| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2 comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium. Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited over softer copper contacts. Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical purpose in answering it. Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons not to answer it. It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in physical contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of ruthenium important. Prove it makes an audible difference. Prove it doesn't. Can't prove a negative. BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can't prove that there are not differences. Never said it was possible, what is possible is demonstrating whethere or not a given individual can hear them. If they can't then for that person, they don't exist. all you can say is that they don't exist under those certain test conditions, given that you have such test results for the given individual. My bet is that the vast majority of people who claim differences in sighted listening, which is the most unrelaible way to try and detect subtle differences, can't hear any in a blind, level matched, comparison. "If" that were the case, then you can say that they hear them sighted, but don't hear them under test conditions. You could say that but it would be untrue,due to the fact that bias was not removed and levels were not matched. IDIOT, that is EXACTLY why it "is" a true statement. The really interesting thing to see would be this: a) person hears differences sighted (According to you supposedly from expectation effects) Not mecessarily, they could be differences large enough to hear sighted, as is the case with speakers IDIOT, many people hear differences when sighted. You have even said this. IT is one of the premises for your arguments to go blind. b) person does not hear differences during DBT tests c) person is told of his negative test results (therefore removing supposed future expectation effects) d) person listens sighted again, now without expectation effects. Does he still hear differences, or did they go away with removal of the supposed expectation effects? Unless there is level matching to within .1db I suspect any sighted test is still not going to be relaible. Fortunately we have someone who posts here freuently who knows much more about the acceptability of such tests than I do. Arny, what say you? DIDN't come close to answering the question. It appears that you are too stupid to understand it. I guess we have that in common then. |
Threaded Mode