You’d be amazed at the number of people who never take high school physics.
I saw an old poster once which said we teach things in the wrong order. Usually we teach philosophy only at the college level. But the actual order of things is that biology is applied chemistry, which is applied physics, which is applied mathematics, which is applied philosophy. Teach philosophy first.
Maybe, but we shouldn’t necessarily teach Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason” before basic 6th grade electricity and magnetism. But we should teach about how we come to know what we think we know–epistemology–earlier. Even grade school electricity and magnetism involves things we can’t see directly. How did we come to conclude an electric current flows from one terminal of the battery, lights the light bulb, and travels back to the other terminal? I early learned to regurgitate the scientific method–hypothesis ->experiments and observations->theory->repeated observations->law–but not much about the details of how we deduce things. One exception was a ninth grade earth science teacher who proposed the “garbage can top model” of the earth (which explains ships disappearing below the horizon among other things) and asked us to refute it based on our knowledge and observations. Hardly anyone succeeded. That kind of critical reasoning has apparently been seriously de emphasized in today’s education.
Shouldn’t it be sufficient to remember that audio signal is, generally, AC (they often even draw a nice sinewave for you) and does not have any bloody direction. Then you just deduce that if they are lying here, they are likely lying about quantum whatevers.
Having fundamental sciences as electives is a very bad idea…
It would be a good idea, at least the basics of the scientific method and how do we know things we know. Maybe we’d get fewer intellectually challenged posting about not ever needing any blind tests but absolutely positively knowing that their quantum field aligner (but only the $20K a piece model, the $10K one is obviously cheap crap) improves the sound quality vastly!
That was just one example, and directional cables is just one form of BS. There are other forms, much more subtle, in the digital domain (e.g. timing of bits flowing through Ethernet/WLAN). Sometimes it really takes an expert to debunk them.
If you really care to debunk each and every ridiculous claim individually, then sure. But somehow all of them that I’ve seen pretty much start with the claim that AC is “directional,” which should be sufficient all by itself.
But then maybe they are using the same business model as Nigerian princes do – if you buy the initial premise you can be sold all the quantum cryogenic add-ons as well.
Although most likely it was the Nigerian princes copying from them…
I’m stilling waiting for some audiophile reviewer to explain why the digital stream carrying a digital audio signal behaves differently from the digital stream carrying a video signal. I chose video because it also has a time component.
So for example, if I replace the Ethernet cable between my 4K smart HDTV and the router with some expensive audiophile Ethernet cable will the picture and sound improve?
AUDIOPHILE DISCLAIMER: I’m not referring to the HDMI cable, which if not of the proper specification, can have an effect on the picture, i.e. by not be able to pass along the 4K signal, only the Ethernet cable.
Man, I hate having to make these Audiophile Disclaimers but they are definitely necessary. Helps them to stay focused, kind of like an expensive cable or crystal.
My “focusing crystal” atop my Vandersteen speaker along with the Smurf herald:
Epistemology, of course, is a branch of philosophy. 
I don’t think people realize that the sine wave means that electricity is “flowing” in both “directions”. That is to say, the picture doesn’t help unless you already understand it.
There are people claiming that different cables improve the HDMI picture
Considering the rejection of reason and the emphasis on personal, subjective meaning, I believe the audiophile philosophy is existentialism. I would stick with science.
You’re talking about the alleged “directionality” of supposedly all cables? The only way a cable could be “directional” is if the shield is connected at one end only and then, depending on the particulars of your system, you may get better signal to noise grounding it at one end than the other. But of course that has nothing to do with “direction”.
Note to moderator: I realize these discussions about questionable audiophile mythology tend to erupt into food fights but IMO you’re applying too heavy a hand. A recent post by Boris_Molody is flagged, maybe because it contains a double entendre, maybe because it refers to unspecified people as idiots, maybe both but in any case I think we can handle it here. Also, when I try to post a reply to someone I’m blocked by some rule I don’t quite understand, either about too many replies in a period of time, or too many sub-threads deep when the post wouldn’t make sense except as a reply to someone. I find this moderation a little annoying. Maybe you could flag people who have a history of abuse with a warning, and apply those rules to them? I don’t see (though admittedly I may have missed) any abuse or ad hominem attacks here, so in the spirit of free discussion I think it should be left alone.
The theory of knowledge would be useful for students of other disciplines too, for example history. We are taught that in a particular year at a particular place something happened, but as Jack Pearl used to say, “Vas you dere Charley?” Historians use many techniques to piece together evidence, and there is often not universal consensus.
There’s a post somewhere of someone trying to prove that ethernet cables/switches affect video.
He got shot to pieces when someone else proved he wasn’t matching exact frames when comparing the “differences”…
I was told on another forum that the reason differences could be heard between one cable arrangement and another, contrary to electrical theory, was because the science wasn’t suitably developed!
No attempt to control or eliminate expectation bias on the part of the individual, but rather the science is wrong.
I fail to grasp why so many people seem unable to admit that they might be wrong. They buy the snake-oil product, drink the magic Kool-Aid and suddenly every scientist and engineer on the planet is wrong. But the audiophool marketeer, he’s right on the money.
I’ll probably receive a telling off, but I really fail to see why this was hidden. I appreciate that a certain number of flags automatically results in a post being hidden, but this is nothing short of comic genius and raises some very valid points.
As someone who was involved in optoelectronics and laser engineering back in the late '80s, and fully understands how optical fibres are designed and manufactured, I find it alarming that people even contemplate the fact that there could be audible differences between audio data transmitted over single mode vs multi-mode fibre.
Do they even understand the concept of one vs the other? How the fibre is constructed that makes the difference between single mode and multi-mode? The miniscule temporal variations between the two due to modal dispersion and how insignificant they are at audio data rates compared to their design capacity?
I have a philosopher’s stone I can sell you, but it only works for me and only I can see the gold. You’ll just have to take my word for it that it works.
@Leporello, @Graeme_Finlayson, and anyone else for that matter, if you have any concerns regarding moderation or the Roon community, please contact the moderators directly via a PM.
For clarity, any community member may flag a message: the moderators will review this to determine if any action is necessary. When a post is under review, it is hidden automatically, but may still be viewed by clicking on “View ignored content”.
There are currently no posting restrictions on this thread.
This is because the moderation team deals with breaches of the community guidelines.
Just to be absolutely clear here.
The Roon Community Forum is run by and for Roonlabs and the support of said Roon product.
That is the central core reason for it’s existence.
Any other discussions are accepted and tolerated as long as they adhere to the Community rules and guidelines.
This is not Facebook and while healthy discussion is always welcome please remember that it is not the main core reason for Roon Community existence.
You can’t post more than 3 posts in a row, but you can reply to as many posts as you want by putting the quotes from the other posts into one reply post.
Nah, they don’t, and they don’t need to. They are quite proud of not needing any blind tests, measurements, knowing how things work, or any of that egghead stuff.
Anti-intellectualism is pretty popular, and when you couple it with a chance to preen about expensive toys they got and the ability to hear things that us plebs can’t, let alone some stupid lab equipment… they are having a field day.
