Ethernet Cables, do they make a difference?

@grmThat test you conducted is I feel a good way to do it, have non audiophiles help you out. That way they are using their ears only and as far as I am concerned the only way to go. I remember in the 70s there was a raging debate over sound versus science and the two protaganiste were Peter Walker of Quad and some of the staff of Hi Fi News and Record Revew and the gist of it was that Mr Walker said that specifications would win over percieved sound quality. Now we know that Mr Walker did make good products in his time but no one I know have ever said that his 405 current dumping amplifier was in the upper eschelons of the best amplifiers of the day. I myself had one and although it drove my ESL57s well when I changed to dynamic loudspeakers it was dull and lack lustre but it had superb figures on the test bench. The upshot was that HFN tested the 405 against an amplifier which didn't measure up anything like the Quad did and I am sorry but I don't remember which amplifier that was used but when they did their extensive tests this other amplifier was way above the Quad in terms of sound quality and enjoyment thereof. Mr Walker declined to participate in the test.The amplifier I switched to was made by Meridian and it was altogether a different beast where it had better sound quality and far more believable dynamics. Just as today Quad in their day had a lot of zealous followers who would not believe that their Quad products could be beaten by another brand. So today we have people who will not attest the fact that something as stupid as a piece of wire can make an improvement to the sound quality of an audio system . Another analogy that I put forward is people spend vast amounts of money on amps and speakers today and only to put cheap wire between the components is anathema to me. Would you put Ford Focus brakes on a Maseratti or cheap petrol in a Ferarri Testarossa no I don't think so. So lets just keep our better sound quality to ourselves and leave the people who think it is all in our imagination to go home and close their doors and be blissfully unaware of the improvements that they could make.
Jim.

kosst_amojan
@geoffkait
I love how you constantly use the oxy-moronic term "pseudo skeptic" to describe me. What’s that mean anyways? I really believe your snake oil? It’s about the stupidest conjugation of terms one could invent. For the record I’m most definitely a skeptic of snake oil. I’m NOT faking it in the slightest.

>>>>>Costco-emoji, I can certainly understand your confusion and misunderstanding of the term pseudo skeptic. Hopefully the comments below will help clear it up for you.

Psychiatrist Richard Kluft noted that pseudoskepticism can inhibit research progress:

".. today genuine skepticism of the benign sort that looks evenly in all directions and encourages the advancement of knowledge seems vanishingly rare. Instead, we find a prevalence of pseudo-skepticism consisting of harsh and invidious skepticism toward one’s opponents’ points of view and observations, and egregious self-congratulatory confirmatory bias toward one’s own stances and findings misrepresented as the earnest and dispassionate pursuit of clinical, scholarly, and scientific truth."

and this by Marcello Truzzi,

“Over the years, I have decried the misuse of the term "skeptic" when used to refer to all critics of anomaly claims. Alas, the label has been thus misapplied by both proponents and critics of the paranormal. Sometimes users of the term have distinguished between so-called "soft" versus "hard" skeptics, and I in part revived the term "zetetic" because of the term's misuse. But I now think the problems created go beyond mere terminology and matters need to be set right. Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial--nonbelief rather than belief--critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics and have, I believed, gained a false advantage by usurping that label.

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.”

and,

“While Truzzi’s characterization was aimed at the holders of majority views who he considered were excessively impatient of minority opinions, the term has been used to describe advocates of minority intellectual positions who engage in pseudoskeptical behavior when they characterize themselves as "skeptics" despite cherry picking evidence that conforms to a preexisting belief. Thus according to Richard Cameron Wilson, some advocates of AIDS denial are indulging in "bogus scepticism" when they argue in this way.[12] Wilson argues that the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it "centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological position".”

Great post, Geoff. Thanks!

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded

+1 And ABSOLUTELY NONE of the snake oil claims have been proved in the usual manner - for example an AES publication with measurements or double blind listening tests to demonstrate audibility. That some equipment run by imaginative listeners with high expectations is faulty enough to anecdotally produce audible differences randomly or with any slight change hardly constitutes evidence for new phenomena.

Your appeal to science couldn’t be more misplaced.