A fresh approach to cable analysis

The Shunyata medical citation is actually my argument, not yours

You claimed that it is not used in medical facilities.  I show you that it is.  And you claim that it is your argument.  Of course it is.

And your soundstage challenge backfires: soundstage is measurable via crosstalk, phase, and imaging analysis.

I am going speaker shopping.  Point me to those measurements.  Surely those who manufacture speakers with wide soundstages would post those measurements.  So where are they?

you’ve written hundreds of words and still haven’t answered the one question

Another deceptive attempt to dismiss everything that I showed about your deception and your propaganda.  Just change gears, and supposedly no one will notice that you refuse to address anything that I wrote about your repeated deceptions.

if the difference is as obvious as a train horn, why won’t it survive a blind test?

More deception.  Why?

Cable swaps are not as obvious as a train horn.  You took my analogy out of context.  My analogy was that blind testing is pointless for what is obvious.

If you insist that what can be obviously heard with cable swaps requires double blind testing, then I insist that you prove that the train horn that you claim to hear is real with double blind testing.

And your deception does not end there.

In response to you writing:

No well-controlled double blind test has ever produced statistically reliable results showing listeners could consistently distinguish between speaker cables of comparable gauge and impedance.

I wrote:

Provide a link to a well-controlled double blind test for cables.

And now you wrote:

if the difference is as obvious as a train horn, why won’t it survive a blind test?

Trolling will not win your case.

You claim that double blind testing supports your position, while refusing to provide a link to a double blind test.  Ergo, you just make things up.

You insist that double blind testing supports your position, and I asked you to provide a link to that double blind testing, and then you claim that my position will not survive a double blind test -- all the while refusing to provide a link to your double blind test.  You pretended as if I never asked you for that link.  A lie by omission.

Don’t forget to provide your psychology background.

Don’t forget to list the imaginary cable you claimed to dissect.

Don’t forget to list the specifications for determining wide soundstages.

Don’t forget to never listen to gear that you bash.

Don’t forget to claim that you are objective, and reasonable.

Is your obsession with cable denying due to financial envy?  Is that what this is all about?  Are you trying to make yourself feel better, that you are not missing out?

What else can explain your obsession with trolling products that you never heard for yourself, and lying about dissecting a cable, and lying about double-blind testing, and a psychology background?

Wow, you two guys (total111 & seymour-krelborn) are really going at it. Not sure why, though. Total111 is not a cable denier as he has started threads and discussed topology and the science behind it. 

Total111, I have two 25' runs (one might be 3-4 feet shorter than the other) of Audioquest Type 4 Hyperlitz cable for sale. Seriously, $150 for both of them. If you don't like them, send them back (on your dime but I will refund you for the total amount otherwise). DM me.

And if I can keep your attention for a minute, understand that if you bring religion (C.S. Lewis) into the argument, you have just defeated yourself. While Lewis was a great novelist- and he did not oppose science specifically- he was one of history's fiercest critics of scientism- the ideological belief that science is the only reliable method of knowledge and that the physical universe is all that exists.

Meaning, IMHO, he was a cable denier! How could he not be? Anyways, trying to be funny, but let's face it the best he could do in his audiophile timeline is a Zenith console.

There is no double blind test with reference to God's existence. Cables are a physical entity that have electrical properties and behave differently from one another in metallurgic tests, which is at its core, science! 

Good heavens, Miss Sakamoto!

Religion has zero science behind it. It is why the Church and State need to be kept separated. It protects religion and also protects those that have differing ideologies on religion.

The "State", like cables, are a physical, tangible entity. And while religion has physical buildings, "church" conceptually represents a system of spiritual or supernatural beliefs, doctrines, and moral frameworks.

So State and cables are here and now, relatable, measurable, and adhere to physical metallurgical properties. Jesus, on the other hand, is slated to come back..maybe Sunday morning? I will set my alarm!

I guess one who has an issue with cables, yet believes in God, is going to have some explaining to do. Not trying to instigate a theology discussion here, but being as pragmatic as I possibly can. 

@goodlistening64 

Wow, you two guys (total111 & seymour-krelborn) are really going at it. Not sure why, though.

Because @total111 is a deceitful, cable denying propagandist.  I gave numerous examples of him being deceitful, and fabricating stories.  I quoted him and explained each occurrence.

People come here to learn, and @total111 misleads them.  That is despicable, and should never be allowed to fester.

@goodlistening64 

Thanks for the kind words — and the cable offer, genuinely appreciated! But I’m happy with what I have. I looked at that AQ earlier and like it. But not enough 😉😉 
On the Lewis point: I wasn’t bringing religion into the argument at all. The quote — “if you think you are not conceited, it means you are very conceited indeed” — is a psychological observation about human nature, not a theological one. It could just as easily have come from Bertrand Russell or Daniel Kahneman. I cited Lewis because he said it well, not because of what else he believed. A quote from a smart person doesn’t import their entire worldview into the argument.
That’s actually the same principle at stake in the cable debate — judging the idea on its own merits, not the source. 😄

 

I want to offer something that may surprise some people in this thread: a genuine concession.

The cable/crossover interaction is a legitimate variable that I think deserves more credit than the objectivist side typically gives it. The vast majority of us run passive speakers with crossovers, and a crossover is a reactive load. (Hence my choice of speakers never includes any such interference... ;-) ). Different cables present slightly different impedance characteristics to that load, which affects how the crossover filter behaves and how the amplifier sees it. In a genuinely poor pairing, you could theoretically drift into the ~1dB range — and that's audible. That's not magic, that's measurable electrical interaction, and it's real physics.

So my honest position is this: cables can matter at the margins in specific reactive load conditions. That's a much narrower claim than the high-end cable industry makes — but it's defensible, and I'll own it.

Even so, a zip cord of adequate gauge will handle the vast majority of those interactions just fine. The crossover doesn't care about the brand name on the jacket.

I came here to have an honest discussion, not to "deny" anything. Anyone who read this thread carefully knows that. I'll leave the characterizations others made about my motives without further comment.