When did Kimber Heros get so expensive??? - Page 9

What you enjoy at home doesn't bother us at all. It's the ignorant, pseudo-science rot that pollutes this forum ("you can't measure everything," our ears are better than any measurements," "cables break in" "oh wait, dielectrics break in," "oh wait, only some dielectrics break in," etc., etc.) that bothers us.

Bummer

Could it be the need to let us know that we are the crazy ones?

Polyethylene, polypropylene, teflon and air. Why are different dielectrics used if it doesn't matter, if there is no audible effect?

Must it be labeled a conspiracy?

The position in this thread has always been that the dielectric is what is susceptible to break in, not the wire.

It is misrepresentation to say otherwise, mcnarus. There is no "oh wait!". Sorry to deprive you of your "gotcha!" moment.

They are used because they exist and are commercially available. They exist because they meet specific needs that have nothing to do with audio (not developed specifically for that purpose) yet can be used in audio applications. There doesn't have to be a real audible effect. A simple measureable difference in bulk parameters along with a measureable difference WRT something like the FR is sufficient to create the requisite infinitesmal inaudible differences that lead to claims of audibility.

It's not do we agree or do not agree that is the question. It is the claims made that none of you will back up.

So Chad, I have 4 cables. Two that will be burned in, and two that will not. Randomly labeled. Use any ears on approach. I am administering no test protocol. You evaluate them. Let us know which is the burned in pair.

I will provide a 24X7 IP camera feed of the burn-in process.

For me, I couldn't hear the difference between my XLR's that I made and some AQ King Cobras. Tess keeps pointing to a thread about me testing out some cables (saying I haven't) I tried a $300 pair of XLR's. Don't know what more one can ask for.

Very disingenuous Tess. You know for a fact the Teflon is used for harsh environmental conditions. It's there to provide signal separation via conductor isolation that doesn't break down under high temperature conditions.

Same as plenum vs non-plenum jackets it's not to enhance the signal, its to ensure cable life/meet code.

You can keep trying to steer away from the fact that you backed out not only on speaker level cable break in, but also now line level. I am going to keep this in the forefront because I'm not letting you obfuscate your rampant back peddling. You say a cable sounds better with break in, I offer to send 4 cables with ZERO testing criteria in how you listen to them and you continue to tuck tail.

Because there are suckers out there who will believe anything, and pay extra for the privilege of being overcharged.

I see, you speak for "this thread" now? No, there are plenty of numnuts who think the actual cables break in, and they are just as wrong as you, and for the same reason.

I wouldn't assume he knows anything at all about cables. And there's a lot of posts here that would back me up.

Sigh... Teflon is used in many domestic audio cables, you know this, don't you? What I find disingenuous is the accusation you made about me, and when asked for proof, you act like nothing happened.


No back peddling. Trust is earned, and I have no good reason to give it.


The XLR cable is a strawman, it isn't the cable you started a thread about, is it, Jinjuku? That could be deemed back peddling. Why won't you follow through?

Okay, if you say so.

You think dielectrics affect quality of audio signals. I've got oceanfront property I want to sell you in Idaho.

Slap a stamp on it and send it to me, I'll check it out.

So once one washes out all the BS, hype, insults, deflection, accusations, it goes something like this:

Tess: I can hear a difference between cables that are burned in and ones that are not
Jin: No you can't, prove it
Tess: I don't have to, I'm just telling you I can
Jin: OK, I'll send you some cables for free for you to test
Tess: No, I don't trust controlled tests
Jin: OK, no controls, test them however you like. Some will be burned in some will not. I'll send them for free. You test however you want
Tess: NO
Jin: Why?
Tess: I can hear a difference between cables that are burned in and ones that are not, but I don't have to prove it because you haven't earned my trust




So that pretty much wraps it up then, doesn't it.

Do you cheapskates know what happened to Gizmologist? He has not posted in some time. I miss him already.

As soon as my telephone wires break in, I'll give Jason Serinus and his psychic friends a call and maybe they can channel the answer for you.

Ok,

I'll match your tone deafness with my 'cheap skatedness(?)'.

I will send you 4 cables. RCA or XLR, .5 meter. Your choice. Two will have 100 hours of pink noise through them, two will not.

If you win I will buy you a pair of Kimber Heroes .5 meter ($217 at Audio Advisor)

If I win you will buy me a pair of Kimber Heroes.

Let's find out who the cheapskate really is

Again, any ears only testing you want. 30 days and tell us which are the burned in pair and which are not.

That is a rather myopic view of what has happened. Doesn't really wrap it up, though. There are many, many people making and using varying (or none at all) dielectrics in cabling. You can call it a conspiracy to rip off the ignorant if it makes you feel more comfortable about it.

Now, give me one good reason why I should extend my trust? At this point I think the experiment, test... whatever you want to call it... is a setup. And I'm not picking up what has been put down, it doesn't pass the smell test.

No, once you wash the posts and eliminate all the bickering, I believe the salient points are: 1. You believe you can hear a difference. 2. Jin wants you to prove it using whatever test you prefer and he will provide the cables for free so you have nothing to lose. 3. You refuse

Nothing myopic about that. I thinks it's rather spot on.



No, I won't and haven't called it a conspiracy or anything else for that matter. What cable companies choose to build cables out of is their own business as far as I'm concerned. Sort of presumptious for you to "assume" a reason for me, though.


I don't see what trust has to do with it. You have nothing to lose. You would have nothing invested in the test. You can't possibly be hurt in any way at all. If there was any sort of negative consequence that could possibly be suffered by you, then I "might" consider your trust argument. So I can't give you a reason to trust, but then I see no reason why you would need to. I can give you some reasons why you might agree to try the experiment. 1. You have nothing to lose 2. You get to try some cool cables for free for a while and since you like cables that would probably by fun for you 3. Since you get to set up the experiment any way you want with no restrictions at all (other than the 30 days) you would have the opportunity to run your own experiment, under your own rules, with nothing to lose, and get the fantastic benefit of telling quite a few of us where to put it, so to speak, once we are shown up to be the fools you believe us to be.

Some pretty compelling reasons, yes? I just don't see any downside for you at all. Unless your wrong and then all you lose is a little face. But there really is no chance of that anyhow, right?

Yet you assume that I have good reason to trust that Jin will do as he has said. He hasn't exactly been honest... so pardon me if I do not.

If you need more reasons why I feel this way, then review the last few pages of the thread, try and look at both sides this time.


Of course you wouldn't, it doesn't fit the agenda. As I've said before, this whole thing smells.

So you're saying since I didn't try a JPS cable (I tried a AQ King Cobra from my dealer): "Please fill in whatever you want to say here".

Jinjuku:
I doubt anyone expected Tess to take up the challenge. Testings one's beliefs requires a level of character, personal integrity and intellectual curiosity rarely found in believers of any type.

You are missing my point. Probably on purpose although I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and spell it out, although it appears that a tactic of yours is to take very simple things and make them as difficult as you can so as to defer. So here goes:

I don't assume you have a reason to or not to trust Jin, this is a presumption of your part. I don't have any agenda as relates to what does or does not smell, another presumption on your part. I have read all the pages several times and your reference to the opposite is yet another presumption. Perhaps you might want to comment on what people actually write and say rather than always try to spin it. But that's beside the point.

The point is: Trust should not even enter into the equation. You are not sending him anything. You are not investing anything. You are not financially at risk in the slightest degree. The fact that he is trustworthy or not makes not an iota of difference. Your hearing or not hearing a difference in those cables has nothing to do with the trustworthiness of Jin. Nothing. You will have cables. You can listen to them in any way you want. Nobody, especially Jin, will be looking over your shoulder threatening you in any way. There is no chance of intimidation playing a role. What is the world does trust of another human being have to do with whether or not YOU can hear a difference between cables?

1. You take free cables
2. You listen to free cables in any way you want
3. You tell us if you heard a difference

Pretty freakin simple

Now go ahead. Make up a bunch of BS reasons why you won't, can't, shouldn't, couldn't, wouldn't.

Jinjuku...I have a question about the Tag on all your posts?

"An amplifier that adds to or subtracts from the sound quality of the signal it is amplifying is probably defective or badly designed. Or an "audiophile" amp."

What is an "Audiophile Amp"? I want to make sure I never buy one.

Thanks

Who said anything about JPS or AQ cables? Are you intentionally trying to muddy the waters?


a) You started a thread on MIT cables, one that made it appear as if you were genuinely interested in trying out their cables. It now appears this was a farce.

b) You accused me of "dinging" your blindfold statement, and when asked repeatedly for proof, none was provided.

c) There is NO guarantee that you will burn in any cables that you send.


I have always respected you in the past, Jijunku, I don't get your behavior here.

But since you can tell the difference between a burned in cable and one that is not simply by listening wouldn't you instantly know that

OMG. Are you kidding? or are you serious? How many people in that thread actually had a set of MIT cables via their program sent to them? So you are hauranging my over the fact that I didn't try out one of their boxes becuase they didn't send one?

Incredible.

What planet do you live on and how is the internet connectivity? Obvioulsy decent enough.


It was in a reply to McManaus and it is so frikin buried that I can't find it easily with the boards search engine. Now if the search engine gave me the ability to export your posts to text then I could slap it in a database table, perform and SQL query on it and have it in no time flat.

Outside of that: What does it have to do with the price of tea in China?


So you respected me up until the point that I want to send you to sets of cable and I have doggedly not let you off the hook. And now you don't trust me to do what I said I would do.

The best I can do is throw an IP camera on the burn in rig and I will let that stand. I have not to burn in the cables because I really do want to see this proven so I can look how I am evaluating my own equipement and approach.

Good point....

The P.E. dielectric doesn't change much. So no, I probably wouldn't know. But I already explained this...

Instantly? You are sensationalizing.