In Reply to: Ah, I see, a "tu quoque" argument. posted by Pat D on October 15, 2010 at 14:03:42:
My question to him had nothing to do with the null hypothesis. Can't you figure that out?The real problem is to find reports which establish that there are audible differences between speaker wires...
The real problem is finding anyone who bothers to test the highest performance cabling. Such doesn't happen or they use erroneous test procedures using unproven assumptions.
There is no burden of proof to establish something it is impossible to establish.
Ever the pedantic reply. Perhaps if I simplify the story, you might be able to understand it.
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.Yet you are silly enough to ask the mtrycrafts provide evidence to support a negative hypothesis *YOU* have laid out!
Are you really incapable of understanding the above? My question to him has nothing at all to do with the null hypothesis. I questioned his claim and he folded. Surely you are smarter than that - even if your memory is poor.
Do you understand the question now?
edit: You probably don't any better today than long ago. here is where we first discussed his inability to document any of his claims. I replied to a really funny post of his where he demonstrates that he is utterly incapable of following a story (like you) and rants on. Here is my reply to his post. I should have included this other line from his post:
"They are not equally expensive as one was $990. the other a cheapo."
One cost $300 while the other, about $110.
rw
rw
Edits: 10/15/10
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Wrong again - E-Stat 14:31:15 10/15/10 (29)
- Since you resist the point below, let's analyze. - Pat D 19:36:56 10/16/10 (11)
- I'm not going to dissect this next journey into confusion - E-Stat 06:37:05 10/17/10 (6)
- You keep changing your ground. - Pat D 05:03:15 10/18/10 (5)
- You need to read again what I said - E-Stat 06:18:56 10/18/10 (4)
- Changing your ground again. - Pat D 07:22:14 10/18/10 (3)
- Evidence? - Tony Lauck 07:50:25 10/18/10 (0)
- Your memory fails you again - E-Stat 07:33:22 10/18/10 (1)
- RE: Your memory fails you again - Pat D 10:23:28 10/19/10 (0)
- Please fix your references. - Tony Lauck 21:13:41 10/16/10 (3)
- The URL works for me. - Pat D 04:53:10 10/18/10 (1)
- Thank you. - Tony Lauck 06:46:09 10/18/10 (0)
- There is no reference to BassNut's test - E-Stat 06:31:11 10/17/10 (0)
- So how does this show cables sound different? (nt) - Pat D 15:20:44 10/15/10 (16)
- It doesn't - E-Stat 15:39:35 10/15/10 (15)
- I know. - Pat D 18:10:36 10/15/10 (14)
- RE: I know. - josh358 14:38:45 10/16/10 (4)
- RE: I know. - Pat D 19:52:33 10/16/10 (3)
- RE: I know. - josh358 20:27:09 10/16/10 (2)
- RE: I know. - Pat D 05:16:33 10/18/10 (1)
- RE: I know. - josh358 09:11:02 10/19/10 (0)
- You know what? - E-Stat 20:40:37 10/15/10 (8)
- It would help if you actually read that old thread at AR. - Pat D 19:44:30 10/16/10 (7)
- That is exactly what I would say to you! - E-Stat 06:29:13 10/17/10 (6)
- Why do persist in propagating falsehoods? - Pat D 04:44:15 10/18/10 (0)
- You're not getting it! - kerr 08:21:59 10/17/10 (4)
- RE: You're not getting it! - Pat D 05:21:16 10/18/10 (1)
- RE: You're not getting it! - kerr 09:41:53 10/18/10 (0)
- Such just boggles the mind -nt - E-Stat 09:00:16 10/17/10 (1)
- I don't think that's true - kerr 09:48:30 10/17/10 (0)