Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Does anyone know of this challenge? | High End Audio | |||
Cable Madness SALE at AudioWaves | Marketplace | |||
audio coax cable | High End Audio | |||
Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions | |||
cabling explained | Car Audio |