Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: RE: Not responsive.. posted by kerr on June 21, 2010 at 09:54:36:
...were all accustomed to whatever changes if any the switcher caused
The only way that would be possible is to compare listening through the switch to listening without the switch and extra cabling. The box is used or it is not. That would be the necessary control to replace the assumption set.
His main point is that folks tend to focus on visual cues. If proving that was the objective of the test, then it succeeded. If the objective, however, was to objectively compare the signal wires, then it failed.
rw
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups Full ThreadTopic - Power cord realities and illusions - Don Till 20:00:21 06/17/10 (166)
- Wow, this is one of the best and most coherent posts/threads I've seen on AA. - jihad 14:03:22 07/12/10 (0)
- There Is a Company that Follows Your Ideals........... - Todd Krieger 00:12:55 06/22/10 (1)
- RE: There Is a Company that Follows Your Ideals........... - Don Till 17:48:11 06/24/10 (0)
- Get a clue, Don, no one cares what you think is true. nt - Norm 17:43:27 06/19/10 (4)
- I care! nt - Dr. Philosophy 13:23:19 06/22/10 (0)
- A clue? Geez Norm you care and you care enough to respond! - Don Till 08:53:02 06/20/10 (2)
- "I had to think a tiny bit about it in order to come up with a cognitive response. " - robert young 19:38:54 06/20/10 (0)
- As I said. nt - Norm 11:50:34 06/20/10 (0)
- RE: Power cord realities and illusions - tomservo 17:39:55 06/18/10 (144)
- RE: Power cord realities and illusions - cabelok 00:12:51 10/08/15 (5)
- RE: Power cord realities and illusions - geoffkait 06:30:50 10/25/15 (4)
- RE: Power cord realities and illusions - cabelok 12:08:42 10/26/15 (3)
- RE: Power cord realities and illusions - geoffkait 12:27:24 10/27/15 (2)
- RE: Power cord realities and illusions - fantja 14:17:40 01/27/16 (0)
- RE: Power cord realities and illusions - fantja 14:16:54 01/27/16 (0)
- RE: Power cord realities and illusions - Todd Krieger 00:38:50 06/22/10 (0)
- So - E-Stat 19:15:56 06/18/10 (136)
- RE: So - tomservo 20:18:29 06/18/10 (135)
- Please describe - E-Stat 20:53:18 06/18/10 (134)
- RE: Please describe - tomservo 06:58:17 06/19/10 (133)
- Theory is great - E-Stat 07:11:08 06/19/10 (132)
- RE: Theory is great - tomservo 09:03:43 06/19/10 (88)
- "As I recall, the total capacitance was equal to about 4 inches of the least capacitive cable " - E-Stat 09:19:12 06/19/10 (87)
- RE: "As I recall, the total capacitance was equal to about 4 inches of the least capacitive cable " - tomservo 10:17:01 06/19/10 (86)
- Darn Tom...............I thought you were just a regular guy! {smile} ~NT - Cleantimestream 20:05:05 06/22/10 (0)
- I will definitely agree - E-Stat 11:21:11 06/19/10 (84)
- You're really grasping at straws. - Pat D 16:53:41 06/20/10 (83)
- "burden of proof" thing again...... - Sordidman 09:18:27 06/21/10 (54)
- RE: "burden of proof" thing again...... - Phelonious Ponk 03:59:20 06/28/10 (44)
- Observation cannot be subjective or objective - Sordidman 07:47:05 06/28/10 (43)
- RE: Observation cannot be subjective or objective - Phelonious Ponk 17:34:44 06/28/10 (42)
- No: accuracy has never been defined - Sordidman 08:39:29 06/29/10 (17)
- RE: No: accuracy has never been defined - Phelonious Ponk 10:27:20 06/29/10 (16)
- "faithful" is a terribly subjective, undefined term - Sordidman 11:17:06 06/29/10 (15)
- RE: "faithful" is a terribly subjective, undefined term - Phelonious Ponk 11:37:19 06/29/10 (14)
- GAMUT CD players - Sordidman 12:27:07 06/29/10 (13)
- RE: GAMUT CD players - Tony Lauck 15:01:15 06/29/10 (4)
- Can you define the "standard?" - Sordidman 15:20:30 06/29/10 (3)
- RE: Can you define the "standard?" - Tony Lauck 15:28:29 06/29/10 (2)
- The GamuT design (at least the CD-1 that I use) - E-Stat 17:33:05 06/29/10 (0)
- If you want to listen to 2 discs - Sordidman 15:46:18 06/29/10 (0)
- RE: GAMUT CD players - Phelonious Ponk 14:42:27 06/29/10 (7)
- Guess you didn't read my post - Sordidman 15:37:53 06/29/10 (6)
- Actually, I did... - Phelonious Ponk 16:16:45 06/29/10 (5)
- RE: Actually, I did... - Sordidman 17:02:01 06/29/10 (4)
- RE: Actually, I did... - Phelonious Ponk 17:44:39 06/29/10 (3)
- sadly: vagaries are all we have -t - Sordidman 18:06:01 06/29/10 (2)
- Well, they're all you have - NT - Phelonious Ponk 05:08:18 06/30/10 (1)
- No correspondance hearing is fallable, and a moving target -t - Sordidman 10:14:20 07/01/10 (0)
- "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Tony Lauck 19:05:59 06/28/10 (23)
- RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Phelonious Ponk 20:14:04 06/28/10 (22)
- RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Tony Lauck 06:29:17 06/29/10 (21)
- RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Phelonious Ponk 08:02:03 06/29/10 (20)
- RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Tony Lauck 08:40:30 06/29/10 (19)
- RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Phelonious Ponk 11:02:56 06/29/10 (18)
- Sarcasm aside: you're pretty much on target here - Sordidman 11:21:07 06/29/10 (17)
- RE: Sarcasm aside: you're pretty much on target here - Phelonious Ponk 12:11:42 06/29/10 (16)
- Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Sordidman 12:33:39 06/29/10 (15)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Phelonious Ponk 14:57:40 06/29/10 (14)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - kerr 05:29:09 06/30/10 (13)
- Yes, you are right on with that......... -t - Sordidman 10:38:09 06/30/10 (0)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Phelonious Ponk 06:44:58 06/30/10 (3)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - kerr 10:02:20 06/30/10 (2)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Phelonious Ponk 11:59:12 06/30/10 (1)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - kerr 16:33:08 06/30/10 (0)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Tony Lauck 06:20:44 06/30/10 (7)
- You said this much better than I did - Sordidman 10:36:59 06/30/10 (0)
- Agreed (nt) - kerr 10:03:13 06/30/10 (0)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Phelonious Ponk 06:39:45 06/30/10 (4)
- ""I don't need proof to understand that is nonsense."" - Sordidman 10:47:37 06/30/10 (3)
- RE: ""I don't need proof to understand that is nonsense."" - Phelonious Ponk 12:10:24 06/30/10 (2)
- You have made a number of interesting posts - Sordidman 08:03:33 07/02/10 (1)
- RE: You have made a number of interesting posts - Phelonious Ponk 17:19:04 07/02/10 (0)
- Not artistic interpretation, just whether there is an audible difference. - Pat D 11:31:42 06/22/10 (8)
- Sorry to hear that you cannot - E-Stat 16:20:39 06/22/10 (3)
- No wonder you don't understand science! (nt) - Pat D 18:22:23 06/22/10 (2)
- Such a shallow concept of science, as - E-Stat 19:38:29 06/22/10 (1)
- You seem to have no scientific strategies. - Pat D 19:24:23 06/23/10 (0)
- I can - and you cannot. What test in the world would change that? N/T - carcass93 13:08:46 06/22/10 (2)
- Writing again without knowledge, I see. (nt) - Pat D 18:21:03 06/22/10 (1)
- "I see" - that's the thing, Patty... you don't. And that, ... - carcass93 09:14:27 06/23/10 (0)
- Only ever one way to tell: conduct the test -t - Sordidman 12:32:32 06/22/10 (0)
- If you recall - E-Stat 18:30:58 06/20/10 (27)
- What is the objective of the test? - Pat D 18:49:54 06/20/10 (26)
- Look up the concept "control" - E-Stat 19:08:55 06/20/10 (25)
- Not responsive.. - Pat D 19:53:01 06/20/10 (24)
- RE: Not responsive.. - kerr 05:10:01 06/21/10 (15)
- RE: Not responsive.. - tomservo 08:56:27 06/21/10 (12)
- RE: Not responsive.. - kerr 09:54:36 06/21/10 (8)
- Exactly - E-Stat 11:24:34 06/21/10 (7)
- RE: Exactly - tomservo 14:25:37 06/21/10 (5)
- You have proven that which is already known - E-Stat 14:43:13 06/21/10 (4)
- RE: You have proven that which is already known - tomservo 15:26:01 06/21/10 (3)
- All of that is pretty cool, but - E-Stat 15:33:22 06/21/10 (2)
- RE: All of that is pretty cool, but - tomservo 08:33:01 06/22/10 (1)
- What I was interested in - E-Stat 08:39:27 06/22/10 (0)
- RE: Exactly - kerr 11:59:54 06/21/10 (0)
- The challenge with theory - E-Stat 09:11:34 06/21/10 (2)
- RE: The challenge with theory - tomservo 10:08:29 06/21/10 (1)
- I've done better! - E-Stat 10:43:13 06/21/10 (0)
- RE: Not responsive.. - Pat D 08:33:29 06/21/10 (1)
- RE: Not responsive.. - kerr 09:28:09 06/21/10 (0)
- Hmmm - E-Stat 20:20:00 06/20/10 (7)
- RE: Hmmm - Pat D 08:38:35 06/21/10 (6)
- The relevant point is that both of them rely upon switch boxes -nt - E-Stat 08:48:01 06/21/10 (5)
- RE: The relevant point is that both of them rely upon switch boxes -nt - tomservo 09:00:02 06/22/10 (4)
- Apparently, I'm just not getting through - E-Stat 09:11:15 06/22/10 (3)
- RE: Apparently, I'm just not getting through - kerr 13:21:53 06/22/10 (0)
- RE: Apparently, I'm just not getting through - tomservo 11:13:26 06/22/10 (1)
- I give up :) -nt - E-Stat 11:29:34 06/22/10 (0)
- RE: Theory is great - mls-stl 08:00:16 06/19/10 (42)
- RE: Theory is great - tomservo 09:22:33 06/19/10 (1)
- "A test without knowledge" - E-Stat 16:07:07 06/19/10 (0)
- "That does not mean there are no differences, but the scale certainly changes." - robert young 08:15:52 06/19/10 (1)
- RE: "That does not mean there are no differences, but the scale certainly changes." - kerr 09:57:59 06/19/10 (0)
- "That does not mean there are no differences, but the scale certainly changes. " - E-Stat 08:02:21 06/19/10 (37)
- RE: "That does not mean there are no differences, but the scale certainly changes. " - Tony Lauck 11:15:12 06/19/10 (36)
- Disagreed - Phelonious Ponk 05:01:04 06/27/10 (2)
- RE: Disagreed - Tony Lauck 06:30:40 06/27/10 (1)
- RE: Disagreed - Phelonious Ponk 17:15:16 06/27/10 (0)
- Agreed - E-Stat 12:20:33 06/19/10 (32)
- RE: Agreed - Tony Lauck 12:29:26 06/19/10 (31)
- RE: Agreed - Pat D 20:12:40 06/20/10 (24)
- RE: Agreed - Tony Lauck 07:22:56 06/21/10 (2)
- RE: Agreed - Pat D 12:59:12 06/22/10 (1)
- RE: Agreed - Tony Lauck 14:32:01 06/22/10 (0)
- No editing, Pat - E-Stat 06:37:36 06/21/10 (20)
- So now we're talking of a direct feed . . . - Pat D 08:30:33 06/21/10 (19)
- Precisely - E-Stat 08:44:56 06/21/10 (18)
- RE: Precisely - Pat D 19:47:43 06/23/10 (17)
- Have you ever heard of experience? - E-Stat 06:17:13 06/24/10 (16)
- You have a peculiarly truncated notion of experience. - Pat D 09:03:12 06/24/10 (15)
- Truncated experience? - E-Stat 10:07:32 06/24/10 (14)
- RE: Truncated experience? - Pat D 10:57:24 06/24/10 (13)
- RE: Truncated experience? - Tony Lauck 13:59:04 06/24/10 (5)
- RE: Truncated experience? - Pat D 17:10:51 06/24/10 (4)
- RE: Truncated experience? - Tony Lauck 17:37:03 06/24/10 (3)
- RE: Truncated experience? - Pat D 18:01:51 06/24/10 (2)
- RE: Truncated experience? - Tony Lauck 18:18:20 06/24/10 (1)
- The difference of course - E-Stat 18:47:53 06/24/10 (0)
- Assumptions, assumptions - E-Stat 12:13:25 06/24/10 (6)
- You're making lots of assumptions. - Pat D 16:41:07 06/24/10 (5)
- You're just too funny - E-Stat 17:30:11 06/24/10 (4)
- RE: You're just too funny - Tony Lauck 18:06:28 06/24/10 (3)
- Which ones have you heard... - E-Stat 18:43:21 06/24/10 (2)
- RE: Which ones have you heard... - Tony Lauck 19:30:30 06/24/10 (1)
- :) - E-Stat 20:38:56 06/24/10 (0)
- That begs the obvious question - E-Stat 12:33:43 06/19/10 (5)
- Maslow's Hammer? - Tony Lauck 13:34:37 06/19/10 (4)
- "Some time ago" - E-Stat 13:50:21 06/19/10 (3)
- RE: "Some time ago" - Tony Lauck 14:55:49 06/19/10 (1)
- If you recall - E-Stat 16:05:17 06/19/10 (0)
- Thanks! - kerr 14:21:26 06/19/10 (0)
- Pure nonsense on so many levels - it's not even worth responding to. N/T - carcass93 08:21:22 06/18/10 (0)
- We have a winner folks! - E-Stat 07:39:16 06/18/10 (0)
- "...some of us actually believe susceptability to external noise signifies a high resolution system" - robert young 04:24:07 06/18/10 (9)
- Another point of view... - robert young 13:28:55 06/18/10 (0)
- RE: "...some of us actually believe susceptability to external noise signifies a high resolution system" - rick_m 06:40:48 06/18/10 (7)
- Not sure you got my point... - robert young 13:23:18 06/18/10 (6)
- RE: Not sure you got my point... - rick_m 15:23:36 06/18/10 (5)
- I'll try again... - robert young 18:17:59 06/18/10 (4)
- RE: I'll try again... - rick_m 06:48:26 06/19/10 (3)
- Rick, seriously, it is the logic that is flawed...It isn't about cables, or noise, its about a tortured logic. - robert young 08:01:15 06/19/10 (2)
- A perfect example is to notice the evolution - E-Stat 12:30:11 06/19/10 (0)
- RE: Rick, seriously, it is the logic that is flawed...It isn't about cables, or noise, its about a tortured logic. - rick_m 12:17:03 06/19/10 (0)
- There is a less sinister motive. - rick_m 21:20:25 06/17/10 (0)
Follow Ups
- Exactly - E-Stat 11:24:34 06/21/10 (7)
- RE: Exactly - tomservo 14:25:37 06/21/10 (5)
- You have proven that which is already known - E-Stat 14:43:13 06/21/10 (4)
- RE: You have proven that which is already known - tomservo 15:26:01 06/21/10 (3)
- All of that is pretty cool, but - E-Stat 15:33:22 06/21/10 (2)
- RE: All of that is pretty cool, but - tomservo 08:33:01 06/22/10 (1)
- What I was interested in - E-Stat 08:39:27 06/22/10 (0)
- RE: Exactly - kerr 11:59:54 06/21/10 (0)