On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:24:23 +0000 (UTC), Rob
wrote:

andy wrote:
Dons answer to your questions 1, 2 and 3 perhaps needs qualifying but
is essentially correct in my view. I repeat that I can find no evidence
in your 3 links. If the assertions are not verifiable then they are not
evidence. I suspect most technically literate people will not dismiss
these "findings" out of hand but because:


You mean will, presumeably.

No, to dismiss a claim becuase it is unsuppoorted and flies in the
face of current physical knowledge is *not* dismissing 'out of hand'.

Depends what their technical aptitude is,
their degree of literacy, and their 'language'. I think I've indicated
elswhere that this is not substantial evidence in the sense of
'reasonable proof'. It is some evidence of a possible correlation
between sound quality and cable design.

No, it is not evidence of any sort, it is mere assertion.

If I assert that you are a serial rapist, do you suppose that you'll
be arrested on the basis of my assertion?

1. They have learned a set of rules which govern how electroacoustic
devices work. This set of rules holds for all devices they have so far
considered. If the rules are not to hold for cables then, quite
reasonably, they are going to require evidence and, hopefully, a
modification to those rules that provides a consistent and better model
of what is going on. (A famous example would be the replacement of
Newtonian mechanics with relativity.)

That is precisely my point. DBT depends on certain assumptions
concerning sound and perception.

No, it doesn't.

To link electroacoustics (I think you
mean audio electronics) to human percpetion in this way is possibly
misplaced.

Electroacoustic devices are transducers, such as loudspeakers.

2. There is no evidence presented in the 3 links only
assertions/statements.

They are opinions. In the social world (which is where you live, that
is) I'm afraid they count - however misguided you may think they are.

They don't count as evidence of reality.

3. The interests of the authors are clearly not independent of the
presented "findings".

Everything is connected.

Some things are more connected than others...........

Why have we come to different conclusions when considering the same
text? What is in the text that makes you believe the assertions are
true and that the usual rules involving resistance, inductance and
capacitance are not going to hold for cables?

I do not believe the opinions are true, much less social fact. They are
observed phenomena.

No, they are merely claims, and claims made by people with a
commercial interest.

You have finally taken them - in part - seriously.
The reason you give (IIUC) for the observations of claimed cable
superiority and sound quality is vested interest - people pay a lot of
money for a cable and fool themselves that it sounds better. Correct?

That's pretty standard human psychology, yes.

Any other reasons, or any evidence, to back up your claim?

Lots, but absolutely *zero* to suggest that cables make a real audible
difference - unless seriously broken!


--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering