How much money do you want to waste?

Hearhere: You continue the Jlambrick heresy! (See post above) Our position has been stated clearly to those with ears to hear. Are you misnamed? The Audiophilic Dialogue is not for beginners! To a rational person our discussion may appear as simply a group of undefined and incoherant buzzwords bantered about to no end. So vacuous as to defy any verifiable statement and, at the same time, contain any intended meaning. Not so! The fault Sir is your own! Your brain, moribund with structure and discipline, is unable to cogitate directly with the aural experience which is the hallmark of the Audiophilic Dialogue.

Proof! you say, I can hear it now.(You EE types are all the same.) PROOF IT IS. In dark nights after some hours of deep listening I actually hear the aural cogitation. I HEAR IT SIR! Are you prepared to call me a lier!? Not only do I hear it Sir, but after considerable meditation and cogitation interspaced with deep listening I have narrowed down the frequency of said cogitation to somewhere over 60kHz!! Refute That! As further proof I say my dog has left the building...left the building Sir... and has not been seen for months! That Sir, is BEYOND REFUTATION!

I do not mean to be dismissive of your naivete but you should consider keeping to yourself until you have learned something of aural cogitation through deep listening. I myself (I am an open mind sir) tried your mathmatics once and it gave me a headache lasting some weeks, during which my aural experience was directly and adversely affected! Quite frankly I see no future in it... not in the Audiophilic Dialogue anyway.

Sincerely, I remain

Argh! I don't know art, but I know what I like.

Well, well, now we see the recoil, don't we? Let's update our tabulation: "surreal", "irrational", "grotesque", etc. and now a demand for an apology on behalf (self-annointed)of all objectivists throughout all the world (and, assumably, throughout all time).

Why are you afraid of ideas?

If I say that a certain orientated mind hears deeper into the music, then, per se, I am being "insulting" to, well, an occupation? Is that what you are saying? How can you say that you believe that different minds hear to varying depths of "feeling", but then also say that one mind can't hear deeper than "an engineer"? This is a logical incongruency.

I ask you to tell me why you think that my ideas are "baseless", and you proceed to omit doing so, then demand that I "prove" my ideas through referring to what others say (demanding objective eveidence, symptomatically), and tie it all together with an emotional, politically correct demand for an apology on behalf of all "objectivists", including, assumably, all "engineers".

Are you a crusading for all "engineers" who have been harmed by ideas that say attachment to objective thinking is partial? Who has been harmed? The only minds "harmed" by ideas are those who believe that their ideas are who they are, and when confronting another idea, for their self to survive, must censure that opposing idea? Descartes, the father of empiric method, said, "I think therefore I am." This is incorrect. It is, "I am, therefore, I think, sometimes." You are not only your ideas. As such, an opposing idea does not threaten your survival.

OK, again, what, specifically, is "baseless" in the above theories? I'm still waiting.

I'm also confused by your statement that there is no difference in sound between one cable and another, but then you say that the "total experience" of music goes beyond sound. If the sound is the same from any given configuration of matter (an assumption that is entirely against the evidence of science), then how can one hear something different and, therefore, have a differing experience?

As far as objective proof for my ideas, alas, the "what is" wants YOU to conduct that experiment for yourself without looking to someone else to tell you what you are "hearing". The problem is that you do not want to let go of the scientific passifier that tells you that if you only believe what others say, then you will be safe in your mind of ideas. The "what is" wants you to go deeper though. But first you have to stop believing that you are a sum of your objectifying thoughts. And stop looking to the "we" you refer to to tell you the sum of potentiality that is waiting for you in the Music...

OK, copper, silver, or titanium?
assuming that interconnects etc make a big difference, is there a formula for what material is "better" and how does one categorize and order according to quality? I have seen prices range from $80 to $10.000 for just a set on interconnects.
joeb

Look, let's make this simple.

I do not doubt that people "hear" differences in cables. But let's look at facts and not subjective opinion.

Open up any piece of audio equipment and look inside. See all those copper traces on PC board running inside? THOSE are your interconnects and speaker wires.....those are what carry the audio signal around between passive and active modulators. The paths represented there are 30 times longer than your measly 1.0m interconnect or 10 times longer than your lousy 8ft. of speaker wire. AND....those traces are DOING NOTHING......but are under infinitely more stress from interference and signal alteration from EMI and stray capacitance INSIDE of a component than they would be OUTSIDE of it........but does anyone worry much about that??? Well, actually DIY builders do (hence a preference for point to point wiring), but commercial manufacturers certainly don't, and mostly rightly so......

But talk about cables and logic goes out the window......

Again, I don't doubt that people hear or think they hear differences in cables.........I have found that the lower the resolution of the system, the more *evident* a *change* in cabling will be......

Try and concentrate on upgrading the resolution of your audio circuits, and you won't have to worry about the cables that connect them......