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

[Limeman]

vic mixes 410's with 115's, so his hearing is already suspect

Now THAT is funny!!!

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Look - I appreciate everyone's respectful opinion, but until you have used the product, your suppositions, no matter how scientifically backed, are nothing more than conjecture.

No, they can be grounded in reality and completely in line with what wire does and how it works. In fact, I'd say it's the opposite of your claim: such cables are more likely to be used by persons who judge on conjecture instead of understanding.

 

[davec]

Jimmy I think your right I may have posted on this one way back when we did the test. And If it sounds like I'm mad, well sorry everyone. I not, I'm just done with this debate. When I think of the scientific arguments made and presented as fact. How long did it take physicist to understand how a bumble bee flies? that the earth is not flat? that AIDS was not going to be spread my mosquitoes? there is a reason they call them theories. When a person goes to school and spends a lot of money to be taught these theories, sometimes they accept them as facts and when something comes along that challenges there reality... well its upsetting
And to clear up things
I never said I would buy this cord.
I never said that equipment could replace ability.
I never said that I conducted a scientific double blind study with a wide range of subjects from a diverse ethnic and economic back ground in a scientifically controlled environment.
I never said I'm right and if you disagree with me your wrong.
I did say I heard a difference.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

I was hoping to get a blind a/b test completed several weeks back, but that was postponed due to conflicts in schedules. I do plan to follow through in the near future, and will be happy to report both the methodology and results to this group for analysis. I'm doing this for myself because I did hear a difference and I am wondering if I can somehow measure it. Ultimately though, the only way the results will be accepted by the majority of naysayers here is if I report back that the cable was a total failure. Any other result, no matter how carefully it was obtained, will be insufficient. They will find any number of arguments to punch holes in the test, and will declare that it was ultimately flawed due to obvious "believer" bias.

Come on, you really ought to be ashamed of this kind of misrepresentation of what people say. It's dishonest, and whatever else you were (deluded?), I didn't think you were dishonest. The whole point is that these careful tests you propose HAVE NOT BEEN DONE, and in their absence, there is no reason to believe in the phenomenon you believe in. You have had this explained to you repeatedly. When people have taken the time to do this for you, misrepresenting their views is a pretty shoddy way to pay them back.

As far as "poking holes," do you still not get that that's how this stuff is done? You test the strength of your findings by subjecting them to inquiry and examination. That's one of the ways you know you've got something--if you do. If you're an honest tester, you WANT people to try to poke holes in your findings. If your findings survive scrutiny, and if they can be reproduced by others, you just might be on to something. A finding that falls apart when examined isn't taken seriously, and shouldn't be; one that holds up is, and deserves to be.

You cannot win with this group so don't even try. Heck, many even suggested that both Victor Wooten and Adam Nitti (who have stated they heard a difference and use the product) are tone-deaf, tin-eared shysters who will say anything for a free-bee. Hilarious.

It's not hilarious, it's dishonest on your part. What people mostly claimed was that these guys were fooled, or fooled themselves. If you think that's tantamount to calling them shysters, you are being either obtuse or dishonest.

Look - I appreciate everyone's respectful opinion, but until you have used the product, your suppositions, no matter how scientifically backed, are nothing more than conjecture.

Sorry, but that's just rubbish. Scientific backing means it's NOT mere conjecture, it has a solid basis of knowledge. This too has been explained to you repeatedly. It means that where a body of knowledge exists, it is justified to make certain assumptions. Sure, there have been and always will be cases where these assumptions are overturned, but when this happens, they are overturned not by assertions, vague and misleading pseudo-rationales, and noncredible "tests" but by solid scientific work.

Turn it around: given the presumptive factual basis for believing the cord won't work, until you have actually tested it in some rigorous way (which neither you nor the maker nor Victor Wooten has done), its YOUR opinions that are mere conjecture. Scientists have something solid to base their assumptions on; you don't.

Again, an example. Suppose I claim I can throw a fastball, let's say, 150 mph. I'm 53 years old and was never a pro ballplayer. Now, on one side we have physicists, anatomists, kinesiologists, and similar folks relying on their basis of accumulated scientific knowledge and saying, no, you are not able to do that. On the other side we have a few guys saying, I dunno, I watched Richard throw, and it looked really fast, I think it could have been 150 mph because it looked almost as fast as Danica Patrick's car when I was watching her first NASCAR race on TV. To claim that both those positions are equally conjectural would be utter nonsense. One has some facts behind it, and the other doesn't. The second is not entitled to an equal presumption of plausibility. If the second position is actually true, I should be able to prove it; but given its inherent implausibility and the weight of the presumption against it, no one with a lick of sense should give my claim the time of day unless I come up with some convincing data.

Some facts beat no facts any day--unless and until new and better facts are obtained, if they ever are.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

When I think of the scientific arguments made and presented as fact. How long did it take physicist to understand how a bumble bee flies? that the earth is not flat? that AIDS was not going to be spread my mosquitoes? there is a reason they call them theories. When a person goes to school and spends a lot of money to be taught these theories, sometimes they accept them as facts and when something comes along that challenges there reality... well its upsetting
.

Keep in mind that in every case you cite, it was science and the scientific method that corrected those theories to a better form. Not mere belief, not subjective impressions, and not unrigorous testing.

Keep in mind also that in a scientific context, "theory" is NOT the equivalent of "half-assed guess." You have to have done some serious groundwork already and have some basis worth looking at before you even get to the point where your work can be regarded as a theory.

 

[B-string]

Pretty interesting, anyone is entitled to an opinion unless it conflicts with another TB'ers....then lets hang them
Sanctimony is getting old :scowl:

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Pretty interesting, anyone is entitled to an opinion unless it conflicts with another TB'ers....then lets hang them
Sanctimony is getting old :scowl:

What on earth are you talking about? Anybody is entitled to an opinion, and Limeman has had every opportunity to express his (which he has done with impressive tenacity). Has he been prevented from doing so?

But they're not automatically entitled to have their opinion agreed with, or to be taken seriously if seriousness is not merited. Don't confuse disagreement or criticism with censorship. Or sanctimony with common sense, for that matter.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, and everybody is entitled to disagree with or criticize that opinion. And everybody is then entitled to disagree with or criticize those disagreements and criticisms, and so forth. What, exactly, is wrong with that? How do you get from that to claiming someone is kept from his rightful entitlement to an opinion?

 

[lomo]

Pretty interesting, anyone is entitled to an opinion unless it conflicts with another TB'ers....then lets hang them
Sanctimony is getting old :scowl:

You are waaaaaaaaaay off base here

 

[davec]

did I have a theory? did I make a half assed guess? if so please show me where?


for the record I am a complete and total ass

and therefore incapable of doing anything half-assed

 

[B-string]

Personal disagreements (based in fact or not) don't extend to personal attacks is my only point. Maybe I read a different tone into some posts, if so ignore me. I'm used to it

BTW before I'm classified as starry eyed, I have no personal belief that this does as claimed unless the test is using cords of different gages.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

did I have a theory? did I make a half assed guess? if so please show me where?


for the record I am a complete and total ass

and therefore incapable of doing anything half-assed

Me too.

No, it was just because you were referring to theories. What I meant was just that it's tempting to dismiss or, let's say, minimize the value of scientific theories as if they were nothing more rigorous or serious than the type of "theories" you or I might come up with by relying on a handful of sketchy "facts" and a sixpack (or two). The point was that it's a bit more than that--IOW, a scientific theory is more than a simple guess.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Personal disagreements (based in fact or not) don't extend to personal attacks is my only point. Maybe I read a different tone into some posts, if so ignore me. I'm used to it

I understand what you're saying, and in principle I agree. The idea is to attack the mistaken idea, if attack is called for, not the mistaken person.

I have to admit that I do tend to get pissed off, perhaps overly so, when someone seems to have deliberately misrepresented what I've said. Anybody can disagree, but at least disagree with what I actually said. Pet peeve.

 

[JAUQO III-X]

I have to admit that I do tend to get pissed off, perhaps overly so, when someone seems to have deliberately misrepresented what I've said. Anybody can disagree, but at least disagree with what I actually said. Pet peeve.

I totally agree.

 

[wellso74]

I think I'll get two!

 

[PZapdos]

I think "good" cables are up to a certain point. I buy "good" cables for durability, not sound. if its well made and wont break on me. im happy. Remember with these crazy "power cables" that the power is still coming from crap wires in the ground.. your not getting magical perfect current from your wall.


I've always though making a decent product at insane markup and sweet packaging is the best market. People with disposable income will spent on anything fancy.

 

[B-string]

I understand what you're saying, and in principle I agree. The idea is to attack the mistaken idea, if attack is called for, not the mistaken person.

I have to admit that I do tend to get pissed off, perhaps overly so, when someone seems to have deliberately misrepresented what I've said. Anybody can disagree, but at least disagree with what I actually said. Pet peeve.

We are on the same page. As I said I am not a believer, but would not mind being proven in a quantifiable way mistaken.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

We are on the same page. As I said I am not a believer, but would not mind being proven in a quantifiable way mistaken.

Agreed. Being proven mistaken would actually be interesting, and even kind of exciting. It would mean new knowledge, and that would be cool. (Still not holding my breath, though.)

 

[jnewmark]

I don't have a dog in this race, but, it seems to me that, by now, someone would have done a test ? At least the ones who have purchased this cable and not noticed any difference? I know they can return it in a certain period of time, but how can this company remain in business if people keep returning the cables if they obviously don't do what they claim? In fact, how does the company stay in business at all? Nobody has registered complaints to the appropriate agencies? Diet pills I can understand, but a $2000 AC cable and no one has complained?

 

[David Jayne]

, but a $2000 AC cable and no one has complained?

Maybe not. If you are prepared to spend that kind of money, you really, really want to believe it works, and you probably will believe it, even if it doesn't do diddly.
Also, high prices alone fool people into believing things about products. "it's expensive- it must be good."
People are funny like that, and marketing folks know it.

Years ago, I purchased a very expensive high-end bass, which, it turns out, I hated. But it took years before I would admit my mistake to myself. It was very hard to do. I desperately wanted to believe it was the best bass in the world, but it actually sucked, for me at least. Huge struggle, lasted years.

 

[Limeman]

No, they can be grounded in reality and completely in line with what wire does and how it works. In fact, I'd say it's the opposite of your claim: such cables are more likely to be used by persons who judge on conjecture instead of understanding.

Def: "A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven but appears correct yet has not been dis-proven". Seems to me this works both ways.