Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorry if I missed this earlier in the thread, but which cable had the gross flaw and when was it measured?
Which cable? I suggest you read the original post.
Who measured it? Good question. However, the original poster claimed that one cable exhibited an audible high-frequency roll-off. I assume that any audible frequency-response error is measurable. Maybe I'm wrong. Then again, there have been instances where testers have measured cables and some of them, usually very expensive high-end ones, have been shown to have very high shunt capacitance or series inductance, either of which would be enough to produce a measurable low-pass filter in the presence of even reasonable souce and load impedances.
Originally Posted by nezbleu /img/forum/go_quote.gif I find this fascinating, but I do not understand why it is under "sound science" since there is nothing remotely scientific about it. As I understand it, you compared (blind) two interconnects, and they exhibited a noticeable difference in frequency response. You used this difference to defeat a "straw man" who claims that all cables are indistinguishable. However, "objectivists" have never made that claim; rather, they claim that competently made cables with no significant measurable difference will sound the same.
I believe this is a work in progress, with a lot more listening yet to be done. The 'faulty' cable has been identified and replaced with one that is audibly similar to the cheaper cable. No conclusion has yet been drawn on the central debate.
Originally Posted by mike1127 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I stood a 50% chance of getting each right by guessing. I got both right, and in fact was quite sure of the differences I heard, which is a promising start---though in all truth, statistically insignificant.
As long as you don't reach a critical probability (e.g. like 75%) this test shows that you really were just guessing, thus supporting the statement that it's impossible to hear a difference. Also, ~4 tries are by far not enough, so the whole test is statistically irrelevant or invalid like many other posters have stated.
Still, I appreciate your efforts but I'd suggest that you to redo the whole thing, create a new thread and mark this one irrelevant/invalid.
Originally Posted by xnor /img/forum/go_quote.gif As long as you don't reach a critical probability (e.g. like 75%) this test shows that you really were just guessing, thus supporting the statement that it's impossible to hear a difference. Also, ~4 tries are by far not enough, so the whole test is statistically irrelevant or invalid like many other posters have stated.
Mike1127 said in his first post that he recognized it wasn't statistically significant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor /img/forum/go_quote.gif Still, I appreciate your efforts but I'd suggest that you to redo the whole thing, create a new thread and mark this one irrelevant/invalid.
Wow, you're a presumptuous little rascal, with all of 17 posts and two months on this forum, aren't you?
Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Mike1127 said in his first post that he recognized it wasn't statistically significant.
Wow, you're a presumptuous little rascal, with all of 17 posts and two months on this forum, aren't you?
a) That's right, but it's kind of lost in between his "findings".
b) We're a bit touchy today, aren't we? .. eh wait, didn't you point me at the forum rules a few minutes ago, mentioning how to express your opinion in a tactful way? Now I'm confused.
Originally Posted by xnor /img/forum/go_quote.gif . . . eh wait, didn't you point me at the forum rules a few minutes ago, mentioning how to express your opinion in a tactful way? Now I'm confused.
No need for confusion. Telling someone (who's somewhat new to the forum) that they're being presumptuous by telling another member who's been around for quite some time and has offered quite a few interesting contributions on this forum that they should delete their thread because it is "irrelevant/invalid," is not the same as someone who's somewhat new to the forum cussing at folks and suggesting they're "brainwashed" or "superstitious."
As you will see, there tends to be some strong disagreements on this forum between various people with various points of view, so it's easy for flame wars to get started when that might not have been what was intended. And I'm sure you didn't intend that.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
