[freckling]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Depends on what he mean with "better", and to who's ear/eyes it should be "better"

I don't think he was looking for better as much as he was looking for a difference.

 

[Sovkiller]

The test was mainly looking for the differences, and the first in backing up was the cable company (Pear Anjou). It was also a restricted test for a couple of magazine reviewers (with names) that also backed up. The details were never specific, nor published IIRC, but I'm assuming that were nothing out of the ordinary as to cover that the test were done under some restricted conditions to make it as objective as posible...at the end what they have to loose? Nothing in comparison as to win 1 million bucks.

BTW the skeptics did not backed up, the ones that proposed the test were the skeptics, the believers were the ones who fail to comply, and backed up, (the ones who had nothing to loose) both the audiophile, and the cable company...

 

[Chri5peed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by freckling /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't think he was looking for better as much as he was looking for a difference.

I'd bloody hope if I bought $7,000 cables any difference would be an improvement.

 

[r010159]

Speaking from an engineering perspective, the only time the physical characteristics of the cable becomes important is for an ultra high frequency signal due to what is called the "skin effect". This does not include the audio frequency range. But since most proponents of cables are not educated electrical engineers, there is much room for speculation. So then it comes down to what gives you that "warm fuzzy" feeling when you listen to music.

But then this has been probably discussed to death. So I should probably not say anything more about it.

Bob Graham

 

[kickassdude]

The test was mainly looking for the differences, and the first in backing up was the cable company (Pear Anjou). It was also a restricted test for a couple of magazine reviewers (with names) that also backed up. The details were never specific, nor published IIRC, but I'm assuming that were nothing out of the ordinary as to cover that the test were done under some restricted conditions to make it as objective as posible...at the end what they have to loose? Nothing in comparison as to win 1 million bucks.

BTW the skeptics did not backed up, the ones that proposed the test were the skeptics, the believers were the ones who fail to comply, and backed up, (the ones who had nothing to loose) both the audiophile, and the cable company...

The reviewers would lose their golden ear status and people will know these guys are full ****. So the magazines will lose readers and money. 

 

[elmoe]

In on 6 year old thread bump