[KH]

On 6/22/2011 8:36 PM, Scott wrote:
On Jun 19, 2:14 pm, Audio wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:35:01 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in ):

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But what is significant is this: far more dramatic
effects in sound can be acheived by varying speaker placement, and
floor/window/wall treatment, but VERY little press is given to same. Why?
For the simple reason that stereo mags don't carry ads for tile, carpet and
drapes. Doh!

*R* *H*

Almost assuredly. Every now and again, you MIGHT see an article about these
things, but, because these are a process rather than a product, they simply
get short shrift.

But, still, until someone comes-up with a logical "theory" as to how cables
can have a "sound" when the maths (and the measurements) show definitively,
that they have no effect on the frequency response, distortion, or phase
response of the audio signals they are conducting, it's all audiophile
mythology, and the products sold (often for exorbitant sums) are snake oil,
pure and simple.

You are putting the cart before the horse here. reality does not hinge
on a human explanation. Gravity did not stop working when physicists
were debating Newtonian gravity and general relativity. You certainly
can make an argument for the need for varifiable evidence to support
the belief in cable sound. But not an argument that someone has to
come up with a theory.

Not at all. There is a qualitative difference between any *natural*
artifact or phenomenon, and evaluation of a human engineered device.
Gravity, for example exists, as you said, irrespective of anyone's
observations or theories. It also, and this is crucial, can be reliably
and repeatably measured, i.e. it is trivial to prove that the *effect*
is real, irrespective of cause.

OTOH, an audio cable is the *product* of a theoretical / mathematical
construct, engineered by a human mind. Thus, there is a theory of how a
cable should operate, based on mathematics and engineering design, and
there is reliable, repeatable objective data to support that cable X
performs according to theory and design. It is thus incumbent on
someone claiming that this supporting theoretical construct is wrong,
because it does not account for their anecdotal experience, to overcome
two rationale hurdles; one, they have to demonstrate that there *is*
indeed an effect that lies outside of expected operational parameters
(based on design and use), and two, they need an alternate theory to
explain the differences observed. Lacking the alternate theoretical
underpinning, one cannot accept countervailing evidence as unambiguous,
since test methods will always be suspect until some basis (besides
flawed test design / data acquisition) in theory can be established.

Since hurdle #1 appears sufficiently unobtainable at this point, hurdle
#2 will likely remain moot.

Keith