Wire is Wire - The Proof

[mtrycraft]

For some odd reason, I read his posts. I'm guessing that his "need to change experts" comment to Rikki meant that he doesn't "believe" in break in effects at all.

rw

Is this 'break in' a religion? One must believe? How about some evidence? Demonstrate it.

[mtrycraft]

I would be completely in agreement with you if in fact audible cable break in effects were indeed a singular personal experience.

rw

Yes, I suppose since thousands report most favorably about Sylvia Brown, John Edwards, holistic healing, homeopathic medicines, astrology, etc, it must be so.
I thought you claimed some expert scientist status for yourself? Sure fooled me with the above. Actually with most of your posts, for that matter.

[Sondek]

Please post my message for any such claims from me.

Besides, it is irrelevant what I can hear. But, what you claim and able to demonstrate is the issue.

Everything you post has a logic hole a truck can drive through. You cannot actually go to someones house, measure everything through abx/dbt or your own...um..experiance.
IOW: you have NO means whatsoever of direct disproof. All you have is words, and quotes from other sources.

Do you really think because someone wrote an article for an audio magazine that is definative catch all proof? Dream on!

What you are doing is vicariously providing armchair skepticism without you engaging in any proof.

What is the most high quality system you have owned, and for how many years?

You are applying flawed and incomplete logic and testing.

[rb122]

Besides, it is irrelevant what I can hear. But, what you claim and able to demonstrate is the issue.

True. I can't quite figure out all the posts I read that are responses to yours where instead of offering some sort of evidence of what they hear, they instead tell you that YOU can't hear. I don't ever recall you posting that YOU could not hear something or that you could...not once. So why is your hearing always called into question? Strange, indeed.

[E-Stat]

It is a singular personal experience.

Experienced by large numbers of perceptive listeners.

Why do you read engineers telling you "no way no how" and discount that and go with people who agree with your personal experience?

It all depends upon which engineers are talking. Quite a few acknowledge what they hear and aren't prima donnas in thinking they know everything. I definitely discount those who live in the mid-fi world with limited experience.

rw

[E-Stat]

Please post my message for any such claims from me.

Have you forgotten again what you've said? Too much mercury in the water from cannery row?

In a response to Rikki two days ago you said this:

"You need to change experts then."

What did you mean?

rw

[E-Stat]

Yes, I suppose since thousands report most favorably about Sylvia Brown, John Edwards, holistic healing, homeopathic medicines, astrology, etc, it must be so.

Poor straw man example. Try again.

I thought you claimed some expert scientist status for yourself?

You really do need to work on that memory deficiency.

rw

[Rockwell]

Experienced by large numbers of perceptive listeners.



It all depends upon which engineers are talking. Quite a few acknowledge what they hear and aren't prima donnas in thinking they know everything. I definitely discount those who live in the mid-fi world with limited experience.

rw

Large numbers of perceptive listeners arriving at a conclusion by flawed means doesn't amount to anything. To demonstrate that point, you only have to look at tweaks where people claim to hear the difference between types of wood or foam touching the equipment. How 'bout Jon Risch claiming to hear differences in types of wire insulation? CDs cryogenically frozen, wire elevators, Tice clocks, and on and on goes the extraordinary claims. So, you see, perceptive listeners will hear ANYTHING, and wire break-in is in the same category.

[WmAx]

IOW: you have NO means whatsoever of direct disproof. All you have is words, and quotes from other sources.

Disproof? This is not required. Formal logic dictates that you must prove something exists; not the other way. The easter bunny might be real; I mean a giant 200lb rabbit that delivers baskets with candy in them on Easter Day. Disprove my Easter Bunny.

What you are doing is vicariously providing armchair skepticism without you engaging in any proof.

Your intepretation. However, based on logic, his skepticism is warranted. Do you believe that people should start believing in everything without requiring proof? What if I claimed that a boogie monster lives under my bed who can materialilze at any time he wished. Disprove me. You can't. That's why logic dictates you must prove something is valid, not prove it's invalid.

What is the most high quality system you have owned, and for how many years?

How does this relate to the issue(s)?

-Chris

[Rockwell]

Have you forgotten again what you've said? Too much mercury in the water from cannery row?

In a response to Rikki two days ago you said this:

"You need to change experts then."

What did you mean?

rw

How are you drawing the conclusion that Mtry can't hear breakin from that statement? All he is saying is that the "experts" Rikki is relying on are not really experts and he should listen to people who know enough to not recommend audio myths.

[Rikki]

I'm new to the forum how do we declare a winner for this argument ?

I'd have no problem admitting I'm wrong, but I've seen no evidence to prove my ears are lying. Shall I submit my hearing test exam results ? My hearing is on par with a dogs....really.

[mtrycraft]

I'm new to the forum how do we declare a winner for this argument ?

I'd have no problem admitting I'm wrong, but I've seen no evidence to prove my ears are lying. Shall I submit my hearing test exam results ? My hearing is on par with a dogs....really.

There is no winning, only discussing, education, understanding, accepting, and not accepting and continue to just believe. How is this different form any other area of interest?

Hearing exam will not tell anyone how well one can detect "just noticable differences" in audio. that is the key, what small differences can one detect. It isn't that small to begin with as there is a Journal paper on that too that I have cited here before, and with music, it takes an even larger difference to detect differences.

There is no end to this as there is no end to the discussion of things based in faith.

[mtrycraft]

Experienced by large numbers of perceptive listeners.

The problem here is the value, the reliability of those perceptions that thas not been demonstrate to be of value, yet you jump on it as being a fact. Doesn't show much for you, does it? Thousands report being abducted by space aliens, and on it goes.



It all depends upon which engineers are talking. Quite a few acknowledge what they hear and aren't prima donnas in thinking they know everything. I definitely discount those who live in the mid-fi world with limited experience.

rw


Prove it then. Simple. Don't just make extraordinary claims without proving it. You cannot. Simple. Even simpler, no one can or has.

[mtrycraft]

Poor straw man example. Try again.

rw

Not at all. An appropriate corollary. You just don't like it. Understandable based on your audio faith.

[mtrycraft]

I don't ever recall you posting that YOU could not hear something or that you could...not once. So why is your hearing always called into question? Strange, indeed.

It astounds me too

But, when they have nothing to offer, any excuse will do for them

[mtrycraft]

Have you forgotten again what you've said? Too much mercury in the water from cannery row?

In a response to Rikki two days ago you said this:

"You need to change experts then."

What did you mean?

rw

You insist I have comprehension problems and you cannot figure out a simple sentence? I cannot help you.

[mtrycraft]

Everything you post has a logic hole a truck can drive through. You cannot actually go to someones house, measure everything through abx/dbt or your own...um..experiance.
IOW: you have NO means whatsoever of direct disproof. All you have is words, and quotes from other sources.

Do you really think because someone wrote an article for an audio magazine that is definative catch all proof? Dream on!

What you are doing is vicariously providing armchair skepticism without you engaging in any proof.

What is the most high quality system you have owned, and for how many years?

You are applying flawed and incomplete logic and testing.

When you have a better understanding of the issues of science, please inform us and come back to discuss the issues at hand.

[E-Stat]

You insist I have comprehension problems and you cannot figure out a simple sentence? I cannot help you.

I'm not at all surprised since this is certainly not the first time you have spoken from both sides of your mouth. First you say that anyone who follows the break in procedures of an expert needs to find a new expert.

Then you say that you never said that. When I question your immediate flip flop, then you respond as you normally do when people point out your inconsistency - dodge the question.

You're a piece of work my friend !

rw

[mtrycraft]

Then you say that you never said that.

News to me. Must be the moon effect? Or is it the 5 planet alighnemnt?

[E-Stat]

News to me.

Wire is Wire - The Proof

The nice thing about Alzheimers is that you meet so many new people!

rw

[rb122]

It astounds me too

But, when they have nothing to offer, any excuse will do for them

I have no issue with those that believe they hear differences in cables. More power to them. Further, I don't care if they feel the need to provide proof or not. Cables are a non-issue for me. But I will never understand the "Mtrycrafts can't hear" defense.

Poster: My Flamboyogaster interconnects sound better than zipcord
Mtrycrafts: There is no evidence that you hear anything, placebo, etc, etc
Poster: Well, you're deaf and own a boombox so what do YOU know?

Apparently, your ability to read, follow science and gather data is impugned due to your perceived lack of hearing. There's a lack of scientific evidence to support Bigfoot. So since you've never seen him, I suppose that makes you blind. You have my respect for your ability to stay calm and keep the discussion on track in the midst of all the personal attacks. I don't always agree with you and I think some personal experience in certain areas might be an ear-opener for you but then again since you can't hear, what would be the point?

[Monstrous Mike]

Disproof? This is not required. Formal logic dictates that you must prove something exists; not the other way. The easter bunny might be real; I mean a giant 200lb rabbit that delivers baskets with candy in them on Easter Day. Disprove my Easter Bunny.

Your intepretation. However, based on logic, his skepticism is warranted. Do you believe that people should start believing in everything without requiring proof? What if I claimed that a boogie monster lives under my bed who can materialilze at any time he wished. Disprove me. You can't. That's why logic dictates you must prove something is valid, not prove it's invalid.

How does this relate to the issue(s)?

-Chris

You are quite right, Chris.

Belief in something without proof requires faith. There's nothing wrong with having faith in something but it is just not logical to request other people to disprove your own faith.

That's why people who believe certain audio myths are equated with believing in the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, crop circles, talking to the dead, etc. All of these have a common thread and that is there is no proof of any of it so any belief in these sorts of things must be done on faith.

The fun begins when people with faith start to put forth specious arguements, psuedo-science, logic fallacies, personal experiences, etc. as "proof" of their faith.

[okiemax]

You are quite right, Chris.

Belief in something without proof requires faith. There's nothing wrong with having faith in something but it is just not logical to request other people to disprove your own faith.

That's why people who believe certain audio myths are equated with believing in the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, crop circles, talking to the dead, etc. All of these have a common thread and that is there is no proof of any of it so any belief in these sorts of things must be done on faith.

The fun begins when people with faith start to put forth specious arguements, psuedo-science, logic fallacies, personal experiences, etc. as "proof" of their faith.

Before reading your post, I didn't know hearing differences in cables means I can have conversations with the dead. Boy oh boy, am I ever glad I hear that good!

I just now tried asking George Washington and Ben Franklin a few questions. So far they haven't replied. Do you think they have been dead too long to talk, or are they just ignoring me? I'll get back to you when I hear from them. In the mean time, I'll be looking out the window for Bigfoot.

Some of the guys who post here know what other people can and can't hear without even being there. If you can do it will you let me know what George and Ben had to say in case they tried to talk to me while I was sleeping?

[Rockwell]

Before reading your post, I didn't know hearing differences in cables means I can have conversations with the dead. Boy oh boy, am I ever glad I hear that good!

I just now tried asking George Washington and Ben Franklin a few questions. So far they haven't replied. Do you think they have been dead too long to talk, or are they just ignoring me? I'll get back to you when I hear from them. In the mean time, I'll be looking out the window for Bigfoot.

Some of the guys who post here know what other people can and can't hear without even being there. If you can do it will you let me know what George and Ben had to say in case they tried to talk to me while I was sleeping?

Is that what he said? It seems that you are having reading comprehension problems...or wildy distorting his words.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

To show that I am sincere, and not just raining on the parade here do this:

Take *any* cd player, any amp, any cables, any room. Listen to a variety of string quartette and violin music on the rf-7, or any reference klipsch.

The horn aperture resonates badly, and colors the sound. You can close your eyes and clearly get a mental picture of the size, position, and shape of the horn opening.

This is inherent to the speaker.

This is unacceptable, and limits the rf series to midfi and HT. A couple of my comrades that are not into stereo at all could hear it. One guy commented on how it sounds like an intercom.

Sondek,

After I read your comments(of which I do not agree with at all) I surfed the net for reviews of this speaker that agreed with your conclusions. I could find NONE. While the RF-7 is not a perfect speaker, every review I read tended to rate them as a little above average but not perfect. I for one understand that you cannot just stick a horn loaded speaker in a room without acoustical treatment. Unlike speakers that are not horn loaded, this speaker aims a great deal of their output directly at the listening position minimizing interaction with the ceiling, and side walls. You comment regarding horn resonances was not even mentioned in any of the reviews, so I will chalked that up to your personal bias.

The RF-7 was not born in the era of two channel music. It was designed to work in conjuction with the matching center, sub, and surround speakers. In this configuration almost all the reviews said these speakers excelled.

It seems funny to me that you would use a personal opinion as a foundation to critisize someone elses personal opinion. Can you tell my what makes yours more valid than his?