[Doomlord_uk]

mykyll2727:

Really? Many would disagree with you.

So what? Many people think crystals have magic healing powers too... am I supposed to be impressed by this logically fallacious argument?

I think what's right for someone is indeed subjective.

Then you think wrongly, in this context. He asked a specific question about objective reality - would a splitter reduce audio quality? It's not really matter of subjective opinion, it's a matter of fact. Cables, unless badly made or connected, don't audibly affect sound quality. You ought to be aware by now of the crushing absense of any evidence suggesting otherwise, overlaid by the definitive weight of scientific reasoning, which is that there is no way cables can have an audible difference. It's absolutely not a matter of opinion!

Your system may be right for you but I SINCERELY doubt it's right for me. What works best/ is right for him could very well be different than that for someone else.

If it's a loudspeaker or some other major component with an audible character to it, sure. But we're talking about a cable splitter. It's going to be the same for everyone, regardless of personal beliefs.

What best suits him may be the hard unit, it could be another type for someone else.

True indeed, but hardly a matter of subjective opinion is it? It's a practical matter - what will fit, what's easier to handle, etc. Worth discussing, although since that is not a SQ issue, it's not what the thread topic is about.

Please have the decency not to twist my words or to put words in my mouth. I never assumed or said it would make a difference. Just the opposite. In fact I suggested he try the least expensive version of whatever type he felt was best suited to his needs to see if he noticed a difference. If he didn't then he was good to go.

I know, let's play "spot the contradiction"! I'll make it easy for you, and mark out the two contradictory parts in boldface. See if you can spot them...

You see, that's my point. If you lead people, who don't know any better, to believe they might (and implicitly, should!) hear a 'difference' then you are creating an expectation bias that quite likely will cause them to hear a 'difference' - even though none is there. Then next thing you know, he's off spending money needlessly - thanks to your crappy advice.

Again you say they don't make a difference in SQ. That's your opinion. Again many would disagree with you. But of course I realise that your opinions are absolutes because you're never wrong. Yeah, right.

There's a *reason* I say they don't make a difference, you know... it's not really 'my opinion' so much as it's simple and plain scientific fact. That many would disagree is simply a logical fallacy and means nothing. Quite apart from being rather sad. I mean, I suppose you are a firm believer that the earth is only 10,000 years old? After all, tens of millions of people believe that to be true.... how can the earth possibly be any older?

By the way, I've a great but cheap idea to vastly improve the sound quality of YOUR hifi - build a large pyramid over your listening position. To make it even better, see if you can source any Atlantis crystals to put on your equipment...

In the end, let your ears be the guide. Afterall it's your system.

Or, even better, don't waste your time going cross-eyed trying to hear what isn't there and just buy the cheapest splitter of the physical type that works best for you. Likewise with the digital cable, don't spend more than a fiver on it

Life is really easy to enjoy when you don't drink the audiophile cool-aid - try and keep it that way. You'll enjoy your media just as much and save yourself a ton of money in the process. I mean, that's gotta be good right?

[Welwynnick]

Originally Posted by Doomlord_uk

No.

What perfectly terrible advice.

Everything can affect sound quality, and there's no proof otherwise.

For the benefit of the OP, though, I wouldn't worry about it much.

Nick

[BlueWizard]

Can phono splitters reduce audio quality?

Maybe ... maybe not, but what choice do you have? You have to connect a PC to a Amp, and the only way to do that, or at least the simplest way, is to connect the PC to the Amp.

What if interconnect cables do effect the sound quality? What can you do about it? Nothing really, except buy some decent reasonably priced cables and live with it.

I think that the quality of cable does make a difference, but a small difference, and more so with very expensive equipment. For the average person with the average system, average cables are fine.

The absolute bottom end cables tend to be ultra-thin wire that is poorly shielded. Though you don't really have to go much above that to get decent quality.

Here is some reasonable quality cable in assorted lengths, for a very modest price -

Fisual Install Series 3.5mm Jack to Phono Cable - 3.5mm Jack - Phono Cables - Audiovisual Online - Home Cinema and Hifi Specialists

£5 for 1 Meter, and it will probably do a fine job of it.

Now you can spend £10, £20, £50, £75, or £100 to get the same thing, but is that a worthy investment? Up to about £10 or so, yes, but above that, for a basic system, the answer is probably No.

YES -

Ixos XHA205-150 Twisted-Pair 3.5mm Jack to 2 RCA Phono Cable 1.5m - 3.5mm Jack - Phono Cables - Audiovisual Online - Home Cinema and Hifi Specialists

QED Profile Jack To Phono Cable - 3.5mm Jack - Phono Cables - Audiovisual Online - Home Cinema and Hifi Specialists

NO -

WireWorld Oasis 6 Jack to Phono Interconnect - 3.5mm Jack - Phono Cables - Audiovisual Online - Home Cinema and Hifi Specialists

WireWorld Equinox 6 Jack to Phono Interconnect - 3.5mm Jack - Phono Cables - Audiovisual Online - Home Cinema and Hifi Specialists

It is really just the application of a little common sense.

If your computer and amp have the option of a Optical Interconnect, that is also something worth considering.

Finding a Optical Cable in the roughly £10 price range is not a big deal -

Digital Optical Cables - Audiovisual Online - Home Cinema and Hifi Specialists

Though I really see not point, you can spend £50 to £100 for the same cable. But, is simply does not seem cost effective.

So, my point, is that you have no choice, you have to connect the Computer and the Amp, or you could wave you magic wand and see how that works, but I wouldn't hold out hope for the last option.

I use some basic simple cable similar to that shown in Post #8. But trust me, there are worse cables out there. The ones I have while being very low cost and basic, are not crap cables. For my needs they work fine. On my main stereo system I have higher quality cables, but I still haven't broke the bank. They are still very affordable.

Again, relative to the original question - Can phono splitters reduce audio quality? The answer is - maybe, but what choice do you have? The only way to connect them is to connect them.

Steve/bluewizard

Could we keep the handbags away please ladies and keep it nice for the OP. thanks.

[Alan Mac]

Originally Posted by Welwynnick

Everything can affect sound quality, and there's no proof otherwise.

The burden of proof lies with those who would claim that “everything can affect sound quality”.


Alan

[mykyll2727]

Originally Posted by Alan Mac

The burden of proof lies with those who would claim that “everything can affect sound quality”.


Alan

IMO a very valid point. To be fair though shouldn't the other side have an equal burden?

[mykyll2727]

Originally Posted by Doomlord_uk

mykyll2727:

.


.









Or, even better, don't waste your time going cross-eyed trying to hear what isn't there and just buy the cheapest splitter of the physical type that works best for you. Likewise with the digital cable, don't spend more than a fiver on it

.

Interesting. It's the same advice I gave.

AFA the personal attacks and insults go...You've shown yourself and your character for what they are with your own words far better than I ever could. Bravo!!

[steveledzep]

Originally Posted by Doomlord_uk

I know, let's play "spot the contradiction"! I'll make it easy for you, and mark out the two contradictory parts in boldface. See if you can spot them...

Nothing contradictory there. You need to learn how to behave and treat people with respect. Don't know who you think you are, but I'm not impressed.

Once again if you have nothing of value to add to the thread then please do not post, it just does not help the OP and adds to more bickering so please stop, any off topic posts will be removed from now on.

[Don Dadda]

Oh boy, here we go again... and its started out so well.

Apologies to the OP, as it seems your quest for a simple answer and understanding has fast descended your thread into all out war.
It seems as though certain folks cannot put their thoughts across, right or wrong, without having to put down others to the point of insulting them. Which in turn antagonise others.

5teviewonders -Do as you thought earlier and try both ways. It will cost less than a tenner and if one sounds better than the other TO YOU, go with the better one. If both are equal, then chose the one most suitable for your needs or close your eyes and pick one or toss a coin.
Keep the one that wasn't chosen as that will most probably come in handy for something else later on.

Peace!

[alexs2]

DoomLord...I think you need to try not to be condescending or overbearing,as I'm starting to get a lot of complaints about this,and it WILL get you removed.

[BlueWizard]

At the risk of fueling the flames, though with the intent of moderating them, I will say that anyone who states themselves with absolute fanatic certainty, is probably wrong. There are no absolutes in the world and certainly not in the world of Audio.

Any scientist, even one with absolute certainty in the validity of his theory, considers the possibility that he might wrong. In fact, he will probably spend his life trying to prove himself wrong, and when new information appears, he will simply modify his theory to fit the evidence.

That absolute fanatic rigidness betrays you and minimizes your credibility. Every major scientific discover was discredited and derided by the ridged fanatic scientist of the day. Today these discoveries are common as chips.

When anyone states themselves in absolute ridged fanatic way, their opinions are immediately discredited. Again, the fanaticism betrays you. If you can't see the remote possibility that you might be wrong, then you are not looking at the problem objectively.

No one can state objectively that this aspect absolute does matter or absolutely doesn't matter. That is an impossible statement.

Likely (a qualifier) cables and wire do matter. The question isn't IF, the question is HOW MUCH, and is the assumed (another qualifier) benefit worth the extra money, which it probably is not.

It is not about absolutes, it is about proportions. Get support peripherals in proportion to the cost of your system. In most cases, the worst crap cable will not give you good value. But neither will cables falling into the King's Ransom territory. Sure, if you are a billionaire, spend a fortune on wire and cable, spread some of that money around. But for the average consumer, stick with average cable and wire in reasonable proportion to your system cost.

We all acknowledge that bad cable is bad, and that good cable is good. That's not in contention, the question is whether Great Cable is Great, and the answer for the average consumer with average consumer equipment is probably (another qualifier) NOT.

So, two points -

1.) Get cable and wire in reasonably proportion to your system cost.

2.) There are no absolutes, and anyone who states an absolute is probably wrong. Better to be rational than to be ridged.

Sorry for continuing to fan the flames, but I do feel I take a fair and rational view of these things. Most absolutes can't be proven, so I hedge. I try to find a reasonable working balance that actually frames a usable perspective for the person asking the question, and in framing that perspective, I try to leave room for the OP to have flexibility within their personal preferences.

The goal is to establish a working framework, not to dictate to the questioner. We would all do well to keep that in mind.

Steve/bluewizard - who fears a caution is on the way from the Moderators.

[windhoek]

Originally Posted by BlueWizard

There are no absolutes in the world and certainly not in the world of Audio.


2.) There are no absolutes, and anyone who states an absolute is probably wrong. Better to be rational than to be ridged.

Mmmm, it seems to me by saying there are no absolutes you absolutely assert there are no absolutes; surely that negates your argument because if there are no absolutes, the very assertion that there are no absolutes constitutes an absolute, which in turn means that there's at least one absolute and therefore the claim that there are no absolutes is false.

Perhaps you meant to say something like 'there don't seem to be any absolutes'; otherwise, it seems like a rare aberration in your usually sound and much valued and appreciated logic.

[BlueWizard]

Originally Posted by windhoek

...

Perhaps you meant to say something like 'there don't seem to be any absolutes'; otherwise, it seems like a rare aberration in your usually sound and much valued and appreciated logic.

Ah yes, I should have made that more of a qualified statement.

But, in general, I think I am safe. So far, every absolute, has been proven absolutely false.

The Copernican System of Sun and Planets was deems absolutely wrong until it was accepted as absolute truth.

Kepler's Laws of Planetary motion were deemed absolutely wrong and the ramblings of a "mad stargazer" until they were deemed absolute right.

People were absolutely certain the earth was not spinning, until Galileo assure them that it absolutely was.

People who are absolutely sure they are right, are absolutely sure to be proven wrong ... eventually. It is called progress, short of Armageddon, it will continue to progress.

In audio, because it is so personal and subjective, I don't see how any absolute could exist. I absolutely have my opinion, but my opinion absolutely does not match the opinion of others.

So, I absolutely apologies for my lack of hedging my statement asserting that there absolutely are no absolutes.



Steve/bluewizard

[Doomlord_uk]

We all acknowledge that bad cable is bad, and that good cable is good. That's not in contention,

Erm... hi, I'm doomlord_uk, and I'm here to disagree with you

No one can state objectively that this aspect absolute does matter or absolutely doesn't matter. That is an impossible statement.

Why not? We have a pretty good understanding of physics and whilst it's not complete and there are paradigm shifts and revolutions yet to come in how we understand underlying mechanisms (eg Newonian gravity to Relativity to the holographic principle?) our existing models of reality rarely get proven wrong. Generally science advances by adding more accurate observations, and new observations. We generally *add* to our knowledge, we rarely change it. That said, scientists of course are by nature pretty circumspect about what they profess as fact... But I can tell you this, we have a pretty damn good grasp of electricity and how it flows through conductors. And there really ARE things we can state absolutely, and correctly so, based on our existing knowledge. And when the alternative stands on nothing but the utterly fallible nature of subjective perception... there is really nothing to actually even call an 'alternative'.

In audio, because it is so personal and subjective, I don't see how any absolute could exist.

If by 'audio' you mean 'choosing the sound I like' then sure, that is personal and subjective. But if you mean 'determining that which is audible and that which is not', then that is absolutely NOT a matter of subjectivity. That is a matter of objective fact, and is amenable to scientific investigation. I think some people object strongly to objectivity and science in general because they feel it closes doors and denies them the 'right' to think what they like. But that is, unfortunately, just the way the world is.... and that is something we should embrace, not shrink from.

[Doomlord_uk]

The Copernican System of Sun and Planets was deems absolutely wrong until it was accepted as absolute truth.

Kepler's Laws of Planetary motion were deemed absolutely wrong and the ramblings of a "mad stargazer" until they were deemed absolute right.

People were absolutely certain the earth was not spinning, until Galileo assure them that it absolutely was.

I'm sorry to say but your grasp of the history of science is a bit off here. The Copernican system (the Heliocentric Model) was deemed wrong [i]by a bunch of sky-fairy worshipping loonies ONLY[/] - not by scientists or astronomers. And very likely ancient man also understood this too. You only had to look at the sky, after all. And guess what, the sun is still at the centre of the solar system - do you think that is likely to change, or would you accept it as an absolute?

Kepler published his laws in the middle of a lot of mysticism and mumbo-jumbo, very much to disguise from the Church what he was proposing. I don't think anyone has ever really argued that he was wrong, other than on the basis of blind faith, and since then his laws of planetory motion have stood their ground. Of course, not least because they have been *verified* by repeated observation. Again, the planets move today very much as they did in his time - would you accept this as an absolute, or do you think they will somehow change how they move in future?

Galileo was not the first to suggest that the earth was spinning, and his work was broadly supported although at the time not fully supported (due apparently to lack of observational evidence for stellar parallax) although ultimately he has been proven right. The Church, which held him guilty of heresy, persecuted him to the end of his life, but I don't think you can say that the church represented the only 'body' of public scientific opinion. Galileo advanced our knowledge of the world (quite considerably) but again I just don't think you can argue (absolutely!) that he flipped our worldview (not least because Copernicus' work had preceded his!).

[Doomlord_uk]

The goal is to establish a working framework, not to dictate to the questioner.

My goal is to inform the OP with the facts, as we know them, and try to show how they pertain to answering his question. The working framework I use is what we call science. It's proven to be highly reliable and useful so far, unlike relying on our personal and oftentimes fallible perceptions.

This is why I am getting into fights here though, I think, because I'm so desperate to get it across that the prevailing wisdom in our hobby is actually wrong and harmful. With all due respect, Blue Wizard, I think then that your 'strike a balance' approach is not good enough. I'm not trying to by nasty or anything but, for instance, when you say 'keep your cable costs in proportion to your equipment budget' all you are doing is repeating the old marketing dictum advocated for at least the last two decades of 'spend X amount of your budget on cables'. The problem of course, is that if you only buy good-enough cables, very cheaply, that horribly limits your equipment budget and if you want to buy expensive stuff, you end up wasting tons of money on fancy cables that are no different to el-cheapo ones. In this regard relativism is, I maintain, absolutely the *wrong* approach and the *wrong* thing to advise. Whether you are building a £500 system or a £50,000 one, it is not justifiable objectively to spend more than about £2/m on speaker wire, at most. The reason for this rests on our (sufficently) absolute understanding of the physics of electrical conductors operating at audio frequencies. The way cables work is a solved problem and there's no longer any room left for differences of opinion, any more than there is for planetary motion.

[Doomlord_uk]

Originally Posted by mykyll2727

IMO a very valid point. To be fair though shouldn't the other side have an equal burden?

No. The burden of proof falls squarely on the shoulders of the person making a claim. If they can't reasonably support their claim, then of course it is not justifiable to make the claim. There is no burden of proof that a claim is wrong (this is a mistake, and one often made by those attempting to disprove a claim... because 'disproving' is the mistake), rather those who disagree with a claim have only to point out the fallacies or shortcomings, etc in its justification. That is to say, to show that the claim is not justifiable given the proffered evidence and reasoning.

The problem that often arises is that because it is effectively impossible to prove a negative, there is a strong tendency to assume that the possiblity of truth is always there... This is fallacious, but not obvious, but if someone makes the mistake of trying to prove the negative, they end up shooting themselves in the foot when they are forced to concede that a negative can't be proven.

I must confess I often made this mistake myself in the past, but I have learned not to and hopefully don't make the mistake so often now! The solution, btw, is to direct the refutation at the justification for the claim, not the claim itself. NOt always easy, when those that make claims often don't give their justifications...

[Doomlord_uk]

.I think you need to try not to be condescending or overbearing

I will try to be nicer to people.

[BlueWizard]

Once again, bad cables ARE bad, no one can dispute that. And it is hard to dispute that good cable are good, in that they are not bad cables. I restate that any dispute rest with allegedly great cable and whether they are truly great.

One can probably buy a cable similar to that in question for £1, perhaps less, but that cable is going to be impossible thin, with scant and poor shielding. It is also going to have poor stiff brittle insulation. That is a bad cable. Any thing above that is a good cable.

You can't say that the quality of cable makes no different because there are cheap crappy poor quality cables out there. However, you can say that once you transcend the cheap crappy cable, the quality of the cable makes little difference. And we can certainly debate the alleged greatness of allegedly great cable.

However, if I hear something, then I hear it. Your opinion of what and whether I hear it is of no relevance. People do hear a difference in cables and wires. Who are you to say they are wrong? How can you prove I don't not hear what I hear? You can't.

Are we drowning in Snake Oil in the field of Audio? Yes, absolutely, no one would disagree with that. But, also, no one will agree that it is all snake oil.

There are aspects of cable design that matter. Though I contend they don't matter all that much. But no one is going to agree with your seeming position that nothing matters. You are free to hold any opinion you want. But like any fanatic, and as with any Internet discussion, you need to know when to say when. You have to accept, as a fixed and immutable part of Internet discussion, you are not going to change any minds within the context of that one discussion.

You need to change the focus from whether or not we believe you to what does the Original Poster need to know to make a reasonable decision to meet his needs and budget. Your basic advise was fine, don't break the bank on cables. It is your absolute insistence of the absoluteness of your opinion that betrays you. If you want any credibility in this group, you will make your position with a degree of diplomacy. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Know when to say when. And know that you simply can not convince anyone or everyone to think like you. You have your opinion, but you need to accept that to the rest of us, they are nothing more than opinions. As absolute as you believe them, to us, they are just opinion and nothing more.

To quote a famous T-Shirt - "I Got Opinions".

Believing it is true doesn't make it true, and that sword cuts in both directions.

Steve/bluewizard

[steveledzep]

Originally Posted by Doomlord_uk

Erm... hi, I'm doomlord_uk, and I'm here to disagree with you

I've never experienced such arrogance before !! The sooner the mods chuck you out the better. I'm usually a positive contributor to threads, trying to be helpful with my limited knowledge. I'm sure I speak for many when I say that AVF will be a better place without doomlord_uk.

[BlueWizard]

"My goal is to inform the OP with the facts,.."

But that's not the goal. The goal is to furnish the Op with advise he can practically apply to solving his problem.

The correct advise is buy a reasonable quality cable in the £5 to £10 range and you are laughing. Condemning other cable serves no purpose.

In a way, that's roughly what you said, and it is roughly what I said, and it is pretty close to what everyone else said. In short - don't break the bank.

So, if we all said essentially the same thing, then why do you suppose this discussion has become so long and heated when the correct advise was simply and straight forward?

The answer is, you made inflamed and unnecessary statement of absolutes that served no one.

The guy simply wants a cable. He first needs to know what cable to buy. Most of his original suggestions were wrong, we set him right.

Next is, what quality of cable should he buy? And the answer can be summaries as "don't break the bank". Within the context of his application, no one is suggesting that he spend more on a cable than he spent on his computer. We are ALL saying, get this type of cable, and keep the cost within reason.

How did all your inflamed rambling and hyper-rhetoric serve that goal? It didn't. If anything it has served as a supreme distraction to solving this person's problem.

There was nothing wrong with your core advise; it was pretty much the advise we all gave. So, then one must ask, what was it about the delivery of your advise that caused such a problem?

In my view, you seem more interest in delivering your inflame rhetoric than in helping the OP.

The advise was simple, and to an extent, we all gave the same advise. So why is it that you opinion always inflames every discussion you enter? Perhaps a good look in the mirror is in order.

Again, you need to understand the nature of Internet discussion. Yes, make the points you want to make, but accept that you are not and can not convince people to accept your opinion as fact. Until you accept that, you are in for some very frustrating discussions, and likely the ire of the Moderators.

In other threads you are very close to being band from the Forums. Doesn't that tell you something? Shouldn't that send you a message about your delivery? About your diplomatic skills? About your insistence that we all bow to your opinion?

The universe, the world, and the forums are sending you a message ... are you listening?

Steve/bluewizard

[Doomlord_uk]

What kind of 'bad cables' are you talking about then? Cables with crazy R, L or C values? Cables with no twist or grounding? Dry solder joints at the connectors perhaps? If you want to add a caveat that a cable must be properly made then fine, but I think we can take that as read, surely. After all no-one in their right mind is going to recommend a faulty product! But beyond that, there isn't really anything - in audibility terms - that distinguishes cables, and despite your avowed belief that there isn't any absolute proof of this, there is in fact proof. Go read up on basic physics/electrical engineering. It's all there, it's all covered, it's all explained. There is no mystery left, nothing left to explain. AC electrical theory at audio frequencies in wires is solved. Completely. Why is this so hard to accept???

However, if I hear something, then I hear it. Your opinion of what and whether I hear it is of no relevance. People do hear a difference in cables and wires. Who are you to say they are wrong? How can you prove I don't not hear what I hear? You can't.

Well, at least you are asking the right questions. I will answer them (even though I think you were at least in part asking rhetorically).

So, yes, if you hear something you hear it. And you're right, I'm not in a position to dispute what you perceive - I'm not in your head to assess your subjective perceptions. (although, in theory, I guess I could be if I had you inside an fMRI machine...). And you are not alone, other people hear differences. They may even believe they can characterise them (but, note how little that actually tends to happen... even when it's reported that 'differences' are heard).

Who am I to say you, and they, are wrong? How can I prove you are (all) wrong? Well, I am someone who has studied two subjects well enough to get the implications, in practical terms, of what those subjetcts mean. Because of that, I *can* say you are wrong and it is my right to say so, because of course I enjoy freedom of speech, even when articulating opinions that are not popular, or even seemingly impossible to justify.

First of all, as I keep saying, the laws of physics regarding AC conduction in wires at audio frequencies is worked out, known and solved. And what they show us is that conductors that are properly made for the application - low DC resistance, minimal C and L, good shielding/grounding and RFI resistance (what the twists are for) - won't have an audible effect beyond a resistive decrease in signal level (relative to no cable being there). So when people say they hear differences and, at least in the case of magazine reviewers, wax lyrical about the complex audible characteristics implying complex filtering characteristics (2nd, 3rd, 4th order effects etc etc!!!), then we can be sure they are at best deceiving themselves and at worst lying through their teeth (as I strongly suspect most/all magazine reviewers have done). I take proven, verified and objective scientific knowledge over subjective experience every time.

So then why do I accept that you and so many others heard differences? Because you did! This may seem contradictory, but only for as long as you assume that what you consciously perceive to hear results from what sound enters your ears. The truth is though, that your conscious perception of sound is the end result of a deeply complex and lengthy neurological process. We do not fully understand this yet (afaik) yet we know enough to understand that your conscious perceptions results not just from outside sensory data, but also from your pre-existing experiences, memories and expectations, as well as where your 'spotlight of attention' (a neurological phenomenon that is quite real, and controls what you are focused on mentally) is focused on. The fact is that it is very easy for you to consciously perceive something even when it is not real, when it is not there. And the main, maybe even only, reason why so many people think they hear differences between cables is because, for so long now, that that is what we 've been authoritatively been told by the unquestioned authorities that review and write about hifi. People hear what they think they should hear, what they expect to hear.

Actually, there's another psychological factor at play here too. People will often lie about what they think or perceive, in order to fit in the group. This again is a well-established psychological phenomenon. How many times, do you think, people in our hobby have claimed to hear differences, not because they did, but because - subconsciously at least, they are afraid to single themselves out from the group by 'failing' to meet the criteria for inclusion? I'll bet it's a lot of times. If someone admits they can't hear any differences they risk being thought less of, or even of being ostracised. I readily admit I can't hear these differences but then as you can probably guess I don't give a **** about being seen to be different... I think for others that is not always such an easy thing to do and when our hobby has for so long been predicated on a 'holy grail of perfect sound' attitude where we establish our alpha hifi primacy by the expense and "quality" of our male-status-symbol hifis and the long, hard path to perfect sound through hours, weeks and years of careful listening and evaluation (like it even matters!), then we set ourselves up for both delusion and ultimately disappointment.

I think it's a shame, because there is so much enjoyment we can get out of our hobby without being lead up the garden path by this largely marketing-driven pathology of obsessiveness.

[mykyll2727]

Originally Posted by BlueWizard

Once again, bad cables ARE bad, no one can dispute that. And it is hard to dispute that good cable are good, in that they are not bad cables. I restate that any dispute rest with allegedly great cable and whether they are truly great.

One can probably buy a cable similar to that in question for £1, perhaps less, but that cable is going to be impossible thin, with scant and poor shielding. It is also going to have poor stiff brittle insulation. That is a bad cable. Any thing above that is a good cable.

You can't say that the quality of cable makes no different because there are cheap crappy poor quality cables out there. However, you can say that once you transcend the cheap crappy cable, the quality of the cable makes little difference. And we can certainly debate the alleged greatness of allegedly great cable.

However, if I hear something, then I hear it. Your opinion of what and whether I hear it is of no relevance. People do hear a difference in cables and wires. Who are you to say they are wrong? How can you prove I don't not hear what I hear? You can't.

Are we drowning in Snake Oil in the field of Audio? Yes, absolutely, no one would disagree with that. But, also, no one will agree that it is all snake oil.

There are aspects of cable design that matter. Though I contend they don't matter all that much. But no one is going to agree with your seeming position that nothing matters. You are free to hold any opinion you want. But like any fanatic, and as with any Internet discussion, you need to know when to say when. You have to accept, as a fixed and immutable part of Internet discussion, you are not going to change any minds within the context of that one discussion.

You need to change the focus from whether or not we believe you to what does the Original Poster need to know to make a reasonable decision to meet his needs and budget. Your basic advise was fine, don't break the bank on cables. It is your absolute insistence of the absoluteness of your opinion that betrays you. If you want any credibility in this group, you will make your position with a degree of diplomacy. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Know when to say when. And know that you simply can not convince anyone or everyone to think like you. You have your opinion, but you need to accept that to the rest of us, they are nothing more than opinions. As absolute as you believe them, to us, they are just opinion and nothing more.

To quote a famous T-Shirt - "I Got Opinions".

Believing it is true doesn't make it true, and that sword cuts in both directions.

Steve/bluewizard

I'm in agreement with the meat of your post. I think you offer some very sound advice and make some very valid points. I would personally make the following amendment to your last line though.

Believing it's true does in fact make it true to the believer but not necessarily to everyone else, and that sword cuts in both directions.

[Doomlord_uk]

But that's not the goal.

How on earth can informing him of the facts not be the goal???

The correct advise is buy a reasonable quality cable in the £5 to £10 range and you are laughing.

I'm not laughing, I'm challenging what I consider to be the fallacious idea that he can evaluate what he should buy by listening, and what I consider to be the equally bad idea that it's up to him to decide how much he needs to spend when he doesn't know how to do that. Actually, I contend that it's down to basic science and the answer is "a couple of quid" including P&P. That's what I've spent, and no more, on splitters - and I have several, and have had several more in the past. They all worked perfectly. So £5 - £10 isn't that good a budget range either.

In my view, you seem more interest in delivering your inflame rhetoric than in helping the OP.

Well, taht's just your view, although it's a pity. I'm not interested in inflaming people, or having a fight for the sake of it, or even upsetting people. And I'm passionate about helping the OP - here and in other threads - because I'm passionate about this hobby we share. I don't know how you can't see that! OK so my opinions and my approach are so different, but so what? Is this place really so full of groupthink that there's no room for dissent and reasoned disagrrement (yes, I said reasoned - I go to quite some lenghts to justify what I say, as a basic courtesy to everyone reading what I say).

In other threads you are very close to being band from the Forums. Doesn't that tell you something?

Yes, that this community has a somewhat ossified mindset. Actually, I respect the fact that the mods *haven't* banned me (yet?) but in the end I can only say what I think is right. The sad thing is, the one time I didn't do that and just said what people wanted to hear instead, no-one even realised... I'll take my chances, thanks. If ultimately what I have to say and my willingness to argue and defend my position gets me banned, then so be it. This is definitely one of the thinner-skinned communities I've been a member of but I'm honestly trying to accomodate that.

About your insistence that we all bow to your opinion?

Force of reason can be an overwhelming experience to those new to it, but the fact is that that is what I offer - reasoned argument - and if you *feel* that I am "insisting that you bow to my opinion" then you are not understanding what I'm saying. I've NEVER EVER insisted on such a thing! Mostly I think it is a clash of personalities... I'm direct in my manner of expression and very self condidant, it is true. But that's who and what I am. I think y'all need to grow up a bit and accept that not everything, or everyone, you read is going to reinforce your need for concensus and relativism. I see no value in either, even though I acknowledge and concede that for many those values are important. Apololgies if that all sounds condescending, but that's what I think. I won't agree with people just to be nice, or to avoid disagreement, however disagreeable that may be to some. I believe it's vital to speak the truth, whatever that truth is, and I trust in and presume the maturity and open-mindedness of my audience. As do, I presume, we all...

[Doomlord_uk]

Originally Posted by steveledzep

I've never experienced such arrogance before !! The sooner the mods chuck you out the better. I'm usually a positive contributor to threads, trying to be helpful with my limited knowledge. I'm sure I speak for many when I say that AVF will be a better place without doomlord_uk.

Does it really seem arrogant to disagree with someone? I think what Blue Wizard said was far more arrogant (which is why I've gone to great trouble to disagree and explain why I'm disagreeing with him) - and yet neither you nor I saw the need to make that accusation against him. So why are you so upset with me?

[BlueWizard]

In the spirit of my own advise, I'm going to say NOW is when to say when.

For the record, I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Electronics Engineering from the Physic department of a respected University. OK, not a top tier university but respected none the less. (Electronics Engineering - like Electrical Engineering but more practical application, and a little less theory)

I close with this question -

Why is it you get a Moderators Warning in virtually every thread you get involved in? How can that possible NOT send you a message?

You are on the verge of being banned from the Forums. How can that NOT send you a message?

I repeat -

The universe, the world, and the forums are sending you a message ... are you listening?

Since the Original Posters question has been answered, and since he now knows what cable to buy and how much to reasonably spend, I see no point in arguing with someone who is clearly pigheaded.

It is time to say - WHEN.

Further discussion serves no purpose to anyone. The question has been answered, and now I move on.

Steve/bluewizard

[mykyll2727]

Originally Posted by Doomlord_uk

No. The burden of proof falls squarely on the shoulders of the person making a claim. If they can't reasonably support their claim, then of course it is not justifiable to make the claim. There is no burden of proof that a claim is wrong (this is a mistake, and one often made by those attempting to disprove a claim... because 'disproving' is the mistake), rather those who disagree with a claim have only to point out the fallacies or shortcomings, etc in its justification. That is to say, to show that the claim is not justifiable given the proffered evidence and reasoning.

The problem that often arises is that because it is effectively impossible to prove a negative, there is a strong tendency to assume that the possiblity of truth is always there... This is fallacious, but not obvious, but if someone makes the mistake of trying to prove the negative, they end up shooting themselves in the foot when they are forced to concede that a negative can't be proven.

If a person makes a claim and someone says "I don't know, prove it" I agree any burden of proof lies with the claimant. But when someone instead says the claim is wrong then they are also making a claim. They become a claimant themselves and therefore have just as great of a responsibilty to prove it. A claim is a claim whether "positive" or "negative". If I say "moonlight makes people crazy" I've made a claim and I agree that I have a responsiblity to prove it. But if I say "moonlight doesn't make people crazy" I have again made a claim and have an equal responsibility to prove it. "Positive" or "negative" is irrelevant. If I make a claim for something and someone else makes a contradictory claim we both have equal responsibities to prove our claims. Simply challenging the validity of a claim by demanding validation is not the same as disputing the original claim by making a contradictory claim.

[Doomlord_uk]

You are on the verge of being banned from the Forums. How can that NOT send you a message?

I got the message, thanks. At least, I got *a* message. I'm beginning to wonder though whether you think there is another message that you think I'm being sent? I wonder what that message is... Perhaps you might elabourate?

The universe, the world, and the forums are sending you a message ... are you listening?

It's funny, I read this and all I hear in my head is REM's "It's the end of the world, as we know it..." as Geoff Goldblum plays minigolf in a science lab in my mind's eye...

I see no point in arguing with someone who is clearly pigheaded.

That's because you don't know how to argue. Calling me pigheaded was your final concession.

But when someone instead says the claim is wrong then they are also making a claim. They become a claimant themselves and therefore have just as great of a responsibilty to prove it.

Correct! And that is a mistake I have made myself in the past... so don't I know it! But positive and negative do matter, I assure you. A useful summary here. Substitute 'audible differences' for 'unicorns' and you get the drift...

If I make a claim for something and someone else makes a contradictory claim we both have equal responsibities to prove our claims.

Whilst this is true, the second burden in no way obviates or relieves the first, as many people tend to assume - which is why I stress this point.

Simply challenging the validity of a claim by demanding validation is not the same as disputing the original claim by making a contradictory claim.

...unless that contradictory claim is proven (I assume you meant 'contradictory negative claim', not all contradictory claims are negative...).

[mykyll2727]

Originally Posted by Doomlord_uk

Correct! And that is a mistake I have made myself in the past... so don't I know it! But positive and negative do matter, I assure you. A useful summary here. Substitute 'audible differences' for 'unicorns' and you get the drift...


Whilst this is true, the second burden in no way obviates or relieves the first, as many people tend to assume - which is why I stress this point.


...unless that contradictory claim is proven (I assume you meant 'contradictory negative claim', not all contradictory claims are negative...).

I feel you're points are valid and you're assumption was correct. Since you're assumption was correct I will assume you understood the "meat" of the point I was trying to make.