Have we lost civility and respect on Audio forums?

“ I’m not going to let a guy tell me cable’s don’t affect the sound and not take him to task on it.”

Basic cables that are competently built are audibly transparent. Some cables, be it by accident or design will color the sound. If you want to “take me to task” on it feel free to do so. Let’s see if you can do so with the civility you so lament is missing on audio forums and with the respect you expect from others. I am more than happy to argue my position purely on verifiable objective facts. 

@scottwheel it’s not a respect thing. Look I just would never listen to you on this issue. There is nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree. I hear a difference. You don’t. You don’t  have to invest your time and money in cables.  I will. It’s ok and nothing wrong with that. There are just a lot of folks here that will never agree with you on this. That’s ok they don’t have to. If you are happy with generic cables. More power to you.  But I’m not going to trust someone in the internet who has not heard the difference it makes in my system that I listen to everyday. I don’t know your system, amps, speakers or level of equipment.  Just wouldn’t make any sense.  But anyway. Last response to you because you will go on and on and on. Take care. 

Basic cables that are competently built are audibly transparent. Some cables, be it by accident or design will color the sound.

@scottwheel All cables are equal, but some cables are more equal than others. 
 

In that case, how do you know if the cables are either transparent or color the sound? What measurement instruments or tools are you utilizing to make this determination? Were you present in the studio at the time of the recording and your sonic memory is so impeccable that you can reliably draw this type of conclusion? Or is it purely subjective based on your listening tests?

“ But I’m not going to trust someone in the internet who has not heard the difference it makes in my system that I listen to everyday.”

I would not expect you or anyone else to “take my word” on this or anything else. It’s not about “my word.” As for the difference your cables make in your system, I would not take your word or anyone else’s either. Verifiable facts are not built on anecdotal evidence. First we would have to actually measure the transfer function of your cables. *Your* cables may very well be audibly colored. If they are then they do indeed make a difference. Mine are not. The transfer function of my cables have no audible distortions. No one has to take anyone’s word. It’s all objectively testable. And no one has to test anything if they are satisfied with anecdotal evidence. 

“All cables are equal, but some cables are more equal than others.”

Actually they aren’t. Some cables, often “high end” ones do audibly color the sound. 
 

“In that case, how do you know if the cables are either transparent or color the sound?”

Fair question. One can look at the multitude of controlled listening tests that demonstrate it. One can look at bull tests and see or literally hear it. One can do their own controlled tests if they like. I have done a few of them. Some of which would have revealed *any* audible differences were there any to be heard.

Spell check strikes again. Null test not bull test. Although there was something serendipitous aboythat one

@scottwheel ,

You have 30 minutes after your post to make corrections.

Just tap the little gear to edit.

@calvinj 

I attempt to keep it simple, especially where stepping around adopting attitudes shown from myself, where the forming a evaluation without a direct experience is the intention. I avoid if possible any attitude that can relate to the following:   

  "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

@pindac precisely, it’s like talking to someone you don’t know. Commenting on something you haven’t heard in an environment you never been in then saying there is not a difference. It’s like a blind person telling you that you  look ugly and they have never saw your face. Then being sensitive about their blindness to the point that they will double or triple down on that position because they are insecure about that blindness. Then to top that all off call you a shill and that you only saying it to sell someone smthg. Despite not ever talking or knowing that person in your entire life. It says something when their first interaction is negative and repeatedly argumentative about something that you own and are hearing and smthg that they have never heard. 

Lets not forget the physiologica limitations of being a member of Homo Sapiens.  That always has to be considered.

Cheers

I am not usually upset with any forum activity from a personal perspective, it is what it is.

Forums in general are limited in regular participants, most of the Membership are lookers in and many many are visitors only.

I was a Visitor and Looker In for at least 2 Years before joining this forum, which is the longest I have ever had as a lead in.

I know my delay was very much influenced by some of the Treatments I had seen other members received. I also sort of resigned to the idea, I was not too far from a unsavoury experience once I chose to make posts. I was proved right in that notion.

Hey Ho, I dust myself off and get back on the Horse until the next time it finds a method to throw me.

reasons were s aand acc

Kindness costs me nothing. 

Hearing my Grandma's voice say, "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything" and heeding it costs me nothing.

I value this site, I value it's members and the varied advice and opinions. I've met some really great folks here and we stay in touch. 

Per another group I am a member of, I keep my side of the street clean. And other people's opinions of me are none of my business. 

I truly enjoy and love you all.  

“it’s like talking to someone you don’t know. Commenting on something you haven’t heard in an environment you never been in then saying there is not a difference.”

No Calvin, it’s not like that. It’s like informing someone who thinks they can see microwaves and x-rays that human vision is limited to red through violet wave lengths. It’s like telling someone who claims they can run 100 mph that no human can run faster than 23-25 mph. There is nothing extraordinary about your stereo or the stereos of other audiophiles or your hearing acuity or the hearing acuity of other audiophiles that is unknown, unresearched or magical. Human hearing thresholds are not mysterious unknown quantities. It’s also well known and documented that humans will tend to perceive differences where none exist when hearing the same thing with a time gap in between samples when listening for differences. That is normal for human beings. So it’s like telling you that you are a normal human being like the rest of us. And there is nothing uncivil about informing audiophiles about these realities. It’s actually very useful information.

@scottwheel good luck with your opinion. Take care. You go on and on and on. Honestly, I wish you would just look past any thread I post. There are those here that want to have real discussions and not have your opinion pushed down their throats. Take care. Every thread I start here you go!  lol.  😂 

@scottwheel you can hear my system through this forum post? Ok I get it ! 

@thecarpathian 😂 man. He will not. He already posting his next response he doesn’t have time to edit. 

It’s like informing someone who thinks they can see microwaves and x-rays that human vision is limited to red through violet wave lengths. It’s like telling someone who claims they can run 100 mph that no human can run faster than 23-25 mph. There is nothing extraordinary about your stereo or the stereos of other audiophiles or your hearing acuity or the hearing acuity of other audiophiles that is unknown, unresearched or magical. Human hearing thresholds are not mysterious unknown quantities.

It almost sounds like you're living with absolute certainty that we know everything there is to know. For example and let us assume that you can't hear 20khz or above. Now when you play a 21khz and 22khz simultaneously there is a possibility of a doppler pattern that occurs deriving a 1khz summing signal to your 1khz band, which you will definitely hear. It ain't all that straightforward dude..

There are various phenomena observed in nature for which we know how provide some type of empirical solution. We could simulate some other phenomena with physics models and so on, but, we can't always validate with measurements. We don't have the capability to measure everything or even know what to measure. There are very known limits to measurement instrumentation or even the design of certain types of experiments. There are all kinds of PhDs working 16 hour days because of the above mentioned. If they all take a pompous arrogant stance that "what they do not know shall not exist!", that would be very dumb.

@pindac im not hoping to bother reading his responses anymore. I’m done

@deep_333 i shall pay you more credit…. i dabble about for a few hours a day, not the 16 you mention  ( although my more fervent peers who are younger with more drive put in time like that… )   in Quantum computing…. where the boundaries of knowing and measuring live in stark but expanding contrast. It would be a better world IF more people with evangelical like certainty about JUST how the ear brain  works would approach it with less certainty…..

Great post! and in constrast with mine with only few words...😁

It would be a better world IF more people with evangelical like certainty about JUST how the ear brain works would approach it with less certainty…..

Those who brag about what science describe as possible and then about what is impossible are often wrong ...

Guess why?

Nature dont obey limited human technological dogmas...We learn from Nature habits, but nature habits are no more "nature" than the habits of someone are a definition of himself.. ( Philospher of Nature is a title dismissed in 1836 by the British society for the advancement of science under Whevell and Babbage tutelage, replacing it by the word "scientist" at the service of his majesty corporate powers and this was prophetized by Goethe Faust part two published three years before the real British "scientists" meeting )

And we dont understand hearing yet by the way ...Only those confusing DSP technology feats with hearing understanding brag about what is true and what is false about sound qualities as perceived ...

A simple example of impossibility for scottwheel :

is a man can for hours lay in a fire without being affected ?

Answer scottwheel please when patronizing us about science ... 😊

Listen to this and debunk it for us poor superstitous audiophiles ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXfyrWRbmss

By the way instead of patronizing people about what they must hear and cannot hear... Why instead speaking about the BACCH filters a true acoustic revolution unrecognized yet by most audiophiles especially if unlike me you own one😁 ... Stirring a controversial pot is useless, speaking about an acoustic revolution would be more useful ...

This is the internet, the age of Trump, and outrage and disrespect for others seem to go hand in hand any any post you might write. Audio asylum has been this way for years which is why I never look at it or Facebook or any other.

I guess many were not taught in school, working well with others, being a good citizen, civics, and so on, all taught in elementary school and graded on your behavior. To be known as a liar was the worst thing you could be or called, all frowned upon you. Now you get elected to office. Sad you cannot have your experience posted without it turning into a blood bath at times. This hobby was one of sharing experiences and learning from each other from those who might have 30-40 years of experience. 

And there is nothing uncivil about informing audiophiles about these realities. It’s actually very useful information.

The analogies he (scotty) comes up are always good for a laugh. He thinks himself clever by insulting members by way of insinuation, using obviously delusional claims and conflating them with what we claim when listening. 

Directly or indirectly, an insult is an insult and not to go unchallenged. He then follows up with his feigned, calm demeanor, asking why members get so worked up about it. One can even say he enjoys trolling as the tactics he uses are in the troll's handbook. He's not the first member to do this. 

All the best,
Nonoise

Excellent post...

But i will correct you about this era... This is the age of Trump and Biden ... Trump is not the only  con man ...

This is the internet, the age of Trump, and outrage and disrespect for others seem to go hand in hand any any post you might write. Audio asylum has been this way for years which is why I never look at it or Facebook or any other.

I guess many were not taught in school, working well with others, being a good citizen, civics, and so on, all taught in elementary school and graded on your behavior. To be known as a liar was the worst thing you could be or called, all frowned upon you. Now you get elected to office. Sad you cannot have your experience posted without it turning into a blood bath at times. This hobby was one of sharing experiences and learning from each other from those who might have 30-40 years of experience. 

The anonymous nature of the Internet allows behavior that would not be acceptable fact-to-face.  Agree 100% with an earlier comment about 90% opinion and 10% fact.  There are very few actual subject matter experts for any topic.  The audio hobby seems to have an excessive number of self appointed experts.

It almost sounds like you're living with absolute certainty that we know norhing. That none of the 100+ years of research in psychoacoustics taught us anything at all about human aural perception. “Let us assume that you can't hear 20khz or above?” It’s not an assumption. Literally millions of human beings have been tested for their frequency range. It’s almost like saying “let’s assume gravity is a real thing.” Do you really think wave interference patterns that affect the sound in the audible range are a mystery that none of us ever knew about and are mysterious and unmeasurable? If ultra frequency sounds manifest a wave within the audible range we hear it, if it isn’t masked, and we can measure it. AND any basic cable will transmit it without any audible distortion.

going back to the early days of Bell Labs about 100 years ago to current times there has been a massive amount of research on what we hear and don’t hear. We know for example that the total distortion in a basic audio cable is so low that it’s hard to say for sure if what is being measured is actual distortion or just thermal noise. It’s around -140 db. We also know that no human being can come close to hearing any noise or distortion at -140 db. And there is no recording or source component either digital or analog that can produce a signal that doesn’t add at least 20-30 db of noise and distortion. Analog sources in particular aren’t anywhere near that. And we have numerous controlled tests that clearly demonstrate this inaudibility. 
 

We also know, based on a large body of research that humans can not accurately compare an aural memory to real time sound. Not even close. And we know through other studies that it is a cause for humans, all humans, to misidentify differences in sound where none exist. 

“There are indeed all kinds of PhDs working 16 hour days doing research. What is really dumb is to think that they continually miss real audible phenomena that is only detected by audiophiles under non controlled conditions.

Did you know that for GPS to even work they have to use algorithms to make real time adjustments for time dilation due to special relativity? The sati lights are literally experiencing time at a different rate of Han we do on the ground because of the speed of their orbit Do you have any idea the level of sophistication and degree of precision that requires? Do you think the same scientific research and engineering that allows for that is missing something in cable transfer function that only audiophiles are detecting?

@maghister. I agree. Look we have opinions and I respect every one’s right to have an opinion but we have all different systems and to tell someone it’s not possible when the are listening to their own system while some are typing their scientific theories is beyond me. 

We hear meanings with our consciousness not mere hertz frequencies with the ears ...

It is why the human ears is not a microphone ...

You are not even wrong scottwheel ...

But i will not write a very long post to contradict your "not even wrong" observations conflating technological knowledge about the ears/brain and science open vast questions about this ...

Listen to my video above about the guru rolling in a fire and analyse "the trick" for me if there is one ... 😊

A very simple article to read to get my point ...

https://acousticstoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Psychoacoustics-A-Brief-Historical-Overview.pdf

«Although research on complex sound processing was pur-
sued by many psychoacousticians, there was no overarch-
ing theory or organizing principle to integrate the knowl-
edge being accumulated and to make new predictions. This
changed when a series of articles, chapters, and books ap-
peared between 1988 and 1992 (Yost, 2014). The book by
Al Bregman (1990), Auditory Scene Analysis, captured the
essence of these other authors’ attempts at finding an orga-
nizing principle for complex sound processing, and Auditory
Scene Analysis captured the imagination of perceptual scientists
in hearing as well as in perceptual and cognitive psychology.
Sounds from the various sources that make up an audi-
tory scene interact physically and arrive at the ears as a
single sound field representing the physical combination
of the sounds from the various sources. The auditory pe-
riphery uses biomechanical and neural processes to send
a neural code to the brain representing the spectral/tem-
poral features of that sound field. There are no peripheral
mechanisms that process sounds as coming from individual
sources. There is no representation in the neural code flow-
ing to the brain that the scene may be one of a car driving
by as the wind blows the leaves and a child giggles. Yet that
is what we can perceive usually immediately and effortlessly.
The sound is complex and the listener may be hearing some
of the sounds for the first time, yet the auditory images are
often vivid. These auditory images allow the listener to identify the car, the blowing leaves, and the giggling child. The
brain performs auditory scene analysis. Psychoacoustics has
just begun to investigate how the brain does this. It appears
to be a daunting task; it is, like Helmholtz observed, trying
to look down a tube at waves on a beach and determining
what caused the waves. It is likely that the next chapter in
the history of psychoacoustics will be written by present and
future psychoacousticians who help unravel how the brain
analyzes an auditory scene..»

“you can hear my system through this forum post? Ok I get it !”

I don’t think you get it. Nothing I said could even remotely be interpreted as me claiming to be able to hear your system through your posts. I don’t need to hear your system to know that basic cables are audibly transparent. There is nothing about your system that changes that fact. You may very well be using audibly colored cables. I don’t know. But I’m here are some high priced cables that do act as low pass filters and audibly chandelier the signal. I do know mine are audibly transparent. 

It almost sounds like you're living with absolute certainty that we know norhing. That none of the 100+ years of research in psychoacoustics taught us anything at all about human aural perception. “Let us assume that you can't hear 20khz or above?” It’s not an assumption. Literally millions of human beings have been tested for their frequency range. It’s almost like saying “let’s assume gravity is a real thing.” Do you really think wave interference patterns that affect the sound in the audible range are a mystery that none of us ever knew about and are mysterious and unmeasurable? If ultra frequency sounds manifest a wave within the audible range we hear it, if it isn’t masked, and we can measure it. AND any basic cable will transmit it without any audible distortion.

going back to the early days of Bell Labs about 100 years ago to current times there has been a massive amount of research on what we hear and don’t hear. We know for example that the total distortion in a basic audio cable is so low that it’s hard to say for sure if what is being measured is actual distortion or just thermal noise. It’s around -140 db. We also know that no human being can come close to hearing any noise or distortion at -140 db. And there is no recording or source component either digital or analog that can produce a signal that doesn’t add at least 20-30 db of noise and distortion. Analog sources in particular aren’t anywhere near that. And we have numerous controlled tests that clearly demonstrate this inaudibility. 
 

We also know, based on a large body of research that humans can not accurately compare an aural memory to real time sound. Not even close. And we know through other studies that it is a cause for humans, all humans, to misidentify differences in sound where none exist. 

“There are indeed all kinds of PhDs working 16 hour days doing research. What is really dumb is to think that they continually miss real audible phenomena that is only detected by audiophiles under non controlled conditions.

Did you know that for GPS to even work they have to use algorithms to make real time adjustments for time dilation due to special relativity? The sati lights are literally experiencing time at a different rate of Han we do on the ground because of the speed of their orbit Do you have any idea the level of sophistication and degree of precision that requires? Do you think the same scientific research and engineering that allows for that is missing something in cable transfer function that only audiophiles are detecting?

it is very simple... The less someone know about sciences the more materialistic he become with age... ( see Dawkins and others )

The more he know the more spiritual he become...

Is it a pure random effect that all the greatest mathematicians of the world , not some professor at harvard or Princeton, i spoke about the super genius in science are all "mystics" ?

In the past the exemple dont lack... Think about Blaise Pascal or Newton or Leibnitz...

Now go to the founder of set theory Cantor, a pure mystic who created his theory reading Dyonisos treatise on hierarchies ...Even Cantor method comes from spiritual contemplation ... I can even explain it how and why but it is not the place ...

Go to Ramanujan who spoke each night with Namagiri about number theory ...

The founder of all modern algebraic geometry and topos theory Alexander Grothendieck wrote a book of 1000 pages about God and dreams ... ( i have his 2 huge books )

Nowadays there is plenty of techno-cultist materialist, who knows nothing out of their fields , who flirt with atheism, materialism and transhumanism ...The dude who like the most science is "dr."  Bill Gates and look at what this fool is doing across the earth...Look at all the harm  he has done in the last years for profit..

Now in audio people live intimately with their soundfield, but if  psycho-acoustics taught us how to create a good stereo sound, as Dr. Choueiri the last genius in musical acoustic taught after many others psychoacoustics dont explain even the way we identify sound qualities... ( scottwheel will not contradict me about Choueiri he own the BACCH filters) 😊

Now these discoveries dont mean that we know how the ears/brain create "meaningful" sound with all this  information coming from his environment but also from many unknown factors working on the sound perceptible qualities  coming from a vibrating sound source  and perceived by a human as such and such qualities meaning such and such ... Humans are  not microphone at all ...

Ok i spoke too much...

😁

@maghister. I agree. Look we have opinions and I respect every one’s right to have an opinion but we have all different systems and to tell someone it’s not possible when the are listening to their own system while some are typing their scientific theories is beyond me.

It almost sounds like you’re living with absolute certainty that we can’t trust any of our senses. How did we ever survive before measurements?

Your retorts are littered with appeals to authority and red herrings that have nothing to do with audio except that very exacting devices are needed to discern them at their extremes. Within those extremes lies the areas that we can hear and that’s where our ears come in: to choose what sounds best to us.

I have lots of old, basic cables that don’t transmit without audible distortions of sorts that I keep around for whenever I come across a new piece of gear. Once that gear has settled in to my satisfaction, I’ll break out the older cables to see how they effect the sound and sure enough, they do what they’ve always done: distort audible parts of the sound and back in go my reference cables. End of story.

All the best,
Nonoise

we know very very much and can measure very much....there is also very very much we don’t know and very much we can only sort of measure, and lots we cannot correlate accurately to hearing about which there is much we know and much we don’t...we all do what works best for us...I’m very happy with my system and it seems most of us here are happy with their systems, despite the numerous ways we put them together and make our choices...

One of the things, life experiences..that keep me grounded  ( pardon the pun )…. is i helped run a decent sized satellite design/build/launch /operate business…..  including GPS …. fun stuff like XM Radio, Wide Band Gapfiller…. 

Hopefully you understand Relativity , including special doesn’t explain everything…. We will understand more when unified with a much improved knowledge of Quantum mechanics…. and my humility allows me to say…. there will be many things that unification will not explain…..

Chew on the power of relativity to fail on explaining singularity in a rotating black hole….

“The analogies he (scotty) comes up are always good for a laugh. He thinks himself clever by insulting members by way of insinuation, using obviously delusional claims and conflating them with what we claim when listening.”

If you feel insulted when faced with objective reality that’s your baggage. What is laughable is that you would whine about being insulted while calling me delusional in the same post. I don’t really care but the irony is amusing. 

“Hopefully you understand Relativity , including special doesn’t explain everything….”

Hopefully you understand I didn’t make any claims that special relativity *explains* anything in audio. Hopefully you understand that I was pointing out the degree of precision needed to process and transmit real time compensation as an example of the depth of understanding we have of signal processing and transmission 

@nonoise exactly.  

If you feel insulted when faced with objective reality that’s your baggage. What is laughable is that you would whine about being insulted while calling me delusional in the same post. I don’t really care but the irony is amusing. 

Again, what's with the insinuation? Is it because you didn't understand what I wrote? The use of "obviously delusional claims" was a paraphrasing of your outlandish examples of what you say members claim and your conflating that with what they say they're hearing. The two are not anywhere near the same.

It was not calling you delusional. One (yours) is made up and the other (members hearing acuity) is based in reality.

You're not as clever as you think you are. That line from the Princess Bride comes to mind....whatever.

All the best,
Nonoise

“Again, what’s with the insinuation?”

There was no insinuation. It was pretty direct. If you feel insulted by assertions of fact that is your problem.

“Is it because you didn’t understand what I wrote?”

I understood what you wrote.

“The use of "obviously delusional claims" was a paraphrasing of your outlandish examples of what you say members claim and you’re conflating that with what they say they’re hearing. The two are not anywhere near the same.”

complete nonsense. I have never claimed or inferred that anyone here is delusional. So you weren’t “paraphrasing” anything I actually said. And when you accuse someone of making delusional claims it follows that the person making the claim is delusional.

“It was not calling you delusional. One (yours) is made up and the other (members hearing acuity) is based in reality.”

Im stating facts about human hearing. We can go back and forth all day on this. If you want to put it to an actual test I’m all for it.

“You’re not as clever as you think you are. That line from the Princess Bride comes to mind....whatever.”

it is once again ironic that you would try to make this about me on a thread lamenting civility. I’d be more than happy to put this “difference of opinion” to an actual test and we can record it and post it. Let’s make it about audio and let’s do more than just talk.

If you want to read something funny which illustrates how civility has deteriorated, look at the thread on ASR which comments on an excellent video by John Devore on how measurements, while they are important, are definitely not the be all and end all. The minions and the minion leader just about had an apoplexy.

I saw and enjoyed that video of John's. Far from what he called a rant. More like a call to reason.

All the best,
Nonoise

“ Dr. Choueiri the last genius in musical acoustic taught after many others psychoacoustics dont explain even the way we identify sound qualities... ( scottwheel will not contradict me about Choueiri he own the BACCH filters) 😊”

that’s not true at all. Edgar is one of the top researchers in spatial perception. He can tell you how in great detail how we identify sound qualities. He has conducted many controlled listening tests to clearly identify these things. Everything he would tell you is based in science, a lot of it his own research. I have had these conversations with him. 

Indeed nonoise; it was hard to disagree with any of it.

“ Dr. Choueiri the last genius in musical acoustic taught after many others psychoacoustics dont explain even the way we identify sound qualities... ( scottwheel will not contradict me about Choueiri he own the BACCH filters) 😊”

that’s not true at all. Edgar is one of the top researchers in spatial perception. He can tell you how in great detail how we identify sound qualities. He has conducted many controlled listening tests to clearly identify these things. Everything he would tell you is based in science, a lot of it his own research. I have had these conversations with him.

Hopefully you understand I didn’t make any claims that special relativity *explains* anything in audio. Hopefully you understand that I was pointing out the degree of precision needed to process and transmit real time compensation as an example of the depth of understanding we have of signal processing and transmission

I can’t make heads or tails of most of what you write. I have yet to make it all the way through any of your posts. Last thing I am going to do is try to go through every word, decipher them and respond point by point. I don’t need your analysis of what Edgar says about audio. I just talk to him directly. 

The fact that you spoke directly to Einstein does not means that Einstein had solved or you had solved all problem in physics...😊

my point is simple :

Hearing is not well understood in spite of hundred years of research...

Then invocating science in the singular mode as techno cultist did to direspectfully disqualified any non measurable subjective perception is not polite nor scientific ...

The fact that any buyer of the BACCH system as you are one can speak directly to Choueiri because he help them does not means anything in this discussion ...

And by the way i never gave an "analysis" of Choueiri theory only a simple description in few words and i only suggested to people to read him...

You had the tendencies to misread and twisted quotes and using authoritative name or fact out of the context to assure your simplistic claim about audiophiles as being deluded and lost because they trust rightfully or wrongfully their ears ...

As i already said, i am not a subjectivist nor an objectivist audiophile ... Your are clearly an objectivist ,...

Why claiming more than one time you own opinion and disclaim as illusion any other subjective perception even a wrong one ?

Do you not think it is not a bit provocative ?

It is like going on ASR forum and asking them to trust their ears ...😁It will be dismiss as idiotic beliefs if not substantiated by a set of measures ... Do you get it ?

I suggested to you in the beginning more than a week ago instead of dismissing cables perception or anything of this kind to spoke about Choueiri precisely because it could have been more constructive and useful here than systematically dismiss others subjective and/ or objective experience or purchases IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE ...

Do you get my point ?

Forums are social meeting points, not tribune to impose truths especially when there is no universal accepted theory of hearing in spite of our powerful technology ..

I dont give a damn about cables by the way , in my experience they made small differences compared to acoustic and other mechanical and electrical factors ... And i dont came here to put the shame on the head of those who had experienced otherwise with other gear, other room , other brain/ears and other histories... We can make clear our opinion and goes about more serious matter as i suggested to you a couple of time (Choueiri for example ) ... Then other audiophiles no more hurted by your dogmatic attitude would have listen to you ...

Do you get it ?

I don’t need your analysis of what Edgar says about audio. I just talk to him directly.

Perhaps i am absolutely a confused mind and you cannot made head and tails for this reason...😁

Perhaps i am more nuanced and more complex than your simplistic appeal to "science" and nothing else ...😊

Like you i am also provocative in a way , i plead guilty of charge ... But here i defend the right of people to express their subjective hearing experiences without blind test and in spite of your kind of science ... It is a forum of audio hobbyist ...not a circle of audio engineers all educated in the same mold ... It is why it would have been more useful to make them curious about Choueiri discoveries  as i suggested after your first three posts here than learning that they are deluded about their cables choices  in the name of science...✝

Do you get it ?

I can’t make heads or tails of most of what you write

Good thread. Thanks to the OP for delving into the limits of civility. A number of years back my cat destroyed my ARC Ref 5SE. I posted a request for help/advice and while I got sound advice, certain posters decided the thread was an audio chat board "Lord of the Flies." I'm sharing for your entertainment/edification. It's quite a hoot.

David

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/my-cat-destroyed-my-arc-ref-5se-soliciting-suggestions

Empathy is a precious gift to understand people... Alas! many people here as in any other forums dont understand the situation of others and mock them...

This attitude is called "stupidity" by an italian economist named Cippola who wrote the best book ever about "stupidity" describing it rigorously ...Feel free to read it and learn as i did, it is a free book ...

«

wharfy

243 posts

12-13-2023 at 07:53am

Good thread. Thanks to the OP for delving into the limits of civility. A number of years back my cat destroyed my ARC Ref 5SE. I posted a request for help/advice and while I got sound advice, certain posters decided the thread was an audio chat board "Lord of the Flies." I’m sharing for your entertainment/edification. It’s quite a hoot.

David

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/my-cat-destroyed-my-arc-ref-5se-soliciting-suggestions

“The fact that you spoke directly to Einstein does not means that Einstein had solved or you had solved all problem in physics...😊”

and that’s where I tuned out….

How kind and wise you are indeed ...I never said anything myself about Choueiri save elementary facts and i quoted articles about Choueiri asking you, because you own the BACCH filters, to speak more about Choueiri than about cables subjective choices of audiophiles and then not unnecessarily provoke people...It is more interesting to learn about an acoustic revolution than to learn that we are deluded because we bought some cables ... You dont think so ?😁😊

And now you tune out with no arguments about my posts save insinuation about me and my intention .... You are of very bad faith my friend ...😊

Have you forgot that i welcome you and ask you to spoke about the BACCH filters instead of harassing cable owners with objectivists dogmas and blind test ?

Me unlike you i am not convinced that ALL cable owners are deluded ...I dont mind about cables anyway ...

I am interested by psycho-acoustics and his philosophical meaning ...My own system is low cost and totally satisfying ... I will buy the BACCH filters for my headphone because they are top one  and i know they will greatly benefit from it ... I dont need other upgrades... Thats all ... But i will never suggest that people  speaking about their cables qualities are ignorant because not supported by science ... You know what i means ?

😁😊

“The fact that you spoke directly to Einstein does not means that Einstein had solved or you had solved all problem in physics...😊”

and that’s where I tuned out….

Do you really think wave interference patterns that affect the sound in the audible range are a mystery that none of us ever knew about and are mysterious and unmeasurable? If ultra frequency sounds manifest a wave within the audible range we hear it, if it isn’t masked, and we can measure it. AND any basic cable will transmit it without any audible distortion.

Dude, I came from a different engineering discipline (nothing to do with audio) where folks could die if we make a coupla innocent li’l mistakes. Hence, extreme levels of rigor was required and we couldn’t afford to do any kind of fake parade like you. In fact, i was hinting on some phenomena we’ve studied in another discipline for other applications (nothing do do with audio), which clearly should have some implication for audio. Some apparently celebrated speaker designers i’ve spoken to had never heard of it (got real glazy eyed when i brought it up). I am guessing internet warrior Scott had never heard of it either. But, here he is, pretending to be the instantaneous expert.

going back to the early days of Bell Labs about 100 years ago to current times there has been a massive amount of research on what we hear and don’t hear. We know for example that the total distortion in a basic audio cable is so low that it’s hard to say for sure if what is being measured is actual distortion or just thermal noise. It’s around -140 db. We also know that no human being can come close to hearing any noise or distortion at -140 db. And there is no recording or source component either digital or analog that can produce a signal that doesn’t add at least 20-30 db of noise and distortion. Analog sources in particular aren’t anywhere near that. And we have numerous controlled tests that clearly demonstrate this inaudibility.

We also know, based on a large body of research that humans can not accurately compare an aural memory to real time sound. Not even close. And we know through other studies that it is a cause for humans, all humans, to misidentify differences in sound where none exist.

What is really dumb is to think that they continually miss real audible phenomena that is only detected by audiophiles under non controlled conditions.

Yeah whatever....There are clinically deaf musicians out there, i.e., deaf = can’t hear diddly...How would Scott explain that? Would he do a polka dance in front of them and write a dissertation about it?

There are naked monks living high up on some mountains in an eastern part of the world in sub-freezing temperatures where Scott , Bob and Bill could freeze to death in under 20 minutes. But, those monks live like that in those environments for years, decades... How would triple PhD Scott explain that? Would he stick a thermometer in a few places the sun has never seen, take a few measurements and write his 4th dissertation (just like that)? mmhmm, that’s what i thought.

Yo go Scott... Do another quick fake genius maneuver for the crowd again.

Don’t mind me though. I could give a ratsass if some audio nerd had a genuine revelation one day or not.