Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote
dave weil wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:




I don't mind what you do. Please note that I didn't initiate opinions
about this - I simply replied to your question. You can accept my
reply in good faith, otherwise I will have to ask why you asked the
question. Did you just want an argument perhaps? I don't - life is far
too short and there are no SET shops within walking distance.

Don't you challenge people who claim to hear differences in cables?
Don't you demand that they do dbts to "validate" their opinion?

If the answer is yes, then, well, you see where this is going...

Can you not read, Dave? I didn't come here making claims - I replied
to your question. That gives you no right to start demanding proof. So
I ask you again. Was the purpose of your question simply to stir up
this argument? If so, kindly go away; I'm not interested.


d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com


Mr. Pearce, I had a quick look at the protocol for your propose
Double Blind audio testing. Quite frankly and without further ado,
it is very unsound and very, very bad.


Thank you for your review. I will deal with all the points you have
identified right away. You have been very helpful.



How can I be helpful Mr. Pearce? As I recall, the last time we had a
straight forward discussion and exchanges of ideas pertaining
to the subject of audio testing as here, you recklessly circumnavigated
the points I raise with total disregard.

How can I be assured at this time, Mr. Pearce, that should I pay
attention and heedfully reflect upon your testing protocol that you'll
be responding in kind to issues I raise with confidence?






Pearce Consulting