Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

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

RE: I don't think you understand the concept as much as you think you do

Posted by Davey on July 10, 2017 at 07:39:10:
Dave,
You've highlighted some valid qualifiers of the Sanders test in question. (I noted those as well three years ago when this was mentioned by "E-Stat" on the other forum.)
Yes indeed there are some issues with the A/B testing as Sanders as outlined it, but what I was trying to do then (as now) is give Roger the benefit of the doubt regarding his thinking on the basic validity of the concept. I'm not the originator of this, but I do understand what Roger is getting at.
I was then elaborating on his scheme with things that would make it much more valid. But by this time, the heels were well dug in by other posters. :)
The speaker crossover analogy was not the best, but I was trying to highlight a similar scheme that might be more understandable for E-Stat. He had suggested awhile back that for any common source split path network configuration all the characteristics would lump and yield identical signals at both destinations. (This is the basic premise of his whole rejection of the Sanders scheme.)
In the speaker analogy, yes indeed, even at the one frequency where the low-pass and high-pass filters are exactly the same amplitude there 'may' be a phase difference. But the "they do see the same signal" statement posited by Bob Rex is clearly incorrect.
I will stipulate this whole concept is tricky for some to get their heads wrapped around. Circuit analysis here and how some parameters lump is more complicated than it might seem.
The rest of your post regarding ABX testing clouds the issue, a bit. Typical audio sources not being theoretical voltage sources...non-used open-circuited interconnects...switchbox concerns, etc, etc, are all qualifiers that may invalidate the scheme. All of these (and others) I already noted three years ago.
Let me reiterate again....I have NEVER said there aren't some possible issues with the Sanders interconnect testing scheme. :) But unlike others, I don't completely reject it out of hand because of a few issues.
If you haven't already, check out the original paper from Roger Sanders and you decide how misguided his thinking is on this topic.
http://sanderssoundsystems.com/technical-white-papers/54-cables-white-paper
Cheers,
Dave.