In article , Laurence Payne
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:03:51 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:


I am curious to know if the reactions of others agree with my own. In
particular, if others can spot 'The dog that did not bark in the
night'.

From the preamble: "...we set about conducting a series of robust
scientific tests to back up the claims we have always made for our
products abilities."

He doesn't know the difference between science and theology. Do we
really need to read further?

Yes, the preamble, etc, do indicate that the tests may have been done on a
different basis to the scientific approach. The aim seems to have been,
"find some results that support what we think is the case". Whereas a
scientific experiment would have been, "Devise a test whose outcome will
distinguish between our idea being correct, or it being unreliable".

However I do think it is worth reading further for two reasons.

One is that ceasing to read, and not bothering to think about what they
report would abdicate from being able to comment on the actual results.

The second is that considering what they report does perhaps show some
other things. e.g. 'the dog' I referred to. As with the older case I used
as a footnote, sometimes published results give clues to what may have been
problems with the measurement process, or at least make clear that -
without more info which is presently witheld - the results can't be shown
to establish the conclusions they (and Paul Messenger) presume. They may
arise for other fairly simple reasons.

FWIW I have emailed the contact they give, asking for more info. But I have
no idea as yet if I will get a useful response. Until then, I can only have
doubts about the 'measured results' since data can only be understood when
you know all the relevant details of how it was obtained. The present pdf
simply doesn't give the required details.

WRT to 'the dog' I can ask two questions of people. Can you explain why the
cables that are claimed to be 'better' exhibit the frequency dependence
that they graphs show? Then ask, why does the 'BNC' cable not also show
this? The answers may tell us something interesting about the measurement
setup used... and the unspecified assumptions those reporting the
measurements may have made. :-)

If unsure, consider the setup error which was made in the previous case
which I used as a footnote. ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html