John Atkinson wrote:
ScottW wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...
at the time Dan Dugan of the AES was doing cable tests
at the 1991 AES Convention, he subjected John Hunter of Sumiko
to a series of bias-controlled tests comparing the cables
distributed by Sumiko to others. John identified the cables to
a statistically significant degree. When Dan wrote up his 1991
cable tests for the JAES, he omitted Hunter's results.

What kind of cables? Interconnects or speaker?
What were the sources and loads?
Any MIT like networks in the cables?

This was 15 years ago, ScottW. I am afraid I can't recall the details,
but I did discuss these tests with both Hunter and Dugan at the time.
But as Sumiko doesn't and didn't distribute cables with "MIT-like
networks" it is unlikely that the tests I mentioned used those.
It is probable that the tests involved Sumiko's OCOS cables, but
I cannot swear to that.

If you are sincerely interested, I can put you in touch with
the parties involved.

No, thanks. If someone had documented a positive test I would only be
mildly interested in the system tbat allowed such an outcome.

All I was doing was pointing out to
Mike McKelvy that once again he made a sweeping, unqualified
statement that was based more on faith and his lack of knowledge
than on facts.

There are always exceptions. One should never consider a cable
outside of its application in a system.
The question really comes down to these choices.

Is the system so "good" that one can hear cable differences?
or
Is the system so "flawed" than one can hear cable differences?

ScottW