Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrmf1971
Puma,
You're brave to wade into the waters of the Hoffman forum with your ethernet cable thread! They're not too receptive to the assertion that one can hear a difference between ethernet cables. Has anyone reached out to visit and hear for themselves?
|
Thanks.
Yeah, I knew what the "waters" would be when I started the evaluation thread, so I was pretty sure they would cr*p all over it.
Some folks have reached out to me personally via PMs to say they feel bad about folks cr*pping all over what is simply a set of listening evaluations.
The "community" if you could call it that (its actually more like an assemblage of warring tribes) has gotten much worse over the years.
When the "objectivists" ask for the data supporting the claim that cables matter, I alway turn it around, since they are "data-driven objectivists", and ask them to provide the data with the appropriate p-values
that fails to reject the null hypothesis (which is the statistically proper way to phrase that they don't matter).
All I ever hear is...crickets.
Some years ago, I posted on SHF my Design of Experiments analysis showing the integration of my REL sub-woofer to my 2-channel main loudspeakers. I did a series of actual, in-room real-time measurements and analyzed the data using a 3-factor, replicated, full-factorial Design of Experiments to determine where to set the control factors to achieve the optimal functional response.
I posted my results using the statistical package, JMP:
Someone jumped on and said that that was all bullish*t because it was, as he put it, "a model" and "nothing more than mental m*sturbation."
Another Six Sigma Black Belt jumped in and said, "No, you don't understand, PC's DOE is based on
actual, real in-room measured data".
He still didn't get it. A friend of mine said that what that guy didn't understand was that he was bringing a knife to an intellectual gun fight.
I've come to the conclusion that some things (including audio reproduction) are explained by things, factors, or transformations that many folks cannot, or in some cases, are not willing, to understand; their minds explode. Most folks believe that we live a very large, expanding "cosmological universe". They don't know that we live in a 4th Dimensional projection of an E8 quasi-crystal Lie Group (best visualized as a Gosset polytope).
Even Einstein didn't want to believe in quantum entanglement; he called it "spooky action at a distance". There are still physicists that don't want to believe that the conciousness of a human "observer" of a double-slit experiment can collapse the wave function of light with
5 Sigma statistical significance (computer "observation" doesn't collapse the wave function).
Some folks work at one level, other people work at another level altogether.
Just ask Malcolm Gladwell.
"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy", Wm. Shakespeare,
Hamlet