Have we lost civility and respect on Audio forums?

@maghister. I agree. Look we have opinions and I respect every one’s right to have an opinion but we have all different systems and to tell someone it’s not possible when the are listening to their own system while some are typing their scientific theories is beyond me. 

We hear meanings with our consciousness not mere hertz frequencies with the ears ...

It is why the human ears is not a microphone ...

You are not even wrong scottwheel ...

But i will not write a very long post to contradict your "not even wrong" observations conflating technological knowledge about the ears/brain and science open vast questions about this ...

Listen to my video above about the guru rolling in a fire and analyse "the trick" for me if there is one ... 😊

A very simple article to read to get my point ...

https://acousticstoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Psychoacoustics-A-Brief-Historical-Overview.pdf

«Although research on complex sound processing was pur-
sued by many psychoacousticians, there was no overarch-
ing theory or organizing principle to integrate the knowl-
edge being accumulated and to make new predictions. This
changed when a series of articles, chapters, and books ap-
peared between 1988 and 1992 (Yost, 2014). The book by
Al Bregman (1990), Auditory Scene Analysis, captured the
essence of these other authors’ attempts at finding an orga-
nizing principle for complex sound processing, and Auditory
Scene Analysis captured the imagination of perceptual scientists
in hearing as well as in perceptual and cognitive psychology.
Sounds from the various sources that make up an audi-
tory scene interact physically and arrive at the ears as a
single sound field representing the physical combination
of the sounds from the various sources. The auditory pe-
riphery uses biomechanical and neural processes to send
a neural code to the brain representing the spectral/tem-
poral features of that sound field. There are no peripheral
mechanisms that process sounds as coming from individual
sources. There is no representation in the neural code flow-
ing to the brain that the scene may be one of a car driving
by as the wind blows the leaves and a child giggles. Yet that
is what we can perceive usually immediately and effortlessly.
The sound is complex and the listener may be hearing some
of the sounds for the first time, yet the auditory images are
often vivid. These auditory images allow the listener to identify the car, the blowing leaves, and the giggling child. The
brain performs auditory scene analysis. Psychoacoustics has
just begun to investigate how the brain does this. It appears
to be a daunting task; it is, like Helmholtz observed, trying
to look down a tube at waves on a beach and determining
what caused the waves. It is likely that the next chapter in
the history of psychoacoustics will be written by present and
future psychoacousticians who help unravel how the brain
analyzes an auditory scene..»

“you can hear my system through this forum post? Ok I get it !”

I don’t think you get it. Nothing I said could even remotely be interpreted as me claiming to be able to hear your system through your posts. I don’t need to hear your system to know that basic cables are audibly transparent. There is nothing about your system that changes that fact. You may very well be using audibly colored cables. I don’t know. But I’m here are some high priced cables that do act as low pass filters and audibly chandelier the signal. I do know mine are audibly transparent. 

It almost sounds like you're living with absolute certainty that we know norhing. That none of the 100+ years of research in psychoacoustics taught us anything at all about human aural perception. “Let us assume that you can't hear 20khz or above?” It’s not an assumption. Literally millions of human beings have been tested for their frequency range. It’s almost like saying “let’s assume gravity is a real thing.” Do you really think wave interference patterns that affect the sound in the audible range are a mystery that none of us ever knew about and are mysterious and unmeasurable? If ultra frequency sounds manifest a wave within the audible range we hear it, if it isn’t masked, and we can measure it. AND any basic cable will transmit it without any audible distortion.

going back to the early days of Bell Labs about 100 years ago to current times there has been a massive amount of research on what we hear and don’t hear. We know for example that the total distortion in a basic audio cable is so low that it’s hard to say for sure if what is being measured is actual distortion or just thermal noise. It’s around -140 db. We also know that no human being can come close to hearing any noise or distortion at -140 db. And there is no recording or source component either digital or analog that can produce a signal that doesn’t add at least 20-30 db of noise and distortion. Analog sources in particular aren’t anywhere near that. And we have numerous controlled tests that clearly demonstrate this inaudibility. 
 

We also know, based on a large body of research that humans can not accurately compare an aural memory to real time sound. Not even close. And we know through other studies that it is a cause for humans, all humans, to misidentify differences in sound where none exist. 

“There are indeed all kinds of PhDs working 16 hour days doing research. What is really dumb is to think that they continually miss real audible phenomena that is only detected by audiophiles under non controlled conditions.

Did you know that for GPS to even work they have to use algorithms to make real time adjustments for time dilation due to special relativity? The sati lights are literally experiencing time at a different rate of Han we do on the ground because of the speed of their orbit Do you have any idea the level of sophistication and degree of precision that requires? Do you think the same scientific research and engineering that allows for that is missing something in cable transfer function that only audiophiles are detecting?

it is very simple... The less someone know about sciences the more materialistic he become with age... ( see Dawkins and others )

The more he know the more spiritual he become...

Is it a pure random effect that all the greatest mathematicians of the world , not some professor at harvard or Princeton, i spoke about the super genius in science are all "mystics" ?

In the past the exemple dont lack... Think about Blaise Pascal or Newton or Leibnitz...

Now go to the founder of set theory Cantor, a pure mystic who created his theory reading Dyonisos treatise on hierarchies ...Even Cantor method comes from spiritual contemplation ... I can even explain it how and why but it is not the place ...

Go to Ramanujan who spoke each night with Namagiri about number theory ...

The founder of all modern algebraic geometry and topos theory Alexander Grothendieck wrote a book of 1000 pages about God and dreams ... ( i have his 2 huge books )

Nowadays there is plenty of techno-cultist materialist, who knows nothing out of their fields , who flirt with atheism, materialism and transhumanism ...The dude who like the most science is "dr."  Bill Gates and look at what this fool is doing across the earth...Look at all the harm  he has done in the last years for profit..

Now in audio people live intimately with their soundfield, but if  psycho-acoustics taught us how to create a good stereo sound, as Dr. Choueiri the last genius in musical acoustic taught after many others psychoacoustics dont explain even the way we identify sound qualities... ( scottwheel will not contradict me about Choueiri he own the BACCH filters) 😊

Now these discoveries dont mean that we know how the ears/brain create "meaningful" sound with all this  information coming from his environment but also from many unknown factors working on the sound perceptible qualities  coming from a vibrating sound source  and perceived by a human as such and such qualities meaning such and such ... Humans are  not microphone at all ...

Ok i spoke too much...

😁

@maghister. I agree. Look we have opinions and I respect every one’s right to have an opinion but we have all different systems and to tell someone it’s not possible when the are listening to their own system while some are typing their scientific theories is beyond me.