Stereophile and Audio Cables

[mhardy6647]

eh? Logged in where?

Stereophile's website, of course.

Per @Chrispy's question (quoted above).
Nope, I can see them just fine without being logged in (and yes, I do have an account, in full and complete disclosure).
e.g.,

So -- @Chrispy -- I don't know. Maybe check your cookies or clear your cache.
Whenever I have weird problems on a website, and if they aren't easily sussable-outable , I try another browser.
I keep a couple of spare ones on hand (i.e., Edge and Chrome, in my Windows case) for just that reason.

 

[Cbdb2]

Calling people stupid or dishonest for this is actually counterproductive. Most of these folks are neither stupid nor dishonest and know that they are neither. So the erroneous conclusion that they are either one or the other gives them good reason to dismiss the opposing view rather than give it any consideration.

They are put in a position that people are supposed to believe them as knowledgeable but what they say is clearly not, and they are payed for this. So what are they? I can't think of anything nice. And we all know they will dismiss the opposing view no matter what.

 

[Doodski]

And we all know they will dismiss the opposing view no matter what.

Yeah, and they have the power of being perceived as a expert authority and access to huge numbers of people for their agenda.

 

[Chrispy]

Stereophile's website, of course.

View attachment 357151

Per @Chrispy's question (quoted above).
Nope, I can see them just fine without being logged in (and yes, I do have an account, in full and complete disclosure).
e.g.,
View attachment 357148
So -- @Chrispy -- I don't know. Maybe check your cookies or clear your cache.
Whenever I have weird problems on a website, and if they aren't easily sussable-outable , I try another browser.
I keep a couple of spare ones on hand (i.e., Edge and Chrome, in my Windows case) for just that reason.

Oh....wasn't trying to log in there, nor even visit really...I like the weird cable comparison John provides.

 

[Cbdb2]

I view that as throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

That someone can experience sighted bias does not entail they can not hear real differences. That's an indisputable fact. We are all susceptible to sighted bias, but we can also hear real differences too.

And Im supposed to guess when its real and when its imaginary? Zero reliability. Like I said, these reviews are useless.

 

[mhardy6647]

Oh....wasn't trying to log in there, nor even visit really...I like the weird cable comparison John provides.

You should be able to see his comments if you visit the link. I thought you said you couldn't.
Perhaps I am confused.
It has happened before.

 

[MattHooper]

"Deluded"

Works for me.

So long as we are talking about it's basic definition: "believing something that is not true."

If used as a synonym for "crazy" then, no.

 

[Brian Hall]

Intelligent yet honestly mistaken is an option.

By definition, an intelligent and honestly mistaken person will change their opinion/beliefs when presented with clear evidence that they were mistaken.

Insisting on maintaining and promoting an obviously wrong belief demonstrates that person is the opposite of intelligent*.

*Or is a lying crook who is only doing it for the money.

Could a doctor who promotes the idea that washing hands between patients is a waste of a doctor's precious time still be considered intelligent and honestly mistaken given the knowledge that dangerous bacteria exist and can cause harm?

 

[MattHooper]

And Im supposed to guess when its real and when its imaginary? Zero reliability. Like I said, these reviews are useless.

No. I don't just guess, myself. I already explained how I sift out more reliable accounts from others. And I've found many reviews far from useless, in fact plenty have been quite helpful and led to highly satisfying purchases. A tool is only useful if you decide to use it. You needn't lift a finger to do so...

(and let that baby slide down to the sewers... )

 

[Chrispy]

You should be able to see his comments if you visit the link. I thought you said you couldn't.
Perhaps I am confused.
It has happened before.

Not me or at least anything I intended to convey... There's not a lot of there there.

 

[DSJR]

Interesting point that needs clarification. I started seeing fancy fat expensive cables @ the point of retail ~1986-87 or so. When did reviewing them become normalized?

Earlier than that in the UK. Naim had their A4 speaker cable and an importer, Absolute Sounds, which imported Krell, ARC and others, began doing their hosepipe 'Absolute Wire' and then (not sure on date) Mandrake interconnects. Levinson had a speaker cable as well around this time (grey coloured dumbbell profile I recall with many thin strands per conductor)

[edit] - In the late 70's - early 80's, QED did an interconnect which was basically 1.5mm conductors as in mains cable but with a shield around them (I forget what they were called. Not high end at the time, but The Chord Company started up in the early 80s making DIN to whatever interconnects for Naim amps primarily, as all we had before then were cheap looking cables of perfectly good quality, just cheap looking connectors. Chord used posher plugs and basic cables, but they looked nicer and had locking DINs suitable for the Naim preamps.

 

[mhardy6647]

Well, at least I figured it out, I missed my quoted post by one reply. The above malarkey was all meant as a response to this:

How come I don't see JA or anyone else's comments on that link?

Sorry, @Chrispy

 

[MattHooper]

By definition, an intelligent and honestly mistaken person will change their opinion/beliefs when presented with clear evidence that they were mistaken.

Again, a naive account of human psychology.

https://research.com/education/why-facts-dont-change-our-mind

It's not just dumb people who exhibit biases that make it hard to change our mind. It's a human condition.

I've been in debates with very intelligent people who have gone down a certain rabbit hole that I find unreasonable, and it can feel mind boggling that they can't see the "errors" you are pointing out. But they are highly intelligent.

In fact, that tends to be just how it feels to be on the other side of a debate. Intelligent people can disagree on fundamental propositions, and it feels like your position can be so obviously correct "how could someone intelligent not see the problem?" But that's exactly what it feels like to the other side of the debate.

It's being human, whether you are intelligent or not.

And I suggest to look inward, and feel the appeal of the position you want to take: Is it mere coincidence that this is identifying a failing in "the other guy" that you aren't falling for? There's some nice, seductive self affirmation hiding in there, wouldn't you agree? It's well known that moralizing about others is an attractive stance, so I think it's wise to be suspicious when we are slipping to such characterizations. Not that we should never do so, or it's always unwarranted. But it's seductive and it shouldn't come too easily. (And yes I do it too).

Insisting on maintaining and promoting an obviously wrong belief demonstrates that person is the opposite of intelligent*.

*Or is a lying crook who is only doing it for the money.

Could a doctor who promotes the idea that washing hands between patients is a waste of a doctor's precious time still be considered intelligent and honestly mistaken given the knowledge that dangerous bacteria exist and can cause harm?

Do you really think intelligent people can't come to believe unscientific things? Have you looked around at the world?

 

[Doodski]

Earlier than that in the UK. Naim had their A4 speaker cable and an importer, Absolute Sounds, which imported Krell, ARC and others, began doing their hosepipe 'Absolute Wire' and then (not sure on date) Mandrake interconnects. Levinson had a speaker cable as well around this time (grey coloured dumbbell profile I recall with many thin strands per conductor)

I was living in a small unincorporated village of ~300 people with two small cities ~8 miles on either side in each direction and the only source of electronics gear sales/information and such was from Vancouver Canada about 450 miles distant. So I was maybe a couple of years behind the curve or more. We made due and had a good time with what was available.

 

[egellings]

What part is not clear or that you don't understand? I based that comment on a pet peeve that I have. It is about that statement of world class stuff and we can do the same as that etc etc. I say screw that let's set our own standard and make it exceed what this world class stuff is. World class is a leading statement that does not define what it is. It bugs me...LoL.

BS is world class, too because there's a lot of it about...everywhere.

 

[Mart68]

Long before that. The first I'm aware of was Bob Fulton back in the early '70s. Matt Polk was not far behind. By the time I moved to Utah in '77, Kimber was already out there doing dishonest demos.

The question was 'when did cable reviews become normalised?' though, not 'When did specialist cables start being sold?'

QED 79 strand was the original in the UK and might have been a bit better for some set ups than lamp cord due to the lower gauge. That came on sale in the 1970s.

Ascribing complex sonic characteristics to cables as though they are musical instruments starts in the 1980s, and normalisation of such takes another few years.

 

[Doodski]

Again, a naive account of human psychology.

https://research.com/education/why-facts-dont-change-our-mind

It's not just dumb people who exhibit biases that make it hard to change our mind. It's a human condition.

I've been in debates with very intelligent people who have gone down a certain rabbit hole that I find unreasonable, and it can feel mind boggling that they can't see the "errors" you are pointing out. But they are highly intelligent.

In fact, that tends to be just how it feels to be on the other side of a debate. Intelligent people can disagree on fundamental propositions, and it feels like your position can be so obviously correct "how could someone intelligent not see the problem?" But that's exactly what it feels like to the other side of the debate.

It's being human, whether you are intelligent or not.

And I suggest to look inward, and feel the appeal of the position you want to take: Is it mere coincidence that this is identifying a failing in "the other guy" that you aren't falling for? There's some nice, seductive self affirmation hiding in there, wouldn't you agree? It's well known that moralizing about others is an attractive stance, so I think it's wise to be suspicious when we are slipping to such characterizations. Not that we should never do so, or it's always unwarranted. But it's seductive and it shouldn't come too easily. (And yes I do it too).




Do you really think intelligent people can't come to believe unscientific things? Have you looked around at the world?

I have issues with psychology theories, stances and my past relationships with people bearing a education in psy stuff. My first wife had a uni degree in psy stuff and she could be very tricky to deal with in some basic life matters because I am analytical but very empathetic and sometimes too accepting to a fault and she to a fault used her psy education to determine things about peoples' past and future. I have determined that some psy ideas are better than the alternatives and I use psy reasoning to make decisions and try to be a better person but it has it limits and is not a exact science like say, The Principles of Electron Flow or even Digital Fundamentals as I mentioned earlier and other very defined and exacting accurate subjects. I commend you on your very broad palette of psy ideas and techniques for explaining people but I thing you overdo the stuff to a fault and in the case of Stereophile authors etc you are too kind towards them. My two cents . I want to impart more analytical stuff into you but you are apparently not a willing subject...

 

[Brian Hall]

Do you really think intelligent people can't come to believe unscientific things? Have you looked around at the world?

Doesn't intelligence require some degree of logical thinking?

Stubbornly continuing to believe in something that can easily be proved wrong with real, easily accessible evidence demonstrates a lack of logical thinking.

Can intelligence exist without some degree of logic?

 

[Brian Hall]

I have issues with psychology theories, stances and my past relationships with people bearing a education in psy stuff. My first wife had a uni degree in psy stuff and she could be very tricky to deal with in some basic life matters because I am analytical but very empathetic and sometimes too accepting to a fault and she to a fault used her psy education to determine things about peoples' past and future.

You have my sympathy. My second ex-wife had a masters degree in psychology.

 

[Doodski]

You have my sympathy. My second ex-wife had a masters degree in psychology.

For sure! Thank you. The clincher is her degree included criminology and she was a habitual criminal and never even saw the relationship between her acts and criminology. She blatantly created excuses and eventually was caught red handed at my well paying workplace with 3 stolen prerecorded cassette tapes in her purse as she left the building... I was so bloody red faced frustrated when the 2 managers that I knew and loved dearly brought me to the executive meeting room to tell me about it. I almost had a heart attack at a very young age right then and there. That was the downfall right then and there. Sigh* They never fired me because it was so obvious I was heartbroken that they told me off the record that there was a few women that would appreciate me and told me to get rid of her ASAP. What a day it was!