rvpiano,
Well, I have to say our assessment of Teo’s post(s) are pretty much at odds. You mention three words that pretty much what come to my mind when I read it. ;-)
I can see why you may like it; it’s a diss of people who claim not to hear differences in cables, so it expresses the sentiment of your original post. But I would challenge you to actually pull a good argument out of what he wrote. And one that isn’t ultimately self-defeating.
It’s one thing to go of into soliloquies attributing some specious argument to other people and "knocking them down." It’s entirely another thing to specifically address what someone actually written. Teo as far as I can see spends a lot of time on the former and doesn’t seem terribly interested in the latter. Note when I pointed out his critique of my position derived from his own strawman, he didn’t acknowledge this at all.
Similarly when I responded to another post of Teo’s:
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/beware-the-audio-guru?page=4He just carries on, ignoring all the problems pointed out in his string of confidently declared claims. And that his very argument about the skeptics, and those who "can’t hear" the differences seem to just as ready to undermine those who claim they can. (And this is a common problem with arguments against blind testing, or other forms of controlled testing, and skeptical challenges: the Golden Ear who can easily heard "transformational" differences when he swaps in new cables suddenly looks for every excuse of why it soooo haaard to pick up these now-micro-differences in more carefully designed tests. The problem remains: if you think tests in which efforts to really control and account for known variables are unreliable...what in the world make you think tests with fewer controls, which allow for all sort of known bias effects, are MORE reliable????)
Teo continually poses as if he is tearing down the foundations of the type of skepticism people like me bring to some high end audio claims, but he has yet to accurately interpret or critique anything I’ve been writing.
But maybe that’s because my posts are too dangerously "Machiavellian" to touch ;-)
As I keep saying: we need to move out of black and white thinking - that someone either has to be a Believer or a Disbeliever - and that any nuance or caveats are just sneaky and Machiavellian. It really is possible to consider two points of view; to represent a case for skepticism without committing to that case, or to have come to a negative conclusion.
(Anyway, bye thread for now as I’m off on vacation...cheers everyone!)
