Gentlemen,
Notice how these gentlemen steered cleared from commenting on the three with PHDs in physics? One would think they would want to at least learn what the PHDs had to say. Afterall, wasn't it scottmayo who stated he was eager to learn.
As a suggestion, why don't you gentlemen learn what the 3 PHDs, from MIT no less?) have to say and report back to us? Be sure to bring us quotes from the PHDs.
1) "So what you are telling me is you have no control over RLC of your cable and it's a function of position by the end user."..
"We never argued cables cannot sound different. But we will argue that only badly designed cables DO sound different. Such is the case with many exotic cable vendor designs. Perhaps yours are an exception, but the fact that you don't rely on measurements to govern your cable designs is frightening."
Really? Interesting.
So what are badly designed cables? Are cryod cables suddenly bad? We all want to know. And Who decides what a good cable is?
And what about the cable article? Wasn't their conclusion that they didn't think their was any sonic difference between different designs, even esoteric designs? And didn't they have different capacities and inductances. But now, smith is chastised for not keeping tabs on every last pf and calling esoteric designs poor quality?
First, it makes no sonic difference, then it does when it comes to smith? Otherwise, why belittle smith for not keeping track of the specs?
2) "Most RF Engineers consider anything less than 1GHz DC."
Is this a joke? Even at 5 Khz, wire becomes an antenna and can transfer to another wire, which can easily be measured. Wires, foils have to be kept short even at 500, or even 50 Khz, inductance, capacitance concerns etc, let alone 1 ghz. So RF engineers have lots of concerns, and pay attention alot more than he would have us believe.
3) They don't believe that the copper structure changes during cryoing? All they have to do is look; it is clearly seen in the molecular/crystilline structure.
4) "I note that you mentioned Hawksford. The equations he derived are absolutely valid equations, well manipulated to provide some interesting relationships."
So what proof does one have that Mr. Hawksford Intentially manipulated?
Pretty stong accusaton for not having met the man.
----------
Lastly, they will never change their position guys, for several reasons.
1) Pride and arrogance?
2) Some, at chat sites and other places, would become the laughing stock of the internet.
3) Grants could dry up. Can one imagine how much money would be lost, not only in audio, but possibly other subjective areas, if their belief was found to be a hoax, or simply an agenda for certain entities?
SCOTT:
What else can we think. If one wants to look, simply look in the "fights" club. You backstep, do the waltz, say one thing and do the exact opposite.
You say you are eager to learn, but again appear to be unwilling to state you will check out what the 3 PHDs in physics have to say.
The only two links you and db have listed are from audioholics. Is that the only source you guys have to present.
Your record speaks for itself.
