- Thread Starter
- #441
You are repeating talking points of the people who don't spend any time to actually learn the science part of audio. Measurements are one third of the puzzle. The other two are:" ...considers audio to be defined exclusively by oscilloscope leads...and noise."
Pretty much sums up my thinking about this site. While many measurements can tell you some general and some specific ideas about the sound of a component, I'm still waiting for the graph that shows how that one particular voice in the background of a song sounds just a bit more realistic with one component and not another. The intricacies and depth of detail that we can hear is so underestimated here.
1. Psychoacoustics which is based completely on listening tests.
2. How systems are designed and engineered.
With respect to measurements of a cable such as what is in this review, we can prove it has inaudible effect on humans. Psychoacoustic research gives us threshold of noise and distortion. Comparing the two easily indicates no human being can detect or remotely perceive the effect of this cable. The case is made quite simply and once again, is completely based on listening test results.
I have offered thousands of dollars in rewards if anyone can tell in a blind test two cables apart let alone have them sound different. The case is so simple and open and shut.
Now, if you don't study the science, you can believe in all kinds of super human effects. We are not here to debunk people's imagination. That is an issue that is due to lack of education no different that someone thinking they catch a cold because it is cold outside. Lay intuition leading you awry.
What is remarkable is that if I told you that the cure for every kind of cancer is carrot juice, you would laugh at me and want scientific proof. But believe in random stuff in audio like what you state, and you seemingly believe that just because it sounds correct to your gut.