"John Atkinson" wrote in message
ps.com...
On 10 Feb 2006 in message
. com
John Atkinson wrote:
The changes made in the editing to Dr. Greenhill's text
were examined at length in International Audio Review
and Stereophile in the mid-1980s, whose editors were
supplied copies of the original manuscript.
Just a note that Stereophile's analysis of the differences
between Larry Greenhill's orginal manuscript and the
version that was published in Stereophile Review has
been posted in Stereophile's on-line archives
http://www.stereophile.com/historical/1283cable/ .
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Interesting article. I've selected a segment that highlights my questions.
"I think it's unfortunate that more of the original report didn't make it into
print, instead being sacrificed to Stereo Review's editorial viewpoints. "
Yet you're willing to link to Stereo Review's original, but fail to fill in the
gaps with the missing segments
from Greenhills original. Instead you choose to make unsubstantiated claims on
what the
missing data showed. I've seen too many data butchers in audio to accept that.
"Greenhill and his friends from the Audiophile Society (who provided eight of
the listeners for the cable test) have tried several double-blind listening
tests, and none of them have come up with positive results (ie, reliable
identification of the components in question). Here they finally achieve success
in the form of interesting results, but those results are obscured by the time
the report makes it into print."
So fix that. You gave a link to one objectionable summary. Give us the
original referenced
in footnote 6.
"The first interesting result is that the listening panel's preconceptions of
cable performance had a large effect on perceived differences between cables
when they knew which cables were in use."
Wow, sounds like StereoReview
"Second, differences were still perceived in double-blind testing, but to a much
lesser degree."
Vinegar effect?
"Third, panel members were surprised that the differences between cables were so
subtle and difficult to distinguish."
You're joking right?....What qualifications did these panel members hold?
"Fourth, the performance of different panel members varied widely: there was one
truly amazing "ear" amongst them, and four very good ones."
Or just random luck. We can't really know as we don't get to see ALL the data.
"Fifth, differences between very similar cables (none of them using exotic
materials or cable geometry in their construction) could still be reliably
picked out, even when (in one trial) the resistances of the different wires were
artificially matched with a potentiometer."
This conclusion isn't demonstrated at all in the Stereo Review article.
Produce the full Greenhill report please.
"Sixth, pink noise is a better test signal for discrimination than the choral
music selection used (not necessarily all music)."
Shocking....was this the few tenths of db SPL or the FR difference?..Why didn't
the level match BTW?
With a list of positive results such as this, it really makes you wonder why
Stereo Review chose to emphasize only the negative.
I guess thats a secret buried in the elusive original Greenhill submission
(footnote 6).
ScottW