Am I missing something?
From my DAC manual:
I don't think they'e expecting you to use fat cables... Just the usual, but longer...
Am I missing something?
This is even more dismaying - I think you're right. They really do think they hear a difference!
But wait... there is more....
Well that presumes of course that he isnt bullshitting for marketing purposes. Does he actually believe or is he selling a story?The amazing gift the people like Paul have is that they are able to design functionality without knowing what that functionality is! Better yet, they can manufacture it without knowing how to test that it is there before they ship the product....
It is a mix of both I am sure. He must have had incidents of thinking some tweak is in the system doing something, only to find out the tweak was not there, powered on, etc. And then again performing uncontrolled tests and believing in things that don't work as working.Well that presumes of course that he isnt bullshitting for marketing purposes. Does he actually believe or is he selling a story?
Well that presumes of course that he isn't bullshitting for marketing purposes. Does he actually believe or is he selling a story?
As we have seen since the dawn of time in public affairs, charlatans can be entertaining to debate, but little of value gets accomplished.
I agree with Ethan Winer (no surprise there) but understand Paul's standpoint.
Of course I won't defend Paul's standpoint as it is bollocks to begin with.
When one is convinced (like many audiophiles seem to be) that 'we' cannot measure everything and there are aspects 'we' do not know of nor know how to measure then it is logical to come to the conclusion that there 'must be' a signal, unknown, and (yet ?) unmeasurable that also travels along and also influences the sound.
When you believe that it is easy to say (with dry eyes and conviction) that something can sound different even though it measures the same.
An assumption based on religion as in; there is more to life than what we can observe and quantify.
Such a debate can never end well and proponents can never see eye to eye. Each have their own audiences. Yin and Yang ... etc.
Kuddo's to Ethan for daring Paul.
I think Paul knows he can't win this when called upon his abilities to 'prove' this in controlled tests.
His livelihood depends on sales which depend on audio religion alike beliefs.
Ethan Winer on the other hand has fallen into the trap of thinking that science has all the answers
How do you measure something if you don't even know that it exists
I would have to say that I am inclined to side with Paul McGowan who expresses a more rational and balanced point of view. He allows for the possibility that there are things beyond our understanding at this point in time, that we cannot measure and don't even know to look for. Any sane, rational and balanced thinker would concur.
How do you measure something if you don't even know that it exists and are too dogmatic in your view to even consider the possibility of it's existence.
I would have to say that I am inclined to side with Paul McGowan who expresses a more rational and balanced point of view. He allows for the possibility that there are things beyond our understanding at this point in time, that we cannot measure and don't even know to look for. Any sane, rational and balanced thinker would concur.
Ethan Winer on the other hand has fallen into the trap of thinking that science has all the answers and that everything is measurable. How do you measure something if you don't even know that it exists and are too dogmatic in your view to even consider the possibility of it's existence.
You need to factor in the moonbeams that are radiated into room from the wire, this is why in a blind test they sound the same.What is passing through those wires that is not electrical but that nevertheless audibly affects the sound?