Steven Sullivan wrote:


The reality of the situation is that consistency is almost inevitable
in this case. See 'reinforcement' in any psy textbook. It's also the
case that real audible differences among cables is an extremely remote
possibility.

There has to be something to reinforce, no?

Yes, but the 'something' can easily be an erroneous first impression. How do you
demonstrate that it wasn't?

Why do I have to demonstrate it to anybody? Are you the audio purchase
police?

You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.

Here we go again. It is NOT an 'extraordinary claim'.

It is contrary to everything we know about cables and about human
hearing.

"We"? What do you mean, "we"?

Oh, engineers, physicists, psychologists, those sorts of people.

Oh, really? Were they sitting next to me? I don't think so!


*Of course* it's an extraordinary claim. Your continued
denial will not alter this most obvious fact.

What an extraordinary claim is is, fortunately, not defined by Stewart
Pinkerton. We have many good philosophers and scientists who have
discussed such issues, and I can say with confidence that claiming to
hear differences among amps, CD players, and cables, is not an
'extraordinary claim'.

Are these particular philosophers and scientists knowledgeable about
what the engineers, physicists, and psychologists have learned?

What have tey learned about what I can hear in my room?

Read it again. I did not say that others do not make *claims*.
Interesting however that not one of these vocal few has actually
stepped up to the plate.

You're beginning to bore me.

Might we then anticipate your retirement from your misguided and
often flat-out erroneous (e.g. resolution) attempts at argument, soon?

This group is specifically set up to discuss high-end audio. You're not
doing that. You're trying to say there is no such thing as high-end
audio.

I did. I could not help but 'know' which ones were in the system,
because I had to unplug them and replace them. I did not 'avoid' any
blindeness, but I had no reason to pursue such a methodology. I was
convinced by the results of the comparison, which was carefully
conducted.

Clearly, it was *far* from carefully conducted, a priori.

I don't remember you...sitting next to me.

Alas, your own description reveals its inherent flaws.

You cannot 'argue' facts out of existence. I'll trust my senses before
I'll trust someone in a discussion group.

You can, of course, continue to claim
that resolution means frequency extension, that what you hear
must be real because you really believe it is, or other
such black-is-white assertions from what seems to be a profound
urge to wish-fulfillment rather than reason,
but from here on I intend to do no more than
just continue to watch Mssrs. Pinkerton,
Pierce, et al. eviscerate your arguments.
Your posts will be filed accordingly.



--

-S