Another opinion about cables...

[jacksonbart]

In closing, if one jumps off the Empire state building in nothing but their street clothes - they die (whether or not they believed in gravity).

In today's fashions, street clothes tend to be very baggy, plus I think capes and webbed sleaves are making a comeback. You might be able to glide into the east river and then drown.

[Hifi jim]

Modern science dismissed his broadcast electricity schema as not practicable.  However, no one has attempted it at near the scale he experimented and even he wrote that those scales where only about a 10th of the requirement for full functionality.  His full scale experiment was never completed due to lack of funding and the ruins of it are enormous.  Bear in mind that a mind as great as Edison's could neither comprehend nor accept the idea of alternating current.  In fact, we don't know of any scientists at the time who appear to have understood it except Tesla.

Dave, he's also my favorite, although often misunderstood scientist, Nikola Tesla. Most of what we know about electricity today is thanks to Tesla. It took George Westinghouse to make AC current a reality. And Edison is credited with more than he actually accomplished... funny how history distorts most everything. Edison offered Tesla $50,000 to improve his DC system. Tesla did, and Edison reneged on the deal... not like Edison couldn't afford to pay either. The Tesla Effect, or Wireless Energy Transfer seems incomprehensible even today. Tesla wirelessly powered vacuum tubes in the 1890s! In 1896, he transmits electrical energy almost 30 miles. Not until 2008 did Intel use his principals to wirelessly light a bulb with 75% efficiency. He was far ahead of his time and perhaps too smart to be understood. I wonder what his thoughts would be about the Great Cable Debate...

[Mallette]

Modern science dismissed his broadcast electricity schema as not practicable. However, no one has attempted it at near the scale he experimented and even he wrote that those scales where only about a 10th of the requirement for full functionality. His full scale experiment was never completed due to lack of funding and the ruins of it are enormous. Bear in mind that a mind as great as Edison's could neither comprehend nor accept the idea of alternating current. In fact, we don't know of any scientists at the time who appear to have understood it except Tesla.

Dave, he's also my favorite, although often misunderstood scientist, Nikola Tesla. Most of what we know about electricity today is thanks to Tesla. It took George Westinghouse to make AC current a reality. And Edison is credited with more than he actually accomplished... funny how history distorts most everything. Edison offered Tesla $50,000 to improve his DC system. Tesla did, and Edison reneged on the deal... not like Edison couldn't afford to pay either. The Tesla Effect, or Wireless Energy Transfer seems incomprehensible even today. Tesla wirelessly powered vacuum tubes in the 1890s! In 1896, he transmits electrical energy almost 30 miles. Not until 2008 did Intel use his principals to wirelessly light a bulb with 75% efficiency. He was far ahead of his time and perhaps too smart to be understood. I wonder what his thoughts would be about the Great Cable Debate...

I wonder if he will ever get the credit he is due. He may well be seen like da Vinci someday...so far ahead of his time as to be incomprehensible to his peers. He may even be beyond that, as he remains incomprehensible to modern science in all it's vast glory. I was referring to the Wardenclyffe Tower, which he considered just big enough scale to demonstrate the usefulness of the Tesla effect. The main building still stands, as do the supports of the tower.

The implecations of the Tesla Effect in power transmissions would revolutionize our "grid." But you can't know if it works by computer modeling or small scale demonstrations. Tesla made it clear that you had to go full scale in order to demonstrate the practicality. No one has ever tried.

Dave

[jacksonbart]

Many people cite science as the reason they don't think wires and cables sound so different. I wonder how many of them believe in a God that "hears" and "responds" to their prayers?

Many people say if they can't hear it, no one else can hear it. Does the same rule apply when God talks them? If I can't hear it, you can't be hearing it?

How many believe in one but not the other? Both? Neither?

Are we consistent at least?

Oh so to believe that expensive cables are worth it, is like believing in God in your book?

[SilverSport]

Many people cite science as the reason they don't think wires and cables sound so different. I wonder how many of them believe in a God that "hears" and "responds" to their prayers?

Many people say if they can't hear it, no one else can hear it. Does the same rule apply when God talks them? If I can't hear it, you can't be hearing it?

How many believe in one but not the other? Both? Neither?

Are we consistent at least?

Oh so to believe that expensive cables are worth it, is like believing in God in your book?

Huh? That's what you got out of my questions?

...and all I got out of it Mark was that you mean we should be consistent, that just 'cuz you can't hear doesn't mean I can't (or visa vera) and just because he (or me...or you) can hear God, doesn't mean anyone else can...and not being able to hear God other than to whom he is speaking to doesn't deny his existance...[]

Bill

[Don Richard]

I prefer science-based faith to faith-based science.

You'd need to explain the difference. Seems to me science-based faith is what you hypothesize with, and faith-based science is what you use to prove the hypothesis.

Dave

The scientific method requires no faith in order to discover the truth. One asks a question, makes an educated guess, then tests it to see if it works or not. This process is designed to lead to the truth.

With science there is or should not be anything that is taken on faith. Everything is questioned and tested and proven, then put under peer review.

Faith is basically whatever one chooses to believe. No proof required, or sometimes, possible.

[Mallette]

I prefer science-based faith to faith-based science.

You'd need to explain the difference. Seems to me science-based faith is what you hypothesize with, and faith-based science is what you use to prove the hypothesis.

Dave

The scientific method requires no faith in order to discover the truth. One asks a question, makes an educated guess, then tests it to see if it works or not. This process is designed to lead to the truth.

With science there is or should not be anything that is taken on faith. Everything is questioned and tested and proven, then put under peer review.

Faith is basically whatever one chooses to believe. No proof required, or sometimes, possible.

I beg to differ. I'd suggest Einstein went to his grave having faith that there was a unified field theory, and Hawking is likely to do likewise. Are those working on FTL concepts total fools because they have faith that there is a way around Einstein?

I would submit that faith in science is the greatest faith of all, in that it is faith in one's self to realize the previously unknown.

It's a lack of faith that has prevented the investigation of Tesla's work and possible enormous benefits from same.

I could go on, but I suspect you'll stick to the "if it can't be proven by our incredibly backward, vestigal science, it's a humbug."

IMHO, the great leaps of science are made by those of great faith, those who say "I can" when the rest of science says "you can't".

Dave

[psg]

Faith is basically whatever one chooses to believe. No proof required, or sometimes, possible.

I beg to differ. I'd suggest Einstein went to his grave having faith that there was a unified field theory, and Hawking is likely to do likewise. Are those working on FTL concepts total fools because they have faith that there is a way around Einstein?

I would submit that faith in science is the greatest faith of all, in that it is faith in one's self to realize the previously unknown.

It's a lack of faith that has prevented the investigation of Tesla's work and possible enormous benefits from same.

I could go on, but I suspect you'll stick to the "if it can't be proven by our incredibly backward, vestigal science, it's a humbug."

IMHO, the great leaps of science are made by those of great faith, those who say "I can" when the rest of science says "you can't".

Dave

Huh? Einsten didn't base his religious beliefs on scientific grounds. Nor so you hold your cable beliefs on scientific grounds.

[jacksonbart]

Many people cite science as the reason they don't think wires and cables sound so different. I wonder how many of them believe in a God that "hears" and "responds" to their prayers?

Many people say if they can't hear it, no one else can hear it. Does the same rule apply when God talks them? If I can't hear it, you can't be hearing it?

How many believe in one but not the other? Both? Neither?

Are we consistent at least?

BTW you asked me for a definition of being PC, well your above post is very not PC and I don't like it one bit!. Just kidding but it would get you investigated at most companies if not fired for second hand offensiveness. Good luck on your quest for finding the perfect cable. BTW can you define the perfect speaker wire? As in qualities you want in such perfect speaker wire? with out insulting lots of people (ie keep it to facts of science)

[Mallette]

>Huh? Einsten didn't base his religious beliefs on scientific grounds.

What does religion have to do with ANYTHING I said? We are talking about faith, not Faith. Bringing religion into this discussion would be inappropriate and irrelevant.

Dave

[psg]

>Huh? Einsten didn't base his religious beliefs on scientific grounds.

What does religion have to do with ANYTHING I said? We are talking about faith, not Faith. Bringing religion into this discussion would be inappropriate and irrelevant.

Dave

Sorry, I misread your first sentence.

[Speedball]

Since when does speaker wire have anything to do with facts of science?

I just listen and make a judgement call.

[DrWho]

I love how the "defense of cables" comes down to philosophy to "justify" why one is unable to remember differences. If you can't remember for more than 2 seconds, then why the heck would it matter a few weeks later?

[russ69]

Is string theory and cable theory related?

Thanx, Russ

[Mallette]

>Until then, neither side has any particular truth aside from their own.

But of course they do. If you hear it, the debate is over. If you don't, the debate is over. If you argue about it, you have doubts.

Dave

[Mallette]

>Until then, neither side has any particular truth aside from their own.

But of course they do. If you hear it, the debate is over. If you don't, the debate is over. If you argue about it, you have doubts.

Dave

[jacksonbart]

I've never picked any piece of my stereo based on "science" per se. I pick what sounds musical - which leaves about 95% of all stereo junk in the dustbin. For instance, you might remember last year when I bought a brand spanking new Crown XTi 1000 because someone said it had "fantastic scientific specifications". I plugged it in to my rig, and it made my system sound like every source was a low quality MP3. FAIL.

So when you built your preamps, the various components that you selected or at least considered when you first started out had to be musical? Their measurements didn't matter? So if instead of a 6p1p EV Tube, if a banana sounded more musical, well lets throw that in there instead? Seams like at least as a starting point measurement would matter, minimum requirements so to speak, but I certianly don't want to tell anyone what they hear. To some people disco balls are musical, enhance their enjoyment of music, thats cool. However I would be hard pressed to beleive they actually impact the sound reproduction ability of the system.

[Mallette]

>So when you built your preamps, the various components that you selected or at least considered when you first started out had to be musical? Their measurements didn't matter? So if instead of a 6p1p EV Tube, if a banana sounded more musical, well lets throw that in there instead?

If it sounded good, the only reason to measure it would be scientific curiosty as to whether the measurements suggested a reason behind the good sound. Otherwise, who cares?

As to the banana, I'd go with a Twinkie instead as they don't rot for years. I'd hate to have to replace the bananas everynight, and consider the problems with matching your output bananas constantly.

Dave

[stan krajewski]

Many people cite science as the reason they don't think wires and cables sound so different. I wonder how many of them believe in a God that "hears" and "responds" to their prayers?

Many people say if they can't hear it, no one else can hear it. Does the same rule apply when God talks them? If I can't hear it, you can't be hearing it?

How many believe in one but not the other? Both? Neither?

Are we consistent at least?

The priest in our church always beseeched us to have "faith" in God. He never set out to prove it.

This should have never escalated into a philisophical discussion. We are talking about speaker wire & cables. Get a grip!

For the umpteenth time, all you need to do is to post one link which at least give everyone here something tangible to base their decision as to whether or not they should spend $3000 (or whatever) dollars for speaker wire. And still 15 pages later - nothing, nada zilch!!!

Trying to win this argument with this hodge-podge of logic pulled from every source and orafice possible, is pityful at best. Anyone looking in at this thread from the outside has to be wondering what the hell happened here. However, this is a perfect example of what happens when you can't prove a simple point, start losing badly and then resort to extemes just to save face.

Ari vederci

[Don Richard]

I prefer science-based faith to faith-based science.

You'd need to explain the difference. Seems to me science-based faith is what you hypothesize with, and faith-based science is what you use to prove the hypothesis.

Dave

The scientific method requires no faith in order to discover the truth. One asks a question, makes an educated guess, then tests it to see if it works or not. This process is designed to lead to the truth.

With science there is or should not be anything that is taken on faith. Everything is questioned and tested and proven, then put under peer review.

Faith is basically whatever one chooses to believe. No proof required, or sometimes, possible.

I beg to differ. I'd suggest Einstein went to his grave having faith that there was a unified field theory, and Hawking is likely to do likewise. Are those working on FTL concepts total fools because they have faith that there is a way around Einstein?

Einstein believed that he was correct pertaining to the theories that he generated. He was so far ahead of most of his peers that it took decades to confirm their accuracy. However, at this time, there is insufficient proof to claim that what Einstein developed is a scientific law. All of his work is presently regarded as theoretical, though elements of some of his theories have been proven.

A theory is a working model that explains what we do know about something for which we have incomplete knowledge. Gravity is a theory. There is no law of gravity, regardless of some people's misconceptions. We know much about calculating orbits and gravitational effects and we use this knowledge every day to put satellites into orbit and to land spacecraft on Mars. But we still do not know much about the force of gravity, about how gravity actually works, about the basic nature of gravity.

I would submit that faith in science is the greatest faith of all, in that it is faith in one's self to realize the previously unknown.

That's called learning.

It's a lack of faith that has prevented the investigation of Tesla's work and possible enormous benefits from same.

Tesla's work has been investigated and well understood at this point in time. He was certainly a genius and ahead of his time.

I could go on, but I suspect you'll stick to the "if it can't be proven by our incredibly backward, vestigal science, it's a humbug."

All I can say is that there are many things that science can't explain...yet. But don't touch that dial, we learn more every day.

IMHO, the great leaps of science are made by those of great faith, those who say "I can" when the rest of science says "you can't".

The great leaps of science, in fact, have been developed by humans that seem to share certain traits. Chief among these traits are curiosity and persistance. I am not sure that modern scientists are so resistant to new knowledge that they dismiss anything as impossible these days. One is simply conceptualizing and testing these new concepts to see if they work or not. If they do not work, one tries something else until the results are successful.

One thing I can state with certainty is that cables and transmission lines are among the most thoroughly researched items in the field of electricity. Tesla developed much of what we know about AC transmission over 100 years ago. I seriously doubt that anyone will remember the names of any of these hi-fi cable marketers in 100 years because they have not discovered anything new. The con game is one of the oldest scams in the world.