@vinylguy2016
You’re using a broad judgemental opinion to simplify a complex discussion. That’s also a typical human psychological trait. This concept where humans feel the need to label and compartmentalize everything in order to simplify one’s surroundings because it’s easier.
Also, if you’re going to wax psychological human traits, there is plenty of studies that qualify the idea that some humans simply can’t hear certain sounds. Their brain isn’t wired in a way that allows them to hear differences between certain vowel sounds. Your overly generalized argument can be just as easily turned against you. I posit that nay-sayers lack the brain processes required to articulate any changes and nuance in sound quality. Thus they aren’t able to "hear" the difference and they immediately assume the opposing argument is flawed. They seek any evidence they can find to support their opinion; even if that evidence isn’t acquired through scientific method, peer reviewed or contain any control to cross-reference the results, and without any real tools to properly test for the quality of sound.
Your side keeps asking for proof, but your side is just as incapable of providing proof. IN fact, I don’t see where it’s our side that has to prove anything. If I say, "This plate of tacos is delicious and must be the best taco ever made!" I would not be held to account to prove that it is the most delicious because "delicious" is subjective. There is no test that can be performed to determine whether that taco is "delicious." The only way anyone can "test" for it, is to have a control. An EQUALLY agreed upon control. So, a taco that *ALL* sides agrees is delicious and thus any new taco tested will be tested against the agreed upon control. Then those results will be peer reviewed. Then you would have a solid decision.
This is the significant issue nay-sayers have. They lack the drive and resources to commit to a true test. There has to be a control system. An agreed upon system that ALL sides accept as the control. So anyone who wants to decide whether cables make a difference, or burn in is real, has to HAVE that exact system. You can make use of all that electrical testing equipment by verifying that the power requirements of any socket, power distributor, or power strip meets the same control variables set forth and agreed upon.
Care to do that? Somehow, I doubt it. I find it amusing that ANY TIME this idea is brought up and folks are willing to PAY for it and support it, document it, and willing to settle this argument...the nay-sayers offer up a defensive excuse and leave the table. It’s almost as if they NEED this argument to continue. They don’t want it settled; it’s too much fun for them.
Not to poke the hornets nest, but a certain nay-sayer "audiophile" was offered such a chance from a reputable "Snake Oil" brand and he turned it down. They would have shipped all his equipment to a neutral location, paid all expenses, rent and pay for a camera crew, and actually pay this person cash for their consulting. That person still offered up excuses and thus the ultimate test was washed.
You’re using a broad judgemental opinion to simplify a complex discussion. That’s also a typical human psychological trait. This concept where humans feel the need to label and compartmentalize everything in order to simplify one’s surroundings because it’s easier.
Also, if you’re going to wax psychological human traits, there is plenty of studies that qualify the idea that some humans simply can’t hear certain sounds. Their brain isn’t wired in a way that allows them to hear differences between certain vowel sounds. Your overly generalized argument can be just as easily turned against you. I posit that nay-sayers lack the brain processes required to articulate any changes and nuance in sound quality. Thus they aren’t able to "hear" the difference and they immediately assume the opposing argument is flawed. They seek any evidence they can find to support their opinion; even if that evidence isn’t acquired through scientific method, peer reviewed or contain any control to cross-reference the results, and without any real tools to properly test for the quality of sound.
Your side keeps asking for proof, but your side is just as incapable of providing proof. IN fact, I don’t see where it’s our side that has to prove anything. If I say, "This plate of tacos is delicious and must be the best taco ever made!" I would not be held to account to prove that it is the most delicious because "delicious" is subjective. There is no test that can be performed to determine whether that taco is "delicious." The only way anyone can "test" for it, is to have a control. An EQUALLY agreed upon control. So, a taco that *ALL* sides agrees is delicious and thus any new taco tested will be tested against the agreed upon control. Then those results will be peer reviewed. Then you would have a solid decision.
This is the significant issue nay-sayers have. They lack the drive and resources to commit to a true test. There has to be a control system. An agreed upon system that ALL sides accept as the control. So anyone who wants to decide whether cables make a difference, or burn in is real, has to HAVE that exact system. You can make use of all that electrical testing equipment by verifying that the power requirements of any socket, power distributor, or power strip meets the same control variables set forth and agreed upon.
Care to do that? Somehow, I doubt it. I find it amusing that ANY TIME this idea is brought up and folks are willing to PAY for it and support it, document it, and willing to settle this argument...the nay-sayers offer up a defensive excuse and leave the table. It’s almost as if they NEED this argument to continue. They don’t want it settled; it’s too much fun for them.
Not to poke the hornets nest, but a certain nay-sayer "audiophile" was offered such a chance from a reputable "Snake Oil" brand and he turned it down. They would have shipped all his equipment to a neutral location, paid all expenses, rent and pay for a camera crew, and actually pay this person cash for their consulting. That person still offered up excuses and thus the ultimate test was washed.