Ethernet Cables, do they make a difference?

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.

shadorne

... 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.

There have been some proposals here to design and conduct such testing. But they were met by the forum's self-proclaimed objectivists with some odd preconditions, including a $25,ooo wager and agreements prepared by attorneys for "protection."  It seems that those who clamor the loudest for scientific testing are actually those who are least serious about it.

In any event this is a hobbyist group, not a scientific forum, so demanding scientific proof here is misplaced.

shadorne, you’re not following. Naysayers claim that certain tweaks are snake oil. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Where’s your proof? Didn’t you read my earlier post on the definition of pseudo skepticism? Hel-loo!

geoffkait

Naysayers claim that certain tweaks are snake oil. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Where’s your proof?

Their "proof" is their belief, i.e. their faith. By definition, faith requires no proof. That's why attempting to provide them with proof is futile; faith always trumps science.