Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

On Feb 16, 10:51 am, Greg Wormald
> You see, this is where we part company. So everything that follows is
impossible for me to accept.

OK... With respect, you are committing the fallacy of "Begging the
Question".

Just look at it another way for a moment, and add a few obvious
considerations (not "parameters", just "considerations"):

a) the Human Ear is just that, Human. It is subject to variations
based on temperature, mood, recent sexual activity, alcohol
consumption, blood pressure - thousands of variables with possible
effects on the perception.

b) the "Laws of Physics", whilst not necessarily immutable - that will
depend on the fullness of time - are certainly well understood and
well-discussed when it comes to the conduction of audio-frequency
electrical impulses through various conductors of various lengths
under various conditions. Put another way, Newtonian Physics is just
fine for ballistics, common machinery design and so forth. Not
necessarily for interstellar NTL/FTL travel, but for lobbing an
explosive shell a few miles, no problem.

c) William of Occam suggests strongly that we should not needlessly
increase complexity. Which is less complex to understand: That
electrical impulses at audio frequencies traveling through various
conductors of various lengths contravene the Laws of Physics as
presently understood, or that the human ear is subject to error?

d) Just as it is possible for a 50/50 odds result to happen in one
particular way 20 times out of 22 in any given test - or more
(flipping a coin, for instance), it is entirely possible that an
individual might "hear" differences 9 times out of 10 in a test, but
by pure blind luck.

e) Just as with any other bit of "science", unless any given test is
repeatable and with consistent results it is simply anecdote. And even
though there may be any number of anecdotes and any amount of
anecdotal evidence - it ain't necessarily so.

f) I would posit that most hearing-individuals here could distinguish
the difference between very badly made "patch cords" with construction
and design flaws and the very-bestest-most-expensive-oxygen-free-
silver-patch-cords-rolled-on-the-thighs-of-virgins-by-the-first-full-
moon-after-Walpurgis-Night. What is far more dubious is whether that
same (any) individual could distinguish between the latter and a
totally unremarkable but well-made, adequately designed, decent
material patch-cord in precisely the same application under precisely
the same conditions. Put another way, improvements at the margins are
far harder to recognize and describe than basic good design,
manufacturing values and quality-control.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA