2. cables
  3. 134973-109193

Cable Snake Oil Antidote

Some might find this Cable Snake Oil Antidote interesting with respect to LRC, the signal and the system.

Cables affect the sound and the effect is system dependent.

Another's opinion on a cable in a vastly different system may not be valid.
128x128ieales
clearthink
1,421 posts
 

phomchick"Peter’s article seems correct to me, though it is a bit excessively emphatic in some of its points."

And yet their is no proofs that is the problem with the naysayers and self-proclaimed objectivists the burden of "proofs" always fall to a party other than themselves and that is what is so strange about they're claims!
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Lie no. 9 has to do with CD treatments. Aczel’s argument is that you cannot change the 1s and 0s on the CD therefore CD treatments must be a scam. But as we learned (?) the other day, the data on the CD is not 1s and 0s. The data are physical “pits” and “lands” that are vulnerable to being misread by the CD player for a variety of reasons. The creating of 1s and 0s occurs AFTER the physical data is read by the CD laser. So, now we’re down to only 9 Lies. One small step for audiophile. One giant step for audiophiledom. Whatever.
phomchick's avatar
phomchick
209 posts
 
phomchick"Peter’s article seems correct to me, though it is a bit excessively emphatic in some of its points."

And yet their is no proofs that is the problem with the naysayers and self-proclaimed objectivists the burden of "proofs" always fall to a party other than themselves and that is what is so strange about they're claims!

I'm not sure I follow this exactly, but if you are saying that the naysayers never have proof for their doubts, then:

  1. You can never prove a negative
  2. If you are making unusual or extraordinary claims, the burden of proof rests with you. That should be obvious.
  3. If you want to prove to me that $1,000 AC power cords sound better, you have to do two things: a) come up with a believable explanation of why it should sound better, and b) prove that you and others can reliably tell the difference with an A/B/X test.
If this was not what you were saying, I apologize.

clearthink
1,421 posts
 
phomchick"If you are making unusual or extraordinary claims, the burden of proof rests with you."

Actually there is no burden of proof on me at all however if you want to discuss this I can only point out that many the many contributors to this forum who have consistently reported they’re own first-hand observations that obviously conflict with those of the "AudioCritic" so I would state simply that his are the "extraordinary claims" and not anyone elses!

" prove that you and others can reliably tell the difference with an A/B/X test."

Again I do not not need to proof anything to you at all this is a hobby group but since you bring up abx it is not a definitive test for audio as has been revealed hear by others on many occassions. AudioCritic states that he is an objectivist so he must have proofs of what he claims or perhaps he is just trying to sell magazines!
aalenik
67 posts
 

OK cj, since you're not a troll and your intentions are good... just one more post...

I made a very general statement that cables cannot improve the signal, only degrade it.  I think I said that the cable can only damage the signal or lose it.  All of what you've been writing is valid & true.  It all falls under 'damage' to the signal.  I didn't think it was necessary to 'get into the weeds' in some general, practical, advice on choosing cables. 

Really cj, this is just nit-picking. I still believe my advice was quite sound.  And really, you DO come across like a troll - personal attacks and all. Go back and re-read yourself.

More to discover