I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'm bugged.

@sns 

I expect the only reliable measurable trait you will find that differentiates O and S is STEM education level. You view their views as indicating a deficiency. Without adequate validation they are wrong, that is hard to support that view.

@deludedaudiophile Your moniker fits you exactly, inability to accept this as possible reason certainly exhibits a certain disconnect from reality. Your STEM argument has so many flaws, also fits the moniker.

I accept it is possible, however, having participated in blind tests where I was previously convinced there was a difference and then couldn't detect any, I did the calculations and realized there should not be a difference. In another topic, I dissected a marketing page for a cable and was able to determine only from that that it would have high resistance (and was correct) and I have no doubt that cable is audibly different. I have no doubt there are other cables that are audibly different. I have even wrote that in other posts. However, I am quite certain this has nothing to do with all the questionable science communicated by vendors and users alike, but by simple parameters we are all familiar. The claims of exotic science and justified by exotic materials and exotic construction do not hold up to scrutiny.

I expect the only reliable measurable trait you will find that differentiates O and S is STEM education level.

Your argument has no value in acoustic and psycho acoustically speaking...

Analysis of sound experience never supposed nor proved that his subjects which are not "stem" educated, like artist, poet and musicians are less reliable in describing sound experience than engineers or physicists .... It is probably the opposite in fact...I already put here an article describing how trained ears beat the Gabor limit...

Sound is first and at last a psycho-acoustic phenomenon, not a mere result of integrated circuitry...

The fact that some sellers wrote bogus equations to justify their products has no relation with the matter here: objectivist measuring stance to determine audio experience or subjective listening stance...

Psycho-acoustic CANNOT operate without linking the two: objective dispostion and measures and subjective ability to perceive discriminately...Then rejecting all audiophiles impressions mean nothing more than picking gear only by virtue of his measuring score... It is preposterous attitudes in the two cases....

It is so absurd i dont understand why people argue O against S and S against O...The only explanation is ignorance of psycho-acoustic and lack of systematic listenings experiments ...

This is the most stupid distinction ever when this distinction is not contextually correlated by a superior conscious motive.... Like democrat and republican war nowadays....

 

Blind test is a secondary tool not the necessary focus in audio experience by the way...

Musician dont use blind test guess why?

A clue: it is not because they cannot be fooled...

 

 

And cables debates are the most riduculous of all debates and proof that people have no idea of the improvement scale of acoustic over basic good chosen cables differences... Then arguing with physics books that such cable or the other one is without any sonic value is waste of time...

Audio thread are bout trivialities most of the times, "O " trivialities or "S" trivialities, and the center of experience is not even discussed together and not so often separately ... : acoustic and psycho acoustic control, vibration control, and electrical noise floor control... Why?

The best gear in the world at any price must be EMBEDDED in his 3 working dimensions to be evaluated at his peak or optimal level of quality ...

There is no two identical acoustic music Halls, or music rooms, or living rooms, or studios, in the world, Why?

A clue: it is because the way the "S" ears and the " O" material environment can be paired in an interesting acoustic way are multiples and interesting...

Acoustic and psycho-acoustic are Science but also Art...Like medecine... Suppressing one aspect over the other is criminal and stupid...We have seen it and the results of the negation of freedom all over the world in the last 2 years are with us..

 

 

 

 

Use of questionable science is not of critical importance here, these are outliers, vast majority of equipment is designed using legitimate science.

 

By the way, innovations in all human endeavors come from both STEM and non-STEM educated individuals. Innovation comes from those with curiosity and imagination. One must ask the right questions, or even what at time posed,  considered silly questions by some. To believe there are no more known unknowns is sheer lunacy.

 

While o vs s arguments may be interesting or infuriating, depending on disposition, it is far too early to settle this with absolutism. The only thing we're really arguing about is whether we have settled science or not in regard to s claims. I'd bet the house on fewer known unknowns in future, this all premature.