Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:58:27 -0800, bob wrote
(in article <fp7tb3024sb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):

> On Feb 16, 3:17 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:02:27 -0800, bob wrote
> 
>> I would think that if I sent you,
>> without comment, two recordings made on the same equipment and they
sounded
>> substantially different, and you noticed it ON YOUR OWN, that this
would 
>> tend
>> to eliminate the chance of any bias on my part.
> 
> Depends on what you were told about the two recordings.

Sigh, did I not just say that the recordings were sent without comment?

> If it's two versions of the same recording (is that what we're talking
about 
here,
> or sets of different recordings?)

The same recording.

> you'd naturally assume they were
> different, even if you weren't told anything. But any little comment
> could set off expectations (esp. when the guy sending them sells the
> cables in question and wants you to notice!).
> 
> Also, there's not nearly enough information out there to conclude that
> the *only* thing that changed was the cabling. If they did anything
> twice, there's a good chance they did it better the second time--esp.
> if *they* thought they were "hearing deeper into the music" now.

Possible and likely to a certain extent. But remember what these people  
Music Matters were doing was taking existing Rudy Van Gelder master tapes
and 
cutting new phonograph record masters from them. The chain and the
mastering 
process (and indeed the mastering engineers) have been used before and the

process is the same and the people doing the transfers have likely done it

many times before (operating a cutting lathe is non-trivial. If you don't 
what you are doing, you can blow out a cutter head or break an expensive 
cutting stylus in an instant at the very least, and not knowing where the 
safe margins are or what depth to which to cut and a hundred other
variables 
will yield a useless master disc). So, I sort of dicount the "learning
curve" 
scenario. 

> IOW, there are *lots* of possible explanations for this. And given the
> source (TAS, and an Audioquest exec), any of those explanations would
> be more plausible than that the cabling made a difference.

Agreed.