Only $2,000 to improve your amp's performance

[Limeman]

Actually, "opinions based on facts" isn't a bad definition of science, if we avoid nitpicking the terms too much.

If we do start nitpicking, it could be paraphrased as "a view of the natural world based on observations that meet high standards for validity of evidence".

Got that. Was just poking fun at Implosion's comment.

So my whole take on this discussion is just that... opinions. We all have them. Some are more "accurate" than others I suppose, based on the "facts" as we know them today. But when I ask an obvious expert for a meaningful explanation as to what is "factually" inaccurate about the marketing of a product, and all I get for an answer is "... It's all vague pseudo-scientific, pseudo-technical baloney...", then how is that more accepted than when I say "maybe it could work", based on the same marketing? In both instances, we offer nothing but speculation and our own opinions.

Help a layman out here... provide some real honest and factual explanation.

Thanks!

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Okay, here's another answer: it's all factually inaccurate. Is that more acceptable?

 

[Implosion]

Got that. Was just poking fun at Implosion's comment.

So my whole take on this discussion is just that... opinions. We all have them. Some are more "accurate" than others I suppose, based on the "facts" as we know them today. But when I ask an obvious expert for a meaningful explanation as to what is "factually" inaccurate about the marketing of a product, and all I get for an answer is "... It's all vague pseudo-scientific, pseudo-technical baloney...", then how is that more accepted than when I say "maybe it could work", based on the same marketing? In both instances, we offer nothing but speculation and our own opinions.

Help a layman out here... provide some real honest and factual explanation.

Thanks!

Umm. The manufacturer claims something and can't show a single piece of evidence to back it up. In my books it doesn't count as "maybe it could work".

 

[Limeman]

Now where did I say that? Everyone should base their opinions on facts. It's just that some people refuse to believe facts, no matter how much evidence you present to them.

People can be found on both sides of the argument that fit that MO.

Non-believers as in people who base their opinions on facts?

I took the implied subtext in your comment to mean that a believer was incapable of developing opinions on fact. Just seemed simplistic and derogatory and did nothing to help the dialog.

 

[Limeman]

Umm. The manufacturer claims something and can't show a single piece of evidence to back it up. In my books it doesn't count as "maybe it could work".

Has any one called them out directly? Asked for a more technical, non-layman's explication?

 

[Implosion]

People can be found on both sides of the argument that fit that MO.

The only difference being that only one side can back their opinions.

Has any one called them out directly? Asked for a more technical, non-layman's explication?

Do you read these posts that explain why it won't work? For instance post #320.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

But when I ask an obvious expert for a meaningful explanation as to what is "factually" inaccurate about the marketing of a product, and all I get for an answer is "... It's all vague pseudo-scientific, pseudo-technical baloney...", then how is that more accepted than when I say "maybe it could work", based on the same marketing? In both instances, we offer nothing but speculation and our own opinions.

Well, frankly, the difference is that Bob, and Mark, and aborgman, and billfitzmaurice, and others here have repeatedly demonstrated that they know what they're talking about when they talk about this stuff. They have a capacity to evaluate that marketing in a way that you don't. (That's not a dis, BTW; nobody can possibly be an expert on everything.) They are working on the basis of experience, knowledge, and evidence; you are working on the basis of "what-ifs." This means what they say is fact-based, not mere speculation. Therefore their comments on the likelihood of these particular questions are, quite simply, deserving of more up-front credence than your opinions are. If the situation were the opposite, where you were the person with greater expertise and knowledge of the subject, and they were less well informed, then you would be the one whose statements deserved more up-front credence. But this one is not that way.

That's what the difference is, and that's why what they say is taken more seriously than your suppositions..

And BTW, you have already had a number of technical explanations in this thread. I wouldn't blame those guys if they didn't want to repeat themselves.

 

[greenboy]

This writer definitely has a future in science fiction.

Not really. Science fiction as read by people who have read it for ages has pretty high standards for the veracity of the science that everything in a story is extrapolated on. In "hard science fiction" especially Suspension of Disbelief should not take place in the realm of the already known; the readers immediately recognize a cheater... And in fact a lot of the world's leading science fiction authors continue to be from the hard sciences, more often than not leaders in their respective fields of science as well.

However, once you hit "TV science fiction" or many movies, the standards are all over the map. The profile of the average television viewer is often not phased in the least by malfs in plausability, and real clinkers are often the norm. Education in the sciences is not a prerequisite for either viewer or screenplay writer there - nor is even common sense or logical follow-through. So a large amount of cognitive tone deafness is often the result.

Not that different than what we find in this topic.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Has any one called them out directly? Asked for a more technical, non-layman's explication?

Why should anyone bother? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and if you're the one making the extraordinary claim, the burden is really on you to supply the extraordinary proof. (I don't mean you personally, since you're not the manufacturer; I mean the generic "you.")

 

[Limeman]

Well, frankly, the difference is that Bob, and Mark, and aborgman, and billfitzmaurice, and others here have repeatedly demonstrated that they know what they're talking about when they talk about this stuff. They have a capacity to evaluate that marketing in a way that you don't. (That's not a dis, BTW; nobody can possibly be an expert on everything.) They are working on the basis of experience, knowledge, and evidence; you are working on the basis of "what-ifs." This means what they say is fact-based, not mere speculation. Therefore their comments on the likelihood of these particular questions are, quite simply, deserving of more up-front credence than your opinions are. If the situation were the opposite, where you were the person with greater expertise and knowledge of the subject, and they were less well informed, then you would be the one whose statements deserved more up-front credence. But this one is not that way.

That's what the difference is, and that's why what they say is taken more seriously than your suppositions..

And BTW, you have already had a number of technical explanations in this thread. I wouldn't blame those guys if they didn't want to repeat themselves.

Got that and understood.

 

[SMASH]

Has any one called them out directly? Asked for a more technical, non-layman's explication?

Shysters ignore challenges. They smile wryly at the person who shouts 'snake oil !' then carry on the pitch to the flock of sheeple. WMD's? World economic collapse if tens of billion$ aren't handed to those who funded the election campaigns? Just move along, you don't need any proof and there's no proof to see here...

The real question is 'Why have none of the True Believers and Golden Eared, people from Monster or ESP, or Vic Wooten, gone to claim Randi's $1 million?'





It's not about differing opinions, or as someone said earlier about critical hearing vs./ critical thinking. It's about fact vs. fantasy - you can't hear what isn't there just like what you "see" in an optical illusion isn't real. Beyond that, people can choose to believe in magic or they can be curious about how the trick is done, or maybe just kick back and enjoy the show, but if they stamp their feet and insist magic is reality then they have no right to be taken seriously or insist that experts taking their time to explain things for free.

This is general commentary, not directed at you. I believe you're sincerely interested in what's fact and fiction. Sadly that's extremely uncommon.

 

[Bluesy Soul]

Science is not absolute. It is a tool to uncover facts from which the "use" of is pertinent to the specific paradigm from which it was obtained.

Wow.

You know, I don't have--and have never wanted--a tattoo; but this intoxicating phrase may just change my mind. First, however, I must fix the structural misuse of the prepositional phrase "the 'use" of"...

 

[Queg]

The power supply in most, if not all, amp architectures either .. etc etc..
....They provide excellent smoothing. There is no way a cable could do better...

Hm. Here's the problem. I still hear a hedging in many of the naysayer arguments. Stating that "there's no way a cable could do better" implies it could do SOMETHING.

So please, which is it?
That cables can make no difference whatsoever? or that they're capable of making negligible changes at best?

Once again, it's the absolutism of the naysayer argument that's disconcerting.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Hm. Here's the problem. I still hear a hedging in many of the naysayer arguments. Stating that "there's no way a cable could do better" implies it could do SOMETHING.

So please, which is it?
That cables can make no difference whatsoever? or that they're capable of making negligible changes at best?

Once again, it's the absolutism of the naysayer argument that's disconcerting.

So which is it? Are the nay-sayers hedging, or are they absolutist? They can't be both; that would be a logical absurdity.

And is there one nay-sayer arguMENT, as you say at the end, or are there many arguMENTS? Both can't be true.

Seriously, though, if you read through the entirety of the post you carefully trimmed, you'll find some material bearing on your question. And the views of the various nay-sayers have already been explained at great length in numerous posts. It's pretty much been laid out for you already.

 

[Queg]

So which is it? Are the nay-sayers hedging, or are they absolutist? They can't be both; that would be a logical absurdity.

And is there one nay-sayer arguMENT, as you say at the end, or are there many arguMENTS? Both can't be true.

Seriously, though, if you read through the entirety of the post you carefully trimmed, you'll find some material bearing on your question. And the views of the various nay-sayers have already been explained at great length in numerous posts. It's pretty much been laid out for you already.

Oh geez, I forgot to have my comment peer reviewed for semantic logic errors. lol. Clever obfuscation to avoid the point. You know very well that I'm addressing a real contradiction.

I did read the post I trimmed, and it doesn't address the problem. You can't be claiming no effect and then allow for the possibility of a negligible effect.

The hesitation is understandable. Allowing any possibility that power cables can have an effect on sound leaves an opening for snake-oil claims, and we're off to the races again.

 

[billfitzmaurice]

What they're claiming is ... the gauge of the wire can affect the delivery of said current via the skin effect.

When you see the phrase 'skin effect' used with respect to anything audio it's a dead giveaway that they're peddling snake oil. Sink effect is real, and it's a concern with microwave frequency antenna cables and folks, that's up in the megahertz range and higher. That's above the range of human hearing by a factor of 50 and more. To say any cable for audio use needs to be concerned with skin effect is like saying your garden hose needs to be rated for 5,000 PSI when your water pressure is only 100PSI. And to say skin effect has any bearing on 60Hz AC, well, now that garden hose needs to be rated at 1,700,000 PSI.
I'd like to see a plumber try to get away with charging $1k a foot for 1/2" pipe.

 

[Limeman]

Wow.

You know, I don't have--and have never wanted--a tattoo; but this intoxicating phrase may just change my mind. First, however, I must fix the structural misuse of the prepositional phrase "the 'use" of"...

Sorry for my bad use of English.

Maybe... "Science is not an absolute. It is a tool to uncover facts from which their use is pertinent to the specific paradigm from which they were obtained."

Better?

Something tells me no...

 

[Queg]

I'd like to see a plumber try to get away with charging $1k a foot for 1/2" pipe.

LOL!
But I can taste the difference, I swear!
Perhaps it's designed to act as a filter?

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Oh geez, I forgot to have my comment peer reviewed for semantic logic errors. lol. Clever obfuscation to avoid the point. You know very well that I'm addressing a real contradiction.

I did read the post I trimmed, and it doesn't address the problem. You can't be claiming no effect and then allow for the possibility of a negligible effect.

The hesitation is understandable. Allowing any possibility that power cables can have an effect on sound leaves an opening for snake-oil claims, and we're off to the races again.

LOL, OK, but if you're going to point fingers at others' supposed logical contradictions, why shouldn't people point at your actual logical contradictions?

And no, you are not addressing a real contradiction. The first logical contradiction I pointed to in your post is actually more real than the one you claim to find in this thread. There is no substantive contradiction in what the expert members of the forum have been saying. I would invite you to point to some such contradictions, if you can.

 

[Limeman]

This is general commentary, not directed at you. I believe you're sincerely interested in what's fact and fiction. Sadly that's extremely uncommon.

I appreciate your sincerity. I am most certainly interested in finding the truth, especially since my initial impression with the MusicCord power cable some time back was that there WAS a difference. I really do hope to clear that up in a week or so once I can run a series of listening tests via a ProTools and Myers HD1 setup in conjunction with a Mesa/Aguilar rig and a Sawosky and F1 bass. If there is any discernible difference, I'll be happy to post for all to listen to.