Most Important, Unloved Cable...

I’m sure you’re wrong. Their is obviously plural. It's not even close. End of story. 

their isn’t plural. It’s gender neutral possessive. His/Her infers that gender is known.

You are incorrect about almost everything here. I’m sure the mods here will come to your aid.

"This person" is singular so the correct word is his. Singular possessive. Case closed.

"Notice this person offering an e-z $20,000 hasn't posted there name or any other details."

to which jinjuku responded,

"Re-read the thread: I'm offering $10K. Someone else has matched for another $10,000.

It's their"

Actually it's neither there or their. It's his. But that's neither here or there. 🤓

" I’m offering $10K. Someone else has matched for another $10,000. "

jinuku you have offered nothing at all you are a winkley dinkler this is such a scam that is why your posts keep getting deleted your just an anonymous troll but of course you are having fun playing with the adults in the room!

wgutz: If this "thread is dead" to you, please "unfollow" it so you do not have to keep repeating the same thing.

geoff: with all due respect, could you keep your posts to a reasonable length?  Thanks.

I check in periodically, but I have other projects running, too. Some of what follows may be redundant, but I'm not going back to research it.

I understand both sides of this debate. I was at one time more in sympathy with the objectivists, but I realized the issue would not be resolved by merely taking a position and defending it. I chose to do some work in system building and comparisons. That was the first level of confirmation of the efficacy of cables.

My first comparison was about 30 years ago when I bought some heavy gauge cable and purposed them for speaker cables. The comparison between lamp cord type wire and a heavier gauge cable was easily heard. Not much expectation bias in that test, as the cable was not expensive.

Years later I estimate that I tied up from $4-5K in purchasing used cables before reviewing and compared them. It was before the advent/popularity of the Cable Company, so I had to buy the cables individually to assemble full sets of a certain brand, a real pain. I ended up with three sets to compare. I tried to get them as affordably as possible so I could resell the "losers". That was enough to once for all lay to rest any doubt about the importance of cables. I would not build nearly as good systems had I not done that work.

The second level, the opportunity to more objectively put this all to the test came with the review of the Audio by Van Alstine ABX Comparator. I knew that it could potentially blow up my theories of cables, but if I were able to pass ABX it would be the icing on the cake, so to speak. So, I did it. I passed, including passing ABX with cables (Now, if you don't believe me at on this point, then we truly do not have much common ground to discuss this topic). I admit that it took a great deal of concentration to accurately hear the differences. However, the results were definitive. The only components I was not able to pass testing were the level matched amps. Following up I found out that my results mirrored Van Alstine's findings.

So, the issue is settled in my mind. I do not think that argument or challenges will lead to any resolution. I suggest that for those who are interested the ABX Comparator is a good way to put it to the test. If it had an Ethernet testing capability I would surely try it. I do not know if I would pass, but it would be fascinating to try.

Now, if that is not enough for some people, so be it. As far as I'm concerned I have both experiential and experimental evidence to support my activities of system building. If you disagree, that's fine, have at it building systems with your own methodology. The irony in all this is that neither methodology in system building assures that a great sounding audio system will be built. You people are going at it as though if one philosophy of system building is proven to be true that assures you will end up with a better sounding rig. I find that to be far from assured.

Arguments are happening right now with a discussion on bass performance in another thread. People seem to be overlooking a simple, but profound factor while they attempt to pound the other side into submission. I  used to argue more about such things. Now, I make my point, and if it's not sufficient, so be it. I get tired of spending time at a computer on discussions which will have so little importance in the long run. 

Shadorne, you're wrong about your DAC.  :) 

The Amazing Randi ran the cable scam with Stereophile magazine some years ago but at least he was talking real money back then - a million bucks, not some chump change. And he was more entertaining to boot. 

Notice this person offering an e-z $20,000 hasn't posted there name or any other details this is like the Nigerian scam they are out to get your money identity personal information and access to your bank account and other personal data. I am sure that almost everyone here understands that but I am posting this info anyway. Most likely as I have already said it is a winkley dinkler juvenile posting from mommy's basement but even these kids can cause you harm. The best thing is to INGORE these trolls you put yourself at great peril if you seek to ingage with them walk away now!

Geoffkait: Second, I said negative results mean nothing.

To which jinjuku replied,

"You can say whatever you want. No result certainly has value however just like it does in all other branches of science."

>>>>>>Nope, sorry, it’s the same in all (rpt all) branches of science. You just haven’t figured out what I mean yet. A test is just a data point. It has no value all by itself. It only has value when placed in the context of other tests. Even if many tests are negative but a few are positive I would not be so fast to discount the thing under test. Yes, I realize a positive result could be due to bias, but we are eliminating bias, remember? Obviously pseudo skeptics are different.

Then jinjuku wrote,

"It means one of two things in the context here:

1. There is no difference
2. You can’t hear the difference"

>>>>As I just said it does not (rpt not) mean any such thing. As I already explained at least twice there are many reasons why a test can have negative results. If life was so simple every pseudo skeptic in town would be running around yelling, "I told you it didn’t work!" For whatever controversial thingamabob you want to talk about.

Either is okay by me. Email me at ethernetcablechallenge@mail.com when you are ready to walk vs talk. I’ll get you all the details and we can move forward from there.

->>>>>>No. Thanks, anyway.

wgutz
Give it a rest. This thread is DEAD.

Uh, it would appear not. The cable controversy shall never die. How long has it been going on? 40 years?

Give it a rest. This thread is DEAD.

geoffkait: I suppose you never got the memo that skeptics and pseudo skeptics never actually get positive results for these sorts of things. Something to do with the reverse expectation bias or some other psychological issue. Besides if they did get positive results how could they face their friends?

to which jinjuku replied,

"I’m pretty sure I could, bias controlled, get results with say 128Kbps MP3 vs 24/192."

>>>>>Huh? First, the differences between 24/192 and MP3 aren’t really controversial, I.e., "these sorts of things." Second, I said negative results mean nothing, not (rpt not) positive results. If you get positive results with 24/192 vs MP3 it certainly doesn’t mean there are not (rpt not) audible differences in cables, something that is controversial. That would be illogical. And audible to whom? 

What mr_m said !

A "winkley-dinkler?". Did you make that up or has it a meaning?  I thought we had agreed to no more name calling as that behavior is quite sophomoric.

" People that bluff their way through life will continue to bluff until called to account. Then the silence is deafening. "

Exactly and that is why those who came in here with there pile of Monopoly money trying to hustle up a little phoney audio test scam are probably gone for good it was obviously a scam anyway it didn’t take a genius to figure that out! It is the moderators who manage this group and it is obvious that they detected that this was a scam and that is why the posts have been deleted and I hope nobody lost any real money to this hustler. There are dangerous people seeking to get your money on the Internet! I would call this guy who tried this hustle a winkley-dinkler!

" I've made the point I wanted to make one way or the other. Enjoy spending through the nose for the placebo effect. "

Good for you you achieved what you set out to do that is just such a wonderful thing you must be so proud of yourself!

People that bluff their way through life will continue to bluff until called to account.  Then the silence is deafening.

Doug.......  where are you?????

Yep. Money talks and B.S. walks. 

I've made the point I wanted to make one way or the other. Enjoy spending through the nose for the placebo effect. 

We no longer need any test or experiment. The result is clear. Audible differences are not nearly as audible as some have claimed or anybody here could easily be 20K richer!

jinjuku

The point behind the offer, and it's an honest offer, is to simply show that people don't have as much faith in their ears as they think they do or would like others to believe. 

Your offer was no offer at all, which is why the moderators have deleted every reference to it. The offer has proven nothing.

My suggested evaluation rig closely mirrors the evaluation process that people use to come to the conclusion of SQ

No, your proposal wasn't even close to a proper evaluation, because it didn't account for expectation bias by the listener, or the person conducting the "test." That is why it didn't represent a valid listening test.

jinjuku
The point behind the offer, and it’s an honest offer, is to simply show that people don’t have as much faith in their ears as they think they do or would like others to believe.

>>>>>>We we also know that people’s hearing is frequently not as good as they think it is or claim it to be. We also know that people’s systems are frequently not as good as they think it is or as good they claim them to be. So what else is new?

I’m ok with that outcome. It’s a data point in and of itself and that data is certainly valid. Out of a count of 52 people that I’ve seen directly state large delta in Ethernet cabling SQ I have 0 takers. That forms a picture that any reasonable and prudent person can form for themselves.

>>>>>The data point is, however, not (rpt not) valid IF the person is unable to hear differences that are actually there OR if the test system is either not (rpt not) resolving enough or has errors in it. That’s kind of the whole point why negative results should be thrown out. If negative results meant anything every pseudo skeptic in town would be crowing that this or that controversial tweak failed his little controlled blind test. Follow?

On the typical response of scientifically invalid. My suggested evaluation rig closely mirrors the evaluation process that people use to come to the conclusion of SQ differences. If their opinion is good in that case then it will hold water with the same people when done with my proposed setup.

>>>>I suppose you never got the memo that skeptics and pseudo skeptics never actually get positive results for these sorts of things. Something to do with the reverse expectation bias or some other psychological issue. Besides if they did get positive results how could they face their friends? 😫

The point behind the offer, and it's an honest offer, is to simply show that people don't have as much faith in their ears as they think they do or would like others to believe. 

I'm ok with that outcome. It's a data point in and of itself and that data is certainly valid. Out of a count of 52 people that I've seen directly state large delta in Ethernet cabling SQ I have 0 takers. That forms a picture that any reasonable and prudent person can form for themselves.

On the typical response of scientifically invalid. My suggested evaluation rig closely mirrors the evaluation process that people use to come to the conclusion of SQ differences. If their opinion is good in that case then it will hold water with the same people when done with my proposed setup.

jinjuku0

It’s not a double blind test.

As I noted here pages and pages back, that’s exactly why the results of your test would not really be valid.

I don’t think there’s much value for most audiophiles to conduct proper blind testing. But a test that doesn’t control bias has no value at all to anyone other than the actual listener himself.

In any event, it's clear from the many recent deletions in this thread that if you seek to promote your test challenge, you'll have to find another place to do it.

@dynaquest14   

The larger rims do help with cornering. This is rather useless on an SUV. In the end, your brother will just be more likely to have a rougher ride, more expensive tires and a bent rim the next time he hits a pothole!

I have large AMG rims on my big lumbering Mercedes GL350 diesel truck and I totally agree it is a silly idea. Already had a rim bent...ouch!

New rule against repetitive droning on about the same crap?

Dave

Of note...lots of recent posts have been "removed."  Including one of mine that, I thought, was fairly benign.  Are THEY trying to silence us?

Actually I get the "audio jewelry" angle in all of this and would bet many buy these expensive trinkets for just that purpose...though they try to convince themselves and others otherwise. To wit (though from an auto perspective): my brother has a BMW X5. I tried to talk him out of it but he just spent north of $3000 to replace his 20" wheels with 23" wheels. This was all about show. Bigger wheels (the way he drives) has no impact on speed, economy, handling or braking.

Same applies to pretty wires and cables. Again, I get that. But high end ethernet? Those wires are always going to be ugly. Ineffective and ugly.

@jinjuku

You won’t get anywhere with this lot. They make wild claims and then back down and come up with 1000 excuses when challenged. There is also a big lucrative market for selling all these pointless bits of audio jewelry - so don’t expect anything remotely resembling a fair shake here.

However you wish to phrase it or perform it or teach it, the results are simply a data point and don't prove anything, especially if the results are negative. If the results are positive I might say, well, that's interesting. 

That's usually what controlling bias, your words, implies.

This would be SBT. It's still controlling the lister BIAS. Toole and Olive are fans of bias controlled testing.

I could even setup the testing rig to be operated by someone the claimant chooses. Just a quick bit of training is all it would take. 

That's usually what controlling bias, your words, implies.

Ah, the controlled double blind test rears its ugly head.

It's not a double blind test. 

Ah, the controlled double blind test rears its ugly head. One wonders why it took so long. What is it about negative blind test results not meaning anything don't people get? Hmmmm...🙄

You shouldn't be scared. The offer is one of transparency. 

As David Lee Roth once said: You can either do it one take or you can't.

You scare me and I would never take you up on such a ridiculous offer. Strangest thread I have been part of in all my considerable time here on the Gon.  Doug, I must leave this thread and look forward to your review brother.  

It could be any ’cology’ but it doesn’t prevent claims from being testable.

You can flap your arms and fly, you can leap 10 foot tall beams in a single bound, the earth is flat, you can walk on water, boutique Ethernet cables sound better.

None of these require a rigorous 1000 N sampling for the sake of science or statistics. Neither does the delusion that people are hearing all these differences in same constructed, passes spec, Ethernet cabling. It’s pure looney bin type stuff.

Is there anyone that has the faith in their ears, that they routinely posture with, here? The real issue is that if you are delusional about Ethernet and all these perceived differences then you find it all disappears when bias is controlled for it singularly brings into question everything else you have to say. It’s a credibility buster no doubt. I understand the apprehension that some aren’t the golden ears they’ve allowed their ego to be pumped up to.