"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Odd that you didn't include "I just made up this fairy tale because I
had a couple of minutes to spare at my keyboard".

That would come under "etc etc"...

Well, you're wrong.


What you should have done was to get your friend to try this again,
but with the cables the other way round.

Except we'd then know which cable was which, so you'd start crying about
"psychological effects".

Interesting that you 'consider the case closed', but have no interest
at all in collecting £1,000 for doing the same trick with an independent
witness........

I can make that much in half the time it would take to carry out this test
you keep rattling on about.

Or to put it another way, if I took time off work to do your challenge,
and won, I wouldn't be any better off. Because I'd have lost that £1,000
by taking time off work.

Plus no doubt you'd probably come up with some cock and bull reason to
declare the test "invalid" and refuse to pay up.

Just another lying chicken****!

Yay, personal insults again.

I have nothing whatsoever to gain by bull****ting people about cables.

1. I don't make interconnects.

2. I don't sell interconnects.

3. I don't sell or make hi-fi.

I make a living from computer consultancy etc, not hi-fi. As far as I'm
concerned the hi-fi is for enjoying the music, not the other way around.
And if using decent interconnects and speaker cables helps achieve that,
then fair enough.

Note that I don't advocate spending £100+ on interconnects. Indeed the
biggest difference can be heard between the crappy one that comes in the
box and something like a Cambridge Atlantic for £10. Probably the best
tenner you'll ever spend.

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

Glenn.I think it would be in the interests of all of us, if you could meet
up
with Don, and do some tests according to the protocol which he has set
down. This would make an inteeresting thread.

Regards to all

Iain

On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 15:22:32 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

Glenn.I think it would be in the interests of all of us, if you could meet
up
with Don, and do some tests according to the protocol which he has set
down. This would make an inteeresting thread.

Regards to all

Iain


There were those who thought my protocol inadequate, although they
didn't actually come up with anything better - any more than they
could actually identify the problems. I wouldn't want to waste my time
using it unless there was pretty universal agreement that it covered
all the bases.

http://www.donepearce.plus.com/odds/dbt/

d

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

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

There were those who thought my protocol inadequate, although they
didn't actually come up with anything better - any more than they
could actually identify the problems. I wouldn't want to waste my time
using it unless there was pretty universal agreement that it covered
all the bases.

Was Glenn one of those? If not, is there any reason not to proceed?
Otherwise we will still be discussing this cable test ten years from now,
sitting in our rocking chairs, drinking our Bourneville cocoa with
digestive biscuits.

Iain

On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 16:23:28 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

There were those who thought my protocol inadequate, although they
didn't actually come up with anything better - any more than they
could actually identify the problems. I wouldn't want to waste my time
using it unless there was pretty universal agreement that it covered
all the bases.

Was Glenn one of those? If not, is there any reason not to proceed?
Otherwise we will still be discussing this cable test ten years from now,
sitting in our rocking chairs, drinking our Bourneville cocoa with
digestive biscuits.

Iain


Can't remember - Glenn?

d

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

Thus spake Don Pearce:
There were those who thought my protocol inadequate, although they
didn't actually come up with anything better - any more than they
could actually identify the problems. I wouldn't want to waste my time
using it unless there was pretty universal agreement that it covered
all the bases.

http://www.donepearce.plus.com/odds/dbt/

I would prefer any proctor to be "neutral" rather than "sceptic" personally.
Why do people seem to think that all interested parties have already made up
their minds?

Surely any test has to be trusted by both the proctor & subjects? I, for one
have grown to harbour reservations regarding DB testing's efficacy on
anything other than drug therapy effectiveness. My suspicions are that the
results will never show any significant scores because the differences are
possibly just too subtle to be picked out by memory alone which is of course
a great pity. How would you propose calibrating the test to gain some idea
of thresholds where subjects can hear calibrated & repeatable differences in
sound apart from suggesting these tests are for those subjects who declare
the differences between cables to be huge (unless I've got the wrong end of
the stick?)

If I had a preference for Coke over Pepsi & failed a DB taste test, would
that invalidate my preference?

As for coming up with something better, I'm sorry to say that I can't. I'm
not even certain that this little nut is indeed crackable. I would dearly
love it to be. This page gives some idea why:
http://www.ilikejam.dsl.pipex.com/audiophile.htm

On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 01:25:46 -0000, "Paul B" wrote:

Thus spake Don Pearce:
There were those who thought my protocol inadequate, although they
didn't actually come up with anything better - any more than they
could actually identify the problems. I wouldn't want to waste my time
using it unless there was pretty universal agreement that it covered
all the bases.

http://www.donepearce.plus.com/odds/dbt/

I would prefer any proctor to be "neutral" rather than "sceptic" personally.
Why do people seem to think that all interested parties have already made up
their minds?

If you think about what kind of information the proctor and observer
might convey subliminally, you will appreciate that my choices are
there for a reason. It is important that a proctor understands what is
going on in the test, and anyone who does is very likely to have an
opinion of his own - hence the choice of bias.

Surely any test has to be trusted by both the proctor & subjects? I, for one
have grown to harbour reservations regarding DB testing's efficacy on
anything other than drug therapy effectiveness. My suspicions are that the
results will never show any significant scores because the differences are
possibly just too subtle to be picked out by memory alone which is of course
a great pity. How would you propose calibrating the test to gain some idea
of thresholds where subjects can hear calibrated & repeatable differences in
sound apart from suggesting these tests are for those subjects who declare
the differences between cables to be huge (unless I've got the wrong end of
the stick?)

No calibration is necessary because my test is only for subjects who
makes claims of ability to hear differences easily, and in the case of
the two who so far have expressed some sort of willingness, have
claimed to hear differences in blind testing. Given that the test
would be conducted at their home, using their gear and records, you
can see that sensitivity calibration would be superfluous.

If I had a preference for Coke over Pepsi & failed a DB taste test, would
that invalidate my preference?

I'd be very surprised if you did fail - I'd put it down to your having
a cold, or somesuch.

As for coming up with something better, I'm sorry to say that I can't. I'm
not even certain that this little nut is indeed crackable. I would dearly
love it to be. This page gives some idea why:
http://www.ilikejam.dsl.pipex.com/audiophile.htm


Even without reading the page I agree. No matter how many people
claim, try and fail, there will always be another.

d

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

In ,
Don Pearce typed:

Even without reading the page I agree. No matter how many people
claim, try and fail, there will always be another.


Don,

Why not take all of the points made in this thread and repeat the tests with
a series of improved double blind, randomised protocols that some have
suggested ? I haven't got any agenda or preconceptions at all, since I'm
very much a newbie but looking to buy some cables soon and so I would be
interested in your results.

Jo

Thus spake Jo:
Why not take all of the points made in this thread and repeat the
tests with a series of improved double blind, randomised protocols
that some have suggested ? I haven't got any agenda or preconceptions
at all, since I'm very much a newbie but looking to buy some cables
soon and so I would be interested in your results.

I thought that was what Don's protocol was suggesting. I don't think he's
interested in proctoring the tests himself & has clarified that the protocol
is only really for those who state the differences are stark rather than
subtle.

I think the only concession you'll get here is to replace any freebee "patch
cord" with about the cheapest after-market one you can find & spend any
change on buying some MUSIC!

In article ,
Paul B wrote:
I think the only concession you'll get here is to replace any freebee
"patch cord" with about the cheapest after-market one you can find &
spend any change on buying some MUSIC!

You're assuming all 'supplied' cables are to the same 'quality'? Judging
by my collection they certainly don't come from the same factory. And why
would the supplier of a good quality separate ruin its performance by
supplying an inferior cable with it? Or do you think the prices charged
for these 'aftermarket' ones reflect the cost of making them?

--
*I'm not your type. I'm not inflatable.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Paul B wrote:

I think the only concession you'll get here is to replace any freebee
"patch cord" with about the cheapest after-market one you can find &
spend any change on buying some MUSIC!

Replace the freebie one cos it sounds ****. To put it bluntly.

Reminds me of a conversation I had with someone of the cloth-eared
disposition a few years back who was convinced that MP3 sounded better
than CD. This was about 8-9 years ago, when MP3 certainly didn't sound
as good as CD...

Turns out he was comparing MP3 played through the DAC on his PC's sound
card (a Creative SB16, still one of the best sounding budget sound cards
that's been bade) to CD played through the analogue outputs of his
CD-ROM drive.

Which, if people didn't know, uses a resistor ladder array, and produces
rather nasty amounts of distortion. And a S/N ratio of about 45dB
(about the same as cassette without Dolby, or indeed uk.rec.audio in
general, but still considerably higher than Stewart Pinkerton [1]). So
yes, it probably did sound better.

Not quite sure what relevance that has to this conversation, but it's
still an interesting point. Fortunately nowadays if you play an audio CD
on a PC it extracts the audio digitally and plays it through the PC's
sound card...

[1] In the 3 years or so since I've been reading this group, I've never
once seen Pinkerton post anything constructive. His S/N ratio is
probably 1dB...

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation