Moving cables around killed dynamics for days anyone else experience this?
I've been experimenting with different cables between components. Nothing sounds right since trying to improve sound with new mix of cables. There is no bass and boring, highs are okay but life is gone from system. So I flipped everything back the way it was still sound horrible. Ran everything 24/7 for a couple days still no go. Let it run a couple more days dynamics are back and bass is full big and has tone again and enjoyable to listen to. Can someone tell me why this happens. I've also moved just speaker cables around without unhooking them and seen this happen, I don't get it.
Sorry for a harsh word "morons". Because that I put it in quotes!
Anyway, IMHO to make a real serious measuring analysis in audio you have to have a deep knowledge not just in electronics but in psychoanalytic. But 99% of audiophiles who try to use these kind of theories don’t have any of required knowledge.
Because every second person on any audio forum likes to talk about science and measurements. But how many people here have any education in electronics, physics and psychoanalytic? Most of they didn’t study out of these disciplines. Unlike most of people here, I have BSc in electronics. But I don’t have enough knowledge to enplane most process in audio scientifically.
Because every second person on any audio forum likes to talk about science and measurements.
It's been my experience that those who hear a difference don't usually cite scientific findings to explain what they hear as they trust their ears. Once the topic of "science' is breached, then, of course, it will be discussed.
But how many people here have any education in electronics, physics and psychoanalytic?
Lots. Some here are highly steeped in the sciences you mention and some haven't bothered participating in a long time due to the acrimony imparted by those who refuse to accept that one needn't need a degree in order to sense something accurately.
Most of they didn’t study out of these disciplines. Unlike most of people here, I have BSc in electronics. But I don’t have enough knowledge to enplane most process in audio scientifically
That could be true re: most. Having that degree and admitting that you can't explain some of it scientifically is a step in the right direction, though. It's what we who don't have degrees do.
It's been my experience that those who hear a difference don't usually cite scientific findings to explain what they hear as they trust their ears.
Bingo!
That's why science exists in the first place, to explain human experience. Human experience does not exist to explain science. The people who think otherwise have it exactly backwards. They are deeply, deeply confused.
When people with such experience in audio like Nelson Pass, Rob Watts talk about measurements and correlation between SQ and measurements I respect their opinion. But how many people with such knowledge experience in audio are exist?
When people with such experience in audio like Nelson Pass, Rob Watts talk about measurements and correlation between SQ and measurements I respect their opinion. But how many people with such knowledge experience in audio are exist?
Yeah. And how many like Stan Ricker?
One year at CES they're having some kind of problem with the PA. Well not really what most would even call a problem. From where I was standing way in back it sounded like a perfectly normal PA. But some people up closer and near the middle were complaining.
Frantic running around on stage. Frantic checking of connections. Some old guy yells out something about a cap, or resistor. I forget. Couldn't hear from where I was anyway. Not the point.
Point is it was some small part in some random PA system causing a "problem" so small most weren't even aware of it, and yet some guy in the audience knew what part and he knew this just by listening.
If anyone reading this was there please chime in because as I recall the news swept through the crowd to where in no time even guys like me standing way in back knew it was Stan Ricker who heard and knew with his ears exactly what was wrong and how to fix it.
And they did what he said and all was well.
So look, its not like anyone is saying measurements don't matter AT ALL or aren't worth doing AT ALL. Is just that in the final analysis the measurements are secondary to the human experience.
Nelson Pass makes amps that purposely distort the signal to make them work with certain speakers. I know a recording engineer who bought one of his designs and said it was one of the worse sounding amps he's ever heard. He even called Nelson and told him so and they discussed it.
The recording engineer thinks it's that he makes his amps to get the best out of whatever speaker that's taken his fancy at the time. He noticed that if there's ever a picture of Nelson with a speaker in the background, the amp he's working on is probably meant to match that speaker, and most of them are widebanders.
This is not to say that Nelson can't make a great all around amp: it's that he sometimes chooses not to. Even Sarjan at 6moons (who's on great terms with Nelson) describes in detail how his amps are skewed in certain ways to accommodate certain speakers.
Interesting that the conversation has turned to Global feedback vs Non-feedback design, or simply we hear and like the audio waves that our own ears can interpolate not necessarily better specs in test measurements.
Distortion, distortion and distortion, we all hear and sum things up just a little bit different inside of our own minds.
Hey! @gratefuleric grab a strong cup of java and sit down and watch Unidentified: Inside America's UFO Investigation and report back ASAP.
Schroeder is wrong. Cables develop directional molecule flow. When you disturb the cables that is compromised until they have time to form again. The wiring and the dialectric both. Some people believe that all cd players sound the same.
@waipuna Cd players comprise mechanical parts & electronic circuits; Wires are just thin rods of metal. How do these compare in yr analogy? Btw, are you sure of this "molecular" flow or are you thinking of directional flow of electrons?
Have you thought that maybe it’s you that is hearing differently?
Your blood pressure changed, your relaxation of body changed, medications you are on affect hearing and blood flow, you are calm or your frustration changed and you hear different due to body changes.
This type of thread can act as a warning to any newbie thinking about going down the audiophile path. The level of audiophile nervosa that can arise in a purely subjective paradigm is really something (virtually anything you do can be perceived as "changing the sound" so careful about touching anything in your system and don’t forget to hold your rosary beads!).
Audiophiles who talk like this about cables would have a heart attack (if they thought consistently about these things) watching the type of cables and how they are moved and strewn around in making the recordings they cherish.
Imagine if the pros believed all this stuff. "Hold on guys, Eddie just moved his cable, we have to hold off another day for recording until it settles again."
Yeesh.
I move my cables around all the time. ALL the time, because I’m often switching them between various speakers I own. Or merely re-adjusting them along the floor (they are in a fairly high traffic area in our house). Does the sound ever change, the soundstage collapse, the sound get duller etc? No. Never.
But then I guess I haven’t spent the mega bucks on high end cables that can’t handle that type of abuse ;-)
Actually, this thread should serve as example to newbies that there are indeed determined glib pseudo skeptics right here on this forum and on this thread who would have you believe it’s best to be closed-minded and pseudo-skeptical when it comes to anything that is half way controversial in this hobby.
No Geoff, you are wrong. This thread should in fact serve as an example to newbies in the hobby how people who never experiment with any cables are experts on all cable related matters
I just love this thread. I am referring people from other sites to this one as an example of how insane audiophile drivel can be. Simply unbelievable that this could even be a topic that any would think is serious. All kidding aside though I moved from Texas to Tennessee and it took a half year before the cables recrystalized into audiophile capable quality again. I know a dude who moved to Australia and until the cables reacclimated themselves to southern hemisphere dynamics the signal ran backwards. I kid you not. No really it did. Darndest thing he ever saw and if he had not witnessed it would not have believed it. He flew back to the states for a visit recently and was telling me about it all. It was very difficult understanding him until I figured out he was talking backwards until he reacclimated to the northern hemisphere again.
This thread should in fact serve as an example to newbies in the hobby how people who never experiment with any cables are experts on all cable related matters
I can’t believe this is even worthy of discussion.......moving your cables changes something...not the speakers......same equipment....but just moving your cables.
The insanity this hobby brings. It must be an "Audiophile Poltergeist" that is behind this phenomenon.
Moving cables and the affect it can have on your sound has been discussed for decades. This is not something new or earth shattering. However, when it comes up now and again for discussion, oh how the knives come out.
Moving cables and the affect it can have on your sound has been discussed for decades.
Sure: Among audiophiles, who have also discussed "for decades" the "sonic effects" of a vast amount of pseudo-scientific "effects" (often barely that). There is literally no pseudo-scientific idea that an audiophile hasn’t come up with, that didn’t have some portion of audiophiles saying "He’s right! I can hear the difference!" That’s because audiophiles generally don’t employ methods that control for their imagination. That’s understandable to some degree due to practicalities involved, but many audiophiles go further to even deny the problem even exists.
Back to moving cables changing the sound: In the pro sound world, who use vastly more cables than audiophiles, no this does not come up. That is beyond using cables along well known parameters. I’ve recorded in, visited, and worked in many pro studios and not ONCE has this worry of "moving cables will change the sound" been either a problem or even raised as a problem. Because generally, there doesn’t seem to be good reason (beyond subjective audiophile hand-wringing and an appeal to golden ear hearing) to think it’s a problem.
If significant sonic changes occurred to cables simply because they were moving, guitarists would have had to stand statue still while performing on stage lest their sound keep altering. But they don’t do that, because they don’t have to. Guitarists (and other musicians) have used cables that writhe around on the stage or recording floor as they move and no engineers stress about "sound obviously changing" (even with unbalanced cables) due to "cables moving" (so long as the cables can stand the stress of movement, aren’t landing on power cables or whatever). Look at photos of Led Zeppelin or any other band performing. Look at the cables snaking all over the floor. The horror!
And when recording, engineers/musicians move cables around all the time and NO ONE says "We’d better wait a few hours - or days - for the cables to "settle" again or we can’t get the sound right. That nonsense doesn’t fly in virtually any pro setting. It’s the provenance generally of hand-wringing subjectivist audiophiles, for good reason.
Sure: Among audiophiles, who have also discussed "for decades" the "sonic effects" of a vast amount of pseudo-scientific "effects" (often barely that). There is literally no pseudo-scientific idea that an audiophile hasn’t come up with, that didn’t have some portion of audiophiles saying "He’s right! I can hear the difference!" That’s because audiophiles generally don’t employ methods that control for their imagination. That’s understandable to some degree due to practicalities involved, but many audiophiles go further to even deny the problem even exists.
So it's all conveniently down to a nicely worded, broad generalization.
Back to moving cables changing the sound: In the pro sound world, who use vastly more cables than audiophiles, no this does not come up. That is beyond using cables along well known parameters. I’ve recorded in, visited, and worked in many pro studios and not ONCE has this worry of "moving cables will change the sound" been either a problem or even raised as a problem. Because generally, there doesn’t seem to be good reason (beyond subjective audiophile hand-wringing and an appeal to golden ear hearing) to think it’s a problem.
In the workplace you describe, you're just duplicating a product, not listening like you would at home. As long as it sounds OK and meets the standards, you can then can it and sell it.
If significant sonic changes occurred to cables simply because they were moving, guitarists would have had to stand statue still while performing on stage lest their sound keep altering. But they don’t do that, because they don’t have to. Guitarists (and other musicians) have used cables that writhe around on the stage or recording floor as they move and no engineers stress about "sound obviously changing" (even with unbalanced cables) due to "cables moving" (so long as the cables can stand the stress of movement, aren’t landing on power cables or whatever). Look at photos of Led Zeppelin or any other band performing. Look at the cables snaking all over the floor. The horror!
In a live performance, I can't imagine how one would know, let alone ascertain, how a performance would sound before, after, or while moving. Talk about a red herring. Why didn't you include a revolving stage while you were at it?
And when recording, engineers/musicians move cables around all the time and NO ONE says "We’d better wait a few hours - or days - for the cables to "settle" again or we can’t get the sound right. That nonsense doesn’t fly in virtually any pro setting. It’s the provenance generally of hand-wringing subjectivist audiophiles, for good reason.
Has it ever occurred to you that the signal is getting through during the recording but it's with the playback at home in a settled environment that one can hear it? Two completely different settings.
Good one, prof! Textbook pseudo-scientific anti-audiophile screed with a little pseudo-philosophy thrown in for good measure. Filled to the brim with non-sequiturs and strawman arguments.
I dont understand that people use their intelligence to defend dogmas or attack dogmas...
I dont have opinion or experience with the moves of cable and the changing sound...I respect equally those who have report positively about that and those who are not..The 2 opinions and experience are intriguing and interesting... This debate cannot be resolve once and for all without our own involving experience...And it will be only our personal conclusion, because in audio the conditions of experiment are most of the times too peculiar or complex to reproduce with the same electrical grid, the same system, the same room, etc. and different ears also...
It is better to open the brain to the heart and to the ears … :)
I propose a blind test: close your eyes, listen to the brain; after that listen to the heart... Assess the difference for yourself, and choose your boss...
In the workplace you describe, you’re just duplicating a product, not listening like you would at home. As long as it sounds OK and meets the standards, you can then can it and sell it.
nonoise, you’ve missed the point.
If moving a cable changed sound to the degree some audiophiles claim that would be a serious problem for live events. The OP talks about the sound becoming "horrible," bass and dynamics going away, highs losing live etc. If those sonic effects really arose from cables being moved around it would be HEARD and a real problem in the pro audio world.But it’s not. And not because pros don’t care about how things sound. Pros spend more time than most audiophiles on sound, and doing real field work/experimentation with what actually alters sound and to what degree.
Further, your response ignored my reference to studio settings, in which virtually no engineers worry about bass/dynamics/highs being seriously, audible degraded by having moved a cable. Engineers, mixers, recordists etc listen very critically to sound all day long, for sound quality. (I would defy most audiophiles here to identify, for instance, subtle frequency anomalies and how to ’fix them’ to precision a good mixer can provide).
If moving cables collapsed sound, made bass/dynamics etc go away this is something pros would NOTICE and CARE ABOUT. But they don’t bother with it because it’s essentially a non-issue.Audiophiles in their homes are of course free to imagine whatever they want :-)
In the chaos of cables mess in a studio, all the subtle "cues" of the changing sound are lost, and cancelled constantly one another, minutes after minutes...A tangle knot of cables moving will maintain a general figure of sound that will not be disturbing, like ONE cable in a peculiar environment, where the same ears lived alone and attentive to the subtle details....And these " subtle" changes are not always measurable, and if they are, in some private room, it will be difficult to summon the expertise necessary to do it in the exact same condition at another times... Ok I will silence myself …. My best to all...
I dont understand that people use their intelligence to defend dogmas or attack dogmas...
I can understand being puzzled about defending dogmas.
But...criticizing dogma is a bad thing?
Whatever leads you to that conclusion?
Typically a dogma is: "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."
Do you think that’s a good thing? Is there any "authority" (especially in audio) that you know whose statements we must take as "incontrovertibly true?"
If not, why should you think that someone taking a dogmatic stance on an issue - audio or otherwise - means no intelligent person ought to analyze or critique that claim?
That sounds bizarre and unworkable. So...what point are you actually making, I"m wondering?
I dont have opinion or experience with the moves of cable and the changing sound...I respect equally those who have report positively about that and those who are not..The 2 opinions and experience are intriguing and interesting...
Cool. But then...who here do you think is defending dogma and what dogma would that be?
If you think about what I said you have the choice:
You can say that some idiot dont want to attack dogmas... Like you say that I am...
Or thinking that no sane mind can affirm this idiocy, you will arrive at the right conclusion that is mine : it is a waste of time to attack dogmas, all the times, with some people....Use your intelligence not to judge too swiftly...Use the context of a discussion to read something that can make sense out of your world...
You look like me when I was 16 years old and I play to dismantle the arguments of anybody without never listen to reason....My best to you , I am too old to argue... :)
In the chaos of cables mess in a studio, all the subtle "cues" of the
changing sound are lost, and cancelled constantly one another, minutes
after minutes...A tangle knot of cables moving will maintain a general
figure of sound that will not be disturbing, like ONE cable in a
peculiar environment, where the same ears lived alone and attentive to
the subtle details....And these " subtle" changes are not always
measurable, and if they are, in some private room, it will be difficult
to summon the expertise necessary to do it in the exact same condition
at another times... Ok I will silence myself …. My best to all...
Well, that's a whole lot of conjecture or assertions.
Any actual evidence for them? Do you have much experience actually working in pro sound?
Again...look at the type of claims being made for moving cables by the OP of drastic audio changes from moving a cable, including loss of bass, dynamics, highs. You really think if this phenomenon were common that people recording/mixing in studios wouldn't have noticed?
A mixer/recordist works very intently on the sound he's getting, often changing little things for very subtle effects, be it microphones, mic positions, or adjusting EQ etc. If a cable merely moving actually altered the highs/bass/dynamics to the significant degree claimed by the OP, that would be heard! It would necessitate for instance ADJUSTING EQ settings to compensate "damn, I'd spent all that time getting it sounding precisely how I wanted, but now the sound has changed and I have to start again!"
This DOES NOT HAPPEN (in any situation I've ever heard about) which is why it's the provenance of subjectivist audiophiles, but not professionals who spend their careers in sound.
In my daily job doing sound design I am adjusting mix levels and often EQ of many tracks combined (for a given movie scene I may have, say, 6 - 10 stereo tracks, and 12 mono tracks...sometimes many more! - that I'm carefully mixing so the addition of one sound *just barely* alters the whole combination. I have to sometimes move cables and this never results in the sonic changes mentioned by the OP, or anything that changes the very careful, subtle mixing I achieved).
Which is just what would be expected. Unless the cables in question were insufficient for the job or somehow defective enough to screw up the sound if moved. (Which is certainly an issue: rule one when having sound problems is usually "check your cables." But that is for significantly audible defects brought on by some failure in the wiring, not the phenomenon claimed by the "cable lifers" here).
Or thinking that no sane mind can affirm this idiocy, you will arrive at the right conclusion that is mine : it is a waste of time to attack dogmas, all the times, with some people....
Well, that’s confusing. Which is it? Is it a waste of time to attack dogma at all times? Or only with some people?
And why not with "some people?" Perhaps you mean that some people have such a dogmatic stance it is a "waste of time" to argue against their position because, being dogmatic, they won’t change their stance anyway.
But that is to ignore the existence of people who are not dogmatic about the issue under discussion, who could change their mind or amend their view based on the case made by either side.
If you have anti-vaxers dogmatically making false claims about the dangers of vaccines you don’t refrain from critiquing them because those people may be dogmatic. They are promulgating false ideas, and it helps to challenge false or poorly reasoned ideas for the benefit of others who might be influenced by those dogmatic claims.
Use your intelligence not to judge too swiftly...Use the context of a discussion to read something that can make sense out of your world...
Sure. But isn’t that precisely what we want? "Context?" Instead of one side being dogmatically presented, doesn’t presenting alternative positions about a claim provide MORE context from which we can "use our intelligence" to judge? And yet, you seem to advise against producing alternative positions in the face of dogmatic statements.
Forgive me, but I find much of what you write on this to be incoherent.I’m not asking that you "argue," but it’s up to you if you can or wish to clarify. Cheers.
It is not so much incoherent, it is just that I dont want to conclude and throwing in the basket of illusions all experiences of people who move cables and affirm to hear some differences...In the same way, I listen to your argument, and they are not neutral, your agenda is dismissing any " audiophile claims" … Audiophiles are a crowd akin to anti-vaxing…Case closed... :)
I know perfectly well all there is to think about your vision of the world: astrology, anti-vaxers, audiophiles, crystals users, etc. all the same... Am I forget something ? oh yes, intelligent design, homeopathy, tarot reader,...the list is too way longer to make, but you know it is very easy to read your mind set...
ok I apologize for throwing oil on a fire...
A remark : by the way I never experience in my own audio system that moving my cable makes a difference in itself, except this one : it is better that some cable dont touch some other one... That one I verify and experience by myself ...Then unlike you I dont dismiss all "audiophiles" in the same bin trash... My best to you... And to all...
Pro audio rears is semi-handsome head. 🦸♂️ Can controlled blind test ranting be very far behind? Perhaps some of his patented sweet tweakaphobic pseudo-philosophy...
I listen to your argument, and they are not neutral,
No argument is "neutral." An argument defends a certain position.And "neutrality" is not a cognate for "reasonable." If you take a "neutral" position between the claim of a flat or a round (oblate spheroid) earth, as if neither is more likely, you aren't doing much better than the flat-earther in terms of grappling with the evidence.
The question is whether the argument is reasonable/sound.
your agenda is
dismissing any " audiophile claims" … Audiophiles are a crowd akin to
anti-vaxing…Case closed... :)
No not all audiophile claims. I tend to challenge the grounds for certain claims when there are good reasons for skepticism (And I give the reasons). My "agenda" is trying to do this hobby while not being credulous in the face of every audiophile or audio-company's claim. If I find certain claims dubious, I'll explain why. And I've never done so dogmatically. I usually point out that it's not that I know the claimed phenomenon is false - it could be real - but rather I'm giving the reasons why I find the claim dubious or doubtful. Good argument/evidence could get me to believe in the claim.
And I'm usually careful to distinguish the audiophiles I'm talking about, which are "those who believe in the phenomenon in question" and/or the purely subjectivist audiophiles who think their hearing is the ultimate authority on sonic reality, and who reject the relevance of measurements, science etc in the discussion.
It is wrong to presume all audiophiles think that way. In fact, I see it as a problem that the purely subjectivist audiophiles seem to simply presume theirs is the correct approach and thus anyone entering an alternative opinion, skeptical of a subjectivist claim, is merely trolling or sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong.No! Plenty of audiophiles do not go in for every type of tweak purely on subjectivists grounds, and they want better evidence than that. There is a wide range of approaches to the hobby of hi-end audio, and the door ought to be left open not JUST for those who operate on the Golden Ear paradigm, but those who want to hold claims by manufacturers and audiophiles to more stringent standards before accepting claims.
I know perfectly well all there is to think about your vision of the
world: astrology, anti-vaxers, audiophiles, crystals users, etc. all the
same... Am I forget something ? oh yes, intelligent design, homeopathy,
tarot reader,...the list is too way longer to make, but you know it is
very easy to read your mind set...
How self-satisfying it clearly is for you to have pegged me so perfectly that you can dismiss my position without any actual arguments.
First, I don't think you could actually produce a cogent critique of my "mindset" based on what you've written. I can see the seams of strawmen and over-simplification already in what you've written.
More important, all you've produced is a sort of snide ad hominem: "You are so easy to read" instead of actually showing anything I've written to be unreasonable.
That's intellectually lazy and more in line with trolling. Don't you care to contribute better than that?
No one's forcing you to participate. But if you are going to, and think you can just drop in some ad hominem implications and job done, you should expect some pushback, right?
My remark about your mind set is not a more ad hominem act than your assimilation of " subjectivist audiophiles", who report something about cables, to the flat earther, and anti-vaxing crowd ...
By the way an argument can be perfectly rational and sound and used in a non neutral way, motivated by an agenda. (examples abound: using Darwinian science facts in a political agenda etc).
And now I am a troll in the thread... :)
My contribution is a simple testimony in my last post remark if you can read it... It is a simple fact that answered to the OP of this thread, and to you, about my own experience, without dismissing a priori his claims...And like the OP I think that it is a possible question in an audio thread not something akin to the anti-vaxing movement....Your contribution is a bunch of "rational" arguments to dismiss some very simple facts, or if you prefer illusory subjectivist experience, given by some "subjectivist audiophiles" as you called them , it remind me of some Jonathan Swift distinction in Gulliver... The subjectivist egg army against the objectivist egg league....This distinction between subjectivist and objectivist makes absolutely no sense at all except for those who feel necessary to makes it at all cost...
My best to you...
And I dont think that you are a troll by the way....I dont discuss with or about trolls...You are an intelligent mind and interesting guy, just a bit too extreme or hard in his conclusions and his self imposed mission...I wish you the best anyway...
It is so sad that prof does not realize he sees himself as the incontrovertible authority.
It's sad that when faced with an alternative opinion some people can't be bothered to give reasons it's wrong, but will post strawman claim anyway so they can satisfy their desire diss someone without lifting a finger to justify it.
Of course, you can't actually show anywhere that I"ve claimed to be an "incontrovertible authority" and it's inconvenient for your strawman that my argument to mahgister pointed out that it makes no sense to consider ANYONE an "incontrovertible authority" and why dogmatism of that sort is a bad thing.
If the preceding did anything, besides creating the expected dust-storm, as well as providing a podium for some pro-level splainin’, it might have given some insight into why so many of the movies we see sound as bad as they do.
My remark about your mind set is not a more ad hominem act than your
assimilation of subjectivist audiophiles, who report something about
cables, to the flat earther, and anti-vaxing crowd ...
Are you unaware of how a principle of reason can be often be defended by deliberately choosing extreme examples on the assumption that both parties agree on that example, hence establishing the principle?
As in, the parent to the child "You tried smoking because Eddie told you to? WOULD YOU JUMP OFF A CLIFF IF EDDIE TOLD YOU TO?"
The extreme example is adduced not to show that two examples are the same, but that the PRINCIPLE applied to the two examples are the same.
That was my point about neutrality. You seemed to imply that merely being "not neutral" amounted to some critique of my position. My appeal to being "neutral" about flat or round earth was deliberately extreme so that you'd agree with the principle that "neutrality" is not in of itself some intrinsic virtue or indication of reasonableness.
Of course any argument has to be "neutral" in terms of not begging the question. You can't assume X is the case but have to produce the argument for it being the case.
But beyond that, it's hard to see what point you could have been making about "not being neutral."
By the way an argument can be perfectly rational and sound and used
in a non neutral way, motivated by an agenda. (examples abound: using
Darwinian science facts in a political agenda etc).
Er...yes. Of course. That's perfectly compatible with what I already wrote about arguments themselves not being neutral. Someone will have their motivations/reasons for defending a particular position. The motivations can vary wildly among people.
That doesn't tell us whether the arguments are reasonable or sound or not, so...again...it's often hard to find your point. How does any of that relate to audiophile claims? Should no one make claims? Should only one viewpoint (e.g. the purely subjectivist) be allowed to make claims?What is your actual point?
"
Sure: Among audiophiles, who have also discussed "for decades" the
"sonic effects" of a vast amount of pseudo-scientific "effects" (often
barely that).
" It's the PT Barnum effect or as it would be in plain words and not psychobabble. It goes thusly. Namely there is a sucker born every minute and alongside him is the guy who figures out how to part him from his money. The only other thing I have personally seen that eclipses this nonsense are those who think crystals and rocks will heal you. Used to know a rock hound who discovered how to sell quartz crystals to these nuts. He would stand there with a crystal on a string and rotate it one way. If the heely feely did not get excited he would reverse direction of rotation a couple of crystals later and they would buy them. We always had a good laugh over the gullibility of people that knew no bounds. I would set up at rock shows and there would be space cadets come by and ask me if I though various stones would be good for their altars. Altars to what I never inquired about with these flat Earthers.
Tourmaline for speakers comes to mind now that I think about it and I am happy to see someone profit off the gulls. The other thought I have, besides the one of some treating this as a serious topic, is how much fun it would be to come up with these topics for amusements sake and let them rip. Surely that can't happen here! The sad part is I can't figure out where the OP stands and that is kind of scary.
I have no position....Only some limited experience that I cannot deny with your argument...
You can say I have too much imagination for sure....
And by the way associating generally ridiculous claims (flat earther) or generally accepted non scientific one (anti vaxers) to some group of people,(audiophiles), and linking the 2 is certainly not neutral discourse...And absolutely not the same that appealing to a common ground neutral logical argument accepted by all...It is more akin to a universal appeal to all, to reject those who are associated with them (flat earthers, anti vax, subjectivist audiophiles, like you called them). There is a difference between the logical content of an argument and his rhetorical content...
And look Prof, someone just came in, send by God or his adversary, ( :) ) answering your unvolontary call (the preceding post)...It is instructive to read his post ( rhetorical all the way down!)....By the way the fact that I discuss with you prove to you that, even if we differ, I respect you and we can discuss; I dont think that I can or wanted to discuss with this poster before mine...
Ack-chew-ally, the quote oft attributed to PT Barnum was not said by him at all but most likely by some dour pseudo skeptic cluck. What PT Barnum in his infinite wisdom did say though is that, generally speaking, people would be much better off if they believed in too much rather than too little.
Knowledge is what’s left after you forgot all that rubbish you learned in school.
To answer your question about my actual point Prof, I will say simply, that I cannot dismiss a priori any experience by some, because I lived one myself about cables touching one another ( mouse cable and dac cable in my case) and obstructing the clarity of the sound...
I had no other opinion, only curiosity for these facts, and some explanations; being a non subjectivist, non objectivist kind of audiophile, I will call myself a music lover sensible to sound and prone to working simple experiments to improve it...
Experiments that drives me to some simple discoveries, and low cost homemade solutions, that spare me a big amount of money in unnecessary upgrading urge and gives me something that some called "illusion" of pure musicality, placebo or not....:)
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
