In Reply to: You're really grasping at straws. posted by Pat D on June 20, 2010 at 16:53:41:
Tom has shot down you're contentions about common grounds
For speaker wires, perhaps. And admits that his test is control-free. He has no idea as to whether or not the box dumbs down the test. We'll set validity aside. He continues to speculate about interconnects leading to active power amps where Frank Van Alstine has different experience. Test question: what happens when you plug interconnects from a powered up preamp to a powered up power amplifier? Got a clue? Can you tell us any manufacturer's who recommend this procedure?
Most significantly, you haven't shown controlled testing to show that power cords (and some other things) make an audible difference in a sensible application.
Who gives a crap? Certainly not the recording and audio professionals (not in the cable business) who use them every day. They don't share your lack of exposure and confidence in what you hear. Join Tom in your speculation all you please.
All you can appeal is worthless anecdotal evidence.
As opposed to Tom's non-experiential speculation? LOL!
If you complain about blind tests that have been done
I continue to point out they are control free and largely worthless. Do find a test involving a box where a control was first conducted on the box in situ. Best of luck to you. Are you really interested in what is scientifically valid? It would seem - NOT.
rw
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- 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)