Quote:
Originally Posted by
scuttle 
You reach the pointless-as-magic-cables level when you buy a tube amp. After that you're into "I'm concerned that my voodoo practioner may not be following FDA guidelines" territory.
That's not to say that you shouldn't practice voodoo - or tubedoo. But you've already gone outside scientific criteria when you do. (Basically, the spiel for tube amps is supposed to be that the distortions they produce make music sound better... To which to the scientific reply is "That's not what blind test's show" and the common sense one is "I want to hear what the musician played.")
Evidence eg
http://tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/index.htm
I don't have an opinion on tube rolling in any direction, but the 'evidence' you posted is nowhere close to being empirical or reliable. For one, the link you posted is the only site where the 'test' appears on, and everybody else simply links to it. Also, there is no test data, nor any results, nor anything that allows one to draw their own conclusions based on the data. It simply goes from "here's the setup" to "here's the conclusion". The page even states that, "He doesn't keep detailed logs of the responses because he said they always show random responses".
As far as I'm concerned, this is essentially the same as hearsay. It's well-written hearsay, but it's exactly the same as if I said "I ran a test with one million participants in a tightly controlled environment using ABX testing to test two different tubes using the same equipment, and my results show that over 90% of the participants could hear a difference between the two tubes and accurately identify which one is which." How is my statement any less valid than what is written in that article? Because the article was better-written? Unfortunately, a well-written article does not constitute as proper evidence.
