Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

In article <fpg2r60221b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Peter Wieck <pfjw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
wrote:

> 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".

Peter,

My understanding of "begging the question" is where the argument's 
conclusion is actually one of it's presumptions/assumptions. I don't 
think that's what I said, it certainly wasn't what I meant. I meant that 
I couldn't accept the OP's assumptions and therefore the rest of his 
argument was unacceptable to me.

> (*snip*)

Most of the rest of your considerations are accepted. 

That does not change what I heard, or the conclusions I reached. I (and 
others) have heard differences in connectors/cables many times in blind 
trials. If other people have not heard differences in different trials 
that's something to investigate, but does not in itself invalidate the 
contradicting trials.

I also do not accept the assumption that the basic parameters V I & R 
are fully able to describe the transmission of a complex musical signal 
down a connector, and neither do a lot of scientists.

Many scientists also eschew the use of ABX testing in it's usual form 
(as described here a number of times) as being adequate for making the 
conclusions that are often made here.

It is also now fairly commonly accepted that the influence of the bias 
of the experimenter often influences the perceived outcome.

I further note in your response that you were fairly careful to use 
words like "not necessarily" and "most" and "likely" and I approve.

Greg