On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 20:36:01 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 03:29:13 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:50:49 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:

You brought up the point of "particle interactions" and some such,
without ever once, apparently, listening to those experts in that field
who will tell you that the rules at that level are irrelevant in the
macro world.

Sorry, but I have discussed this with individuals in this realm.
Perhaps you meant "micro"...but, there is not enough knowledge
available at this early state to know what can be related to any of
these sub-particle dimensions. The reason for the comments about
particle issues was to merely wake up those that think that our
awareness of current "seemingly known" issues is most likely tied in
with other levels of particles... therefore...we will learn much in
the future about what is now referred to as a "stable, all is known"
category. Don't get upset here...we are still stumbling through the
basics...more will evolve. Don't be surprized that we might well
learn to manipulate certain particles in this sub-particle domain.

However, you failed to note that all this handwaving is totally
irrelevant to audio. Why? Because *before* you start investigating a
cause, you need to demonstrate the existence of an effect. This, you
have signally failed to do. Cold fusion, anyone?

Whoa..again!! This whole verbal process was stated in such
a manner to make the point that perhaps we should be a
bit wary of "..having all the answers"...this early in the game.
We do not yet have such fundamental factors about what
makes things tick yet...new breakthroughs come daily.

So watch the "..start investigating a cause"..misreadings. No
investigating a cause here..If one does not see the logic mentioned
above then remain in the box..be happy! Sorry one has to revert to the
"handwaving" routine, etc. The rigidness of some learned processes
early in the game has apparently "read-in" many "imagined" threats
here. Perhaps, I should paint a picture, again: Look over the
fences..other disciplines are knocking on the door of potential change
for all current knowledge on any given subject. This defensiveness is
normal!! It is the Scientific World that is going to rewrite so much of
what we know...as they always have. Do not continue to hide in the
engineering defensiveness!

The Scientist might well provide a toolset that the
engineers can use to prove "all cables are the same*
in the audio domain". Then one would not have to
resort to the "ole Phychology of audio trick", where
all is imagined...frequently used if it differs from some "in the box
beliefs"! Sorry! One cannot consistently keep using this ole
"bias" bucket toolset..people tend to not believe all that.

Leonard...

* But then, those hateful, devious types that
make these "designer" cables might start injecting
them with SOMETHING..and change the sound.
This requiring two pages of small print exceptions
to render the new toolset as correct!
Drat, one cannot win! Mercy..mercy!