ncarver;575890 Wrote: > And I am equally dismayed that you find Dan's response as reasonable and > the manufacturer's response as some sort of proof that cables are "snake > oil" and he knows it. I went back and reread the linked post to make > certain that I hadn't misinterpreted some of it. I did not! The > manufacturer offered Dan his cables to test, and his only qualification > was he wanted to do this only if Dan felt that cables were "something > that has an impact on audio quality." You find that hilarious and > proof that the manufacturer is a charlatan interested only in positive > reviews. I see nothing of the sort. Just because somebody believes > cables can affect sound doesn't mean they are going to like (i.e., > positively review) these particular cables. The manufacturer didn't > offer them only if Dan agreed upfront to review them positively. Show > me one single piece of evidence for that--I challenge you to do this. > Dan responds with a long harangue that makes it clear that he has > already 100% made up his mind that cables do not and cannot under any > circumstances make a perceptible difference in the sound of an audio > system, and that anyone that believes this is fooling themselves. So > in other words, Dan says right up front to the manufacturer that he is > 100% certain to say his cables make no difference. This is the sort of > "review" opportunity that Dan is offering? And you think it proves > something about the cables that the offer wasn't taken?? Are you > serious??? In effect Dan already wrote his review--right in his > response--without even needing to have a set of cables to measure or > listen to. Hell, why should he bother since he is obviously brilliant > and knows the TRUTH about audio equipment. Sorry, but I actually am a > practicing scientist, and Dan's position is not AT ALL scientific (and > certainly not worthy of being touted as a great article). My response > has little to do with me feeling personally attacked--I could care less > what you or this Dan guy believe. What annoys me is when people that > appear to be closed-minded, (think they) know-it-all jerks are being > promoted as good examples of objective, scientific thinking. (Yes I > do realize Dan's writing style is intended to be amusing and attract > readers, which accounts for what I find the "jerk" style of it.) > > I am definitely now done here unless something is posted from Dan's > response that shows he was actually willing to give a fair and > objective review--as I already asked.
Really now, I feel bad that I hit such a cord of hurt in you. You are so close to the trees that you forgot there is a forest out there. Everything has such an anger to it and I really didn't mean to bring this out. Sure I make fun of audiophiles just like I make fun of myself for being a golfer that always wants something better to make me good. You can't see the folly or the fun in all of that. You are the school of the perfect audiophile. You have fun with the chip on your shoulder and defending the cause. I can respect that almost. Just to keep your heart pressure down you might not want to click on many of my posts. At least until you can stand my humor. -- Nonreality -IF THE RULE YOU FOLLOWED BROUGHT YOU TO THIS, OF WHAT USE IS THE RULE.- HTTP://www.last.fm/user/nonreality ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nonreality's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=15723 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=81616 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
