Moving cables around killed dynamics for days anyone else experience this?

In the chaos of cables mess in a studio, all the subtle "cues" of the changing sound are lost, and cancelled constantly one another, minutes after minutes...A tangle knot of cables moving will maintain a general figure of sound that will not be disturbing, like ONE cable in a peculiar environment, where the same ears lived alone and attentive to the subtle details....And these " subtle" changes are not always measurable, and if they are, in some private room, it will be difficult to summon the expertise necessary to do it in the exact same condition at another times... Ok I will silence myself …. My best to all...

mahgister

I dont understand that people use their intelligence to defend dogmas or attack dogmas...

I can understand being puzzled about defending dogmas.


But...criticizing dogma is a bad thing?

Whatever leads you to that conclusion?

Typically a dogma is: "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."

Do you think that’s a good thing? Is there any "authority" (especially in audio) that you know whose statements we must take as "incontrovertibly true?"

If not, why should you think that someone taking a dogmatic stance on an issue - audio or otherwise - means no intelligent person ought to analyze or critique that claim?


That sounds bizarre and unworkable. So...what point are you actually making, I"m wondering?

I dont have opinion or experience with the moves of cable and the changing sound...I respect equally those who have report positively about that and those who are not..The 2 opinions and experience are intriguing and interesting...

Cool. But then...who here do you think is defending dogma and what dogma would that be?

If you think about what I said you have the choice:

You can say that some idiot dont want to attack dogmas... Like you say that I am...

Or thinking that no sane mind can affirm this idiocy, you will arrive at the right conclusion that is mine : it is a waste of time to attack dogmas, all the times, with some people....Use your intelligence not to judge too swiftly...Use the context of a discussion to read something that can make sense out of your world...


You look like me when I was 16 years old and I play to dismantle the arguments of anybody without never listen to reason....My best to you , I am too old to argue... :)

mahgister,

In the chaos of cables mess in a studio, all the subtle "cues" of the changing sound are lost, and cancelled constantly one another, minutes after minutes...A tangle knot of cables moving will maintain a general figure of sound that will not be disturbing, like ONE cable in a peculiar environment, where the same ears lived alone and attentive to the subtle details....And these " subtle" changes are not always measurable, and if they are, in some private room, it will be difficult to summon the expertise necessary to do it in the exact same condition at another times... Ok I will silence myself …. My best to all...

Well, that's a whole lot of conjecture or assertions.

Any actual evidence for them?  Do you have much experience actually working in pro sound?

Again...look at the type of claims being made for moving cables by the OP of drastic audio changes from moving a cable, including loss of bass, dynamics, highs.  You really think if this phenomenon were common that people recording/mixing in studios wouldn't have noticed?

A mixer/recordist works very intently on the sound he's getting, often changing little things for very subtle effects, be it microphones, mic positions, or adjusting EQ etc.  If a cable merely moving actually altered the highs/bass/dynamics to the significant degree claimed by the OP,  that would be heard!  It would necessitate for instance ADJUSTING EQ settings to compensate "damn, I'd spent all that time getting it sounding precisely how I wanted, but now the sound has changed and I have to start again!"

This DOES NOT HAPPEN (in any situation I've ever heard about) which is why it's the provenance of subjectivist audiophiles, but not professionals who spend their careers in sound.

In my daily job doing sound design I am adjusting mix levels and often EQ of many tracks combined (for a given movie scene I may have, say, 6 - 10 stereo tracks, and 12 mono tracks...sometimes many more! - that I'm carefully mixing so the addition of one sound *just barely* alters the whole combination.  I have to sometimes move cables and this never results in the sonic changes mentioned by the OP, or anything that changes the very careful, subtle mixing I achieved).  


Which is just what would be expected.  Unless the cables in question were insufficient for the job or somehow defective enough to screw up the sound if moved.  (Which is certainly an issue: rule one when having sound problems is usually "check your cables."  But that is for significantly audible defects brought on by some failure in the wiring, not the phenomenon claimed by the "cable lifers" here). 

mahgister

Or thinking that no sane mind can affirm this idiocy, you will arrive at the right conclusion that is mine : it is a waste of time to attack dogmas, all the times, with some people....

Well, that’s confusing. Which is it? Is it a waste of time to attack dogma at all times? Or only with some people?


And why not with "some people?" Perhaps you mean that some people have such a dogmatic stance it is a "waste of time" to argue against their position because, being dogmatic, they won’t change their stance anyway.


But that is to ignore the existence of people who are not dogmatic about the issue under discussion, who could change their mind or amend their view based on the case made by either side.


If you have anti-vaxers dogmatically making false claims about the dangers of vaccines you don’t refrain from critiquing them because those people may be dogmatic. They are promulgating false ideas, and it helps to challenge false or poorly reasoned ideas for the benefit of others who might be influenced by those dogmatic claims.

Use your intelligence not to judge too swiftly...Use the context of a discussion to read something that can make sense out of your world...

Sure. But isn’t that precisely what we want? "Context?" Instead of one side being dogmatically presented, doesn’t presenting alternative positions about a claim provide MORE context from which we can "use our intelligence" to judge?  And yet, you seem to advise against producing alternative positions in the face of dogmatic statements.

Forgive me, but I find much of what you write on this to be incoherent.I’m not asking that you "argue," but it’s up to you if you can or wish to clarify.
Cheers.