Most Important, Unloved Cable...

Re Teo’s link to holographic universe. The following paragraphs describe David Bohm’s view of the universe, which he enunciated many years ago, circa 1980.

Borrowed from photography, the hologram is Bohm’s favorite metaphor for conveying the structure of the Implicate Order. Holography relies upon wave interference. If two wavelengths of light are of differing frequencies, they will interfere with each other and create a pattern. “Because a hologram is recording detail down to the wavelength of light itself, it is also a dense information storage.” Bohm notes that the hologram clearly reveals how a “total content–in principle extending over the whole of space and time–is enfolded in the movement of waves (electromagnetic and other kinds) in any given region.” The hologram illustrates how “information about the entire holographed scene is enfolded into every part of the film.” It resembles the Implicate Order in the sense that every point on the film is “completely determined by the overall configuration of the interference patterns.” Even a tiny chunk of the holographic film will reveal the unfolded form of an entire three-dimensional object.

Proceeding from his holographic analogy, Bohm proposes a new order–the Implicate Order where “everything is enfolded into everything.” This is in contrast to the explicate order where things are unfolded. Bohm puts it thus:

“The actual order (the Implicate Order) itself has been recorded in the complex movement of electromagnetic fields, in the form of light waves. Such movement of light waves is present everywhere and in principle enfolds the entire universe of space and time in each region. This enfoldment and unfoldment takes place not only in the movement of the electromagnetic field but also in that of other fields (electronic, protonic, etc.). These fields obey quantum-mechanical laws, implying the properties of discontinuity and non-locality. The totality of the movement of enfoldment and unfoldment may go immensely beyond what has revealed itself to our observations. We call this totality by the name holomovement.”

g kait
machina dynamica
advanced audio concepts

"It comes down to this there are more than double blind testing for discrimination elimination."

As a person with a studied familiarity with established and validated scientific testing protocols I am not familiar with the term discrimnation elimination? Would you please for the benefit of those you have engaged in this discussion define this term and how it applies to this discussion seeking to verify the audibility of differences if any among and between ethernet cables.

It is a common error made by those lacking in scientific discipline to underestimate and oversimplify the requirements needed to conduct statistically valid scientific testing irregardless of the discipline under consideration in this case the components that comprise a Music Reproduction System. While It may sound funny for me to assert this the simple truth is that any test itself must be independently verified as scientific and this must be done in advance of any testing of a hypothesis because otherwise the results are not valid.

As a professor of mine would oft-repeat a scientifically flawed or invalid test or a test conducted without the rigor necessary to insure its integrity is actually worse than no test at all and can lead to invalid conclusions and/or results that are not repeatable which by definition is an invalid test. There is a lot of literature in the scientific community and I encourage you to avail yourself of that literature so as to inform yourself what requirements you would need to test your hypothesis about cables. Also note that until such a test is conducted, reviewed, analyzed and studied your vocal assertion about ethernet cable is just a hypothesis and no more irregardless of your staunch convictions as to there verity of your beliefs.

As a person with a studied familiarity with established and validated scientific testing protocols I am not familiar with the term discrimnation elimination?

I meant bias elimination (that of sighted input).

It is a common error made by those lacking in scientific discipline to underestimate and oversimplify the requirements needed to conduct statistically valid scientific testing irregardless of the discipline under consideration in this case the components that comprise a Music Reproduction System.

And anyone that is a subject matter expert is more than free to weigh in. My proposed method will either stand or modify based on input.

Please also understand that I’m not out to find general norms per-se. I’m testing individual claims. If there are a group of people making the same claims then the N simply increases.

Again if some one says they can jump 20 feet straight up, the bar to jump over isn’t being evaluated, it’s the claim of covering 20 vertical feet.

verity of your beliefs.

I don’t have a ’verity of beliefs’. I have data that leads me to a conclusion that:

1. I can’t hear the difference between 315 foot of generic CAT5 and 12 foot of boutique CAT8
2. Three other people that have tried the ADC’d tracks can’t tell when 315 foot or 12 foot of cabling was in play
3. No one has debunked my DA/AD setup is of inadequate resolution
4. So far I’ve interacted with 12 audiophiles that believe in the audibility of a data cable but I can’t give $2000 away.

Even in this thread no one that has DL’d the tracks has hazarded a guess.

My head hurts! I just know these cables can sound different in a least one instance.....my home, my system, and three sets of different ears listening in my home and on my system. This actual experience was and still  is real and real proof. The rest of this is interesting, but no more than that.

What are you feeding with Ethernet? I can always order and evaluate.