Do your ears deceive you?

The element of "negative bias" is not often discussed here.  A concept is proposed that "pegs the needle on your BS meter."  Then, reluctantly, (perhaps to prove someone WRONG!!) you listen anyway.  Astonishingly (and, sometimes embarrassingly) you have to admit there IS something there after all!! Ears 10: Brain 0:.

I can think of a minimum of 3 instances in my audio life where I was certain my knowledge base was complete (well, complete enough to reject THIS premise), only to be hit over the head with a sledgehammer -- and better for it.  

     There are many posts, worthy of +1s, in this thread.

      Then: there's the very first post, to which I'll respond.

      Richard Feynman was addressing a graduating class at Cal Tech, which MAY have contained some FUTURE, "...most brilliant scientists in the world..., but: it wasn't a convention of accomplished Physicists, by any stretch of the imagination.    Unless you're a naysayer, trying to make a point and the stretch fits your narrative.

                      Read the actual commencement address, here:

                https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm   

      Anyone, actually familiar with Richard Feynman's history, should realize: his Nobel was a result of his work in Quantum Electrodynamics  (QED).

       Most of the theories, on which our beloved audio cables are built, are a direct result of that work.

                                     As I've posted, numerous times:

                WELL: the Cargo Cult's building another runway.

                                         Time for a rewind:

Cargo cult science is a pseudoscientific method of research that favors evidence that confirms an assumed hypothesis. In contrast with the scientific method, there is no vigorous effort to disprove or delimit the hypothesis.[1] The term cargo cult science was first used by physicist Richard Feynman during his 1974 commencement address at the California Institute of Technology.[1]

Cargo cults are religious practices that have appeared in many traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced cultures.

     Do a bit a research and you'll learn those primitives were limited in their understanding, of what they saw with their eyes, based on their prior experience, education and BIASES.

                                                A rewind:

                 It isn't that the Denyin'tologists are ignorant.

               It's they're knowing* so much, that's WRONG.

                       *heart of the Dunning-Kruger Effect

                                              OR, two:

     The Church of the Naysayer Doctrine (like every other faith-based, religious cult) has as many dopes as it does Popes.   

     Bring up anything resembling SCIENCE/PHYSICS, dated later than the 1800’s and they become apoplectic, not having the formal education to comprehend the concepts, or- possible ramifications.    THAT would be hilarious, were it not so pathetic!        

           Gimme That Old Time Religion, Gimme That Old Time Religion, etc.

        At the very first mention of something as simple as Wave Function (a BASIC tenet of Quantum Mechanics), the Cargo Cult will label you a KOOK.

        But remember: they can only view/understand you, based on their limited experience, education and BIASES.

         They have overlooked the fact that, if not for the hypotheses/theories and experimentation, regarding Quantum Mechanics: a plethora of modern conveniences, medical devices and the gear they so love, would not exist.

          Had scientists, chemists and inventors shared the doctrines of the Cargo Cult (Denyin'tologists), there would be no semiconductors, computer chips, LASERs, or Magnetic Resonance Imaging devices (MRIs).

                                         Solid State amps?

                                     OOPS (back to tubes)!

                                        Your Smart Phone?

                                        FA'GET ABOUT IT!

                                         Your car's GPS?

                                                NOPE!

    Then too: some may be willfully ignorant and just enjoy being contentious.

                        Others: obtuse, uneducated*, misinformed?

      *Typically, from what's been exhibited here: H.S. STEM, if that, would be a safe inference.

      Either way: the result, when the Cult begins it's rhetoric is a classic demo of the Dunning- Kruger Effect.

                                          But, I digress: 

       Bring up those pesky details, regarding the likes of QED, Dielectric Absorption, Poynting's theorem and possible application/effects, relative to frequency, that our musical signals are carried via photon or wave, outside the conductor and you're a KOOK?

         Again: the Cargo Cult can only understand anyone with an actual background, experience and education in Physics/QED, based on their beliefs, education, experience and biases

                                      Remember this?

     One anecdote  that some may find interesting: their walks in the woods and how Feynman's father would encourage him to look beyond the fact that something in nature exists, but into why and how.

     It saddened him that while attending college, during a visit home and one of their walks: his dad asked what he was learning in college.

     At that moment, he realized: if he tried to explain what he was learning, there was no way his dad could understand.                               

                            It wasn't an insult or condescension.

                                                Just reality.

                                    Oh well: let 'em go build a runway!

                                                    references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_quantum_mechanics#:~:text=Examples%20include%20lasers%2C%20electron%20microscopes,systems%2C%20computer%20and%20telecommunication%20devices.

https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsquantum-mechanics#:~:text=Quantum%20mechanics%20led%20to%20the,the%20science%20of%20quantum%20mechanics!

https://uwaterloo.ca/institute-for-quantum-computing/quantum-101/quantum-applications-today

          But: I'm a kook, because I believe in the SCIENCE, from which all that sprang?

     https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/five-practical-uses-spooky-quantum-mechanics-180953494/

           Einstein got that last one wrong (Quantum Entanglement), BUT- I still wish he'd been alive, when the Hubble Telescope proved, what he considered his, "greatest blunder" (his inability to bring symmetry to his field equation, without lambda)

.https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200507/history.cfm#:~:text=Einstein's%20original%20equations%20had%20been,how%20the%20universe%20will%20end.                                     

                                            How about that?

Another example of a hypothesis/theory, with no way to EXPERIMENT/MEASURE, what you're sure must be there, in some detectable way, or another.

                                               Just for fun:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-times-quantum-physics-blew-our-minds-in-2022/

                                            Happy listening!

@coralkong - simple for us, but not so for the many audiophiles who may have just started out with perhaps less developed listening ability - I was one once, you see. As with trained photographers, who observe and see with great skill, learning how to listen is no different - except that it is compounded by so many more variables and nuance. While it takes just over 26 frames per second to see moving picture, the ear operates at a level in the tens of that, complicating our ability to listen with accuracy even further. 
So yes, while it appears simple in conclusion, it definitely isn’t when there’s an entire world to parse through in the realm of the time domain that is music  ; )

In friendship - kevin.

Nonsense. This isn’t a scientific forum. No one here owes you any "rigorous" explanation or any other kind of proof, although of course you’re free to conduct your own experiments and share the results. If the empirical evidence described by users here is insufficient for you, perhaps you are in the wrong place.

@cleeds

I think you misread me. I don’t require any explanation. Evidence described by user’s perceptions are perfectly adequate for me, with no further claims or explanations beyond that. If they like it, they like it. Period. But, if the manufacturer starts making technical claims, it is scorn worthy if they don’t back it up. If they’re not going to back it up, why make a technical claim in the first place? If it’s just how users perceive it, who cares how it works? Why bother with all the technical hocus pocus, or credentials of the person who designed it? If it works, it works!

I’m not curious enough about it to do any formal testing myself. I’ve listened, and since my listening skills aren’t good enough to be impressed, I’ll leave it to those who can perceive what the fuss is all about and are curious about how it actually works to do those kinds of experiments. This is my selfish side. I’m interested in things I can hear, things that matter to me. I hear a lot of problems with 2 speaker stereo. Even though it sounds quite good, it’s a hack job way of creating stereo sound. I’ve got much bigger fish to fry than cable improvements. The problem is, I have no reasonable idea how to fry them.