|Originally posted by mikeg
John Dunlavy makes the following points in his article:
- That those who claim to hear differences between cables do not fully grasp the power of the old "Placebo-Effect."
By definition, the placebo effect only occurs when the test subject can identify the respective conditions being tested before the experiment is conducted (i.e. cable A is on one switch, cable B on the other), or when the subject is led to believe that what he is about to hear is "supposed" to be better/worse than what he/she is used to.
In other words, the placebo effect cannot, by definition, affect the outcome of a random, double-blind test.
I bring these points up because I've heard major differences between cables in such tests, and could consistently identify one cable as being "better" than the other.
|- To say, as some do, that there are factors involved that competent engineers and scientists have yet to identify is utter nonsense and a cover-up for what should be called "pure snake oil and buzzard salve" - in short, pure "fraud".
This statement by Mr. Dunlavy is, in and of itself, pure hogwash (to put it kindly). I posted a quote in one of the infamous "cable" threads by a respected doctor and audiologist who commented that the current body of science is incapable of fully explaining how the human hearing system actually works. I also posted a similar quote from a well-know physicist, expressing an opinion held by many physicists, that the current body of science still cannot completely explain the behavior of electrical signals traveling through various substances, and the effects that other materials may have on such signals. So... if we don't know everything there is to know about electrical conduction, and we don't know everything about how the human ear/brain function, it follows that we surely can't explain everything about the "science" of cables, and it's possible that one cable may sound different than another, even if they "measure" identically using today's measurement devices.
I'm not saying that a lot of the cable "science" out there isn't snake oil; I'm just saying that just because there are dishonest people taking advantage of gullible "audiophiles" doesn't mean that all cable science (or the admitted lack of such) is fraud.