Regarding the leader of the group in question, I believe that he was using Cambridge audio gear the last time that this type of thread was running. At the time, I did offer for him to pop over and have a listen to some cable options on my own system, which he kindly declined.
He's talking about me here I think. I once had a cambridge audio amp, that was at least 5 years ago. Not that it's relevant, looks a bit like a rather lame "oh he's got rubbish equipment, he won't hear a difference" argument. But anyway, let's not get facts in the way of things...
With regards to his comments about measurements. I'd love to see whether he understand the differences anyway if manufacturers started fully displaying all specs. After all, they are only showing us what they want to at the moment, and there's clearly differing levels of "interpretation" my manufacturers over how it's displayed. As an example, just look at how power is measured between say a mid range AV receiver and an equivalently priced stereo amp.
Yeah again, really, this isn't relevant is it. Even if I didn't have the foggiest what specifications cable manufacturers were coming out with, I could still happily point out they have no verifiable evidence of their products making a difference to human ears. Note I said ears there, I don't know why but everyone seems to think I am obsessed with measuring with monstrous scientific instruments when in fact I just want a controlled listening test as proof. That's all.
So in short, we have someone who's happy to ram his opinion down our throat, pay zero attention to our own views, has a mediocre set of kit as a benchmark and is clearly unwilling to actually take time out to go actually listen for himself.
I believe you could summarise that under "forum troll", which is why he's on my ignore list.
Usually I'm pointing out to people that there's no evidence to support claims that people like you claim to hear. Sometimes I might come across as arrogant - it's not intentional, but it can sometimes be difficult dealing with people who cannot understand what your are saying, or who totally dismiss what you are saying. The bit about pay attention to views is rather amusing though, given that I'm on your ignore list, not vice versa, and given your opinions on me it's fair to say you never really understood the simple points I was trying to make and instead got in a fit of rage at me for suggesting there's a lack of evidence for your claims. Bit ironic really that, because you could instead of repeatedly saying "i've got equipment x and been listening for y number of years" come out with some reasoned debates about why there isn't any objective proof, whether the hi-fi industry does sell snake oil and whatnot, but you didn't bother. Says a lot about you really.
And again, I'm called a troll. Second time in the thread.
You see, some of us have run blind tests, and are also comfortable enough with kit to know that price is not always the key factor and as such, ignore it. That of course is irrelevant to said person. Yet is he willing to take time out to backup his statements? Apparently not.
The last time this thread ran was months ago, and I'll repeat again that I did make the offer for him to come and have a play with my own system if he wished, where I'd be happy to also run some blind tests.
Again, Mr Sukebe doesn't understand the difference between blind and double blind tests and the importance of them. It's really not that difficult and I clearly explained that in the original "is there a difference" thread. It's called expectation and experimenter's bias. E.g. I might sit with someone in the "belief" camp and never swap over speaker cables whilst they note down their listening experiences, only to reveal they were only listening to one. You can think of all kinds of different permutations to realise such a test proves nothing.
In short, some of us have tried both sides of the fence and feel in a position to be able to discuss it. He's happily wandered into someone else's thread with just one aim, to be destructive to the thread and the posters within. There has been absolutely no attempt to add any form of value either for himself or others. If you can think of a better way to describe his actions that "trolling", let me know.
Yep, I've gone in here and tried to be destructive to this thread, by providing objective evidence and having mostly sensible discussion whilst trying not to add any value whatsoever. Except for the sensible discussions around listening tests, how measurements can and can't be helpful, posting experiments showing the difference in speaker cables in a measured fashion and trying to help people make sensible decisions without spending silly amounts of money during a recession on snake oil.
If that's now the definition of trolling then I must have missed something.
Lastly I'd just like to say that whilst we don't all agree on here it's good that posters can happily debate their opinions openly. It's just a shame some people like to spoil what would be a sensible enough thread with rather pathetic attacks on my character which don't add anything to the debate. This is too frequently the problem with the "objectivist vs subjectivist" debate. Some people get far too emotionally involved and resort to attacks which are not relevant to the discussion - it seems at times like suggesting there is no evidence to back up hi-fi manufacturers claims is like insulting someone's mother!
whatever you say - You seem to like telling people what you think they're hearing a lot. Suppose it's to be expected though from hifi forum style replies.
Although I might guess the lyngdorf is more powerful?