Nousaine
July 23rd 03, 06:19 PM
wrote:
>Nousaine > wrote:
>
>> Well OK; but your anecdote doesn't move us toward the mean. It is simply
>> conjecture.
>
>Is it "conjecture"? Or are you simply repeating pseudo-scientific
>babble as if it were God's truth? Yes, it is an anecdote. However,
>your wild claim that a test MUST be "double blind" to be valid
>is total nonsense! The need for a "double blind" test depends upon
>many things including the psychology of the people involved. But
>what you totally misrepresent is the fact that when results are CLEAR
>enough, a double blind serves no function. If the litmus paper turns
>blue we sure as hell don't need a "double blind" test to make sure
>that tester isn't lying about the color!
But with litmus paper you have a record of the results. Here you don't.
Besides, let's assume for a moment that your anecdote showed true audible
difference, it still IS NOT the ONE experiment that shows nominally competent
wires are not sonically transparent.
>
>I'm saying the difference was so clear that a deaf pig could
>have heard it. NOT subtle! Diference in bass volume. Difference
>in mid clarity. LARGE difference in sound. And this is not
>hocus pocus.
But I've heard this 'deaf pig' statement from people whose ears suddenly slam
shut when a blanket is placed over the speaker terminals. Actually I hear it
all the time, especially in audio stores.
But again, even if your anecdote were documented and repeated (verified), it
wouldn't show that an extreme condition has any validity with normal
implementation.
As I said before; no one has ever shown that nominally competent wire has any
sound of its own when used with loudspeakers, commerically available program
material in a normally reverberant environment.
And even an extreme case does not provide evidence that it can be extrapolated
to the mean.
This anecdote is NOT the ONE experiment that verifies wire-sound.
Speakers can be VERY sensitive to drive impedance
>and other electrical parameters and one doesn't need a double
>blind speaker test to prove it.
Sure, a microphone and an acoustical measuring system will do that, and
document the results at the same time.
>
>You are just stuck in a loop on some terminology. I totally agree
>with what you are saying WHERE IT APPLIES like in comparing
>"Monster" cables and say other reasonable cords. But those
>differences (if discernable at all) are small. Psychological
>noise then becomes a factor.
Well alright then. But please stop refering to this anecdote as the ONE
experiment that verifies wire-sound of nominally competent cabling.
>
>You can dismiss me as a liar if you wish, but I remain totally
>unmoved by your so-called "science". Mostly it seems to be
>"proof by assertion".
>
>Benj
Take a look in 'assertion' mirror :)
>Nousaine > wrote:
>
>> Well OK; but your anecdote doesn't move us toward the mean. It is simply
>> conjecture.
>
>Is it "conjecture"? Or are you simply repeating pseudo-scientific
>babble as if it were God's truth? Yes, it is an anecdote. However,
>your wild claim that a test MUST be "double blind" to be valid
>is total nonsense! The need for a "double blind" test depends upon
>many things including the psychology of the people involved. But
>what you totally misrepresent is the fact that when results are CLEAR
>enough, a double blind serves no function. If the litmus paper turns
>blue we sure as hell don't need a "double blind" test to make sure
>that tester isn't lying about the color!
But with litmus paper you have a record of the results. Here you don't.
Besides, let's assume for a moment that your anecdote showed true audible
difference, it still IS NOT the ONE experiment that shows nominally competent
wires are not sonically transparent.
>
>I'm saying the difference was so clear that a deaf pig could
>have heard it. NOT subtle! Diference in bass volume. Difference
>in mid clarity. LARGE difference in sound. And this is not
>hocus pocus.
But I've heard this 'deaf pig' statement from people whose ears suddenly slam
shut when a blanket is placed over the speaker terminals. Actually I hear it
all the time, especially in audio stores.
But again, even if your anecdote were documented and repeated (verified), it
wouldn't show that an extreme condition has any validity with normal
implementation.
As I said before; no one has ever shown that nominally competent wire has any
sound of its own when used with loudspeakers, commerically available program
material in a normally reverberant environment.
And even an extreme case does not provide evidence that it can be extrapolated
to the mean.
This anecdote is NOT the ONE experiment that verifies wire-sound.
Speakers can be VERY sensitive to drive impedance
>and other electrical parameters and one doesn't need a double
>blind speaker test to prove it.
Sure, a microphone and an acoustical measuring system will do that, and
document the results at the same time.
>
>You are just stuck in a loop on some terminology. I totally agree
>with what you are saying WHERE IT APPLIES like in comparing
>"Monster" cables and say other reasonable cords. But those
>differences (if discernable at all) are small. Psychological
>noise then becomes a factor.
Well alright then. But please stop refering to this anecdote as the ONE
experiment that verifies wire-sound of nominally competent cabling.
>
>You can dismiss me as a liar if you wish, but I remain totally
>unmoved by your so-called "science". Mostly it seems to be
>"proof by assertion".
>
>Benj
Take a look in 'assertion' mirror :)