(Daniel) wrote:

methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really
audible.

Again, you're barking up the wrong tree trying to start a fight with
me over cable. Never gonna happen. We're playing for the same team.

I'm not all that interested in "proof," though. Anecdotal experience
is more meaningful to me. I can't read those charts. Science bores me
to death.


Just because science does not interest you does not make it any less of a
discipline and it does not discount mathematic provability. The difference

between scientific data and anecdote is that anecdote is not data and
without
data, one can have no proof. One can spout anecdote like Joe Vialls at
http://geocities.com/vialls but that does not make it true.

r

I'm not saying anything is or isn't a discipline, nor do I discount
mathematic anything. I just don't care about it.

There's no way to start an argument with me over this. I cave
instantly. I imagine you're right with all your scientific hoo-hah.
I'm even *glad* there are people like you who care about and
comprehend all the science. There wouldn't be audio without science.
I'm just not one of those who understand or care to understand.

Again, no argument here (except, please, stop trying to drag me into
one). None exists.

OK but can you agree to be skeptical about amp/wire sound until some one, any
one, produces a replicable experiment that shows any nominally competent device
operating within its power limits has any 'sound' of its own in a normally
reverberant environment?

If so, then we are in total agreement. If not, then folks are rightly going to
ask for verification.