The proof is in the hearing, at least this is what I feel that this hobby is all about. In that any difference perceived is in fact "real" as in "I think, therefore I exist." Proof other than that perceived through the senses does not really mean anything to me (look at various amplifier specs and then listen to the amps themselves and you will see where I am coming from). There was an English tube amp produced a few years ago that looked like garbage on paper and spec'd the same as well. It sounded wonderful. According to the spec's though it should have sounded like a tuner placed between stations, go figure. There is no way that a scientifically measurable difference can be proved to be an audible one (for everyone) and in the same vein it is impossible to prove that a scientifically non-measurable "difference" does not exist to the senses. We know very little, IMO, about our physical world and even less about the human brain and perception. I am all for an open discussion, however if one has not actually auditioned (whether it be blind or not) the gear that is being disrespected then that "one's" opinion is an ultimate act of "pon-tune-if-ica-tion" (my new made up word) and is a waste of cyber space. On the other side of the coin though, I was upset to read Jostler's thread of today in that he obviously does listen to music and audition equipment and is therefore actively involved in this hobby. In this regard his (unpopular) opinions are valid one's, IMO, and should not be censored.
Cable "burning": Real or VooDoo ???
While i have my opinions on this subject, i'd love to hear from others that have tried various methods of "burning in" cables, what was used to do it, what differences were noticed ( if any ), etc... Please be as specific as possible. If your a "naysayer" in this area, please feel free to join in BUT have an open mind and keep this thread on topic. Sean
>
>
- ...
- 170 posts total
- 170 posts total