In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:

However there will be an article in Hi Fi News. Just have to get
around to writing it. :-)

Jim,

I'm not for one moment trying to put you off writing for Hi-Fi News I am
a subscriber and have enjoyed reading many of your articles in the
magazine. I do often wonder though, how it sits with you to write for a
magazine that has an editor that comments in the Jan13 issue.

Three decade period of cable testing and crusty engineers who insist
that 'cable sound' is impossible or that the audiophile community is
generally bonkers.

He then goes on to talk about "overwhelming evidence of blind listening
tests on hundreds of interconnects (speakers and line level)"

I have to say I am quite happy to endorse his comments without
reservation in fact I think in some ways it is rather understated.

I am puzzled how you can live with it though.


Quite easy really.

1) My experience is that there are cases where I think a difference is
audible to me, and others where there isn't. (Which actually means I agree
that saying differences are "impossible" can't be correct.)

2) That I doubt a lot of what others claim, but realise there will be times
when they are correct and I'm wrong. Just as there will be other cases
t'other way around. (So others may be right when they say they can hear
some difference which escapes me.)

3) That 'differences' may depend on the circumstances of the situation. So
be evident in some cases, but not others.

4) That there may be 'differences' for other reasons, and they are
mis-ascribed in a way I can't tell for lack of knowledge, etc. One of the
real problems with experiments and tests is mis-understanding the cause of
what is observed.

5) They may also be because the 'control' was flawed. (And such flaws may
also give a null result, also.) Also because the test wasn't that 'blind'
or wasn't repeated often enough for any real significance. It is often
almost impossible in practice to do really reliable tests for things beyond
the so-obvious-and-you-can-easily-find-them-by-measurement differences.
People's hearing alters as they hear things. So if you play the same thing
twice it will tend to sound 'different' the second time.

6) There is no 'Editorial Line' I'm required to follow. I'm not required to
agree with whatever everyone else write in any magazine I get things
published in. :-) People are either happy to publish/read what I've
written, or not.

7) I've never claimed to have particulary good ears. Others almost
certainly have better hearing than mine.

8) I can't quite see any point in adopting an attitude of "I don't
absolutely agree with every word and idea you have, and don't feel certain
you are infallable, so I refuse to write for your magazine." :-)

The bottom line is that the same approach of applying an academic science /
doubting attitude means I have to be as doubting of my own views as that of
others, and similarly for presented 'evidence'.

So I may think he/you *might* be wrong in some cases, may even think it
likely, but have no way to know if I wasn't there and knew all and
controlled all. I can only be skeptical and make my own judgements on the
basis of my own experience and understanding.

FWIW I don't take very seriously many of the opinions in any reviews
either. Simply because I don't actually care what someone else thought of
the 'sound' using music I don't play, via a system I don't have, in a room
different to mine.

What I *can* sometimes do is shoot down the 'scientific explanations'
sometimes trotted out for 'why 'particular ultra-costly items are 'better'.
Usually because flaws in their arguments or evidence conflict with
established physics, etc, or muddle the reality. However that doesn't
necessarily mean their items are crap. Just that their 'explanations' are
twaddle.

People do know my views. Up to them to decide on their own. I simply write
about what interests me, and I hope at least a fair number of readers will
find that informative or of enough interest to read. If that differs from
what others write, etc, fair enough. No point in us all writing exactly the
same thing! :-)

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