In Reply to: RE: "As I recall, the total capacitance was equal to about 4 inches of the least capacitive cable " posted by tomservo on June 19, 2010 at 10:17:01:
Nope, you get the results the test gives...
Most folks don't appreciate that fact. Certainly not the two individuals I cited. Nor dialtones like RBNG.
Those electrical properties causing the change can be measured like in all other areas of electronics by examining the cable open circuit and closed at the far end with a network analyzer.
I'm not saying controls cannot be conducted. In practice, however, they simple aren't. Period. Not by anyone. Why would you need to test a researcher's arrogant assumption? You continue to dodge the issue that the *test* you gave as evidence is likewise control free.
Can that be said for the promoters of the other side of the argument?
When it is a cable manufacturer or dealer, no. When it is another speaker designer, amplifier designer, recording engineer, or audio reviewer for which there is no inherent predisposition, then the answer is yes. Why would Carl Marchisotto, Luke Manley, Jud Barber, Roger West, et. al. or any other non-cable manufacturer use something other than *perfect* zip cord?
I agree that with virtually all components, the level of improvement at the high end follows rapidly diminishing returns. I've never been "blown away" by cables. The added level of realism the better ones afford has put a smile on my face on many an occasion though. :)
rw
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- 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)