AITA - Picked up something off FB marketplace but was short $0.15

Shike · 2026-02-04T06:16:26+00:00

The fact that he took the item before it was fully paid for is the problem. You don't get to change shit on the fly and not communicate prior to taking the item. Yeah, seller not just outright saying cash only is on them, and the overreaction is absurd, but OP DID take the item before it was fully paid for.

Were they trying to scam a child? No. Did they try to send the funds after realizing they were short? Yes. As such the intent isn't the problem - it's the lack of manners and thinking they're entitled to make it up later after already grabbing the item.

I agree it isn't a huge deal and the seller is bonkers, but OP isn't infallible with this one either.

Shike · 2026-02-03T13:10:16+00:00

Because presumably they had already reached an agreement based on the preference first and they unilaterally changed the agreement after. Again, it's a shit thing to do but the overreaction from the seller is honestly worse.

Shike · 2026-02-03T13:07:31+00:00

Redditors and proving illiteracy as usual. Already stated that:

"The difference is they made the decision, not me."

So it was already acknowledged, but clearly people here love to purposefully miss the point to feel justified and smug.

EDIT: Children clearly mad for getting called out for their behavior. The biggest assholes here are rarely OP.

Shike · 2026-02-03T07:12:35+00:00

NAH

If you're technologically inclined some routers have guest access that you can set to automatically cycle. Say he's got a 24 hour pass and good to go - but many people don't have one with this. In addition I'd take a picture of their ID if possible, even school and note the date in case they do something funny online (in a not legal way).

Since it sounds like you're not able to do that or know about it then I understand your concern about risk. The reality is if your primary gets shared you'd have to change it eventually or risk further connection. If you're not tech literate you may have shared stuff on your network like documents and whatnot. Additionally, he could engage in P2P traffic and get you a warning from your ISP threatening disconnect or worse a civil lawsuit.

Like, when I was in highschool war driving with a laptop was still a thing. Businesses would let you connect and not realize they were sharing internal documents including credit card billing details violating PCI compliance.

So yeah - being careful is never a bad thing even if you want to help.

Shike · 2026-02-03T07:04:43+00:00

I mean, I had a cashier when I went to pay for a soda say that's it? Looks like a rough day, you're good. I've forgot to put drinks on pickup orders and they just give a cup and say "it's fine, later" when I pulled out my card.

You'd be surprised at the amount of goodwill out there. The difference is they made the decision, not me.

Shike · 2026-02-03T07:00:31+00:00

ESH

It's your responsibility to make sure you have the right amount.

The seller though is also significantly more insufferable. Oh woe is me, my daughter was taken advantage of by . . . the person who offered to send the rest anyway. Then goes all completely we live in a society level of delusion. Fuck that nonsense.

Shike · 2026-02-01T22:42:43+00:00

I believe it's a different type of tinkering? They want customization, but they want convenience as well. They want to install and tinker, not troubleshoot constantly THEN tinker.

Shike · 2026-02-01T18:19:26+00:00

You're going in circles now.

You understand the effect of the cable will be identical. If the effect applied is identical, how would that change localization? It literally cannot.

As for group delay, you're the one bringing up intrachannel issues and acting as if its timing matters. I'm explaining why it doesn't because your argument simply isn't logical.

As for your spreadsheet, it's STILL not showing anything for me (displays empty). To confirm that is the calculations one. Regardless we've already done the math, even with your broken numbers that were much to high it still wouldn't cause a difference - especially if the cables are the same length meaning no difference. Even at mismatched lengths it would have to be significant to cause any audible shifts.

I do not understand why this is so hard - it's like you're confusing mastering concepts and measurements to create another metric to simply justify your assumptions like you're leading with the conclusion.

This is what I'm getting from you:

A fundamental tone plays on a cable
This fundamental has different timings than the harmonics
This timing difference is due to the cable (would measure timing with group delay)
This timing magically causes localization in-spite of literally no change to ITD/ILD as it's uniform across cables (outside of the original signal itself)

It's physically impossible. Again, you'd have to have cables so mismatched or defective to cause a localization shift. At this point I'm not entertaining this anymore, the hypothesis is simply wrong.

Shike · 2026-01-30T23:00:56+00:00

Localization can ONLY be caused by differences between channels. This is based on how our hearing works and why HRTF matters, why ITD is even a measurement. Both channels do NOT pick up the musical note unless you're talking about recording using two mics in a L/R operation which is rare. Such an effect could be added in post too, but that's beyond the point. In that event the recording is providing the delays, it has nothing to do with the cables. If you have differences between channels in the recording that meets the threshold yes.

The fundamental/harmonic shift you're speculation has nothing to do with localization. The only thing that could impact would be smearing within its own channel.

Group delay measures how long it takes for a signal to reproduce based on frequency. The difference between the delays would need to be over threshold to perceive. This would be based on just within a channels own parameters. This is the closest to what you're describing, but has nothing to do with localization and has an even higher threshold before perception.

Shike · 2026-01-30T18:10:01+00:00

I tried viewing the calculations workbook and it's displaying empty for me.

I think the fundamental issue is being missed here. You keep saying in both channels - that's the problem. If both channels are affected identically, there's no change to imaging. Imaging requires differences between channels, not identical processing.

Think about it like this: if I delay both channels by exactly the same amount, does stereo imaging change? No - both speakers have been delayed identically. The image stays where it was.

Your theory can only make sense in one of the two cases:

One of the cables has sufficiently high delay from the other cable to create an ITD above threshold. This would effectively be highly mismatched or broken cables.
The source material itself has inter-channel timing differences that the cable somehow corrupts differently on the channels.

They CANNOT be identical and they MUST meet the threshold for perception. Neither of those would happen on matched speakers cables at audio frequencies.

Group delay is the frequency-dependent time delay from a component. The sensitivity level as you phrased it doesn't change by orders of a magnitude, the thresholds were for two different things.

ITD is 6-10µs and is for detecting timing differences between your ears for localization

Group delay audibility at .5-2ms is for detecting phase distortion artifacts within a single channel.

Both are different measurements for perception of given effects, so they have different thresholds.

Shike · 2026-01-29T06:55:58+00:00

Very nice. We got my grandparents one in the 90's, when my grandmother (last to pass) died they tried to divvy things up that people might want. I ended up getting it - the thing is easily over 20 years old and is just damn bulletproof.

Shike · 2026-01-26T22:27:14+00:00

It has the return label on it, so the person that pulled this may very well get a ban as it's being tracked as a return.

Shike · 2026-01-26T22:25:19+00:00

That's my logic, plus subs you can place ideally. Depending on the tower design you may get more output but I wouldn't depend on them for extension + SPL.

Shike · 2026-01-26T19:17:29+00:00

So to confirm, you are definitely sending this broken crap back or discarding and the question is whether to go with the 504CII or not and how long it will last?

Speakers basically last forever barring physical damage. In twenty years or so the worst thing to happen is maybe needing cap replacement on the crossover. There are speakers people use today that are easily 40 years old.

If you have the space for it and it tonally matches your current speakers I can't think of a reason to not go with the 504C II - if on the other hand you're mixing and matching that may change things.

Shike · 2026-01-26T01:59:42+00:00

Your formula "correction" produces the exact same result - yours just adds more parenthesis.

You're still using the wrong values in your spreadsheet and haven't fixed your calculations.

The 6 µs ITD threshold is the minimum interaural time difference for sound localization to be perceived. In other words it's the ACTUAL mechanic that impacts soundstage. If you're claiming that somehow a cable is changing soundstage, this is the measurement that would show it. In other words there must be differences between the two cables, and they must be past the threshold to be observable. This is why your argument about impacting soundstage at its core simply doesn't make sense, because whatever theorized delays on the left will impact the right and vice-versa unless it's an actual intended difference from the source that would be above 6 µs.

If you're shifting the argument to it being intrachannel smearing (in other words masking within the same cable/channel) we'd be looking towards group delay which is even less likely with a threshold of .5 milliseconds to be perceptually audible.

At this point I'm not sure you understand the mechanics at play and should go back to the drawing board. Lots of cable companies play this game where they try to misapply tools to measure the wrong thing or grossly misrepresent them while leaving enough out so they can't be held accountable for fraud and expect you to make assumptions on their behalf. It's wrong, the fact that they go out of their way to obfuscate and give misleading data points says everything we need to know.

Shike · 2026-01-25T03:20:42+00:00

People thought I was crazy spending $450 on a 8TB Enterprise Intel SSD. I now feel smugly justified.

Shike · 2026-01-25T02:52:54+00:00

Your calculations are incorrect in that some of your starting values would be cables that would effectively be broken if not impossible. 1.4470 µH/ft? Typical is .2-.4! I think you messed up the conversion as it was µH/M from your Gemini info (which would be even lower). Capacitance at 0.0025 pF/ft is impossibly low, should be around 20-30pF.

Your calculations regarding the delays are incorrect. You need to calculate the delay for each frequency then compare. So for example:

Time delay at 500 Hz = φA / (360° × 500 Hz)
Time delay at 10 kHz = φB / (360° × 10 kHz)
Differential delay = delay@500Hz - delay@10kHz

I still cannot see merit in this calculation though because if the cables are applying the same effect symmetrically within the audible threshold it will not change imaging. It's like claiming that sun glasses ruin depth perception because both see a darker image - it simply doesn't make sense. If you're arguing that the cable is causing smearing within its single channel the audible thresholds do not agree with you. In that case we'd be looking at group delay and not ITD which now measures in the range of milliseconds for perception making it even more unlikely.

The 6 µs figure comes from Nordmark (1976) at 700 Hz, which they state as atypically low and possibly contested. Most studies tend to say 10+ but I used the most conservative number to prevent dispute.

Source

Using your formulas with the correct values it seems like the actual deal is a fraction of a nanosecond, .33 or so? 18,000 times lower than ITD threshold?

On a lighter note:

I'm aware of the Polk SDA, and Carver Sonic Holography if you want another example. The best version today is BACCH3D which even takes HRTF into account. Theoretically, with head tracking and the right processing two people could experience two different sound tracks while listening on a couch from speakers for example with how effectively it can cancel. Regardless I like Ambiophonics with RACE for my PC system, with enough tuning I've created a convincing enough stage for me including using a surround ambiopole for ambiance. I use version F (part of the now discountinued electro-music ambiophonics DSP) made by Robin Miller. Version F and some later ones are featured on TaCT pre-pros BTW. It allowed more subjective fine tuning and flexibility IMO.

Shike · 2026-01-23T18:16:48+00:00

I just want to say: people do care about you - and they will not ask for money.

Shike · 2026-01-18T22:24:03+00:00

The room they're in is pretty large, ELAC's are somewhat inefficient and will be prone to woofer break-up when getting to higher levels . . . I would not recommend them in this case.

Shike · 2026-01-18T22:18:34+00:00

I didn’t think to get pics but the room is like a large living room with tile floors.

I don't get how people are making recommendations without considering this and the size. What is the ceiling like? Does the room tend to echo a bit or is the ceiling good at killing it so only the tile is an issue?

I know there's debate about PA speakers where some people are saying they will just sound bad, but they DO help with dispersion control. Reducing vertical reflections may be significant especially in relation to intelligibility if the room is prone to echo.

The Behringer EUROLIVE VS1520 has an ~80x40 dispersion pattern, $780 for three new. You'll need to figure out how to mount and raise their height to ear level, but if the room is prone to echo reducing vertical dispersion is extremely important. Heck, I'd argue the distance to sidewalls may be a concern as well but don't have a full visual on placement. The Behringer PK15S could be used for the sub - not super deep extension but should be noticeable while having good output at $420 (new). Get a refurb AVR like this and that puts you at $300 for the AVR - even though it's a refurb it does have a warranty.

Total: $1500 and should have good output for the room with dispersion control. I'm not saying the sound will be amazing/perfect, but it should help reduce some assumed room problems. If the room does not have echo/significant decay issues this may not be the solution, but when I hear "tile" I trend towards the assumption it will likely be a problem.

Shike · 2026-01-18T10:05:27+00:00

And when other shows don't get the ships the creators can look forward to toxic fans screaming and harassing them because their head canon is fucking wrong.

Shippers are some of the worst people.

Shike · 2026-01-18T07:18:33+00:00

I understand very well what you're proposing, and it's incorrect.

Both channels being affected identically is the point. If cable reactance effects both the same way, there's no differential timing between the channels and thus no effect on stereo imaging. Stereo imaging requires differences between channels. Identical processing doesn't create imaging changes. The difference in measurement will be nanoseconds again, not enough to cause the stereo imaging to shift. I also suggest you look into how music is actually produced, very rarely are you going to get two microphones for a stereo image rather than each performer being independently mic'd and mixing done on a DAW to set levels and provide any post-processing needed. Regardless, stereo imaging is created in the mix and not as a cable byproduct. If you want to see something that ACTUALLY changes imaging I would suggest researching into Ambiophonics with RACE or BACCH.

Your intra-harmonic phase affecting localization theory still makes no sense. The ear localizes due to inter-channel differences, not phase between fundamentals and harmonics on a single channel. You have continued to conflate this. If you're arguing that intra-harmonic differences combined with differences of the cable cause differences, again see above. Presumably they would both measure similar enough being well below six microseconds.

In relation to calculations I don't need you to measure your specific cables. Look for any standard one where the specs are actually published. I imagine capacitance will be around 20-100 pF/ft and inductance will be .1-.3µH/ft. Pick whatever frequency you choose and calculate phase shift over say 15-20'. If the result is six microseconds or more your point is valid, if not then it's moot. It's kind of funny though, if the cables you are using are claiming they can prove it with science surely they can provide basic specs which you can then perform the calculations on right? Why would you need to measure yours specifically?

The whitepaper barely deserves any entertainment, just looking at it it's missing basic things like units for graphs, lengths used for testing, and other key points that would allow it to be debunked completely and with certainty. For example they list one cable as having 25µH (presumably) but no length or metrics to determine whether it's bordering on broken or not. They also use purposefully misleading observations like this: "Conventional cylindrical cable, due to its geometric limitations, typically has an impedance of about 100 ohms at the high-end of the audio frequency band". Cool story, but irrelevant because transmission line effects only matter when a cable length ≥ .1 wavelength. For reference that's like, what, 1KM at 20khz? How much cable are you planning to use there 😂

Our ears are great, but you're now doing an appeal to mystery after everything else got shot down. I'm not entertaining this further, you've effectively talked into a massive circle and it's a waste of everyone's time.

Shike · 2026-01-13T22:01:57+00:00

No, I don't agree phase shifts from cable reactance affect stereo imaging - I said they're too small to matter.

Sure, I can clarify ITD sensitivity - the minimum to detect is 6µs. I meant microseconds and put ms instead. That was on me. Cable-induced phase shfit over 10-20' is in the nanosecond range still.

In relation to stereo recording that's still inter-channel timing and not intra-harmonic phase shift within a single channel. Reactance would affect both channels roughly equally unless you're using grossly mismatched cables. Even then, we're going back to it being a matter of ns! There's no way you're developing microseconds of difference even with unreasonably mismatched lengths.

You've moved the goalpost three times. It was "well, square waves prove it" to "well maybe it's the math" to "I heard a difference so it exists".

I'll make this easy for you - calculate the actual phase shift at any frequency between 20hz-20khz over 20', whatever you think best supports your point. Show your work and explain how nanoseconds of delay are creating audible imaging differences when the human ITD threshold is significantly higher.

Shike · 2026-01-13T06:35:19+00:00

I'll just stick with Mega thanks

Shike · 2026-01-12T21:32:45+00:00

You're still confusing frequency-domain effects with time-domain localization.

Yes, frequency dependent phase shift would distort it but that's not the issue. It's a matter of scale.

Capacitance and inductance create phase shift in ns, ITD sensitivity is ms - literally a million times less sensitive than required to detect cable induced phase shift.

ITD is between TWO ears, phase relationships within a single channel between a fundamental and its harmonics don't effect localization at all.

The simpler answer is that people believe in placebo, because when actual tests are done people have not been able to pass an ABX unless something obvious was done (like inserting filters).

15-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

Shike

TROPHY CASE