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

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.

It is not so much incoherent, it is just that I dont want to conclude and throwing in the basket of illusions all experiences of people who move cables and affirm to hear some differences...In the same way, I listen to your argument, and they are not neutral, your agenda is dismissing any " audiophile claims" … Audiophiles are a crowd akin to anti-vaxing…Case closed... :)

I know perfectly well all there is to think about your vision of the world: astrology, anti-vaxers, audiophiles, crystals users, etc. all the same... Am I forget something ? oh yes, intelligent design, homeopathy, tarot reader,...the list is too way longer to make, but you know it is very easy to read your mind set...

ok I apologize for throwing oil on a fire...


A remark : by the way I never experience in my own audio system that moving my cable makes a difference in itself, except this one : it is better that some cable dont touch some other one... That one I verify and experience by myself ...Then unlike you I dont dismiss all "audiophiles" in the same bin trash... My best to you... And to all...

Pro audio rears is semi-handsome head. 🦸‍♂️ Can controlled blind test ranting be very far behind? Perhaps some of his patented sweet tweakaphobic pseudo-philosophy...

mahgister,

I listen to your argument, and they are not neutral,

No argument is "neutral."  An argument defends a certain position.And "neutrality" is not a cognate for "reasonable."  If you take a "neutral" position between the claim of a flat or a round (oblate spheroid) earth, as if neither is more likely, you aren't doing much better than the flat-earther in terms of grappling with the evidence.


The question is whether the argument is reasonable/sound.

your agenda is dismissing any " audiophile claims" … Audiophiles are a crowd akin to anti-vaxing…Case closed... :)

No not all audiophile claims.  I tend to challenge the grounds for certain claims when there are good reasons for skepticism (And I give the reasons).  My "agenda" is trying to do this hobby while not being credulous in the face of every audiophile or audio-company's claim.  
If I find certain claims dubious, I'll explain why.
And I've never done so dogmatically.  I usually point out that it's not that I know the claimed phenomenon is false - it could be real - but rather I'm giving the reasons why I find the claim dubious or doubtful.   Good argument/evidence could get me to believe in the claim.



And I'm usually careful to distinguish the audiophiles I'm talking about, which are "those who believe in the phenomenon in question" and/or the purely subjectivist audiophiles who think their hearing is the ultimate authority on sonic reality,  and who reject the relevance of measurements, science etc in the discussion.

It is wrong to presume all audiophiles think that way. In fact, I see it as a problem that the purely subjectivist audiophiles seem to simply presume theirs is the correct approach and thus anyone entering an alternative opinion, skeptical of a subjectivist claim, is merely trolling or sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong.No!  Plenty of audiophiles do not go in for every type of tweak purely on subjectivists grounds, and they want better evidence than that.   There is a wide range of approaches to the hobby of hi-end audio, and the door ought to be left open not JUST for those who operate on the Golden Ear paradigm, but those who want to hold claims by manufacturers and audiophiles to more stringent standards before accepting claims.

I know perfectly well all there is to think about your vision of the world: astrology, anti-vaxers, audiophiles, crystals users, etc. all the same... Am I forget something ? oh yes, intelligent design, homeopathy, tarot reader,...the list is too way longer to make, but you know it is very easy to read your mind set...

How self-satisfying it clearly is for you to have pegged me so perfectly that you can dismiss my position without any actual arguments.

First, I don't think you could actually produce a cogent critique of my "mindset" based on what you've written.  I can see the seams of strawmen and over-simplification already in what you've written.


More important, all you've produced is a sort of snide ad hominem:  "You are so easy to read" instead of actually showing anything I've written to be unreasonable.

That's intellectually lazy and more in line with trolling.   Don't you care to contribute better than that?

No one's forcing you to participate.  But if you are going to, and think you can just drop in some ad hominem implications and job done, you should expect some pushback, right?