"Glenn Richards" wrote in
message

But it's not all snake oil. Once you've filtered the
genuine stuff from snake oil, you're left with some
pretty good products. It's the filtering that takes the effort.

Bi wiring is snake oil. Fancy cables are snake oil.

Now, let's turn the psychological argument back on
itself. You don't believe there's a difference between
the way different cables sound, so you won't hear one
even if it's there.

That's your story, which is phrased in such a way as to put you in the
presumptious position of speaking for me.

Thank you, I'll tell my own story, OK?

Long before I did any analysis of bi-wiring, and fancy speaker wires I did
some proper listening tests. The results were null. I did some
measurements, I found measureable differences. However, differences were way
to small for anybody to reliably detect by just listening. I did some
analysis and found that the theoretical differences were similar to what I
measured.

I also know from a great deal of other experience that improper listening
tests are very likely to produce false positives. There are plenty of
instances where people were able to characterize the difference between A &
A when they thought they were comparing A and B. Their impressions of the
non-existent differences read like your typical true-believer's newgroup
posts and or your typical true-believer's magazine review. No surprise,
right?

As I've said before, it's like Creationist
fundamentalists who would still refuse to accept evolution even if God
himself
appeared before them and told them it was true. [1]

That's pretty much my experience with your typical golden-eared audiophile
true believer in snake oil products like bi-wire, bi-wire without proper
active crossovers, and fancy cables.


Keep reading that "Scott's Guide". You might learn
something.

I know as much as I need to know about audio at this
point in time.

Yeah, enough to give us guys who are older and wiser a good laugh.

That doesn't mean I'm not willing to learn
more, in fact I'm a firm believer that there are some
things you can never learn too much about.

You're looking at one and turning the other way.

And if time constraints allow, or work were to demand it, I'd be
more than happy to brush up on underlying technology.

Until then, keep your skeptics hat where you can find it.

"Jo" wrote in
message
In ,
Glenn Richards typed:

Now, let's turn the psychological argument back on
itself. You don't believe there's a difference between
the way different cables sound, so you won't hear one
even if it's there.

There are specific procedures such that the psychological
aspect can be eliminated from comparative tests.

For example a double blind test would involve the
subjects and testers *not* knowing what cables were in
use before/during the test. There would also be some
dummy cable samples included that definitely *did*
slightly alter the sound quality. The sound source and
material would have to be taken into account as would the
number and range of subjects. No doubt, more safeguards
could be included.
Given sufficient runs of the above tests, any real effect
could be teased out. Has anyone actually done this ?

Of course. For the past 3 decades.

The results only surprise those who are improperly educated, improperly
experienced and/or know *better* than reliable technical experts.

"Glenn Richards" wrote in
message
Glenn Richards wrote:

As I've said before, it's like Creationist
fundamentalists who would still refuse to accept
evolution even if God himself appeared before them and
told them it was true. [1]

Somehow my footnote got sent to /dev/null...

[1] For the record I've been a committed atheist for the
last 21 years.

Atheism is as logicall indefensible as theism. True skeptics are agnostics.

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 08:30:46 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Your level of disregard for the opinions of others is in itself
beneath contempt.
I have no problem with the opinions of others. I do have a problem
with arrogant clowns who state their opinions as fact, and refuse to
test the veracity of those opinions.

You are of course confusing the stating of opinions as fact. For example:

Fact: Using the equipment I currently have, when I switch from Gale
XL-185 to Audio Innovations Silver Bi-Wire, I hear an improvement.

Nope, that's just an opinion, and has no basis in fact. Try it again
when you don't *know* what's connected.

Fact: When I upgrade to an even better cable (Chord Company Rumour 4) I
hear another big improvement.

Nope, that's just an opinion, and has no basis in fact. Try it again
when you don't *know* what's connected.

Opinion: Therefore, based on my observations above, a better cable will
improve the sound.

Or how about something a little closer to home...

Fact: Stewart Pinkerton is a highly abusive and unpleasant individual.

Depends on the circumstances, but certainly true when dealing with
arrogant and ignorant clowns like you.

Opinion: Stewart Pinkerton is a complete tosser.

Everyone has an opinion, along with other attributes, equally smelly
in your case.

In both the above examples, the "fact" section is based on actual
observations. In the first example, I heard a difference between cables
- this is an unquestionable fact, regardless of the actual mechanism
behind hearing the difference. It doesn't matter if it was
"psychological", I still heard a difference. Therefore, based on these
observations, I formed the opinion that cables do affect the sound.

Actually, you just *imagined* that you heard a difference.

In the second example, I've witnessed you being unpleasant and highly
abusive to many participants on this group. Based on this, I formed the
opinion that you are a complete tosser.

Another example of your inability to think logically.

So your knowledge of the English language is clearly about as poor as
your knowledge of IT or audio. You are proving yourself to be more of a
fool the more you continue.

Another perfect example of projection.........

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 09:01:18 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

You do not hear the improvement you state as being a fact. You gain
the impression of an improvement for a variety of reasons. The word
"hear" attaches this phenomenon to a single sense - unfortunately it
is the wrong one. There is no "heard" difference. The difference
comes from a whole set of other senses that seem to be rather more
refined in you then the rest of us.

I'm more inclined to believe my ears, that I've lived with for the past
28 years, than someone on Usenet who I've never met telling me "you're
not hearing what you think you're hearing".

When I change the cables, the music sounds different (sometimes better,
sometimes not). Is that better for you?

No, it doesn't - you just *think* that it does. And of course you're
terrified of actually putting it to a blind test.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 11:48:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Glenn Richards" wrote in
message
Glenn Richards wrote:

As I've said before, it's like Creationist
fundamentalists who would still refuse to accept
evolution even if God himself appeared before them and
told them it was true. [1]

Somehow my footnote got sent to /dev/null...

[1] For the record I've been a committed atheist for the
last 21 years.

Atheism is as logicall indefensible as theism. True skeptics are agnostics.

I used to be an agnostic, but now I'm not so sure. It is of course
predictable that Richards would take the extreme position of claiming
to be an atheist.

I say 'claiming', because he does seem happy to believe in certain
things with absolutely no evidence to back up his beliefs - and then
refuses to test his beliefs, always the sign of the truly religious.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 11:48:10 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:


"Glenn Richards" wrote in
message
Glenn Richards wrote:

As I've said before, it's like Creationist
fundamentalists who would still refuse to accept
evolution even if God himself appeared before them and
told them it was true. [1]

Somehow my footnote got sent to /dev/null...

[1] For the record I've been a committed atheist for the
last 21 years.

Atheism is as logicall indefensible as theism. True skeptics are agnostics.


You misunderstand the word atheism. Atheism is simply a lack of theism.
If you lack reasons to believe in a god or gods then your an atheist.

In news Arny Krueger typed:
Given sufficient runs of the above tests, any real effect
could be teased out. Has anyone actually done this ?

Of course. For the past 3 decades.


Any online examples ?

Jo

"Jo" wrote in
message
In news Arny Krueger typed:
Given sufficient runs of the above tests, any real
effect could be teased out. Has anyone actually done
this ?

Of course. For the past 3 decades.


Any online examples ?

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...bx_testing.htm

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=16295

http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm

http://ackthud.com/shawnfogg/pics/temp/ABX.pdf

http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html

http://www.mpex.net/info/abx.html

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...s-12-2004.html

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/ass...rInterface.pdf

http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Greenhill.pdf

to name just a few...

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message

On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 11:48:10 -0400, Arny Krueger
wrote:


"Glenn Richards" wrote in
message
Glenn Richards wrote:

As I've said before, it's like Creationist
fundamentalists who would still refuse to accept
evolution even if God himself appeared before them and
told them it was true. [1]

Somehow my footnote got sent to /dev/null...

[1] For the record I've been a committed atheist for the
last 21 years.

Atheism is as logically indefensible as theism. True
skeptics are agnostics.

You misunderstand the word atheism.

You seem to have gotten the sense of the word that I meant just fine.

Atheism is simply a lack of theism.

I can live with that.

If you lack reasons to believe in a god or gods then your an atheist.

OK.