Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


Stereophile is about buying cables, not cables.



Were you struck by lightning, Sack'O'****?


This seems to be a problem for you.


Only in that I wish the lightning bolt had more "juice".


Too bad.


Agreed.

  #42   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is
posted today at
www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable.
Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow
for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies
might be surprised to learn that the laws of physics predict
the opposite.

But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison
of cables where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal
cables. In short wire is wire.


Actually, 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?

There are lots of ways to make cables sound different.
Do any of them represent good audio engineering?

ScottW


  #43   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:38:44 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:

Don Pearce said:

No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in spending $400 or more
on a comparator and investing hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying
$20 cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course.


Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying cables.


Oh, you wanna be a audio enjuhnear? Why dint ya say so. Want some help
applying for a job? I know several headhunters. Only thing is, junior
cable wonk jobs don't pay much. Just so you know what you're getting into.


Never mind, George.


So you don't care about buying cables, and you don't care about designing
cables. I guess that leaves mental masturbation.


Well, please enjoy that George. I don't buy cables - I have (like I'm
pretty sure everybody else here has) a box of cables collected over the
years that have accompanied various equipment purchasesas freebies. I use
them because I know they are perfect for my needs. I know that no other
cables at any price can sound any better.

I will leave the mental masturbation to you and anybody else who believes
otherwise.

Better luck next time, huh?


Please spare us the details.


Glad to.

d
  #44   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Don Pearce said:

So you don't care about buying cables, and you don't care about designing
cables. I guess that leaves mental masturbation.


Well, please enjoy that George.


An IKYABWAI from you, Don? I'm disappointed.

I know that no other cables at any price can sound any better.


So you're not shopping for cables, you're not interesting in designing and
selling cables, and you know everything there is to know about cables.

What is there to "discuss" then?

I will leave the mental masturbation to you and anybody else who believes
otherwise.


Oh, of course.




  #45   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 04:50:01 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:

Don Pearce said:

So you don't care about buying cables, and you don't care about designing
cables. I guess that leaves mental masturbation.


Well, please enjoy that George.


An IKYABWAI from you, Don? I'm disappointed.


You set 'em up - I'll knock 'em down.

I know that no other cables at any price can sound any better.


So you're not shopping for cables, you're not interesting in designing and
selling cables, and you know everything there is to know about cables.


Shame on you George, for taking my limited proposition and attempting to
refute it by claiming I have made a general proposition. I may be stupid -
but you aren't catching me with that old chestnut of a debating trick.

What is there to "discuss" then?

Certainly not my cable purchasing habits - but maybe a little helpful
education can guide others along a more sensible path than throwing their
money at fraudsters. I guess I'm just nice that way.

I will leave the mental masturbation to you and anybody else who believes
otherwise.


Oh, of course.


d


  #46   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying
cables.


Stereophile is about buying cables, not cables.


It's the thousand monkey effect - after zillions of lying,
mindless posts, Art stumbles into cogency.


  #47   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable
theory is posted today at
www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable. Those who
state that the "laws of physics" don't allow
for differences in cable performance at audio
frequencies might be surprised to learn that the laws
of physics predict the opposite.

But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled
comparison of cables where anyone, ever, heard a
difference between normal cables. In short wire is wire.


Actually, 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.


.....leaving the above anecdote unconfirmable.


  #48   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Don Pearce said:

but maybe a little helpful
education can guide others along a more sensible path than throwing their
money at fraudsters. I guess I'm just nice that way.


So this is your prime directive? And you implement it by prattling on
about "tests"?

I'm reluctant to resort to a cliche, but you have too much time on your
hands.





  #49   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:59:45 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:

Don Pearce said:

but maybe a little helpful
education can guide others along a more sensible path than throwing their
money at fraudsters. I guess I'm just nice that way.


So this is your prime directive? And you implement it by prattling on
about "tests"?

I'm reluctant to resort to a cliche, but you have too much time on your
hands.


So very true - here I am even discussing this with you.

Busy, George?

d
  #50   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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. 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.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile



  #51   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying
cables.


Stereophile is about buying cables, not cables.


It's the thousand monkey effect - after zillions of lying, mindless posts,
Art stumbles into cogency.


Duh, what else is is a consumer magazine for and about,
buying things related to the hobby. You seem to have
a problem with that.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #52   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying
cables.

Stereophile is about buying cables, not cables.


It's the thousand monkey effect - after zillions of
lying, mindless posts, Art stumbles into cogency.


Duh, what else is is a consumer magazine for and about,
buying things related to the hobby.


How about a magazine that will help you get more enjoyment
out of what you bought, not less?

u seem to have a problem with that.


I have no problem with consumer magazines promoting
commerce as long as it is done in an ethical manner.


  #53   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Don Pearce said:

So this is your prime directive? And you implement it by prattling on
about "tests"?


I'm reluctant to resort to a cliche, but you have too much time on your
hands.


So very true - here I am even discussing this with you.


Well, we've cleared that up. You have this desire to brainwash people into
buying the cheapest stuff that will get the job done, and you act out on Usenet.

Audio 'borgism can creep up on you.

  #54   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Another Kroonundrum looms. Will this one be more or less horrific than the
earlier ones about "lying" and "hypocrisy"? (That's "hypocracy" in Krooglish,
Arnii.)

I have no problem with consumer magazines promoting
commerce as long as it is done in an ethical manner.


Arnii, are you presenting yourself as an arbiter of ethics? That's laughable. In
case you've forgotten, you're nuts. As in whacko, bananas, not all there.

But do expound on the Krooger version of "ethical" publishing. Will it be
farther from reality than Don's is? We're waiting eagerly for the rules of
Kroo-ethics.

  #55   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 30 Aug 2005 07:45:17 -0700, George Middius wrote:

Don Pearce said:

So this is your prime directive? And you implement it by prattling on
about "tests"?


I'm reluctant to resort to a cliche, but you have too much time on your
hands.


So very true - here I am even discussing this with you.


Well, we've cleared that up. You have this desire to brainwash people into
buying the cheapest stuff that will get the job done, and you act out on Usenet.

Audio 'borgism can creep up on you.


I think presenting the option is hardly brainwashing - which I think we can
happily direct to the other side of the argument.

d


  #56   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Don Pearce said:

Well, we've cleared that up. You have this desire to brainwash
people into buying the cheapest stuff that will get the job done,
and you act out on Usenet.


Audio 'borgism can creep up on you.


I think presenting the option is hardly brainwashing -


How, exactly, do you "present the option"? If "the option" is engaging in
"tests", it seems quite impractical to me. Krazy Krooger just fatuously
Kroo-klaimed that one can do meaningful DBTs without a comparator and without
spending a great deal of time. Those are patently false assertions. Perhaps you
can shed some light on this subject.

which I think we can happily direct to the other side of the argument.


You mean my "argument", i.e. that spending many hours and many dollars to decide
which cables to buy is foolish? If anybody doesn't view the issue that way, it's
a good bet they have issues about audio equipment.

  #57   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 30 Aug 2005 08:24:31 -0700, George Middius wrote:

Don Pearce said:

Well, we've cleared that up. You have this desire to brainwash
people into buying the cheapest stuff that will get the job done,
and you act out on Usenet.


Audio 'borgism can creep up on you.


I think presenting the option is hardly brainwashing -


How, exactly, do you "present the option"? If "the option" is engaging in
"tests", it seems quite impractical to me. Krazy Krooger just fatuously
Kroo-klaimed that one can do meaningful DBTs without a comparator and without
spending a great deal of time. Those are patently false assertions. Perhaps you
can shed some light on this subject.


You just get somebody to plug cables in. You listen. You say "that one has
warmth and speed that the last one didn't have". Or you say, "this one
sounds grainy, so it clearly isn't made with oxygen-free copper".

You do that a couple of dozen times, then you compare your list with the
list the guy plugging in the cables has.

You then publish the results in Stereophile (because that is the august
journal you work for), and apologise for all the bull**** you printed in
the past.

Then you go out for beers and a laugh.

which I think we can happily direct to the other side of the argument.


You mean my "argument", i.e. that spending many hours and many dollars to decide
which cables to buy is foolish? If anybody doesn't view the issue that way, it's
a good bet they have issues about audio equipment.



No I mean the argument that says you can get better sound by spending a
thousand bucks a foot on boutique cables.

d
  #58   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

George Middius a écrit :

Lionella is beside herself.


In fact George knows only dickhunters so if you are looking
for blowjobs... ;-)



It's true that in my culture, we don't have to pay one another for sex. What is
it you are hiding, Slut?


Which culture George ? You don't exist out of Usenet. ;-)
  #59   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com
Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory
is posted today at A

HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable"www.stereophile.com/re
ference/1095cable/A.

That's just raw HTML from a web page. The correct URL is:

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable/

Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow
for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies
might be surprised to learn that the laws of physics
predict the opposite.



Publishing such an unecessarily math-intensive article in a
consumer publication has an obvious subtext - "It's all so
complex that you can't possibly understand it, so believe
whatever we say".

If you want to read a series of articles that is compentetly
written


No, I don't know what the hell "compentely" is,
and I don't want to find
out. Competent is good enough for me.

When can we expect to see evidence of this competence?


  #60   Report Post  
Sander deWaal
 
Posts: n/a
Default

François Yves Le Gal said:

But as Sumiko doesn't and didn't distribute cables with "MIT-like
networks" it is unlikely that the tests I mentioned used those.


If I remember correctly, the original Dynaudio Ocos were fitted with
termination networks.



In the speaker, not in the cable.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005


  #61   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Oh dear. The Krooborg is rampaging and my raincoat is at the cleaner.

Probably needed to get the stains out after your trip to the elementary
school, or was it the NAMBLA meeting?


Arnii, are you attempting to argue audio with me? The
last time you tried this, they had to cart you off to a
rest home for a few weeks.


Externalizing again, Middius?


I notice you're still ducking the questionnaire about your public
declarations
of dissolution. When they come for you, you can't say I didn't warn you.

There is no "you."

You might do better with your
mental problems if you didn't let your buttons get pushed
so easily.


Middus, what about all the buttons of yours that got pushed,
causing you to rise out of bed and make that
self-destructive OP?


Hey, you scored another Kroopologist today. He actually parroted that
"facts"
nonsense you spout all the time.


Like people repeating 2+2=4. Facts are facts and you don't seem to have
grasped that.

Let's try out some actual facts. It's a fact
that you, Arnii Krooborg, are frequently compared to turds and overflowing
toilets.


Why do substitute a made up name for your own? Oh that's right, your name
is made up as well.


  #62   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

George has a grip, its just not on anything that is discussed in polite
company.


How nice of you to attend our little tea party.


EEeeeewwww.


  #63   Report Post  
Sander deWaal
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Arny Krueger" said:

Duh, what else is is a consumer magazine for and about,
buying things related to the hobby.


How about a magazine that will help you get more enjoyment
out of what you bought, not less?



If you're looking for enjoyment out of a hobby, try a DIY magazine.

Building stuff yourself is so rewarding (but not financially).

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005
  #64   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying
cables.

Stereophile is about buying cables, not cables.


It's the thousand monkey effect - after zillions of lying, mindless
posts, Art stumbles into cogency.


Duh, what else is is a consumer magazine for and about,
buying things related to the hobby. You seem to have
a problem with that.


No problem with discussing things related to the hobby, it's the outright
fraud that they promote, that's the problem.


  #65   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...


But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of
cables where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In
short wire is wire.


You hit the nail on the head!!!!
DBT is a 'single bias' controlled comparison.
That's what's wrong with it, it only controls one side of the biases.


The only thing wrong with it is that it doesn't help sales of high end snake
oil.
It is the standard for everyone doing research into subtle audible
difference.
The only people that have a problem with it are those that want things to be
other than real.




  #66   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is
posted today at
www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable.
Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow
for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies
might be surprised to learn that the laws of physics predict
the opposite.

But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison
of cables where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal
cables. In short wire is wire.


Actually, 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.

Thank you for yet another meaningless anecdote, as ever you offer no real
proof.

The fact that you continue to offer up such crap, is the reason so many
people either despise you for the huckster you are, or laugh at you because
it might actually be possible that you believe your propaganda.

There's still $5000.00 at least waiting for anybody who can prove they can
hear differences between normally designed cables. Naturally it will be
safe forever.


  #67   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
ups.com...

ScottW wrote:
I'm still trying to get past the claim that the speed of light is 100
times greater than typically stated. Where's an editor when you need one
.


If that's true, I'll correct it. Errors can creep in when you are
transcoding from an ASCII text file to HMTL.

Or when you can't keep the lies straight.

Thanks for the catch, ScottW. And thanks to everyone for increasing
our website traffic statistics. :-)

Still no possibility of an intefrity boost, though.


  #68   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
ups.com...
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. 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.

No, what you were doing was trying to cast doubt on a well known fact.
Nobody has ever heard a difference in cables that were of normal design.



  #69   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 29 Aug 2005 16:43:20 -0700, "John Atkinson"
wrote:


wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is
posted today at www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable.
Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow
for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies
might be surprised to learn that the laws of physics predict
the opposite.

But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison
of cables where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal
cables. In short wire is wire.


Actually, 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.


And of course we all know about this because Hunter complained
vociferously? Try again, John, or just admit that you've been nailed
in yet another attempt to blind with science followed by baffling with
bull****. It didn't work when you were with HFN twenty years ago, and
it sure isn't going to work now. Interesting that in all those twenty
years, no one has been able to supply *observations* to back up
Hawksford's wacky claims.

Not one single 'objectivist' has ever denied that there are
significant *measured* differences among wires - it's just that none
of those are *audible*.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #71   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #72   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

NYOB says: (Google message 12, Aug. 29)

"But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of
cables
where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In short
wire
is wire."

But "naturally" he is unable to quote "one single bias controlled'
(his cryptonim for ABX/DBT) comparison between anything and anything
else in audio. He was challenged twice for a reference to a published
report (Author(s), title , year, Nr.,page). of an ABX testing, where
the majority recognised the difference.. And he clammed up twiice only
to reemerge after a suitable interval.
Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your
"test" work?
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is one
for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge
cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83)
Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one had
81% positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the ABX
obstacle race.
So much for "anyone,ever"

  #73   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Don Pearce said:

Audio 'borgism can creep up on you.


I think presenting the option is hardly brainwashing -


How, exactly, do you "present the option"? If "the option" is engaging in
"tests", it seems quite impractical to me. Krazy Krooger just fatuously
Kroo-klaimed that one can do meaningful DBTs without a comparator and without
spending a great deal of time. Those are patently false assertions. Perhaps
you can shed some light on this subject.


You just get somebody to plug cables in. You listen. You say "that one has
warmth and speed that the last one didn't have". Or you say, "this one
sounds grainy, so it clearly isn't made with oxygen-free copper".


That isn't "scientific" though, is it? It's clearly not double-blind. And it
sounds time-consuming. How many switches would you have to do to achieve a
statistically meaningful result?

You do that a couple of dozen times, then you compare your list with the
list the guy plugging in the cables has.
You then publish the results in Stereophile (because that is the august
journal you work for), and apologise for all the bull**** you printed in
the past.


Love that scientific mindset. ;-)

which I think we can happily direct to the other side of the argument.


You mean my "argument", i.e. that spending many hours and many dollars to
decide which cables to buy is foolish? If anybody doesn't view the issue that
way, it's a good bet they have issues about audio equipment.


No I mean the argument that says you can get better sound by spending a
thousand bucks a foot on boutique cables.


Why do you care who spends their own money on that stuff?

  #75   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Robert Gault says:


"And not just audio. Any scientific pursuit from medicine to taste
comparisons of soda uses DBT"

The only thing medical drug research DBT tests have in common with
audio component comparison is the name.
The medical tests' subjects subjective responses are always compared
with and validated by FACTS: outcome of the disease, laboratory and
Xray results.
Otherwise the positive responses (" I feel better") to a placebo, or
quack mumbo jumbo would have equal validity with objective outcomes.
Compare!
Ludovic Mirabel



  #77   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Robert Gault said:

Any scientific pursuit from medicine to taste
comparisons of soda uses DBT.


Do you consider buying audio equipment for use in your home to be a "scientific
pursuit"? If so, go for it -- take some "tests". Then you'll have "proved" that
everything sounds the same. And the Krooborg guarantees you can do it without
spending hundreds on a switchbox and devoting hundreds of hours to reach a
statistically meaningful number of trials. What fun! This is surely why audio
such a popular hobby.

  #78   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
ups.com...
Robert Gault says:


"And not just audio. Any scientific pursuit from medicine to taste
comparisons of soda uses DBT"

The only thing medical drug research DBT tests have in common with
audio component comparison is the name.
The medical tests' subjects subjective responses are always compared
with and validated by FACTS: outcome of the disease, laboratory and
Xray results.
Otherwise the positive responses (" I feel better") to a placebo, or
quack mumbo jumbo would have equal validity with objective outcomes.
Compare!
Ludovic Mirabel

Audio DBT's are right in line with what is known about audiblity as
confirmed by meausrements and other research. Have on that river in Egypt.



  #79   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
oups.com...
NYOB says: (Google message 12, Aug. 29)

"But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of
cables
where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In short
wire
is wire."

But "naturally" he is unable to quote "one single bias controlled'
(his cryptonim for ABX/DBT) comparison between anything and anything
else in audio.


I've pointed you in the right direction. You can lead a man to knowledge
but you can't make him think.

Where are the reliable bias controlled comparisons that show some other
method is better or even as good?

He was challenged twice for a reference to a published
report (Author(s), title , year, Nr.,page). of an ABX testing, where
the majority recognised the difference.. And he clammed up twiice only
to reemerge after a suitable interval.


Not wanting to engage you in endless hairsplitting and denials is my
personal preference.
It's like trying to argue with a borna again Christian on the non-existence
of God. It's pointless. You will never admit that ABX is the standard and
that is relaible. You simply deny.

Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your
"test" work?
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is one
for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge
cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83)
Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one had
81% positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the ABX
obstacle race.
So much for "anyone,ever"

You don't really understand that 81% is not good enough and that while it
might be an interesting footnote it needs to repeated to insure they weren't
just lucky guesses.


  #80   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 30 Aug 2005 11:17:53 -0700, George Middius wrote:

Don Pearce said:

Audio 'borgism can creep up on you.


I think presenting the option is hardly brainwashing -


How, exactly, do you "present the option"? If "the option" is engaging in
"tests", it seems quite impractical to me. Krazy Krooger just fatuously
Kroo-klaimed that one can do meaningful DBTs without a comparator and without
spending a great deal of time. Those are patently false assertions. Perhaps
you can shed some light on this subject.


You just get somebody to plug cables in. You listen. You say "that one has
warmth and speed that the last one didn't have". Or you say, "this one
sounds grainy, so it clearly isn't made with oxygen-free copper".


That isn't "scientific" though, is it? It's clearly not double-blind. And it
sounds time-consuming. How many switches would you have to do to achieve a
statistically meaningful result?



If you mean people in lab coats, no. It is plenty scientific, though. And
to keep it double blind, just leave the room while the chap changes the
cables, and have him leave before you walk back in.

How many switches? Make it fifty or so. If the cable differences are truly
audible, then getting forty right should be no problem. That would be
statistically a very significant result.

You do that a couple of dozen times, then you compare your list with the
list the guy plugging in the cables has.
You then publish the results in Stereophile (because that is the august
journal you work for), and apologise for all the bull**** you printed in
the past.


Love that scientific mindset. ;-)


You never knew science could be so easy, did you?

which I think we can happily direct to the other side of the argument.


You mean my "argument", i.e. that spending many hours and many dollars to
decide which cables to buy is foolish? If anybody doesn't view the issue that
way, it's a good bet they have issues about audio equipment.


No I mean the argument that says you can get better sound by spending a
thousand bucks a foot on boutique cables.


Why do you care who spends their own money on that stuff?


We've been here - I'm just nice that way.

d
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Does anyone know of this challenge? [email protected] High End Audio 453 June 28th 04 03:43 AM
Cable Madness SALE at AudioWaves AudioWaves Marketplace 0 April 5th 04 05:24 PM
audio coax cable JYC High End Audio 239 January 18th 04 09:12 PM
Note to the Idiot George M. Middius Audio Opinions 222 January 8th 04 08:13 PM
cabling explained Midlant Car Audio 8 November 14th 03 04:07 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:42 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"