In Reply to: RE: Please describe posted by tomservo on June 19, 2010 at 06:58:17:
Like I said one can measure...
How close were the capacitance and inductance values with and without the switch between the various cables?
Not sure how he would have gotten credit for such an old idea...
You're missing the point. Due to the necessity of having a common ground, you are in fact comparing the sum of all the separate cable's characteristics for each and every selection. In other words, the switch is NOT comparing one cable to another. It is comparing all the cables together to all the cables together. Worthless.
...yet in informal subjective listening cable proponent’s use, none whatsoever exists.
Proctored SBTs work pretty well and eliminate the continually unsubstantiated - and refuted *theory* that the boxes involve no relevant changes to the test.
If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't have magic knobs, magic stones ...
There really is no need to introduce straw men arguments to one on cables. While you have zero experience comparing power cables, many others have. A number of studios and award winning recording engineers find they offer value. Guys who have compared PCs. Perhaps you might try that some day.
The first step is to acknowledge how your brain / ears work together.
The second step is to avoid speculation and when a test uses some added component, one must first prove that the added component is not the cause of the (lack of) variance.
rw
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- 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)