Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
I frankly think that you have chosen to focus on a few pointed quotes and disregard the rest of my concerns on this thread. If you want an example of "one of the larger problems on this board" then just look at how you've focused on out of context quotes and then drawn a whole set of presumptions around that.
I think the conclusions I drew from your comments were justified. You obviously disagree. We'll leave it at that.

My whole approach is to play fair, and if that's fine with you, then we won't have any problems.
As long as you understand that "fair" is going to include allowing people to voice opinions that may not necessarily agree with yours, then no, we won't have any problems.

First off, all that I said is that room acoustics are a far more important issue than cables when dealing with boominess in subwoofers. If you disagree with that, then make your case. I don't think you disagree with my room treatment position, and have just offered up a contrarian position. I don't take issue with that, but are you offering up that list of professionals who use Shunyata products as some kind of support for the notion that cables are just as important as room acoustics? It doesn't say anything to that effect, and none of the people I've ever met who've worked in professional capacities will agree with that either.

You're more than welcome to believe that a list of studios and organizations that have invested in Shunyata products somehow supports a contrary position, but when somebody comes onto this board with an issue with boominess, are you then saying that the Shunyata products can better deal directly with this issue?

What I mean by professional consensus is that every article I've ever read about the causes and effects of boominess and their remedies point to the room acoustics. There's plenty of disagreement on what solutions are most effective (tube traps, corner prisms, parametric equalization, various placements, etc.), but I've yet to see any discussion by people who've actually addressed low frequency boominess issues that indicated the cables as the most effective solution, or even an effective solution at all. This is because subjective interpretations of boominess follow very basic science about things like room modes and standing waves, and how those correlate to changes to the frequency response. Unless the cable can actually change the frequency response and attenuate the most severe peaks in a specific room (which in my room were 10 db+), then they are ineffective for dealing with boominess.

My position on cables is very simple. If you believe they make a difference, fine spend your money on them. If you've already made your investment in the room acoustics, front end equipment, and speaker upgrades, then cables might be the next step. But, if you believe that the cable upgrades should come before all others, then I will disagree and point to any number of reasons why.
I think you're getting so caught up in the minutiae of this particular example that you're missing my larger point. I was trying to illustrate how there will likely be more than one approach to resolving any given problem, and other people may well weigh the validity of those approaches differently. Some people might weigh the approaches based on the current scientific understanding of the problem, while others might weigh the approaches based on their listening observations of the problem. I included the Shunyata example because you mentioned "consensus among professionals", and I wanted to illustrate that not even professionals are in uniform agreement on all audio issues.

However, since my abstractions about this apparently aren't making my point, here's a specific example for you. Every Radio Shack Gold interconnect I've heard sounds like it has a bulge in the bass. I didn't realize this, though, when I first used one, so at the time I assumed that I had a room node that was causing my subwoofer to be slightly boomy, even though I had the LPF on the sub set to where it should be properly intersecting with the bass rolloff from my speakers. I could kinda sorta get rid of the boom by moving the sub out farther into the room, but then I would lose an unacceptable amount of frequency extension, and the sub would be encroaching on the walkway at that point, so I just left the sub back near the wall.

What ended up getting rid of the boominess was replacing that $8 Radio Shack Gold IC with a $27 XLO IC. Not only did the XLO get rid of the boominess, it deepened the bass extension, which by itself should have exacerbated the boominess issue if a room node had been the real problem. Now, there may be $27 worth of DIY room treatments that might have helped address this problem, but I didn't have to resort to trying them. All I had to do was change the cable.

If that's how you intend to moderate the board, then I have no issue with that. But, if you start to enforce a particular bias under the pretense of civility, then I think that speaks volumes for itself. I hope you do a good job and want to make this all work, but I suggest that you read your own posts if you're seeking out examples.
I have absolutely no problem with people listening for themselves to any example I give, or any component I comment on, or any cable whose sound I characterize, and coming to entirely different conclusions about how it sounds, or whether it has any sound at all. What I do have a problem with is people getting browbeaten on this board with the suggestion that they don't need to listen to anything for themselves, using the pretense that current scientific understanding says that they don't. I want people to listen to things for themselves, decide about them for themselves, and then feel free to come here and relate their experience. Despite your not so subtle digs, I don't believe I've suggested that any other goal was being pursued.