Why is there so much hostility on this board lately?

[Tony_Montana]

Man, a person can get mentally exhausted by listening to both sides and try to figure out who is right. And some of responses can get down right fire(y) and hostile, calling other posters liars or gullible.

May be we should ban DBT discussion on this forum also to see if we can reduced some of the heat that has been generated around here. IMO, hostility will take away the credibility no matter which side it is emitted from.

[pctower]

Man, a person can get mentally exhausted by listening to both sides and try to figure out who is right. And some of responses can get down right fire(y) and hostile, calling other posters liars or gullible.

May be we should ban DBT discussion on this forum also to see if we can reduced some of the heat that has been generated around here. IMO, hostility will take away the credibility no matter which side it is emitted from.

In my humble opinion, if we were all being honest with ourselves, we would admit that there is very little of value to say about audio cables. People like jneutron conduct serious experiments, but he is pretty much a lone wolf in that regard.

In addition, most people have no interest in discussing cables. They either believe they improve their systems or they don't and they just don't want to be bothered discussing a subject that has little of real substance to it.

So a board like this becomes one big game. In games the objective is to pulverize the other side. So it gets nasty - kind of like virtual hockey.

As least that's my $0.02 worth of an answer to your question.

[rb122]

Man, a person can get mentally exhausted by listening to both sides and try to figure out who is right. And some of responses can get down right fire(y) and hostile, calling other posters liars or gullible.

May be we should ban DBT discussion on this forum also to see if we can reduced some of the heat that has been generated around here. IMO, hostility will take away the credibility no matter which side it is emitted from.

This board isn't any more hostile than any discussion where one side is widely divergent from the other. I'm simply amazed that there is so much passion about something that even the biggest yeasayer would call subtle at best.

This argument, while seemingly complex, is really quite simple. The naysayers request a "put up or shut up" definitive solution. Nothing wrong with that since belief in cable sonics appears to have no basis in scientific fact at this time. Wouldn't most of us argue that flying saucers don't exist until we were proven wrong? Sorry for using a well worn analogy!

[E-Stat]

I'm simply amazed that there is so much passion about something that even the biggest yeasayer would call subtle at best.

If you stand back from the specifics, I think you find the underlying debate is really not about cables at all. It is the feeling by some that science has fully quantifiied absolutely every single aspect of the musical experience. Any differences between various audio components is simply due to easily corrected frequency differences. Redbook CD really is perfect and the higher resolution standards are there simply for marketing purposes. There have been no real improvements in the reproduction chain for over twenty years, so now companies are just playing musical preferences.

My experiences do not support that view.

rw

[markw]

Wouldn't most of us argue that flying saucers don't exist until we were proven wrong?

Well, that would be true unless you are posting on a board solely devoted to talking about people's personal experience, wether real or imagined, with flying saucers. Then their existance is assumed to be a given, no further proof needed. And, to question that would be bad manners.

That would be analogous to openly proclaiming God doesn't exist in a church. And, like that flying saucer analogy, religion is a personal decision arrived on by experiences based on ones perceptions, not scientific reasoning. Likewise, that's fine for that one person to believe but for them to adamantly try to claim it a the only truth and push it down someone else's throat is another story.

This isn't a church. In spite of what some would wish for, this is an open forum. Nothing is a given here. As in the case of religion, unless one chooses to believe, no science in the world can "prove" the existence of God to one who isn't open to that idea.

In spite of that, many (myself included) believe in God, but that's based on my personal experiences. I cannot "force " these on you. If you were to ask me to "prove" he exists in a scientific manner, then I'm at a loss. I can share my experiences with you, but when asked for other proof, I'd have to say I'm at a loss. It's all in faith.

If, after admitting there is no scientific proof, I were to continue to try to force God on you, I would be considered a crazy fanatic. That line is crossed when I fall back on the old "Can't you see??" mantras. We could argue all day and I could still not provide real proof for my case. But, then again, you could not prove beyond a shadow of doubt that God doesn't exist either. But, then again, it's not your place to try prove to me that God doesn't exist. If you were so minded, you would (and should) demand proof from me that He does exist.

There are some high minded that would like to have us believe that unless one shares their faith, they are not seeing reality. Generally, they tend to congegrate in packs and glad hand each other, while ignoring the fact that, in the real world, they don't have a leg to stand on. Generally, these types are hapier in a commune with their own kind but occasionally fo out into the worls en masse and they, though strength of sheer numbers, try to force their faith on the unwary.

Witness the Crusades, the Spanish Inqusition and, more recently, the Islamic state trying to expand it's borders.

Cables aren't a faith based religion, are they? Don't they have a basis in earthly science?

Audiable cable differences between the same gauge, construction and length cables is another story. There, I would like a little more proof. I've seen measurable differences but to compare these to audiable differences is another matter. There are ways to determine this but nobody seems to want to prove these measured differences are audiable.

Some feel their own personal perception of something is sufficient proof it exists. Well, to them it does. It's just as real to them as the flying saucer sightings are to those that believe. But, others with a more pragmatic view might see otherwise. That fact seems lost on some who are so intent on "forcing" their belief on others that the lack of proof means nothing to them. Yelling, screaming, mocking and putting down of the proof demanding skeptics is the order of the day. That doesn't make up for a lack of proof of their existance, though.

Likewise, demanding proof frm non-believers that they don't exist is a common tactic. That assumes they exist, which hasn't been proven to begin with!

Preception is real in the eyes of the beholder. Reality is real to everyone, except perhaps in The Matrix.

[skeptic]

The debate, if it can be called that, revolves around the issue of whether or not consumers should take on blind faith, the products of an upstart industry which proposes to supplant products which were deemed entirely satisfactory for decades with new more expensive, sometimes very much more expensive alternatives for which they have demonstrated no proof of their superiority. The people who developed and used the prior cable technology, which we consider ordinary, were no dummies. In fact they were a collaboration of the same electronics engineers who developed radio, television, color television, and all of the high tech electronics as well as the manufacturers who make and set the standards for the wire and cable industry. So the question is, why should we take the word of those who would sell us on these new and unproven products.

IMO, on this board, there are few if any people who have a vested financial interest in the exotic cable industry who post here. They would be open to the same challenge as anyone else. Most or all of the people who post here are in the category of hobbyists. On another board, Cable Asylum, free and open discussion is restricted and is the haunt of many participants who do have a vested financial interest in the industry.

"May be we should ban DBT discussion on this forum also to see if we can reduced some of the heat that has been generated around here."

Just such a ban exists at Cable Asylum for ostensibly just this reason but it doesn't seem to have quelled the flame wars there. Then why do they persist in maintaining it. There can be only one logical answer. The clue to that answer is strongly suggested by the identities of those who fund that board and by the proposed mission statement some month back by the owner of the site, Rod who wanted to restrict discussion to "positive experiences with cables." Among the sponsors are those who manufacture and sell cables. To me, this means that the site is dedicated to promoting these products, not to openly discussing them at all. Further evidence of this is given in their own admission of the validity of DBTs in a policy statement as the sole means to scientifically determine whether or not subtle audible differences exist between similar products. Banning discussion of DBTs here would not only eliminate the element of the only scientifically valid means for arbitrating the existance of such differences but would make this site a clone of Cable Asylum and a shill for this industry as well.

The surprising rancor which exists on this topic suggests a strong emotional involvement that many contributors have with their purchases of audio equipment regarding it as an expression of themselves rather than merely machines they own which perform a certain function in their lives. Challenging their claims for their audio equipment is tantamount to challenging their worth as individuals. Rather silly IMO but that's the reality of it.

[rb122]

The surprising rancor which exists on this topic suggests a strong emotional involvement that many contributors have with their purchases of audio equipment regarding it as an expression of themselves rather than merely machines they own which perform a certain function in their lives. Challenging their claims for their audio equipment is tantamount to challenging their worth as individuals. Rather silly IMO but that's the reality of it.

You are suggesting, nay, you're saying absolutely that the people are not hearing what they say they're hearing. In short, you're (and I'm not singling you out, nor am I verbally spanking - I'm just stating a fact) telling them they are either lying or their minds/ears are playing tricks on them. Wouldn't it follow that a defense posture would ensue?

[rb122]

If you stand back from the specifics, I think you find the underlying debate is really not about cables at all. It is the feeling by some that science has fully quantifiied absolutely every single aspect of the musical experience. Any differences between various audio components is simply due to easily corrected frequency differences. Redbook CD really is perfect and the higher resolution standards are there simply for marketing purposes. There have been no real improvements in the reproduction chain for over twenty years, so now companies are just playing musical preferences.

My experiences do not support that view.

rw

Nor do mine, except with respect to cables. But I've nowhere near the experience comparing components that you apparently have, either. But if redbook CD truly is perfect, then live music is horribly distorted. But that's another discussion.

But you have to admit that the science behind their comments is compelling at the least. Does that ever make you question your experiences? I think the naysayers are only suggesting that you do so in light of what they view as overwhelming evidence to the contrary... and that evidence is based on science rather than perception. And whatever concerns I have that science may not explain everything in audio, I do believe it is overall more reliable than perceptions. For instance, my perception is that LP's are more accurate than CD's. For me, that's true but it would be hard to sell that to the scientists just as its hard for them to believe your perceptions of cables.

You make a lot of great arguments and your posts stimulate conversation. I've often felt that the lack of yeasayers on this board is detrimental so please, continue to post.

[jneutron]

You are suggesting, nay, you're saying absolutely that the people are not hearing what they say they're hearing. In short, you're (and I'm not singling you out, nor am I verbally spanking - I'm just stating a fact) telling them they are either lying or their minds/ears are playing tricks on them. Wouldn't it follow that a defense posture would ensue?

The text you have quoted did not say that..

John

[skeptic]

If they had a vested financial interest in selling these products, I would suggest that they are lying. However, as I have concluded that most of the people who post here are hobbyists and do not have a financial interest in these wires but possibly an emotional investment in them, I am saying that neither we nor they know whether what they are hearing is real or imagined. And some of us will not take it on blind faith because of that emotional investment. The anti DBT policy statement at Cable Asylum, the only statement I ever read there that I agree with, says that DBTs are the only way to demonstrate scientifically whether or not such audible differences actually exist or are imagined. The crude comparisons which hobbyists make, even if they are sincere, are totally unconvincing to me and apparantly to a lot of other people as well. It is very easy to be tricked, fooled, draw the wrong conclusions when the only evidence you have to go on is someone's testimonial. Those who are trained to question so called proof in order to satisfy themselves of the validity of a claim, cannot accept just that no matter how many people make that claim or who those people are.

[pctower]

You are suggesting, nay, you're saying absolutely that the people are not hearing what they say they're hearing. In short, you're (and I'm not singling you out, nor am I verbally spanking - I'm just stating a fact) telling them they are either lying or their minds/ears are playing tricks on them. Wouldn't it follow that a defense posture would ensue?

I don't recall anyone ever accusing someone of lying about their experience. It's unfortunate that people believe they are somehow "defective" if their minds play tricks on them. I readily admit my mind may be playing tricks on me as to my 30 plus years of personal experience with high end audio. But so what ? I have a human brain that it subject to the influence of bias. For me, I don't care about that. All I care about is the enjoyment I derive from the system I have assembled using my own scientifically flawed approach.

I think the problem often boils down to lack of common courtesy. It seems to me that if people simply want to share their personal experiences with one another they should be left alone to do that. On the other hand, if they start making claims, they become fair game. But even then, there are offensive ways to challenge those claims and there are tactful, respectful ways to lodge what I would consider legitimate claims.

[pctower]

Well, that would be true unless you are posting on a board solely devoted to talking about people's personal experience, wether real or imagined, with flying saucers. Then their existance is assumed to be a given, no further proof needed. And, to question that would be bad manners.

That would be analogous to openly proclaiming God doesn't exist in a church. And, like that flying saucer analogy, religion is a personal decision arrived on by experiences based on ones perceptions, not scientific reasoning. Likewise, that's fine for that one person to believe but for them to adamantly try to claim it a the only truth and push it down someone else's throat is another story.

This isn't a church. In spite of what some would wish for, this is an open forum. Nothing is a given here. As in the case of religion, unless one chooses to believe, no science in the world can "prove" the existence of God to one who isn't open to that idea.

In spite of that, many (myself included) believe in God, but that's based on my personal experiences. I cannot "force " these on you. If you were to ask me to "prove" he exists in a scientific manner, then I'm at a loss. I can share my experiences with you, but when asked for other proof, I'd have to say I'm at a loss. It's all in faith.

If, after admitting there is no scientific proof, I were to continue to try to force God on you, I would be considered a crazy fanatic. That line is crossed when I fall back on the old "Can't you see??" mantras. We could argue all day and I could still not provide real proof for my case. But, then again, you could not prove beyond a shadow of doubt that God doesn't exist either. But, then again, it's not your place to try prove to me that God doesn't exist. If you were so minded, you would (and should) demand proof from me that He does exist.

There are some high minded that would like to have us believe that unless one shares their faith, they are not seeing reality. Generally, they tend to congegrate in packs and glad hand each other, while ignoring the fact that, in the real world, they don't have a leg to stand on. Generally, these types are hapier in a commune with their own kind but occasionally fo out into the worls en masse and they, though strength of sheer numbers, try to force their faith on the unwary.

Witness the Crusades, the Spanish Inqusition and, more recently, the Islamic state trying to expand it's borders.

Cables aren't a faith based religion, are they? Don't they have a basis in earthly science?

Audiable cable differences between the same gauge, construction and length cables is another story. There, I would like a little more proof. I've seen measurable differences but to compare these to audiable differences is another matter. There are ways to determine this but nobody seems to want to prove these measured differences are audiable.

Some feel their own personal perception of something is sufficient proof it exists. Well, to them it does. It's just as real to them as the flying saucer sightings are to those that believe. But, others with a more pragmatic view might see otherwise. That fact seems lost on some who are so intent on "forcing" their belief on others that the lack of proof means nothing to them. Yelling, screaming, mocking and putting down of the proof demanding skeptics is the order of the day. That doesn't make up for a lack of proof of their existance, though.

Likewise, demanding proof frm non-believers that they don't exist is a common tactic. That assumes they exist, which hasn't been proven to begin with!

Preception is real in the eyes of the beholder. Reality is real to everyone, except perhaps in The Matrix.

Well said.

[rb122]

The text you have quoted did not say that..

John

No, it didn't. Skeptic wondered why people feel that they are personally being attacked when it's only their beliefs that are questioned. I was attempting to point out that they feel that way because of the general consensus on this board that those with cable sonics beliefs are hearing things.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I am totally amazed when I come here to read some of the really passionate, inflammatory, and often very bated language coming from posters here(Mtry does have a way of bringing that out of you) However, I agree with Dr. Toole on this one, there is FAR more going on in your room than through those wires. It seem pretty silly to me to see people ingaging so vehemently over a subject that would account for about 1-2 percent of the total sum of things. When I went to college we called that majoring in minors.

These discussion IMO would have far more credibility especially amoung the yeasayers if I knew that 100% of the acoustical problems in their rooms were conquered before they made any claim to hearing the differences between cables. Without proof positive of this, then I cannot go along with the yeasayers.

Experience has taught me that the average listening room has room related resonances that are between 4-20db loud, do you really think that you can hear cable differences over that?

I also know that most audiophiles pay more attention to their equipment than to the room it sits in, so this camp leaves me with some doubts about their claims.

It seems to me that they should close this forum, and open up one on room acoustics. Its far more important than what goes between components, and from amps to speakers.

[rb122]

I think the problem often boils down to lack of common courtesy. It seems to me that if people simply want to share their personal experiences with one another they should be left alone to do that. On the other hand, if they start making claims, they become fair game. But even then, there are offensive ways to challenge those claims and there are tactful, respectful ways to lodge what I would consider legitimate claims.

If I were to share with you my experiences with the sound of different cables, I am, in effect, making a claim.

I agree that some posters are less civil than others, either overall or on occasion. But I see that from both sides. Passion runs high and therefore so do tempers.

As it happens, I think you have the right idea. Your system should make the music listening experience more enjoyable for you, regardless of how your posts make others feel.

[rb122]

Those who are trained to question so called proof in order to satisfy themselves of the validity of a claim, cannot accept just that no matter how many people make that claim or who those people are.

Agreed. But those who swear by different cables are just as comfortable with their protocol as you are with yours.

Who is the poster who signs off his post with a disclaimer that says his opinions are just that and are not intended to make claims but only state his experience, however flawed it may be? Does such language make his posts less offensive to the scientific mind? PCTower brought this up - where does simple experience sharing end and claims begin? At what point does it become necessary for the naysayers to respond with their customary tales of caution? I'd be curious to hear your views and those of folks such as Mtrycrafts and gang.

[Bobby Blacklight]

I have been in and out if this forum for a couple of years now and for the most part the group just keeps rehashing the same debates over and over. You get some newbies from time to time but the core members of the group set the tone of the board and what side of the debate is supported. If we don't like what we read here we have no one to blame but ourselves. You cannot challenge a persons perceptions" reality" any more than you can hear through there ears. What's real for them is what counts.

The whole idea with DBT is to remove bias. The bias is part of a persons "reality". So you are trying to use or come up with a scientific method to alter a persons "reality" by removing part of it? Now you can make an argument that by doing so you enable them to "hear" the truth but without your biases and life experinence you are not yourself. None of us listen with blindfolds on. So for a guy coming home to listen to his rig after a hard day at work do you think any of this stuff really matters??

[E-Stat]

But you have to admit that the science behind their comments is compelling at the least. Does that ever make you question your experiences?

All tests, be they for audio cables, tires, washing machines...whatever are valid for that which they test. It is inherently unscientific to take specific results and extrapolate them to a completely different sample. All of the "reported findings" using DBTs on this board deal with mid-fi equipment and usually just comparing one size zip to another.

Dialtones like mtry then pop back with "prove that the quality of the audio gear used in the tests makes a difference" line. Think about what he is really saying. "Prove that OUR assumption (devoid of facts) that such tests are also equally valid for equipment not included in the test sample" is not correct. Isn't that bizarre? Prove that our assumption is incorrect. LOL!!! Certainly such a position is anything but scientific. It merely represents his belief. "Only we who carry the mantle of science are free to make any number of completely unsubstantiated assumptions." Then the party line follows the "if the cable makers think their product makes a difference, they why don't they prove it?". Well, I've already answered that question before and not gotten a single compelling answer.

Null Hypothesis

Well, Skeptic says that AR used to do that thirty and forty years ago. Why don't they or anyone else on the planet do so today? Skeptic then blames it on audiophiles. He says that now that audiophiles "failed to embrace" AR, that company has fallen from grace and no longer produces state-of-the-art gear. And since they were the ONLY ones EVER to design their equipment around accurate musical results, then the audio world has never been the same. ALL AUDIO COMPANIES TODAY just follow the fads and go for the colorations that some folks like. Come on, isn't that a tad bit paranoid? Accuracy alone , BTW, does not automatically imply inherently musical. That is far too much of a simplification.

So what proof is there applies to what it applies. No more. If there are no differences to be found under any situation, then show me a test where someone is comparing Nordost Valhalla to zip on a $100,000 system and you will then have something to say. Otherwise, enjoy your theories, extrapolations, and lack of direct experience on the matter. We who do have experience (and not delusions, my ditch digger friend from Monterey) are the benefactors.

rw

[okiemax]

You said: "Some feel their own personal perception of something is sufficient proof it exists. Well, to them it does. It's just as real to them as the flying saucer sightings are to those that believe. But, others with a more pragmatic view might see otherwise. That fact seems lost on some who are so intent on "forcing" their belief on others that the lack of proof means nothing to them. Yelling, screaming, mocking and putting down of the proof demanding skeptics is the order of the day. That doesn't make up for a lack of proof of their existance, though."

You must have found some cable yeasayer posts on this forum that I can't find. I don't see any "I hear a difference, you got to too" posts. Nor do I find any "if you don't hear a difference, you are wrong" posts. Can you point out some of these yeasayer missionaries to me? I doubt you will find many. You will have no trouble, however, finding naysayers who are trying to get others to think like them. Some form of "I don't think you really heard it, so prove it" reply is almost guaranteed to follow anyone's report of a positive experience with an audiophile cable. It's plain to see that the forum members who are "intent on forcing thier beliefs on others" are the naysayers, not the yeaesayers.

[skeptic]

"If I were to share with you my experiences with the sound of different cables, I am, in effect, making a claim."

If you claimed that your car got 70 miles to the gallon and accelerated from zero to sixty miles an hour in 5.5 seconds we could see what the manufacturer claimed and what any one of several independent testers had found and published. But even if we hadn't, we could point out that on the face of it this would seem impossible since the engine came out of a lawn tractor and the body was salvage of a Sherman tank. If we asked you how you know and you told us, well I floored it and by the time it felt like I was going sixty miles an hour I hadn't counted to six yet and it seemed like I went 70 miles before my one gallon gas tank ran dry, we could all have a good laugh. To some of us, that's the situation we have with these wire claims.

"I agree that some posters are less civil than others, either overall or on occasion. But I see that from both sides. Passion runs high and therefore so do tempers.'

It seems crazy to get all worked up over something as ludicrous as a Sherman tank with a lawnmower engine and just as crazy to get worked up over these wires, but if people want to continue to come here and make their preposterous claims without any meaningful substantiation, they will get zinged and if that riles them up, well they've got a problem much worse than audio equipment.

[Rockwell]

You must have found some cable yeasayer posts on this forum that I can't find. I don't see any "I hear a difference, you got to too" posts. Nor do I find any "if you don't hear a difference, you are wrong" posts. Can you point out some of these yeasayer missionaries to me? I doubt you will find many. You will have no trouble, however, finding naysayers who are trying to get others to think like them. Some form of "I don't think you really heard it, so prove it" reply is almost guaranteed to follow anyone's report of a positive experience with an audiophile cable. It's plain to see that the forum members who are "intent on forcing thier beliefs on others" are the naysayers, not the yeaesayers.

Not recently, but years ago, this board really was a battlefield. It was not uncommon to read things like that. Most of the more unreasonable subjectivist have retreated to AA, I think.

[skeptic]

I think that this statement was made by one of the so called subjectivists themselves warning that when he and a few others left, there would be nobody on that side of the "debate" to argue with. More than one person posting here predicted the death of this board. I must admit that if I was busier, I might get bored enough so that PC Tower would be rid of me once and for all. But I still have enough idle time on my hands to give him an occasional zinger or two. Especially when he really needs one.

[Richard Greene]

Terrence the Terrible sez:
"I am totally amazed when I come here to read some of the really passionate, inflammatory, and often very bated language coming from posters here(Mtry does have a way of bringing that out of you) However, I agree with Dr. Toole on this one, there is FAR more going on in your room than through those wires. It seem pretty silly to me to see people ingaging so vehemently over a subject that would account for about 1-2 percent of the total sum of things. When I went to college we called that majoring in minors."

RG:
The point in arguing about wires, and baiting the "WireNuts", is that whether you're right or wrong would make little difference to the overall sound quality. The whole point is to argue bitterly about the least important link in the audio system (according to us WirePolice, although most WireNuts claim differences among wires are so H*U*G*E even their wives could hear the difference while still in their cars coming up the driveway) and completely ignore the most important variable -- the listening room --- because fixing a room requires knowledge, measurements and tools whose application is not that simple
for those without experience ... and even after everything is just right the wife will see the acoustics treatments and go berserk threatening divorce if they are not removed and taken to the village garbage dump immediately. Wires are easy -- you just read some review, believe it, buy them, and then post on the internet how G*R*E*A*T they are "Why now, with my new Unobtanium Deluxe Ultra Ultra Diamond Ruby Cables, Barry Manilow sounds E*X*A*C*T*L*Y like Frank Sinatra on my rig ! ... EXACTLY ! ... Just ask my wife"

R. BassNut Greene
Funding for this post provided by The WirePolice Foundation, curing WireNuts,
one not at a time.

[okiemax]

"If I were to share with you my experiences with the sound of different cables, I am, in effect, making a claim."

If you claimed that your car got 70 miles to the gallon and accelerated from zero to sixty miles an hour in 5.5 seconds we could see what the manufacturer claimed and what any one of several independent testers had found and published. But even if we hadn't, we could point out that on the face of it this would seem impossible since the engine came out of a lawn tractor and the body was salvage of a Sherman tank. If we asked you how you know and you told us, well I floored it and by the time it felt like I was going sixty miles an hour I hadn't counted to six yet and it seemed like I went 70 miles before my one gallon gas tank ran dry, we could all have a good laugh. To some of us, that's the situation we have with these wire claims.

"I agree that some posters are less civil than others, either overall or on occasion. But I see that from both sides. Passion runs high and therefore so do tempers.'

It seems crazy to get all worked up over something as ludicrous as a Sherman tank with a lawnmower engine and just as crazy to get worked up over these wires, but if people want to continue to come here and make their preposterous claims without any meaningful substantiation, they will get zinged and if that riles them up, well they've got a problem much worse than audio equipment.

If a claim is patently preposterous (as in your Sherman tank analogy), I don't understand why you feel it is necessary to point out the obvious. Can't others see this without help from you? Nor do I understand why you have a need to label claims of subjective experiences as presposterous just because they haven't been tested in a controlled experiment. Are you trying to protect people from themselves?

[pctower]

All tests, be they for audio cables, tires, washing machines...whatever are valid for that which they test. It is inherently unscientific to take specific results and extrapolate them to a completely different sample. All of the "reported findings" using DBTs on this board deal with mid-fi equipment and usually just comparing one size zip to another.

Dialtones like mtry then pop back with "prove that the quality of the audio gear used in the tests makes a difference" line. Think about what he is really saying. "Prove that OUR assumption (devoid of facts) that such tests are also equally valid for equipment not included in the test sample" is not correct. Isn't that bizarre? Prove that our assumption is incorrect. LOL!!! Certainly such a position is anything but scientific. It merely represents his belief. "Only we who carry the mantle of science are free to make any number of completely unsubstantiated assumptions." Then the party line follows the "if the cable makers think their product makes a difference, they why don't they prove it?". Well, I've already answered that question before and not gotten a single compelling answer.

Null Hypothesis

Well, Skeptic says that AR used to do that thirty and forty years ago. Why don't they or anyone else on the planet do so today? Skeptic then blames it on audiophiles. He says that now that audiophiles "failed to embrace" AR, that company has fallen from grace and no longer produces state-of-the-art gear. And since they were the ONLY ones EVER to design their equipment around accurate musical results, then the audio world has never been the same. ALL AUDIO COMPANIES TODAY just follow the fads and go for the colorations that some folks like. Come on, isn't that a tad bit paranoid? Accuracy alone , BTW, does not automatically imply inherently musical. That is far too much of a simplification.

So what proof is there applies to what it applies. No more. If there are no differences to be found under any situation, then show me a test where someone is comparing Nordost Valhalla to zip on a $100,000 system and you will then have something to say. Otherwise, enjoy your theories, extrapolations, and lack of direct experience on the matter. We who do have experience (and not delusions, my ditch digger friend from Monterey) are the benefactors.

rw

Dialtones like mtry then pop back with "prove that the quality of the audio gear used in the tests makes a difference" line. Think about what he is really saying. "Prove that OUR assumption (devoid of facts) that such tests are also equally valid for equipment not included in the test sample" is not correct. Isn't that bizarre? Prove that our assumption is incorrect. LOL!!! Certainly such a position is anything but scientific. It merely represents his belief. "Only we who carry the mantle of science are free to make any number of completely unsubstantiated assumptions."

You've really gone to some of the key nuances that drive the fierceness of the debate. Mtry has never actuall said what you quoted. But the type of advice he gives newcomers would have to lead most thinking men, I believe, to conclude that in essence he is saying what you have in quotes.

However, because he has never said that in the express words you quote, it permits his defenders like Pat D. to play games by arguing that mtry and others don't actually make the claim you have in quote, when in fact that is exactly what they are claiming.

The problem is even worse, because not only are the tests they cite not applicable to any other equipment, listeners, listening room, etc, the protocol for the actual equipment under test is generally quite flawed in these tests.

So the beat goes on.