This audio cable business is getting out of hand...

[mansr]

Without going into poltics, I find it fascinating that Donald trump claims to be very, very smart, and more knowledgeable than the real experts in many fields. I have no clue as to whether or not that is related to his narcissism, or whether it is a manifestation of Duning Kruger Syndrome.

Is there necessarily a difference?

 

[BDWoody]

Recent research into Duning Kruger Syndrome reveals that people of average or lower intelligence are less likely to be able to recognize their own intellectual weaknesses and limitations as compared to those of higher intelligence.

Without going into poltics, I find it fascinating that Donald trump claims to be very, very smart, and more knowledgeable than the real experts in many fields. I have no clue as to whether or not that is related to his narcissism, or whether it is a manifestation of Duning Kruger Syndrome.

The view up the ladder is generally very myopic...

 

[ajawamnet]

Recent research into Duning Kruger Syndrome reveals that people of average or lower intelligence are less likely to be able to recognize their own intellectual weaknesses and limitations as compared to those of higher intelligence.

Without going into poltics, I find it fascinating that Donald trump claims to be very, very smart, and more knowledgeable than the real experts in many fields. I have no clue as to whether or not that is related to his narcissism, or whether it is a manifestation of Duning Kruger Syndrome.

Me - I'm just a tenacious idiot...

 

[agtp]

IME PhDs tend to be worse at "knowing everything" but OTOH I have been accused of the same attitude. Sometimes I get tired of defending engineering 101 and say to just look it up, or of trying to figure out how to explain something it took years to learn in a sentence somebody with no background can understand when they've made up their mind the science is wrong. And I have known some really great PhDs, and engineers, and grocery clerks -- but some people just seem to live mad all the time.

That said there are know-it-alls in every profession; about the worst I knew was an uncle who was a great guy but quite prepared to expound upon anything and everything, including engineering. He was a realtor, and a very successful one, but his understanding of thermodynamics was more limited than he would lead you to believe. He was absolutely convinced 300 mpg carburetors were readily available and the oil companies were suppressing the technology. Trying to explain why it was not physically practical, let alone that any car manufacturer who had such a thing would have a huge jump on the competition and not hesitate to release it, fell on deaf ears because he "knew" how it worked.

At least he listened! The worst are those who claim to “know” things, things which no one can know, and refuse to listen or engage at all (Know anyone like this?). I would argue that these types of people are the worst, not your uncle. Again, at least your uncle was willing to listen and engage.

 

[agtp]

I find it true in engineering/science and musicians, probably carries over to every field, that those who really know what they know also understand what they do not.

What is your view on the following:

Those who understand that they do not know, yet accept a given proposition as true.

Those who believe/claim they know, but cannot demonstrate it.

 

[MRC01]

What is your view on the following:
Those who understand that they do not know, yet accept a given proposition as true.
Those who believe/claim they know, but cannot demonstrate it.

Philosophically, truth and proof are not the same thing. The things that can be proven is a subset of the things that are true. There are things that are true that cannot be proven (part of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems). Thus, both of the above claims can be consistent or rational under some circumstances.

It can be perfectly rational to understand that I don't know, yet accept something as true. For example there may be overwhelming circumstantial evidence that still lacks proof.

It can also be rational to believe or claim to know, but be unable to demonstrate it. For example I can believe the Axiom of Choice is true even though nobody can prove it.

 

[BDWoody]

Philosophically, truth and proof are not the same thing.

Ask any wife...

 

[DonH56]

What is your view on the following:

Those who understand that they do not know, yet accept a given proposition as true.

Those who believe/claim they know, but cannot demonstrate it.

I'll leave philosophy to others. But there is a lot of grey area in either of those statements...

For the first, unless you know everything, at some point you are going to have to decide who's knowledge you are going to accept. That is, decide who your expert is going to be, and trust his answer. At some point we are all trusting "experts" in our lives. If doctor tells me "don't drink that, it's poison!" I'll probably listen and accept his proposition.

For the second, "cannot" may mean anything from he does not actually know (whether he thinks he does or not), to one who knows but cannot construct a demonstration of it (experiment) for one reason or another (maybe he does not have the equipment or the test gear), to one who knows but is unwilling to go to the catacombs and find suitable references (I often fall into that category when I suggest picking up an acoustics or engineering text and looking there for the answer) or unwilling to set up and run the experiment to prove it. If you ask me to prove 120 dB SPL is loud I am much more likely to tell you to go crank up your own system than blow up mine.

 

[MattHooper]

Ask any wife...

And the enduring philosophical puzzle:

If a man speakers in a forest with no woman around to hear him...
...is he still "wrong?"

 

[murraycamp]

And the enduring philosophical puzzle:

If a man speakers in a forest with no woman around to hear him...
...is he still "wrong?"

Yes.

 

[agtp]

I'll leave philosophy to others. But there is a lot of grey area in either of those statements...

For the first, unless you know everything, at some point you are going to have to decide who's knowledge you are going to accept. That is, decide who your expert is going to be, and trust his answer. At some point we are all trusting "experts" in our lives. If doctor tells me "don't drink that, it's poison!" I'll probably listen and accept his proposition.

For the second, "cannot" may mean anything from he does not actually know (whether he thinks he does or not), to one who knows but cannot construct a demonstration of it (experiment) for one reason or another (maybe he does not have the equipment or the test gear), to one who knows but is unwilling to go to the catacombs and find suitable references (I often fall into that category when I suggest picking up an acoustics or engineering text and looking there for the answer) or unwilling to set up and run the experiment to prove it. If you ask me to prove 120 dB SPL is loud I am much more likely to tell you to go crank up your own system than blow up mine.

The grey area is only there because you need it to be in order to have any chance of actually answering the questions. I have a hard time believing that you didn’t understand the full context of my questions. If you had read my post just prior to the one you answered, it should’ve been absolutely clear as to what I was asking and in which context.

The worst are those who claim to “know” things, things which no one can know, and refuse to listen or engage at all (Know anyone like this?).

Regarding your first reply, I can point you to experts in any field that will back virtually any claim no matter how perposterous. What if the experts conclusions are not supported by established science? Is it “knowledge” if it’s neither demonstrable nor backed by science? The doctor example you gave sounds like a terrible way to go about determining what to accept/reject. In your example, replace the word doctor with any number of EE’s and tell me you follow this same advice? Additionally, in your example, you conveniently offered up a very simplistic notion in order to support your position. A more accurate example is the following: If a doctor tells you to chant to the witch doctor, visit a chiropractor, or ingest homeopathic remedies to cure your illness, will you “listen and accept his proposition”?

Regarding your second reply, you conveniently left out a third option. That is, cannot know, as in the claim is unfalsifiable, yet the claim is believed and accepted as true. What do you think of those who fall into that category?

I’d appreciate if others would allow Don to answer for himself. The cheerleading, defensiveness, and ‘likes’ of your internet “friends” posts does little in promoting productive dialogue. Thanks.

 

[THW]

NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR DISCOURSE ON ASR 2: Electric Boogaloo

 

[BDWoody]

I’d appreciate if others would allow Don to answer for himself. The cheerleading, defensiveness, and ‘likes’ of your internet “friends” posts does little in promoting productive dialogue. Thanks.

Oh, Don can certainly handle you by himself, I think many of us just enjoy his approach. It's like sport when folks like you think they have something important to say to folks like him.

You've shown your contentious ignorance before...not much really new there...

 

[Wombat]

Oh, Don can certainly handle you by himself, I think many of us just enjoy his approach. It's like sport when folks like you think they have something important to say to folks like him.

You've shown your contentious ignorance before...not much really new there...

Beware of those who usually fill their posts with questions, to make their point, rather than answers.

 

[THW]

all jokes aside I have a strange feeling that this is probably going to go the way that Norms and Standards for Discourse thread did...

 

[Wombat]

Nothing new. Typical of audio(or most other on-line forums). Just a matter of degree.

Of course we could expect opinion be backed with science.

 

[BDWoody]

Of course we could expect opinion be backed with science.

That's just crazy talk...

 

[Shadrach]

What is your view on the following:

Those who understand that they do not know, yet accept a given proposition as true.

Those who believe/claim they know, but cannot demonstrate it.

Both the above are examples of faith.
You have assumed (an earlier post) that there is the unknowable. I would set about trying to prove this before you write anything else on this forum at least.
Better still, stop smoking that weed and see if you can straighten up enough to write something worth reading.

 

[VintageFlanker]

Same situation over here. Had no time, ordered two cables from WBC a month ago. This one and another one based on Mogami 2964 with different, shorter (and more beautiful) Amphenols. Put the note on my note board for a good laugh when friends come visiting.

But seriously, you bought the wrong cable. The Mogami is the better cable, and I can easily proove that. I tested a bunch of RCA cables to check the change in noise (leakage current) when connecting two units running on SMPS by unbalanced cables. The lower the resistance of the shield/ground connection in the cable, the lower the noise. Technically the leakage current induces a voltage over the shield resistance. Imagine that to be exactly 0 Ohms - no voltage anymore, no noise.

So how low do these cables go? As we are talking quality material (Canare/Mogami) there are data sheets with detailed specs available. The StarQuad's shield is given with 0.03 Ohms per meter. But the shield is not used here. Instead two inner conductors, which have 0.098 Ohms each result in 0.049 Ohms per meter.

The Mogami has a double shield and reaches a super-low 0.012 Ohms per meter. And that was exactly what my measurements showed, the PS noise was 10 to 20 dB lower than all other RCA cables I had for testing, the noise nearly vanishing in the noise floor of the FFT diagram.

As the StarQuad effect is completely bollocks on a short unbalanced cable, and also the one sided connection doesn't bring any advantage on such lengths, I resoldered the Canare, connected the second inner pair to shield and connected shield on the missing connector. That brought the Canare much closer to the Mogami, but still the 2964 showed better results.

Please note this is not about Canare and Mogami, it is about choosing the correct cable type for an application. I am pretty sure Canare also makes a cable that is similar to the 2964. And the 2964 advantages are easy to find in its spec sheet:

- only 57 pF capacitance per meter (the StarQuad is a whopping 185 pF)

- 75 Ohms impedance, means it is very controlled and also a perfect SPDIF cable. The StarQuad does not have any 'impedance' at 10 MHz, it is strictly an analog cable.

The Mogami 2964 is an astonishingly thin and flexible cable. Audiophiles will not like it for that reason alone.

Disclaimer: I don't sell these cables, nor have any affiliation with either company.

I received my pair from WBC today. Thanks to @MC_RME advices, I bought the one with Mogami 2964. 28€ on Amazon Prime shipped (1M). Very happy with it, build quality seems solid, even if it is at least twice as thin as my Atlas Equator OCC.

Mine came without "burn in" advertise! I also checked the solders: the shield is soldered at both side. I guess it is normal due the unbalanced nature of the cable (?).

As expected, I didn't notice any audible difference between this and my 130€ Atlas... I will put the Atlas on sale, or send it to @amirm for review if he's interested for measurements vs a "standard" RCA Cable!

 

[pozz]

That Audio Bacon dude is going to regret all the time he spent on this listening-to-cables stuff in a few years.