AudioBanter.com - View Single Post - science vs. pseudo-science

On 9 Sep 2003 15:47:07 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

Tom said

But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX
or
otherwise?

I said

They are right next to the peer-reviewed experiments that deny amp/wire sound
ABX or otherwise.

Tom said

OK then you are suggesting that reports of BigFoot sightings are just as
relevant as the lack of verification of same.

No I am not suggesting that. I thought this kind of stuff wasn't going to pass
on RAHE any more. Too bad that you would attack me with this kind of a post. I
was simply pointing out that there is no peer reviewed experiments on the
subject that was being discussed. you pointed to half of that fact. I have
never argued that bigfoot exists. The analogy is bogus given the fact that real
scientists have investigated the existance of bigfoot and came up empty.

Actually, real scientists also investigated the existence of 'cable
sound' and came up empty. There are many applications which are *much*
more sensitive to cable problems than domestic audio. Even in 'audio',
we have systems which can hear a submarine at 2,000 *miles* range, and
identify its sound signature. You think that any of the r.a.h-e
'golden ears' can do that? And it's all done with ordinary copper
wire. As of course is the vast majority of 24/192 recording.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering