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

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...

Quoting Mr. Wheel:
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.

Mr. Pinkerton:
Actually, real scientists also investigated the existence of 'cable
sound' and came up empty

A reference to the LISTENING cable comparison test by "real
scientists"
please. Mag, author, volume, page.
Aren't you tired yet of quoting the anonymous "real
scientists" that license all and sundry to speak for them? Everybody
else is. It is wearing thin , you know

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.

I suppose that was what you used in your amp comparisons. And I
thought you bothered with DBT. Are the systems "we have" recommended
for use only by whomever Mr. Pinkerton happens to disagree with?
You impose match-levelling to 0.1 db. on the contestants in
your famous ABX prize for telling difference between a cable and a
cable. But you tell me that 6db signal to noise ratio is not enough
when it comes to my way of comparing components. If I do I won't
discover "subtle" differences. Define "subtle". Is subtle whatever
Mr. Pinkerton can't hear?

Talk about "real scientists".
Ludovic Mirabel