our head. The only way it makes sense is if the measurements show a difference that is audible otherwise all we are left with is imaginary global floods.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-01/tud-whw010821.php?fbclid=IwAR275RtkQTvQoYcJSyzuI14b7...

I don't get it. Music is all about personal perception and emotional engagement. Arguing that someone couldn't possibly hear a difference because the measurements don't show it makes no sense.

If a particular listener prefers one product over another, that's ALL that counts. 

I have an electronics background which tends to reduce my willingness to accept radical approaches, but I would never tell someone else that what they are perceiving is all in their head. 

Is it a great scientific book because it supports the beliefs you already have, or is it a great book because it had undergone rigorous peer review for accuracy and reasonableness of its conclusions? I could go into this in some detail, but I will only offer this quote, from the author of that book, as my counterpoint and let others decide the likely accuracy of said book.

“There were these giant reptiles called dinosaurs that actually did go on the ark — and they came off the ark,” said Clarey, whose One Foundation-sponsored talk Friday on the GCU campus, called “Genesis, Global Flood and Giant Reptiles,” spanned the gamut of his research on the Bible’s great flood and how dinosaurs fit into the Bible story.

Is this relevant to a discussion of audio? It is, because it illustrates how we allow our beliefs to influence what information we decide to accept or not, even if the vast vast balanced of data and knowledge is counter to our beliefs. It is good to question everything, including yourself.

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.

So basically a troll. Maybe you should change your moniker to allnoise? 

nonoise6,656 posts01-11-2021 12:57amPoor, poor audio2design. Taken down a few notches from a surfeit of hubris and he's all aflutter and talking like a street punk, showing his true colors.

By the way, I haven't owned a TT since the mid '80s, punky Brewster.

All the best,
Nonoise

"By the way, I haven't owned a TT since the mid '80s, punky Brewster."

Was it really punk?

The Record Players: DJ Revolutionaries: Brewster, Bill, Broughton, Frank: 9780802170897: Amazon.com: Books

Poor, poor audio2design. Taken down a few notches from a surfeit of hubris and he's all aflutter and talking like a street punk, showing his true colors.

By the way, I haven't owned a TT since the mid '80s, punky Brewster.

All the best,
Nonoise

Rather be a freeman in my grave.

"Elements of Acoustical Engineering - H. Olson"

Be careful with it...

Acoustic design and noise control: Rettinger, Michael: Amazon.com: Books

And with this one...

Analog Electronics: Devices, Circuits, and Techniques: 1st (First) Edition: Gerald E. Williams: 8580000082029: Amazon.com: Books

attending an evening lecture by B. Marley this evening..

” you cant run away from yourself , face reality “

of course, on the table next to the listening chair....excellent sources. of natural diffraction;

Acoustic Design and Noise Control, Volume 1 M. Rettinger

Elements of Acoustical Engineering - H. Olson

Analog Electronics, Devices, Circuits and Techniques - G. Williams ( recommended by the late great Roger Modjeski...

"Textbook trolling going on here."

How many here have held a textbook in their hands, not even asking about reading, within last five years?

fuzztone:

No I didn't say it. I thought it would provoke discussion.

Last chance, before I conclude you are stone dead incapable of understanding even the simplest thing. Here is your post:

Harley quote

Regarding two aftermarket power cables: "These differences in the shapes of the musical waveforms are far too small to see or measure with even the most sophisticated technology, yet we as listeners not only routinely discriminate such differences, we sometimes find musical meaning in these differences."

 Nonsense. 

Did you or did you not write, "Nonsense"?

If not you then who said it was nonsense? 

It was you, right? Right????!

While Archimago is absolutely right in everything he states,
                                     &
It is absolutely unquestionable beyond any shadow of a doubt.

And, ladies and gentlemen, there you have it, the ramblings of a true zealot.

All the best,
Nonoise

While Archimago is absolutely right in everything he states, I am sure many people here will never let their strong conviction be swayed by reality. When one is convinced of one's own superiority, then one tends to put more faith in what they believe than what can be proven.

It is absolutely unquestionable beyond any shadow of a doubt that digital, especially anything approaching high res can far far more accurately reproduce an ANALOG waveform than can a vinyl playback system or reel-to-reel. And let's be honest, that is all they are doing, recreating an analog waveform. No more, no less. All these flowery words about the ear, human perception, etc. is meaningless. All these devices do is recreate an analog waveform. 


Simple case in point. Record a record on a high end system to digital and play it back on a technically accurate DAC (not expensive, technically accurate) and you will have a very hard time differentiating them if you can at all.  Take a high res digital track, and convert it to vinyl (or reel-to-reel), using whatever process you want, and you will always be able to quickly tell the two apart.  If audiophiles applied basic logic, they would understand this means that vinyl is nothing more than the sum of its colorations and if you like it (I often do), there is nothing wrong with that, but just treat it as what it is.

Thank goodness some of these opposing viewpoints don't have actual armies at the ready, to literally slay the other side, because they would for the sake of being right.

I could never understand how deeply religious some get over so trivial a matter of what and how other people hear.

All the best,
Nonoise

No I didn't say it. I thought it would provoke discussion.
AND watching Chucky going for low hanging fruit. He NEVER misses a chance.

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2020/11/on-measurements-listening-and-what.html?m=1