What a sad excuse for a group this is...

**Malcolm** · December 27th 07, 02:27 PM posted to uk.rec.audio

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 12:27:23 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

[snip]

At the end of the day there's a simple answer. If you really can hear
these differences you claim then you should be able to demonstrate them
reliably to others in proper tests. But of course no one ever can.

No great point in that - given the fundamental flaws in such "tests".
Which of course is why they never produce any meaningful results.

Malcolm

**Eeyore** · December 27th 07, 02:51 PM posted to uk.rec.audio

Malcolm wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

At the end of the day there's a simple answer. If you really can hear
these differences you claim then you should be able to demonstrate them
reliably to others in proper tests. But of course no one ever can.

No great point in that - given the fundamental flaws in such "tests".
Which of course is why they never produce any meaningful results.

Ah right. Blame the test method !

Nitwit !

Graham

**Dave Plowman (News)** · December 27th 07, 05:02 PM posted to uk.rec.audio

In article ,
Malcolm wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 12:27:23 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

[snip]

At the end of the day there's a simple answer. If you really can hear
these differences you claim then you should be able to demonstrate them
reliably to others in proper tests. But of course no one ever can.

No great point in that - given the fundamental flaws in such "tests".
Which of course is why they never produce any meaningful results.

I take it you have to see a new interconnect plugged in and know what make
it is before you can hear any difference?

--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch *

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

**Eeyore** · December 27th 07, 05:22 PM posted to uk.rec.audio

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Malcolm wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

At the end of the day there's a simple answer. If you really can hear
these differences you claim then you should be able to demonstrate them
reliably to others in proper tests. But of course no one ever can.

No great point in that - given the fundamental flaws in such "tests".
Which of course is why they never produce any meaningful results.

I take it you have to see a new interconnect plugged in and know what make
it is before you can hear any difference?

The more GOLD the better presumably ? Alchemy and all that .....

Graham

**Bill Taylor** · December 27th 07, 07:05 PM posted to uk.rec.audio

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:22:03 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Malcolm wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

At the end of the day there's a simple answer. If you really can hear
these differences you claim then you should be able to demonstrate them
reliably to others in proper tests. But of course no one ever can.

No great point in that - given the fundamental flaws in such "tests".
Which of course is why they never produce any meaningful results.

I take it you have to see a new interconnect plugged in and know what make
it is before you can hear any difference?

The more GOLD the better presumably ? Alchemy and all that .....

Graham

How about this one
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...MEWN:IT&ih=003

or

http://preview.tinyurl.com/34ayet

"Description

Hi End Fibre Optical TOS link cable. 5 metre length with Gold plated
connectors for superior contact connection."

Bill

**Eeyore** · December 28th 07, 04:21 AM posted to uk.rec.audio

Bill Taylor wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

At the end of the day there's a simple answer. If you really can hear
these differences you claim then you should be able to demonstrate them
reliably to others in proper tests. But of course no one ever can.

No great point in that - given the fundamental flaws in such "tests".
Which of course is why they never produce any meaningful results.

I take it you have to see a new interconnect plugged in and know what make
it is before you can hear any difference?

The more GOLD the better presumably ? Alchemy and all that .....

How about this one
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...MEWN:IT&ih=003

or

http://preview.tinyurl.com/34ayet

"Description

Hi End Fibre Optical TOS link cable. 5 metre length with Gold plated
connectors for superior contact connection."

Wonderful. Fraud and deception truly abound in audio.

Graham

**Malcolm** · December 27th 07, 06:51 PM posted to uk.rec.audio

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:02:37 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Malcolm wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 12:27:23 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

[snip]

At the end of the day there's a simple answer. If you really can hear
these differences you claim then you should be able to demonstrate
them reliably to others in proper tests. But of course no one ever
can.

No great point in that - given the fundamental flaws in such "tests".
Which of course is why they never produce any meaningful results.

I take it you have to see a new interconnect plugged in and know what
make it is before you can hear any difference?

And I take it you're avoiding acknowledging any flaws in listening
tests and thus consider them foolproof. Fine by me, carry on in your
your fantasy world.

Malcolm

**Laurence Payne** · December 27th 07, 07:26 PM posted to uk.rec.audio

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:27:48 -0600, Malcolm
wrote:

At the end of the day there's a simple answer. If you really can hear
these differences you claim then you should be able to demonstrate them
reliably to others in proper tests. But of course no one ever can.

No great point in that - given the fundamental flaws in such "tests".
Which of course is why they never produce any meaningful results.

They do when there's meaningful differences :-)

**Malcolm** · December 27th 07, 07:50 PM posted to uk.rec.audio

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:26:50 +0000, Laurence Payne wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:27:48 -0600, Malcolm wrote:

At the end of the day there's a simple answer. If you really can hear
these differences you claim then you should be able to demonstrate
them reliably to others in proper tests. But of course no one ever
can.

No great point in that - given the fundamental flaws in such "tests".
Which of course is why they never produce any meaningful results.

They do when there's meaningful differences :-)

Very true! There's absolutely no problem when such tests show a
reliable reproducible difference between A and B. One can then have a
certain amount of confidence that A and B do indeed differ.

The problem is that many (most?) such tests fail to reliably
distinguish between A and B. One cannot, in that case, say that
A and B are the same. That's a logical fallacy. If/when the
tests fail to show a difference between A and B, one still
doesn't know if A and B are the same or not - which seems to
me to make the test a bit of a waste of time!

In the cases where such tests do reliably distinguish between
A and B, the differences are liable to be so obvious as the make
the test rather superfluous anyway.

Malcolm

**David Looser** · December 28th 07, 09:23 AM posted to uk.rec.audio

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

The problem is that many (most?) such tests fail to reliably
distinguish between A and B. One cannot, in that case, say that
A and B are the same. That's a logical fallacy. If/when the
tests fail to show a difference between A and B, one still
doesn't know if A and B are the same or not - which seems to
me to make the test a bit of a waste of time!

So in other words you pre-judge the outcome by asserting that there *is* an
audible difference between A & B. Then, if the test fails to support this
assertion you dismiss the test as flawed.

Hmmm...

David.