What is the best BNC Digital Cable under $4,000?

mzkmxcv

Unless it was double-blind and quick-switching, one cannot make factual statements, only subjective.

I'm not sure that's true but, assuming that it is for sake of this discussion, please tell us about the double-blind tests you conducted that led you to state this:

It’s a digital signal, spending $4K is stupid.

Please tell us who designed the test, who conducted it, and how many subjects participated. And of course, I'm interested in the actual test results.

mzkmxcv

If one argues against data, they don’t owe proof, but it should be provided if one wishes to best back up such a stance.

There’s plenty of data on both sides of this issue. You’ve selected one set of second-hand data, and then chosen to ignore other data that you find inconvenient. You take this to the extreme of not even listening for yourself, which is pretty odd for someone posting to an audiophile site. So what's your hobby? Golf? Gardening?

mzkmxcv

Ones going against data should offer up the proof.

No one here owes you proof of anything.

I don’t need to listen to expensive data cables to know they can’t result in better stereo separation.

So you not only exempt yourself from providing the proof you demand of others, but you won't even go so far as to listen before rendering your pronouncement? You're a pretty funny guy.

... by all means buy a better cable if it sounds better to you, just don’t go out blindly recommending it to others ...

Actually, if we've listened to the cable, we're not making a blind recommendation at all. It's armchair theorists like you that make the blind recommendations.

I’m unfortunately not well off enough to be able to spend $4K on a digital cable.

Ahhh, there's your bias.

mzkmxcv

The only difference between an Amazon Basics digital cable a $5000 one, and everything in-between or similar length, is noise rejection. If I’m wrong, I would like to be proven wrong, and not just told so

This is really a circular and futile conversation. You're not even willing to listen to the product under discussion, yet at the same time you claim you "would like to be proven wrong, and not just told so."

mzkmxcv

So, I have to hear it to believe it?

Certainly not. You can continue to refuse to listen, and still maintain your faith-based convictions.

mzkmxcv

How can you state your stance is factual, with just experience/testimonial ...

I never stated that. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

The “truth” I am using are the measurements that show no audible differences ...

Are they your measurements? How can your correlate your measurements with listening tests that prove "no audible differences" if you refuse to listen to the product under discussion?

I’m not so stubborn that I would blind refute valid data..

You’re stubborn enough to refuse to listen to the product under discussion. That tells many of us here all that we need to know about you.

Incidentally, I have no issue with your faith-based convictions. Faith needs no justification or substantiation. That’s the nature of Faith.

Unless it was double-blind and quick-switching, one cannot make factual statements, only subjective.

You pronounce this requirement and then exempt yourself from your own rule. That is what’s called "blind faith." And it’s fine to embrace blind faith. But what you’ve done is insist that your special brand of Blind Faith is supported by Science.

mzkmxcv

Why would I need to do such testing when measurements can be done ...

You don’t need to do anything at all. You’re free to embrace some data collected by others while ignoring other data that conflicts with your blind Faith. There's absolutely no need for you to actually listen to the product under discussion here, or to perform your own measurements. No problem, I respect your Faith.

What’s odd - other than the fact that you don’t seem to much care for listening - is this proclamation that you insist others observe:

Unless it was double-blind and quick-switching, one cannot make factual statements, only subjective.