Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

"Greg Wormald" <greg.wormald@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fpigeu02o2l@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.

Tell us the details of these trials. Unless the cables were peculiarly 
flawed, this is an exceptional result.

> If other people have not heard differences in different trials
> that's something to investigate, but does not in itself
> invalidate the contradicting trials.

In general, there are no audible differences between even marginally good 
interconnects, There are not even any measurable differences in many
cases.

> 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,

Name the other relevant parameters.

> and neither do a lot of scientists.

Any scientist who believed such a thing would be able to name the other 
relevant parameters.

> 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.

Please name a true scientist who believes that, and cite the scientific 
paper in which he said that.

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

Yes, that is why true scientists do double blind listening tests.