The Science of Cables

@prof 

I would personally differentiate those cable companies from "High End" cable companies

"High End" means engineered for a purpose, not some charlatan's pipe concoction for visual/cosmic appeal. Nordost speaker cables are in the YFJ [You're Freaking Joking] category. First time I saw them I thought, "How bad would my system have to be for these to make it 'better'?" First time I heard them, I was nonplussed. The $100k system was 'nice' but did not engage me playing Miles, Queen or SFO. Yawn...

@taras22 

 Funny you mention that capacitance thingee

Keep digging. C is but one parameter. As in most things, there is no free lunch. Electronic design is about optimizing. The Schroeder method Increases C but decreases L & R. In some systems this could be an improvement, not so much in others. Then there are the 'Y' parameters and the routing/interweaving of multiple connectors. It all depends on the SUT [System Under Test].

Maybe I'll start the 'IEales Method' wherein I use 200' interconnects in counter wound ellipses around my listening position to better envelope me in the aura. Shheeeesh!

ieales

"High End" means engineered for a purpose, not some charlatan’s pipe concoction for visual/cosmic appeal. Nordost speaker cables are in the YFJ [You’re Freaking Joking] category. First time I saw them I thought ...

So you judged them unheard based on " visual/cosmic appeal?" That doesn’t sound like a high-end approach to me.

First time I heard them, I was nonplussed.

Confirmation bias, perhaps?

@cleeds
Confirmation bias? Not bleeding likely. Please don’t read into what I didn’t write. I did not say I compared them.

I hadn’t been into a Hi Fi store in about 15 years. Treated room. Magico S7s, McIntosh monoblocks, McIntosh pre, interconnects unknown. Nordost something speaker leads. Played "So What?" from LP "Kind of Blue". "We are the Champions" and some SFO suggested by salesperson, streamed.

2nd time, another store, Focal Sopra 1 & 2. Moon something electronics. My 3 tracks, all streamed.

Both times, yawn. NOT what I expected.

I recorded for a living. The sound in a good control room is as close to live as one will ever hear. I still get goosebumps after more than 30 years thinking about some sessions. Today I’m retired, but volunteer as production chair and put on 7 live shows a year. I took over sound check last year. Thus far, nothing but compliments on how much better the sound is this year. I strive for the live sound in the seats. When I hear a HiFi, that’s what I want, Row G, Center 21 & 22. I wanna be grabbed and made to pay attention. When cats hear my system, they say things like "Man, I can hear everything. It’s so precise. And I don’t hear anything. It’s just all there!"

taras22


You attempted your usual: "don’t be so dogmatic about science because science doesn’t know everything, scientific knowledge isn’t absolute, and even the greatest scientists got some things ridiculously wrong."

I explained as I have to you over and over before, how utterly that misses the point. That’s all a given - it’s THE POINT behind being skepticism. Science is built on skepticism. As I’ve said so many times, people aren’t perfect therefore science isn’t perfect, but it is the most rigorous and intellectually honest method we’ve created for getting at reliable knowledge about the empirical world. That’s why, as I often point out to your diatribes trying to undermine science: the only reason we ’know’ previous science to be wrong was...doing better science. If you think you have something better than the scientific method to vet empirical claims, it’s up to you to make the case for this alternative method. Otherwise...enough with these red herrings about the obvious fact scientists can get things wrong.

You retreat from that fact every time, only to show up and cast aspersions at anyone who adduces science in a way that challenges your cherished beliefs about cables.


And you’ve ignored that I showed why the examples you gave of Newton and Kepler illustrated what happens when even great scientists go off the path of good empirical methods.


Being in favor of a method of inquiry that asks for evidence for claims and bu it’s very nature, has skepticism about one’s own beliefs and and tentatively held knowledge is literally the opposite of dogmatism.


But since this challenges your cherished notions about your subjective impression of cables, and you can’t actually rebut that fact, instead of admitting it you just move to repeating "you are dogmatic" over and over, in the vain hope it sticks.

Oh...and the old standby: "You are the one being dogmatic, and must simply enjoy mediocrity."


How novel.

Its not only bad form, especially when you resort to calling the non-believers stupid or idiots or ignorant, but back-slapping self-righteousness is going end up really hurting your shoulder.

Of course, I did none of that. Every single person, no matter how smart, can be fooled. That’s why the great scientist Richard Feynman cautioned scientists about empirical investigation: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."


What’s wrong with being intellectually honest, consider the points someone is ACTUALLY making, instead of making stuff up to disparage?