The Science of Cables

Mr. Duncan, how are your HAVE custom built IC's working out for you? Post your thoughts...

What p-value was accepted here?

You’ll have to break down and look up the pear studies yourself.

Right now, you have questions, so you can reserve for yourself, full denial... and walk away and never look.. but that is an intellectually dishonest thing to do.

You were given the doorway to walk through (names being named), that should be enough, to step in and take a look.
Although there should be a internet rule for this problem, similar to rule 34. like "If the subject is contentious, there will be fully fleshed out denials of it". the pear studies and this given meta test, are a drop in the bucket of the data trails... 

It's the same pattern and problem... of isolated drug testing. where in the real world, all the drugs and the environment interact. In the way a low level considered safe carcinogen is having to deal with 1000-2000-5000 low level chemicals and carcinogens/precursors/drivers/etc, which as a sum total in the real world has 'Cancer' writ large --all over it.

All one has to do is start putting the dots on a page, through looking, looking, looking... and the dots will emerge/converge into a load line of probability that escapes all potential to question it's validity. that thing about science not being a simple bit of reading...

" There is strong empirical evidence that,

* cables sound different
* cables suffer break-in
* cables are directional
* cables are system and application dependent to some extent
* cryogenics improves cable performance. "
Unless you count the endless sighted/subjective "observations" in reviews and shop demos, I have not seen such evidence. I have seen plenty of ABX tests that suggest the opposite.  Where is this evidence?
I would like to believe that different high quality, sufficient gage cables make a significant audible difference, otherwise I am foolish for spending money on my own Analysis Plus cables.  Unfortunately, all the evidence I have seen would tell a disinterested observer that I am, indeed, fooling myself.  I've seen the supposed "victory" in Stereophile, and I know enough stats to tell you that the letters are right, the bias to hear a difference may be the only significant observation there.

In 1961, when Wigner introduced the idea that would eventually become known as "Wigner’s friend," only one scenario was used. With the new experiment, it was doubled and the results that Wigner had first discussed more than 50 years still rang true.

Quantum mechanics gives detail on how the world works at a scale so small that the rules of physics do not apply, Live Science added. With the new findings of the study, the field of quantum mechanics may change if measurements are not the same for everyone.

"It seems that, in contrast to classical physics, measurement results cannot be considered absolute truth but must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement," Ringbauer told Live Science. "The stories we tell about quantum mechanics have to adapt to that."

~~~~~~~~~~~

Note: the underlying characteristic of all Newtonian objectivity is entirely quantum mechanical in nature and type.

That above excerpt regards a study that was released the other day.

And a thousand other places to look and find more supporting data, if one is brave enough to look.

This is how groups if ’deniers’ can do a multitude of ’psychic sensitivity’ testing at the most rigorous levels of quality possible and always come up empty.

Where those who believe that psychic sensitivity is real, when enacting the most rigorous scientifically objectively enacted studies (just like deniers) will receive back...a perfect confirmation of it’s reality. As they have in thousands of instances of rigorously perfected studies, for many decades.

It really is: You get back what you put out. Objectivity cannot and does not exist. It is a figment of your imagination and projections, as tied to the underlying nature of reality.

So, in essence, you can ignore this study and shut your mind from recalling this point. (which quite a few will) and you will be successful in that, as that path through reality takes over...

Or you can go and find the other thousands of data points that support the reality of objectivity’s non existence - the impossibility of classical objectivity. And then move toward ruminating all of reality, not just self created boxes and limits. The ’problem’ for the objective ground hugger mentality, is... linear space-time takes a hit so hard it openly fails in this space, this reality, in the now.

What the situation says...is...You are free to lie to yourself however you may want about what you project, and you will interact with those realities and ’receive’ them. Or you can look at the world in how it truly is, where potential and reality is tied to you and what you can accept, understand, and bring into this world.

Essentially, the monkey has to get smart, get it straight, and finally relax, or it’s going to kill us all.

What does this have to do with contentious argument threads about audio?

Well, obviously...everything. Cable deniers, hearing deniers, logic deniers, etc.

Electricity by necessity, by reality, by fundamentals, is a quantum calculation and system. So is the human mind.