[bob]

On Dec 4, 6:59 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"bob" wrote in message

In the past, he's pooh-poohed ABX tests, and last I read
he was hardly a skeptic on the question of cable sound.

His signals on ABX tests were a bit mixed, but his initial reaction to an
ABX Comparator prototype was very favorable.

True, so why didn't he start using it, or insisting that his magazine
start using it?

Some cables are screwed up enough to sound different.

True, but not what I meant by cable sound. Here's Holt ten years ago
on cables:

"Well, cables do have physical properties, most of which are
measurable. Except for such things as trying to line up the electrons
and that kind of thing, you can pretty much measure what cables are
doing. That doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be able to
look at the measurements and know what the cable's going to sound
like. Because we still don't really know what some of those
measurements mean. If anyone is doing basic research into that, I
haven't heard about it."

This sounds a bit like a guy who wants to have his cake and eat it,
too. But it doesn't sound like a guy who would agree with your (or my)
view of cables.

My interpretation of his remarks is consistent with his
past statements. Maybe he's undergone a conversion
recently, but I'll believe it when I see it.

If you say so. ;-)

As long as the industry continues to reject basic
scientific methods of validation, it will (and should)
be held up for ridicule.
And as much as Holt grouches now, he is as responsible as
anyone for the state of the field today.

Responsibility requires the ability to act somewhat freely. In a sense
nobody in the high end press has it because they are prisoners of what
they've already said.

No one with any integrity is a prisoner of what they've already said.
Holt was, instead, a prisoner of his magazine's business model, which
depended and still depends fundamentally on the assumption that what
the ABX Comparator tells us is wrong.

bob