In Reply to: Please describe posted by E-Stat on June 18, 2010 at 20:53:18:
“your control process that supports your assumption that the switch box has zero crosstalk which would affect the results.”
Like I said one can measure what effect the switcher has / examine it via measurement. At low impedance's like speaker cables, cross talk is essentially non-existent (too small to hear / measure).
“Frank Van Alstine has already done that and determined that you are indeed comparing all cables to all cables. Once again, what is your control?”
Not sure how he would have gotten credit for such an old idea but the strength of it is you are comparing one item to another without knowing which is which.
When as happened often that people went from “hearing it clearly” to not at all when the only change was the indicators working or not, that strongly suggests they were all lying to begin with (golden ear confidence) or what they heard was not connected to the airborne / audible part of the experience.
Without having tried this, I am not sure how certain you can be that it isn’t a real effect, as it applies to all other areas of sensory input testing including hearing tests..
You ask several times what is your control? It sounds like you might be familiar with scientific testing yet in informal subjective listening cable proponent’s use, none whatsoever exists.
How did you accomplish “An entirely without using untested devices never used in normal listening which are merely presumed to have no effect.” and still be able to compare A vs B rapidly and without any prior knowledge as is required?
At the very crudest level of testing one can have a person switch back and forth but as in other testing, there is a strong possibility of the case being telegraphed, hence electronic switching with relays.
If you are concerned that the switch is audible, go back and forth having someone else manually switch the cables to bypass / remove it and see.
Remember the basis of a part of hifi marketing is the same as many other commercial products, they don't always have to work to have a devoted following.
If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't have magic knobs, magic stones and myriad of other subjective only products to separate a person from his coins. Testing without prior knowledge is one of the only ways to tell if the effect is internal or external to your eardrums, weather or not your its your ears or brain that "hears" something.
The first step is to acknowledge how your brain / ears work together.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- 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)