Acceptable Responses when Impossible Claims Are Made??

[tmtomh]

6 hours ago, Iving said:

 

Why do you have to say anything at all.

 

If you really mean to engage in a spirit of respectful conversation you could say any number of things:

- Are you aware of any explanation for improved SQ lifting cables?

- Have you any idea why myrtlewood would be effective over other materials?

- Have you thought that salespeople and marketeers might be dishonest even if with themselves?

- Have you thought about buying myrtlewood direct rather than via audio retailers so avoiding unnecessary mark-ups?

- It really bothers me that you seem to be enjoying something that I am convinced there is no justification for.

 

But that's not the general approach of the "typical" objectivist, right?

 

I think your comment here, and the prior comment by @mansr that you are responding to, provides us with a great opportunity to discuss this issue seriously, without some of the snark and other distractions we often get into.

 

You list five examples of things objectivists could say that you claim would be "respectful conversation," and better than "the general approach of the 'typical' objectivist."

 

Lets take them one by one:

1. "Are you aware of any explanation for improved SQ lifting cables?" People raise this question all the time - and the "typical subjectivists" (if we're going to generalize this way) invariably do not respond by thanking the person for their respectful engagement. Instead, they respond with some version of "I know what my ears tell me, I listen to music not measurements" - or they respond with an explanation, and then get indignant or offended when the objectivist points out that the explanation doesn't hold water.
2. "Have you any idea why myrtlewood would be effective over other materials?" I agree with you that this would be an interesting reply - but I believe it's ultimately infeasible for two reasons. First, my opinion is that many subjectivists would immediately respond with anger because they would feel they were being trolled or mocked rather than asked an honest, good-faith question. Second, this question does not actually get to the heart of the objectivist problem with cable lifters and so even if it resulted in a calm, non-offended response, I have trouble seeing how the resulting exchange could go anywhere productive. If someone replied, "Myrtlewood has XYZ properties," the objectivist would immediately reply that other woods have similar properties and in any event there's no evidence that XYZ properties has any impact when it comes to the material of a cable lifter - and then we'd be right back to the inevitable rabbit hole detailed above in item #1.
3. "Have you thought that salespeople and marketeers might be dishonest even if with themselves?" Now come on - perhaps the details of the tone of your example are somewhat more polite that what some objectivists say here, but the content of this is precisely the kind of thing that enrages subjectivists and leads them to accuse objectivists of being close-minded, condescending, and all manner of other negative qualities. This question, if it did not immediately generate anger and the accusation of disrespetful discourse, would simply lead a subjectivist to say something like, "I didn't buy mine from a salesperson and was not marketed to - I researched it myself and my ears tell me it works." And we're back to the rabbit hole.
4. "Have you thought about buying myrtlewood direct rather than via audio retailers so avoiding unnecessary mark-ups?" Even moreso than your suggestion #2, this is completely irrelevant to the substance of the issue. That is not a criticism of you - I'm just saying that the objectivist doesn't care where the subjectivist gets the myrtlewood from. If the objectivist believes that cable lifters don't work, then the "overpriced" issue is irrelevant - paying $1 for myrtlewood is still too much if one believes it's snake oil.
5. "It really bothers me that you seem to be enjoying something that I am convinced there is no justification for." This does not qualify as respectful engagement in my view because it's not a real response. Rather, it's a subjectivist's fantasy of an Objectivist Straw Man. This is what subjectivists think (or IMHO, wish) objectivists are motivated by. First off, you will be hard-pressed to find a single objectivist who is bothered by the fact that someone else enjoys something that the objectivist thinks is BS. Objectivists tend to get bothered when people promote the effectiveness of things like cable lifters, and when they argue for nonsensical technical causes or argue against measurements and technical explanations altogether in favor of individual listening impressions and Appeal to Authority claims.

The core problem here, IMHO, is something mansr's comment points to, and something that @The Computer Audiophile and @crenca have recently raised in their responses to one of my comments above: How do we balance the fact that our technical knowledge is never complete with the fact that some explanations are far more plausible than others? If we declare that we know everything, we do indeed blind ourselves to the documented history of how scientific exploration has radically changed our knowledge and destroyed some ideas that we thought were "certain." But if we throw discernment out the window and make no distinction between the remotely possible, the plausible, and the probable - and in particular if we do so because we refuse to question ourselves by considering things like confirmation bias and poor auditory memory - then we are lost: we have no meaningful way of communicating with each other. All we are doing in that scenario is testifying, in the religious sense of the word.

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

 

I think your comment here, and the prior comment by @mansr that you are responding to, provides us with a great opportunity to discuss this issue seriously, without some of the snark and other distractions we often get into.

 

You list five examples of things objectivists could say that you claim would be "respectful conversation," and better than "the general approach of the 'typical' objectivist."

 

Lets take them one by one:

1. "Are you aware of any explanation for improved SQ lifting cables?" People raise this question all the time - and the "typical subjectivists" (if we're going to generalize this way) invariably do not respond by thanking the person for their respectful engagement. Instead, they respond with some version of "I know what my ears tell me, I listen to music not measurements" - or they respond with an explanation, and then get indignant or offended when the objectivist points out that the explanation doesn't hold water.
2. "Have you any idea why myrtlewood would be effective over other materials?" I agree with you that this would be an interesting reply - but I believe it's ultimately infeasible for two reasons. First, my opinion is that many subjectivists would immediately respond with anger because they would feel they were being trolled or mocked rather than asked an honest, good-faith question. Second, this question does not actually get to the heart of the objectivist problem with cable lifters and so even if it resulted in a calm, non-offended response, I have trouble seeing how the resulting exchange could go anywhere productive. If someone replied, "Myrtlewood has XYZ properties," the objectivist would immediately reply that other woods have similar properties and in any event there's no evidence that XYZ properties has any impact when it comes to the material of a cable lifter - and then we'd be right back to the inevitable rabbit hole detailed above in item #1.
3. "Have you thought that salespeople and marketeers might be dishonest even if with themselves?" Now come on - perhaps the details of the tone of your example are somewhat more polite that what some objectivists say here, but the content of this is precisely the kind of thing that enrages subjectivists and leads them to accuse objectivists of being close-minded, condescending, and all manner of other negative qualities. This question, if it did not immediately generate anger and the accusation of disrespetful discourse, would simply lead a subjectivist to say something like, "I didn't buy mine from a salesperson and was not marketed to - I researched it myself and my ears tell me it works." And we're back to the rabbit hole.
4. "Have you thought about buying myrtlewood direct rather than via audio retailers so avoiding unnecessary mark-ups?" Even moreso than your suggestion #2, this is completely irrelevant to the substance of the issue. That is not a criticism of you - I'm just saying that the objectivist doesn't care where the subjectivist gets the myrtlewood from. If the objectivist believes that cable lifters don't work, then the "overpriced" issue is irrelevant - paying $1 for myrtlewood is still too much if one believes it's snake oil.
5. "It really bothers me that you seem to be enjoying something that I am convinced there is no justification for." This does not qualify as respectful engagement in my view because it's not a real response. Rather, it's a subjectivist's fantasy of an Objectivist Straw Man. This is what subjectivists think (or IMHO, wish) objectivists are motivated by. First off, you will be hard-pressed to find a single objectivist who is bothered by the fact that someone else enjoys something that the objectivist thinks is BS. Objectivists tend to get bothered when people promote the effectiveness of things like cable lifters, and when they argue for nonsensical technical causes or argue against measurements and technical explanations altogether in favor of individual listening impressions and Appeal to Authority claims.

The core problem here, IMHO, is something mansr's comment points to, and something that @The Computer Audiophile and @crenca have recently raised in their responses to one of my comments above: How do we balance the fact that our technical knowledge is never complete with the fact that some explanations are far more plausible than others? If we declare that we know everything, we do indeed blind ourselves to the documented history of how scientific exploration has radically changed our knowledge and destroyed some ideas that we thought were "certain." But if we throw discernment out the window and make no distinction between the remotely possible, the plausible, and the probable - and in particular if we do so because we refuse to question ourselves by considering things like confirmation bias and poor auditory memory - then we are lost: we have no meaningful way of communicating with each other. All we are doing in that scenario is testifying, in the religious sense of the word.

 

@tmtomh, I salute you for your extraordinary communication skills! Your writing is exceptional and reflects the clarity of thought that is uncommon. Regardless of whether you support my or the opposite point of view, I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts as they always help clarify and educate, and often help me see things from a different perspective. Thank you!

[Iving]

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

 

I think your comment here, and the prior comment by @mansr that you are responding to, provides us with a great opportunity to discuss this issue seriously, without some of the snark and other distractions we often get into.

 

You list five examples of things objectivists could say that you claim would be "respectful conversation," and better than "the general approach of the 'typical' objectivist."

 

Lets take them one by one:

1. "Are you aware of any explanation for improved SQ lifting cables?" People raise this question all the time - and the "typical subjectivists" (if we're going to generalize this way) invariably do not respond by thanking the person for their respectful engagement. Instead, they respond with some version of "I know what my ears tell me, I listen to music not measurements" - or they respond with an explanation, and then get indignant or offended when the objectivist points out that the explanation doesn't hold water.
2. "Have you any idea why myrtlewood would be effective over other materials?" I agree with you that this would be an interesting reply - but I believe it's ultimately infeasible for two reasons. First, my opinion is that many subjectivists would immediately respond with anger because they would feel they were being trolled or mocked rather than asked an honest, good-faith question. Second, this question does not actually get to the heart of the objectivist problem with cable lifters and so even if it resulted in a calm, non-offended response, I have trouble seeing how the resulting exchange could go anywhere productive. If someone replied, "Myrtlewood has XYZ properties," the objectivist would immediately reply that other woods have similar properties and in any event there's no evidence that XYZ properties has any impact when it comes to the material of a cable lifter - and then we'd be right back to the inevitable rabbit hole detailed above in item #1.
3. "Have you thought that salespeople and marketeers might be dishonest even if with themselves?" Now come on - perhaps the details of the tone of your example are somewhat more polite that what some objectivists say here, but the content of this is precisely the kind of thing that enrages subjectivists and leads them to accuse objectivists of being close-minded, condescending, and all manner of other negative qualities. This question, if it did not immediately generate anger and the accusation of disrespetful discourse, would simply lead a subjectivist to say something like, "I didn't buy mine from a salesperson and was not marketed to - I researched it myself and my ears tell me it works." And we're back to the rabbit hole.
4. "Have you thought about buying myrtlewood direct rather than via audio retailers so avoiding unnecessary mark-ups?" Even moreso than your suggestion #2, this is completely irrelevant to the substance of the issue. That is not a criticism of you - I'm just saying that the objectivist doesn't care where the subjectivist gets the myrtlewood from. If the objectivist believes that cable lifters don't work, then the "overpriced" issue is irrelevant - paying $1 for myrtlewood is still too much if one believes it's snake oil.
5. "It really bothers me that you seem to be enjoying something that I am convinced there is no justification for." This does not qualify as respectful engagement in my view because it's not a real response. Rather, it's a subjectivist's fantasy of an Objectivist Straw Man. This is what subjectivists think (or IMHO, wish) objectivists are motivated by. First off, you will be hard-pressed to find a single objectivist who is bothered by the fact that someone else enjoys something that the objectivist thinks is BS. Objectivists tend to get bothered when people promote the effectiveness of things like cable lifters, and when they argue for nonsensical technical causes or argue against measurements and technical explanations altogether in favor of individual listening impressions and Appeal to Authority claims.

The core problem here, IMHO, is something mansr's comment points to, and something that @The Computer Audiophile and @crenca have recently raised in their responses to one of my comments above: How do we balance the fact that our technical knowledge is never complete with the fact that some explanations are far more plausible than others? If we declare that we know everything, we do indeed blind ourselves to the documented history of how scientific exploration has radically changed our knowledge and destroyed some ideas that we thought were "certain." But if we throw discernment out the window and make no distinction between the remotely possible, the plausible, and the probable - and in particular if we do so because we refuse to question ourselves by considering things like confirmation bias and poor auditory memory - then we are lost: we have no meaningful way of communicating with each other. All we are doing in that scenario is testifying, in the religious sense of the word.

 

Well - yours is a thoughtful approach - obviously. Thank you

 

My examples were more about social lubrication - keeping things inclusive and welcoming for allcomers - rather than about what subjectivists and objectivists might say. Myrtle wood isn't anything special to me - I promise you I don't own any. Anticipating adverse social responses (from no matter whom) doesn't discourage me from being polite if I am thinking straight ... which I don't all the time. I am only human like everyone else.

 

I guess the Forum is different things to different people.

 

I am here mostly to participate in conversations when I (very infrequently) buy something sold by sponsor - that is a major component of Forum infrastructure after all. Next it would be learning at a technical level - and for me these days the so-called objectivists have most to offer. I love reading stuff I don't already know - especially when it helps me build a knowledge-jigsaw that facilitates me manufacturing my own musical thrills. Not necessarily objectivists though. Whilst I am not one for following others as a devotee, I was very fond of Bob aka rb2013 for those who knew him. He blogged relentlessly his trial-and-error attempts to elevate SQ and developed the most idiosyncratic, subjective and unscientific SQ rating system! But it was his enthusiastic posting that got me onto ethernet instead of USB and I have never looked back. I mean it was all just so much fun. There was another guy (I forget his name) who would drop in occasionally to wind him up. That was funny sometimes - but now Bob is gone I think it maybe more regrettable than not. What can we learn from that. Next I admit I am interested in the more philosophical aspects of musical enjoyment. My posts make it clear that I wish we could progressively triangulate on subjective experiences and measurements - who knows what else - in order to understand things better. It is as plain as day that we don't have all the answers. Trained scientifically, and having taught postgraduates how to do research for decades, I am not afraid of mysteries. Quite the contrary. What use is a scientist unless she or he can help us answer questions for which we don't already have answers. For me that includes addressing the psychological and the subjective as well as the physical and the objective. Only finally do I care to remark about "snark" and so on. I don't see how the kind of triangulation I would relish can happen unless folks feel that being armed with ideas alone (as distinct from say a thick skin to boot) is a sufficient basis for their own participation. If someone says something "incorrect" can we not just ignore it - or adjust it gently. Any kind of "playing to the gallery" down a knowledge or experience gradient isn't tasteful to me. Mine is just a point of view. I don't own anybody's ass. But like everybody else I do own my own walking feet.

 

Otherwise I have no axe to grind. I am neither objectivist nor subjectivist. I admit I find it irritating being told what I am or am not hearing by someone who possesses neither my ears nor my brain nor my emotional history. At the same time I am more than open to blind listening tests and so on. There are many factors that can influence the outcome of such investigations. The way I see things we are not likely to develop the required approach without a willingness to abandon polarised positions and the various relational ways in which we cleave to them. To me that's on topic for this thread and I'm OK if we don't get where I want to be.

[Ralf11]

8 hours ago, mansr said:

Let's take an example. How would you explain that cable lifters are "unlikely" to do anything, not even if made of myrtlewood?

 

cabe lifters align the signal with the phlow of phlogiston in the Earth's magnetic monopole, ensuring that there is no phase drift in your Tice Clock

[Ralf11]

I asked a late, highly-regarded DAC designer about Myrtlewood, but he was not able to relate his preference to material properties.  I still plan to get some next time I visit the coast... just for fun.

 

https://www.wood-database.com/myrtle/

[mansr]

11 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I asked a late, highly-regarded DAC designer about Myrtlewood, but he was not able to relate his preference to material properties. 

Was that by any chance Charley Hansen? I know he was fond of the stuff.

[Ralf11]

yes.

[marce]

28 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

cabe lifters align the signal with the phlow of phlogiston in the Earth's magnetic monopole, ensuring that there is no phase drift in your Tice Clock

That's a Belter...

[christopher3393]

On 12/12/2019 at 1:28 PM, Ralf11 said:

What responses are allowed when someone posts a claim that cannot possibly be correct?

 

 

[tmtomh]

1 hour ago, Iving said:

 

Well - yours is a thoughtful approach - obviously. Thank you

 

My examples were more about social lubrication - keeping things inclusive and welcoming for allcomers - rather than about what subjectivists and objectivists might say. Myrtle wood isn't anything special to me - I promise you I don't own any. Anticipating adverse social responses (from no matter whom) doesn't discourage me from being polite if I am thinking straight ... which I don't all the time. I am only human like everyone else.

 

I guess the Forum is different things to different people.

 

I am here mostly to participate in conversations when I (very infrequently) buy something sold by sponsor - that is a major component of Forum infrastructure after all. Next it would be learning at a technical level - and for me these days the so-called objectivists have most to offer. I love reading stuff I don't already know - especially when it helps me build a knowledge-jigsaw that facilitates me manufacturing my own musical thrills. Not necessarily objectivists though. Whilst I am not one for following others as a devotee, I was very fond of Bob aka rb2013 for those who knew him. He blogged relentlessly his trial-and-error attempts to elevate SQ and developed the most idiosyncratic, subjective and unscientific SQ rating system! But it was his enthusiastic posting that got me onto ethernet instead of USB and I have never looked back. I mean it was all just so much fun. There was another guy (I forget his name) who would drop in occasionally to wind him up. That was funny sometimes - but now Bob is gone I think it maybe more regrettable than not. What can we learn from that. Next I admit I am interested in the more philosophical aspects of musical enjoyment. My posts make it clear that I wish we could progressively triangulate on subjective experiences and measurements - who knows what else - in order to understand things better. It is as plain as day that we don't have all the answers. Trained scientifically, and having taught postgraduates how to do research for decades, I am not afraid of mysteries. Quite the contrary. What use is a scientist unless she or he can help us answer questions for which we don't already have answers. For me that includes addressing the psychological and the subjective as well as the physical and the objective. Only finally do I care to remark about "snark" and so on. I don't see how the kind of triangulation I would relish can happen unless folks feel that being armed with ideas alone (as distinct from say a thick skin to boot) is a sufficient basis for their own participation. If someone says something "incorrect" can we not just ignore it - or adjust it gently. Any kind of "playing to the gallery" down a knowledge or experience gradient isn't tasteful to me. Mine is just a point of view. I don't own anybody's ass. But like everybody else I do own my own walking feet.

 

Otherwise I have no axe to grind. I am neither objectivist nor subjectivist. I admit I find it irritating being told what I am or am not hearing by someone who possesses neither my ears nor my brain nor my emotional history. At the same time I am more than open to blind listening tests and so on. There are many factors that can influence the outcome of such investigations. The way I see things we are not likely to develop the required approach without a willingness to abandon polarised positions and the various relational ways in which we cleave to them. To me that's on topic for this thread and I'm OK if we don't get where I want to be.

 

Thanks for your equally thoughtful reply. One theme I see in your comment here that I really agree with is the emphasis on "social lubrication" and fun/enjoyment. Every hobby, even from the more tech-oriented perspective of how we approach it here at AS, is about fun ultimately, and while for many of us learning (and arguing) about technical stuff is part of the fun, every hobby is marked by excesses of some kind and by behavior or pursuits that are, strictly speaking, irrational to some degree (or are playful, to put it more generously). And so when we come to a community like this, it's reasonable to want some degree of slack and generosity from others so we can express ourselves and enjoy.

 

For me personally, I don't have the budget or temperament for a lot of trial and error or frequent upgrading when it comes to equipment (hence part of my interest in trying to understand measurements and technical info as best I can, with the aim of changing my equipment as wisely, economically and infrequently as possible). But I do enjoy doing that with the "software" of our hobby: I spend a good deal of time learning about different CD masterings of albums I'm really into. Spending $20 to pick up three used CDs of the same album, each with a different mastering, suits my temperament and adds to my enjoyment, whereas adding 2-3 zeroes to that figure to do the same thing with equipment would just fuel my neurosis and and keep me up at night. 🙂 But the behavior is still somewhat analogous, so I do get it.

[fas42]

18 hours ago, tapatrick said:

I probably agree with you but not totally getting your drift... and what’s a ‘weasel’ word? 

 

I work back to front to nearly everyone else in audio - most see a system as not sounding good enough, because they haven't got a good enough DAC, amplifier, speaker, room - tick the appropriate box(es), 😉. My experiences have told me that the components within the system, and room, are intrinsically good enough, unless severely compromised - so a highly cost effective DIY approach is to work out where poor design, implementation, below standard hardware are bottlenecks, and remedy those areas with some low cost additions, replacements or workarounds.

 

Most people do this already - the world of tweaks is where the action is 🙂; but it helps a great deal if you know precisely what you're aiming for - to be able to listen to playback, and easily pick misbehaviour. So "synergy" is merely a way of saying that the misbehaviour is at very low audible levels, by a combination of circumstances, or good luck - it's a "weasel word" because it creates an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said about the components, when in fact it has almost nothing to do with the real reasons for the better SQ.

[fas42]

The subject of cables is pretty straightforward - to me, 😉. It's one of the most obvious bottlenecks in a system, because the degree of robustness is very poor - think of it as a link between two nodes or points in an electrical circuit, and compare its properties to that of a track on a circuit board - in every possible way, the latter is vastly superior to the former, electrically and physically - just the length of the cable puts it at a severe disadvantage, alone.

 

My thinking is that you make the cable have an integrity as close as possible to the copper trace on the board - which is the reason why I always hard wire, or equivalent, everything; that is, there is a logical reason for doing this, "strange thing", 😉.

[Ralf11]

It's good to see that several people fervently believe that there is no such thing as an impossible claim...

 

🔴

[esldude]

15 hours ago, semente said:

 

What about noise-shaping and @Miskas measurements showing ultrasonic rubbish and @Juds ultra-wide bandwidth amplifier and wide-bandwidth metal-alloy dome tweeter?

Ultrasonic noise doesn't usually cause trouble.  It can, but I don't share Miska's opinion about its importance.  I was using interconnect as a starting point, and that stuff really isn't a cable thing. 

 

Don't know of a cable that will effect positively or negatively dome tweeter ringing just outside the 20 khz range.  Otherwise you have a filter not a cable.  

 

Wide bandwidth is relative.  Jud's amps are good for a megahertz or so.  Most any halfway reasonable cable will be okay for .5 mhz or a bit less.  The amp maker prefers very high capacitance cables to roll off slightly the amp, but I've used them without such unusual cables without any problem.  And by not any problem I did check for ringing with an O-scope. 

[esldude]

12 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

I like the polite tone and I like the discussion, so I’m going to reward you by disagreeing 😁 Politely disagreeing. 

 

In terms of cables, what about Echo, NEXT, FEXT and all the other problems related to impedance, cross talk, conductor interaction and radiated EMI and RFI? Do they have no effect of how the ultimate signals sound? They certainly will effect what comes out of the end of the cable I would have thought. 

 

 

I would just parrot mansr's post that at audio frequencies those aren't a concern. 

I mean we can get ridiculous have a flat ribbon cable like the Mapleshade Clearview, and put it right next to a big transformer radiating enough 60 hz it will get into things. That is EMI.  Using a twisted pair with shield or coax you'll not get problems that way. 

[esldude]

8 hours ago, Jud said:

 

In fact this is an excellent example.

 

I can then respond that "cables have no sound" is an oversimplification, not taking into account the fact that the Mapleshade cables have virtually no shielding. I've switched to inexpensive cables that are much better shielded.

 

Good conversation, highlights the fact that people may want to take account of the susceptibility of cables to radiated noise and use cables with good shielding unless other considerations would prevail in their specific circumstances. (For example, I am currently using inexpensive light, flexible Monoprice Ethernet cables because they are connecting lightweight components and I am concerned about torque on the connections from cables that may be better shielded but are stiffer and heavier.)

 

And no civilities were harmed in the making of this conversation. 🙂

Yes, I'd consider the Mapleshade design to be inherently unsound.  As I do the early ribbon interconnects from other people.  OTOH, if you aren't getting noise into them, they work out the same as reasonable interconnect design.  So one real difference is noise pickup, but easily measured and nothing unexpected.  

 

You might recall I once put up measurements of various interconnects wrapped around a gaming computer PS with the computer running all out.  There was noise pick up.  Unwrap it and there was barely noise pickup.  Move it a foot away, and no noise pickup above the analog noise floor of the gear.  So helps keep things in perspective. 

[Jud]

46 minutes ago, esldude said:

Yes, I'd consider the Mapleshade design to be inherently unsound.  As I do the early ribbon interconnects from other people.  OTOH, if you aren't getting noise into them, they work out the same as reasonable interconnect design.  So one real difference is noise pickup, but easily measured and nothing unexpected.  

 

You might recall I once put up measurements of various interconnects wrapped around a gaming computer PS with the computer running all out.  There was noise pick up.  Unwrap it and there was barely noise pickup.  Move it a foot away, and no noise pickup above the analog noise floor of the gear.  So helps keep things in perspective. 

 

I have cables running within inches of a number of transformers, including the sizable one in my amp. Whether unshielded cables would pick up any noise in this situation I don't know, but no reason not to go with inexpensive shielded cables and be that much more sure.

 

You'll likely recall I had a phono hum with the unshielded flat cables that went away when I used cables with better shielding. Don't know whether it was the shielding or some other characteristic of the substituted cables that made that happen.

[STC]

What noise?

 

Except for one amp which was picking up LF beats. Rerunning the the supply cable solved it. 
 

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

What noise?

 

Except for one amp which was picking up LF beats. Rerunning the the supply cable solved it. 
 

I hope that rat's nest isn't behind a cabinet !

[beetlemania]

😂 y’all need to step away from the computer and put on an album

[STC]

11 minutes ago, sandyk said:

I hope that rat's nest isn't behind a cabinet !

I am trying to get birds to nest there. If that happens I will be the most eco friendly audiophile.   

[sandyk]

Just now, STC said:

I am trying to get birds to nest there. If that happens I will be the most eco friendly audiophile.   

 You are more likely to get  Arachnids instead .

[Jud]

27 minutes ago, STC said:

What noise?

 

Except for one amp which was picking up LF beats. Rerunning the the supply cable solved it. 
 

 

One reason I went with shielded cables is I considered the possibility that noise low enough not to be audible on its own might still mask some low level musical detail.

[STC]

25 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

One reason I went with shielded cables is I considered the possibility that noise low enough not to be audible on its own might still mask some low level musical detail.

Exactly, I wouldn’t do the same with my main front channels. Even the Marantz picked up noise with cheap IC. 

[tapatrick]

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

Most people do this already - the world of tweaks is where the action is 🙂; but it helps a great deal if you know precisely what you're aiming for - to be able to listen to playback, and easily pick misbehaviour. So "synergy" is merely a way of saying that the misbehaviour is at very low audible levels, by a combination of circumstances, or good luck - it's a "weasel word" because it creates an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said about the components, when in fact it has almost nothing to do with the real reasons for the better SQ.

I think weasels get a bad rap.. 'Synergy' can mean many things, or nothing as you have pointed out. The meaning I used is when your system comes together to sound right (that includes the listener) even if this is temporary. Semantics aside thanks for clarifying what you meant so now I get your drift..