In Reply to: Umm posted by RGA on November 13, 2002 at 20:02:04:
I'm not saying there are differences in any particular piece of gear...but trying to disprove claims on bad tests like magazines and AES journals etc is simply spurious.I certainly agree. There is a point in your statement that to me is personally important. I believe that a person who raises questions regarding the current state of the art in DBTs should not automatically be labeled as making unsubsubstantiated claims about cable differences and likened to people who believe in alien abductions, creationism and astrology. Likewise, a person who questions the lack of reliability in sighted auditions because of bias shouldn't be labeled as pushing a point of view that "wire is wire is wire."
I think your point regarding number of trials is very important, and seems to me to be often overlooked by those who point uncritically to reported cable and component DBTs which have supposedly produced null results.
Here's a post where I set out the material I've gathered on the issue of number of trials:
http://www.audioasylum.com/members/mgeneral/messages/887.html
Also see:http://www.audioasylum.com/members/mgeneral/messages/397.html
For an interesting discussion on objectivity.
All of which leads me to tentative conclude that home brew blind tests may be pratically worthless and that it is somewhat unlikely that anyone soon will be conducting reliable DBTs on cables.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Umm - Phil Tower 07:05:13 11/14/02 (5)
- Sorry, Phil, but the article above yours in the thread - jj 18:30:08 11/15/02 (4)
- Re: Sorry, Phil, but the article above yours in the thread - Phil Tower 06:32:03 11/16/02 (3)
- I mean RGA's post that you responded to. - jj 13:37:23 11/16/02 (2)
- Re: I mean RGA's post that you responded to. - RGA 14:40:53 11/16/02 (1)
- Um ... - jj 16:59:07 11/16/02 (0)