I came across a reprint of a TAS (Absolute Sound) article called
"Shootout! 13 Interconnects from $122 to $250".

http://www.audience-av.com/REVIEW_985.pdf

On page 6, near the end, here's what they say: "Not only did we find the
differences among these interconnects rather small and not always
consistent from one source to another, but rapid A/B comparisons were
just about the only way we could be hearing the differences most of the
time. Indeed I would not bet that I could tell which was playing several
hours after an A/B session".

TAS endorsing the ABX methodology? Nothing about needing long term
right/left brain paradigm shifts to detect musicality? What do our
subjectivists say about that?

Here's something else from the article: "My experience suggests that if
substituting an interconnect makes a huge difference in your system, the
likelihood is that one or the other is doing something greviously wrong
or that the frequency response of your speakers is seriously amiss".

I wonder if someone should post this on the Audio Asylum cable forum.

Too bad they did not bother to simply measure the frequency response and
S/N of each interconnect. That would put the case of the interconnect to
rest. On second thought, maybe there is severe conflict of interest if
they did that.

On page 6, near the end, here's what they say: "Not only did we find the
differences among these interconnects rather small and not always
consistent from one source to another, but rapid A/B comparisons were
just about the only way we could be hearing the differences most of the
time. Indeed I would not bet that I could tell which was playing several
hours after an A/B session".

TAS endorsing the ABX methodology? Nothing about needing long term
right/left brain paradigm shifts to detect musicality? What do our
subjectivists say about that?

Here's something else from the article: "My experience suggests that if
substituting an interconnect makes a huge difference in your system, the
likelihood is that one or the other is doing something greviously wrong
or that the frequency response of your speakers is seriously amiss".

I wonder if someone should post this on the Audio Asylum cable forum.

Too bad they did not bother to simply measure the frequency response and
S/N of each interconnect. That would put the case of the interconnect to
rest. On second thought, maybe there is severe conflict of interest if
they did that.





It has been said that for a publication like TAS to claim differences were
minimal or insignificant would conflict with their interests and yet here they
are doing it. I guess this article puts into question that very theory you are
putting forth on such conflicts of interest. Funny, no one makes that
accusation about Sound and Vision.

"chung" wrote in message
...
I came across a reprint of a TAS (Absolute Sound) article called
"Shootout! 13 Interconnects from $122 to $250".

http://www.audience-av.com/REVIEW_985.pdf

On page 6, near the end, here's what they say: "Not only did we find the
differences among these interconnects rather small and not always
consistent from one source to another, but rapid A/B comparisons were
just about the only way we could be hearing the differences most of the
time. Indeed I would not bet that I could tell which was playing several
hours after an A/B session".

TAS endorsing the ABX methodology? Nothing about needing long term
right/left brain paradigm shifts to detect musicality? What do our
subjectivists say about that?

Here's something else from the article: "My experience suggests that if
substituting an interconnect makes a huge difference in your system, the
likelihood is that one or the other is doing something greviously wrong
or that the frequency response of your speakers is seriously amiss".

I wonder if someone should post this on the Audio Asylum cable forum.

Too bad they did not bother to simply measure the frequency response and
S/N of each interconnect. That would put the case of the interconnect to
rest. On second thought, maybe there is severe conflict of interest if
they did that.

That article was written by a couple of avowed objectivists....they say
right up front that they have never heard much difference in cables. So
they don't. Whether right or wrong.

S888Wheel wrote:

On page 6, near the end, here's what they say: "Not only did we find the
differences among these interconnects rather small and not always
consistent from one source to another, but rapid A/B comparisons were
just about the only way we could be hearing the differences most of the
time. Indeed I would not bet that I could tell which was playing several
hours after an A/B session".

TAS endorsing the ABX methodology? Nothing about needing long term
right/left brain paradigm shifts to detect musicality? What do our
subjectivists say about that?

Here's something else from the article: "My experience suggests that if
substituting an interconnect makes a huge difference in your system, the
likelihood is that one or the other is doing something greviously wrong
or that the frequency response of your speakers is seriously amiss".

I wonder if someone should post this on the Audio Asylum cable forum.

Too bad they did not bother to simply measure the frequency response and
S/N of each interconnect. That would put the case of the interconnect to
rest. On second thought, maybe there is severe conflict of interest if
they did that.





It has been said that for a publication like TAS to claim differences were
minimal or insignificant would conflict with their interests and yet here they
are doing it. I guess this article puts into question that very theory you are
putting forth on such conflicts of interest. Funny, no one makes that
accusation about Sound and Vision.

I don't think anyone is saying that everything TAS writes about is bad.
Heck, a lot of us read it for the entertainment value, and could care
less about the equipment review. That TAS put forth the comment about
interconnects is laudable. I just wish that they could provide
measurements, which in my opinion, would have laid the issue of
interconnect differences to rest. But that would have been a difficult
thing for them to do, since that would be strong conflict of interest if
they show that there is no measureable difference.

Scott wrote:


On page 6, near the end, here's what they say: "Not only did we find the
differences among these interconnects rather small and not always
consistent from one source to another, but rapid A/B comparisons were
just about the only way we could be hearing the differences most of the
time. Indeed I would not bet that I could tell which was playing several
hours after an A/B session".

TAS endorsing the ABX methodology? Nothing about needing long term
right/left brain paradigm shifts to detect musicality? What do our
subjectivists say about that?

Here's something else from the article: "My experience suggests that if
substituting an interconnect makes a huge difference in your system, the
likelihood is that one or the other is doing something greviously wrong
or that the frequency response of your speakers is seriously amiss".

I wonder if someone should post this on the Audio Asylum cable forum.

Too bad they did not bother to simply measure the frequency response and
S/N of each interconnect. That would put the case of the interconnect to
rest. On second thought, maybe there is severe conflict of interest if
they did that.





It has been said that for a publication like TAS to claim differences were
minimal or insignificant would conflict with their interests and yet here
they
are doing it. I guess this article puts into question that very theory you
are
putting forth on such conflicts of interest. Funny, no one makes that
accusation about Sound and Vision.








Agreed. And since claims of "conflict of interest" concerning review magazines
generally refer to advertising revenue issues, why should this not apply also
to Sound & Vision - an advertiser supported magazine? It would seem that it is
all too easy to employ double standards when comparing review magazines that
either promote or fly in the face of one's personal biases.



Bruce J. Richman

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:2ZRub.191904$ao4.664795@attbi_s51...
"chung" wrote in message
...
I came across a reprint of a TAS (Absolute Sound) article called
"Shootout! 13 Interconnects from $122 to $250".

http://www.audience-av.com/REVIEW_985.pdf

On page 6, near the end, here's what they say: "Not only did we find the
differences among these interconnects rather small and not always
consistent from one source to another, but rapid A/B comparisons were
just about the only way we could be hearing the differences most of the
time. Indeed I would not bet that I could tell which was playing several
hours after an A/B session".

TAS endorsing the ABX methodology? Nothing about needing long term
right/left brain paradigm shifts to detect musicality? What do our
subjectivists say about that?

Here's something else from the article: "My experience suggests that if
substituting an interconnect makes a huge difference in your system, the
likelihood is that one or the other is doing something greviously wrong
or that the frequency response of your speakers is seriously amiss".

I wonder if someone should post this on the Audio Asylum cable forum.

Too bad they did not bother to simply measure the frequency response and
S/N of each interconnect. That would put the case of the interconnect to
rest. On second thought, maybe there is severe conflict of interest if
they did that.

That article was written by a couple of avowed objectivists....they say
right up front that they have never heard much difference in cables. So
they don't. Whether right or wrong.


I should have said "avowed objectivists when it comes to cables...." Sorry.

And btw, neither have I heard much difference (except for one very negative
experience and an occasional bad reaction to some silver cables I have
heard), just so you can see how false the objectivist/subjectivist dichotomy
can be.

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:2ZRub.191904$ao4.664795@attbi_s51...
"chung" wrote in message
...
I came across a reprint of a TAS (Absolute Sound) article called
"Shootout! 13 Interconnects from $122 to $250".

http://www.audience-av.com/REVIEW_985.pdf

On page 6, near the end, here's what they say: "Not only did we find the
differences among these interconnects rather small and not always
consistent from one source to another, but rapid A/B comparisons were
just about the only way we could be hearing the differences most of the
time. Indeed I would not bet that I could tell which was playing several
hours after an A/B session".

TAS endorsing the ABX methodology? Nothing about needing long term
right/left brain paradigm shifts to detect musicality? What do our
subjectivists say about that?

Here's something else from the article: "My experience suggests that if
substituting an interconnect makes a huge difference in your system, the
likelihood is that one or the other is doing something greviously wrong
or that the frequency response of your speakers is seriously amiss".

I wonder if someone should post this on the Audio Asylum cable forum.

Too bad they did not bother to simply measure the frequency response and
S/N of each interconnect. That would put the case of the interconnect to
rest. On second thought, maybe there is severe conflict of interest if
they did that.

That article was written by a couple of avowed objectivists....they say
right up front that they have never heard much difference in cables. So
they don't. Whether right or wrong.


I should have said "avowed objectivists when it comes to cables...." Sorry.

I don't think they would call themselves "avowed" obejctivists. They did
not use blind testing, and they did not include Radio Shack
interconnects in the batch. Moreover, they even described the
differences between the cables (even though they said those are subtle)
and picked one as a best-buy!


And btw, neither have I heard much difference (except for one very negative
experience and an occasional bad reaction to some silver cables I have
heard), just so you can see how false the objectivist/subjectivist dichotomy
can be.

Sure there are different levels of subjectivity. I even know some
subjectivists who swear by magic discs but prefer CD's.

"chung" wrote in message
...
I came across a reprint of a TAS (Absolute Sound) article called
"Shootout! 13 Interconnects from $122 to $250".

http://www.audience-av.com/REVIEW_985.pdf

Why do you suppose they limit the price range on the bottom end? I
read another such article in Home Theater some years ago. Their price
range was $25 to $50. Interestingly, the lowest priced interconnect
got a better score than the highest priced. Makes you wonder if
perhaps a $5 interconnect wouldn't be even better.

I have to guess that TAS assumed at the outset that there would be a
difference in quality related to price. That's no way to run a test.

Norm Strong

"chung" wrote in message
news:R1Tub.248194$HS4.2191087@attbi_s01...

It has been said that for a publication like TAS to claim
differences were
minimal or insignificant would conflict with their interests and
yet here they
are doing it. I guess this article puts into question that very
theory you are
putting forth on such conflicts of interest. Funny, no one makes
that
accusation about Sound and Vision.

I don't think anyone is saying that everything TAS writes about is
bad.
Heck, a lot of us read it for the entertainment value, and could
care
less about the equipment review. That TAS put forth the comment
about
interconnects is laudable. I just wish that they could provide
measurements, which in my opinion, would have laid the issue of
interconnect differences to rest. But that would have been a
difficult
thing for them to do, since that would be strong conflict of
interest if
they show that there is no measureable difference.

In Stereophile, John Atkinson runs lab tests of all the equipment they
review--except cables. What would they measure on a cable? No one
has any reason to expect anything measurable to affect the sound!

Norm Strong

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

Agreed. And since claims of "conflict of interest" concerning review magazines
generally refer to advertising revenue issues, why should this not apply also
to Sound & Vision - an advertiser supported magazine? It would seem that it is
all too easy to employ double standards when comparing review magazines that
either promote or fly in the face of one's personal biases.

Of course it applies. And S&V's reviews are as useful/useless as any others,
when they fail to properly support a claim of difference for some kinds of
components. However, they *do* report bench tests in most
reviews, which *is* useful, and they *do* employ bias
controls for some articles, and use appropriate caveats in some others when
such controls have not been employed (Dave Ranada is better about this
than some of his writers). They don't buy in to most of the audiophile
folklore either.

Also, they almsot always summarize the pros *and* cons for individually reviewed
items, in a nice little eye-catching blue graphic.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

chung wrote:
I came across a reprint of a TAS (Absolute Sound) article called
"Shootout! 13 Interconnects from $122 to $250".

http://www.audience-av.com/REVIEW_985.pdf

On page 6, near the end, here's what they say: "Not only did we find the
differences among these interconnects rather small and not always
consistent from one source to another, but rapid A/B comparisons were
just about the only way we could be hearing the differences most of the
time. Indeed I would not bet that I could tell which was playing several
hours after an A/B session".


This should not be surprising. $112 to $250 is at the very low end of the High
End interconnect cable market. Had they found similar results comparing these
to multi-thousand dollar cables, that would have been much more surprising.

TAS endorsing the ABX methodology? Nothing about needing long term
right/left brain paradigm shifts to detect musicality? What do our
subjectivists say about that?


Funny how your belief system shades your interpretation. They said nothing
about ABX, only quick A/B trials. No X involved.

Here's something else from the article: "My experience suggests that if
substituting an interconnect makes a huge difference in your system, the
likelihood is that one or the other is doing something greviously wrong
or that the frequency response of your speakers is seriously amiss".


I wouldn't disagree with their conclusions in the price range they surveyed,
but that doesn't discount the concept of "cable sound". A few years ago, one
of the reviewers in this article, Neil Gader, and I both listened to 3 complete
sets of Cardas cables (interconnects and speaker) independently. I believe
they were Golden Section, Golden Reference, and a much less expensive Neutral
Reference. The Neutral Reference was the one we each liked best. Coincidence?

Too bad they did not bother to simply measure the frequency response and
S/N of each interconnect. That would put the case of the interconnect to
rest. On second thought, maybe there is severe conflict of interest if
they did that.


You mean, too bad reviewers aren't engineers? The reviewers job is to listen
to/observe them carefully/thoroughly, identify their sonic signatures and
describe them in a way readers would be able to understand. The engineer's job
is to measure them and try to correlate that with how their sound is described.

Regards,
Mike

normanstrong wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
...
I came across a reprint of a TAS (Absolute Sound) article called
"Shootout! 13 Interconnects from $122 to $250".

http://www.audience-av.com/REVIEW_985.pdf

Why do you suppose they limit the price range on the bottom end? I
read another such article in Home Theater some years ago. Their price
range was $25 to $50. Interestingly, the lowest priced interconnect
got a better score than the highest priced. Makes you wonder if
perhaps a $5 interconnect wouldn't be even better.

I have to guess that TAS assumed at the outset that there would be a
difference in quality related to price. That's no way to run a test.

Norm Strong


Maybe they limited the bottom end to $122 because they would not be
caught dead with a Radio Shack $10 interconnect?

Yes, even though they said that the differences are subtle, they still
said that there are differences, and were open at least to the idea that
more expensive ones may sound even better, whatever better means.

I also noticed that they "broke-in" the cables for 200 hours. That, and
the kind of words (marvelous bloom and presence, etc.) they used to
describe the sound, make me think that these guys were not "avowed
objectivists" as Harry Lavo put it.

I do give one of the reviewers a lot of credit when he said "It is
difficult to think of an activity more meaningless than subjectively
comparing and evaluating any sort of wire". I think someone should post
that in the Audio Asylum cable forum.

One of the reviewers also said that one of the finest systems he has
ever heard uses outdoor extension cord as speaker cables. The orange
kind. That sounds like the wires used in that hi-fi show that Steven
Sullivan alluded to. The one where Tom Faulkner showed the Quad speakers.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:16:43 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:

chung wrote:
I came across a reprint of a TAS (Absolute Sound) article called
"Shootout! 13 Interconnects from $122 to $250".

http://www.audience-av.com/REVIEW_985.pdf

On page 6, near the end, here's what they say: "Not only did we find the
differences among these interconnects rather small and not always
consistent from one source to another, but rapid A/B comparisons were
just about the only way we could be hearing the differences most of the
time. Indeed I would not bet that I could tell which was playing several
hours after an A/B session".

This should not be surprising. $112 to $250 is at the very low end of the High
End interconnect cable market. Had they found similar results comparing these
to multi-thousand dollar cables, that would have been much more surprising.

No, it would in fact have been *exactly* what one would expect. There
is *no* sonic difference between 12AWG zipcord and Kimber Black Pearl,
and there's even less reason to predict any sonic differences among
interconnects. Once you get past balanced/unbalanced and shielding,
there *cannot* be any differences which can justify more than about
$30 for a 1 metre pair - and that's using theoretically ideal tight
twisted pair balanced construction, 95% double-braid shielding, and
foamed Teflon insulation. Silver conductors are of course just silly.

I wouldn't disagree with their conclusions in the price range they surveyed,
but that doesn't discount the concept of "cable sound".

Why not?

You mean, too bad reviewers aren't engineers? The reviewers job is to listen
to/observe them carefully/thoroughly,

Shame then that they do *not* listen *thoroughly*.......

identify their sonic signatures and
describe them in a way readers would be able to understand. The engineer's job
is to measure them and try to correlate that with how their sound is described.

Actually, the engineers job is to point out that sighted listening is
useless for distinguishing subtle sonic differences. Of course, the
problem with cables is that there's *no* test which will reveal
non-existent differences.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Mkuller wrote:

chung wrote:
I came across a reprint of a TAS (Absolute Sound) article called
"Shootout! 13 Interconnects from $122 to $250".

http://www.audience-av.com/REVIEW_985.pdf

On page 6, near the end, here's what they say: "Not only did we find the
differences among these interconnects rather small and not always
consistent from one source to another, but rapid A/B comparisons were
just about the only way we could be hearing the differences most of the
time. Indeed I would not bet that I could tell which was playing several
hours after an A/B session".


This should not be surprising. $112 to $250 is at the very low end of the High
End interconnect cable market.

Yes, at the low end of the price scale of so-called high-end
interconnects. As far as performance is concerned, these cables are as
good it gets.

Had they found similar results comparing these
to multi-thousand dollar cables, that would have been much more surprising.

To you perhaps, but to me, no, that's not surprising at all.

TAS endorsing the ABX methodology? Nothing about needing long term
right/left brain paradigm shifts to detect musicality? What do our
subjectivists say about that?


Funny how your belief system shades your interpretation. They said nothing
about ABX, only quick A/B trials. No X involved.

Aren't you the one who said that you need long evaluation with music to
tell things apart, and that the quick A/B comparison used in ABX is your
main complaint?

Or are you now saying that A/B short snips is OK, but having X totally
confuses everything?


Here's something else from the article: "My experience suggests that if
substituting an interconnect makes a huge difference in your system, the
likelihood is that one or the other is doing something greviously wrong
or that the frequency response of your speakers is seriously amiss".


I wouldn't disagree with their conclusions in the price range they surveyed,
but that doesn't discount the concept of "cable sound".

I don't think there is anything anyone can do to discount your concept
of cable sound. You will find objections to every possible test or
measurement. As long as you can tell which cable is used, you will tell
them apart, I am sure.

A few years ago, one
of the reviewers in this article, Neil Gader, and I both listened to 3 complete
sets of Cardas cables (interconnects and speaker) independently. I believe
they were Golden Section, Golden Reference, and a much less expensive Neutral
Reference. The Neutral Reference was the one we each liked best. Coincidence?


Hmmm, sounds like Mr Lavo's characterization of these guys as "avowed
objectivists" is pretty shaky.


Too bad they did not bother to simply measure the frequency response and
S/N of each interconnect. That would put the case of the interconnect to
rest. On second thought, maybe there is severe conflict of interest if
they did that.


You mean, too bad reviewers aren't engineers?

No, too bad that they don't have objective measurements to support their
conclusions.

The reviewers job is to listen
to/observe them carefully/thoroughly, identify their sonic signatures and
describe them in a way readers would be able to understand. The engineer's job
is to measure them and try to correlate that with how their sound is described.

Actually, the engineer's job is to tell you that there cannot be cable
sound in any cable not designed as tone controls. And he can best
convince you by providing you with the measurements that show that the
cables behave the same.


Regards,
Mike

"chung" wrote in message
...
normanstrong wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
...
I came across a reprint of a TAS (Absolute Sound) article called
"Shootout! 13 Interconnects from $122 to $250".

http://www.audience-av.com/REVIEW_985.pdf

Why do you suppose they limit the price range on the bottom end? I
read another such article in Home Theater some years ago. Their price
range was $25 to $50. Interestingly, the lowest priced interconnect
got a better score than the highest priced. Makes you wonder if
perhaps a $5 interconnect wouldn't be even better.

I have to guess that TAS assumed at the outset that there would be a
difference in quality related to price. That's no way to run a test.

Norm Strong


Maybe they limited the bottom end to $122 because they would not be
caught dead with a Radio Shack $10 interconnect?

Yes, even though they said that the differences are subtle, they still
said that there are differences, and were open at least to the idea that
more expensive ones may sound even better, whatever better means.

I also noticed that they "broke-in" the cables for 200 hours. That, and
the kind of words (marvelous bloom and presence, etc.) they used to
describe the sound, make me think that these guys were not "avowed
objectivists" as Harry Lavo put it.

Wouldn't it have been nice if you attributed my published, modified quote
instead:.... "avowed objectivists when it comes to speaker cables"? Since
the rest of your comments here support exactly what I said. Thanks for your
courtesy.


I do give one of the reviewers a lot of credit when he said "It is
difficult to think of an activity more meaningless than subjectively
comparing and evaluating any sort of wire". I think someone should post
that in the Audio Asylum cable forum.

One of the reviewers also said that one of the finest systems he has
ever heard uses outdoor extension cord as speaker cables. The orange
kind. That sounds like the wires used in that hi-fi show that Steven
Sullivan alluded to. The one where Tom Faulkner showed the Quad speakers.

Harry Lavo wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
...
normanstrong wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
...
I came across a reprint of a TAS (Absolute Sound) article called
"Shootout! 13 Interconnects from $122 to $250".

http://www.audience-av.com/REVIEW_985.pdf

Why do you suppose they limit the price range on the bottom end? I
read another such article in Home Theater some years ago. Their price
range was $25 to $50. Interestingly, the lowest priced interconnect
got a better score than the highest priced. Makes you wonder if
perhaps a $5 interconnect wouldn't be even better.

I have to guess that TAS assumed at the outset that there would be a
difference in quality related to price. That's no way to run a test.

Norm Strong


Maybe they limited the bottom end to $122 because they would not be
caught dead with a Radio Shack $10 interconnect?

Yes, even though they said that the differences are subtle, they still
said that there are differences, and were open at least to the idea that
more expensive ones may sound even better, whatever better means.

I also noticed that they "broke-in" the cables for 200 hours. That, and
the kind of words (marvelous bloom and presence, etc.) they used to
describe the sound, make me think that these guys were not "avowed
objectivists" as Harry Lavo put it.

Wouldn't it have been nice if you attributed my published, modified quote
instead:.... "avowed objectivists when it comes to speaker cables"? Since
the rest of your comments here support exactly what I said. Thanks for your
courtesy.


OK, so here it is again.

I also noticed that they "broke-in" the cables for 200 hours. That, and
the kind of words (marvelous bloom and presence, etc.) they used to
describe the sound, make me think that these guys were not "avowed
objectivists when it comes to speaker cables" as Harry Lavo put it.

Not to mention that they never even mention the cheap RS cables! OR
bring in DBT!


I do give one of the reviewers a lot of credit when he said "It is
difficult to think of an activity more meaningless than subjectively
comparing and evaluating any sort of wire". I think someone should post
that in the Audio Asylum cable forum.

One of the reviewers also said that one of the finest systems he has
ever heard uses outdoor extension cord as speaker cables. The orange
kind. That sounds like the wires used in that hi-fi show that Steven
Sullivan alluded to. The one where Tom Faulkner showed the Quad speakers.

This TAS article is almost completely worthless and devoid of any useful
content. There is absolutly no reference by which to understand the
adjectives they employ, either the level or nature of same. We have no
reason or way to know that their hearing experience, giving momemtary
benefit of the doubt, has anything to do with our's; even to not knowing
if their's might be flawed and below normal in acutiety. We can't know,
retracting the benefit of the doubt, any apart from the real very
probability that the experience reported exists only in their individual
psychological perception; no effort at all was given to controling a vast
range of variables which could cloud their experiences which have nothing
to do with the physical properties of the wire. This is hifi reporting at
it's worst, flourish fluff flim flam and vast amounts of "you believe me
don't you?" that fills pages to seperate the adverts but does nothing to
advance the art and science of audio reproduction.

wrote:
This TAS article is almost completely worthless and devoid of any useful
content. There is absolutly no reference by which to understand the
adjectives they employ, either the level or nature of same. We have no
reason or way to know that their hearing experience, giving momemtary
benefit of the doubt, has anything to do with our's; even to not knowing
if their's might be flawed and below normal in acutiety. We can't know,
retracting the benefit of the doubt, any apart from the real very
probability that the experience reported exists only in their individual
psychological perception; no effort at all was given to controling a vast
range of variables which could cloud their experiences which have nothing
to do with the physical properties of the wire. This is hifi reporting at
it's worst, flourish fluff flim flam and vast amounts of "you believe me
don't you?" that fills pages to seperate the adverts but does nothing to
advance the art and science of audio reproduction.


Certainly, you are entitled to have strong opinion you expressed here. No
doubt there are many others who think as you do. It is not likely you are a
regular reader of these publications nor are they written for the benefit of
people with your perspective.

But that does not negate the usefullness of comparativeaudio equipment reviews
like the one you refer to. Many audiophiles find them very useful in advancing
their understanding of audio and in helping them to narrow down products to
audition for purchase.

Regular readers of these publications learn to understand the vocabulary used.
They also come to know the individual reviewers' biases and preferences and
which ones match their own personal ones most closely. The reviewers'
associated equipment is regularly listed and their rooms and preferences are
highlighted periodically. That is their "frame of reference". It is inferred
that another audiophile listening to the same equipment in the same environment
would hear similar things and come to the similar conclusions (if their
"listening preferences" are similar). All of the information you need to
recreate the "experimental conditions" is there if you care to replicate it -
and compare your findings with theirs.

While the information contained in these observational equipment reviews may
not directly advance the "art and science of audio reproduction", that is not
their intent. They are provided for the entertainment and enjoyment of
audiophiles pursuing their hobby of attaining greater realism in their home
music reproduction.
Regards,
Mike