2. cables
  3. 128927-305

Most Important, Unloved Cable...

Ethernet. I used to say the power cord was the most unloved, but important cable. Now, I update that assessment to the Ethernet cable. Review work forthcoming. 

I can't wait to invite my newer friend who is an engineer who was involved with the construction of Fermilab, the National Accelerator Lab, to hear this! Previously he was an overt mocker; no longer. He decided to try comparing cables and had his mind changed. That's not uncommon, as many of you former skeptics know. :)

I had my biggest doubts about the Ethernet cable. But, I was wrong - SO wrong! I'm so happy I made the decision years ago that I would try things rather than simply flip a coin mentally and decide without experience. It has made all the difference in quality of systems and my enjoyment of them. Reminder; I settled the matter of efficacy of cables years before becoming a reviewer and with my own money, so my enthusiasm for them does not spring from reviewing. Reviewing has allowed me to more fully explore their potential.  

I find fascinating the cognitive dissonance that exists between the skeptical mind in regard to cables and the real world results which can be obtained with them. I'm still shaking my head at this result... profoundly unexpected results way beyond expectation. Anyone who would need an ABX for this should exit the hobby and take up gun shooting, because your hearing would be for crap.  
douglas_schroeder

Showing 5 responses by atlaudio353

atlaudio353
8 posts
 
"The determination of a SCAM was by this groups moderators"
Where did they say this? Moreover, I couldn't find the word "scam," either with or without caps, in the TOS. Perhaps you should go easier on your keyboard. However the offer was clearly wagering, which is a violation of TOS, and posts were removed. 



"Just like they do going after spoon benders and ghost whisperers"
So you admit to being in league with charlatans?

atlaudio353
8 posts
 
willemj, would it be fair to say without looking more closely at the fine details of those tests, the take-away is things that measure the same also sound the same? Is that what you would have us believe? No wonder the cable controversy has been going on without letup for 40 years.

Then perhaps you should abuse yourself of the details. If YOU are claiming a benefit with X, it’s YOUR responsibility to show how that claim can be empirically demonstrated, not anyone else’s responsibility to prove it wrong. If said benefit is claimed because of A, and we know that A can be empirically demonstrated by 123 testing, then yes, we can test your claim. If no known testing methodology is available, it’s your responsibility to provide it. Without demanding that, your claims would be limited to your own imagination. 

If you are also claiming that we can’t measure a particular sonic change, benefit or detriment, then you have another claim to provide reputable citation for.
atlaudio353
8 posts
 
the real reason The Amazing Randi never (rpt never) lost a Million Dollar Challenge was because the test protocol was obviously slanted to favor Randi. And to favor him to such an extent he virtually couldn’t loose.
Citation Needed. Other than all of the charlatans who couldn’t perform. It's plain to see, that as soon as they are introduced to proper experimentation and logical rigor, we get a litany of special pleadings for why they can’t prove their claims.


your obvious contempt for audiophiles and the whole scientific method notwithstanding,

You, lecturing someone on proper understanding of the scientific method. That’s rich.
atlaudio353
8 posts
 
Whoa! What's this, the attack of the Audio Peer Review Committee?
Whatever you have to tell yourself. But yes, in a modern world where claims have to be substantiated, I know it's crazy. I'm sorry you were born on the wrong side of the Dark Ages. 

A man will usually gives the best evidence he has for a claim, short of that he will just bemoan the fact that he has to provide evidence. 
atlaudio353
8 posts
 
Actually, in the real world, claims do not (rpt not) have to be substantiated, proven or any such thing. Products do not (rpt not) have to be proven to work, they do not (rpt not) have to be explained. Measurements are not (rpt not) required. Those are all old wives’ tales. Have fun in your pseudo skeptic's daydream. 🍭
"claims do not (rpt not) have to be substantiated proven or any such thing "  Yes they do (rpt they do)
"Products do not (rpt not) have to be proven to work"
 Yes they do (rpt they do)
"they do not (rpt not) have to be explained"
Yes they do (rpt they do)
"Measurements are not (rpt not) required."
Yes they do (rpt they do)

Your logic has been soundly defeated. Be a man and admit it. 

Seriously? What problem solving paradigm do you support which doesn't demand evidence to support a claim? Have fun in your fantasy land of fantasy beliefs. Again, sorry you missed out on 500-1500 AD, that must really make you sad. 
More to discover