Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

Since you resist the point below, let's analyze.

Posted by Pat D on October 16, 2010 at 19:36:56:
E-stat
"My question to him had nothing to do with the null hypothesis. Can't you figure that out?"

Nonsense. The concept of a null hypothesis is not limited to audio DBTs. You not only want articles, but you state:

E-stat
"I still await a single report of any findings to support the "all cables sound the same notion" using equipment better than a mid-fi receiver and bookshelf speakers."

That is a null hypothesis. But, like it or not, you want something which is impossible. You didn't ask for tests using equipment meeting certain parameters, you wanted ones with results which "support" the silly notion that "all cables sound the same," which has been shown to be false--indeed, your own reference to a Stereo Review article from 1983 proves you should know it be false. Thus, what you are maintaining is that he has not met the burden of proof to supply articles meeting criteria which YOU, not mtrycrafts, have set out. It's a scummy little trick. So, you have tried to put forward a "tu quoque" argument, one of the standard fallacies. You're like a little kid shouting "He does it, too." But you even failed in that.

Now let's look at your attempted summary of an exchange in the 2004 AR thread, which simply does not represent what is in the thread.

E-stat
"1. Mtry claimed that expensive (I would say high performance) cables have been involved in DBTs.
2. I ask him for examples
3. He declines saying he doesn't need to prove his claim."

I have already shown that in fact, you said something different than No. 1 and No. 2.

E-stat
"I still await a single report of any findings to support the "all cables sound the same notion" using equipment better than a mid-fi receiver and bookshelf speakers."

So, you didn't even state what you yourself had said!

Mtrycrafts has quite properly pointed out that those who say that two pieces of equipment are audibly different have the burden of proof. And so, let us go to the context of something you quoted:

"Hey, I don't have to have a single citation. You still have the burden of demonstration for differences. Rather simple science. But then, you don't understand that stuff."

So No. 3 is false as well.

I tried to indicate this more gently below, but you stubbornly persisted in misunderstanding that 2004 discussion.

I should point out that if you look up the AR thread you will Richard Greene participated in a test with expensive cables.

Richard Greene
"Ten feet of Radio Shack 14AWG zip cords versus ten-foot $995 Tara Labs speaker cables at DLC Design, an audio consultancy in Michigan. The test was conducted by DLC owner Dave Clark (inventor of the DUMAX dynamic driver measurement system) and Tom Nousaine. Both work full-time in the audio field and both are internationally known."