Stereophile & Cable Theory

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

paul packer a écrit :
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:17:48 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
> wrote:
>
>
>>George Minus Middius tries a pitiful diversion :
>>
>>>paul packer said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I imagine George gets more emotional about bad spelling.
>>>
>>>
>>>Lionella has finally admitted that her fellow travelers in anti-E.H.E.E.
>>>slander are 'borgs. That was quite a breakthrough.
>>
>>Nothing like that George, I just obliged you to eat your own
>>excrements... ;-)
>
>
> Sounds tasty.

George is so narcissistic that he loves that.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125516851_93@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:1TkRe.4577$_84.2265@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1125441635_8253@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>>
>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>> news:x90Re.4687$FW1.3544@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:1125410609_379@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4eadnR32hYohoYneRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:1125358027_153@spool6-east.superfeed.net
>>>>>>> "Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:qn3iush2g4pa.1kga5a9z1knu5$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying
>>>>>>>> cables.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stereophile is about buying cables, not cables.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's the thousand monkey effect - after zillions of lying, mindless
>>>>>> posts, Art stumbles into cogency.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Duh, what else is is a consumer magazine for and about,
>>>>> buying things related to the hobby. You seem to have
>>>>> a problem with that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No problem with discussing things related to the hobby, it's the
>>>> outright fraud that they promote, that's the problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, go out and buy some of that fraudulently recommended
>>> equipment, and sue SP for damages for recommending it.
>>> Do you have the balls?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> They'd just claim ignorance.
>>
>
> So, you have no case.
>
>
I'm not being taken in by fraudulent claims, so I'm not a victim.
I also don't have the kind of resources one would need to fight and win such
a case.
It might be interesting to see if there's a firm that would consider a pro
bono case, perhaps a class action suit against Atkinson, et al.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125517687_105@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:SPmRe.4731$9i4.4663@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1125506602_2025@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>>
>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>> news:_FkRe.4569$_84.2029@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>
>>> That you say that "no one has ever heard a difference.....81% is within
>>> probablitity",
>>> that probability for it being chance is very small indeed. You are
>>> claiming only
>>> 5% of the ground. Your knees must be wobbling.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that there were 15 trials for that person, in each
>>> of
>>> six runs, and that he had an 81% or 83% correct score (73 or 75 out of
>>> 90).
>>> I don't know the confidence level of that result, but I would think it
>>> is in the
>>> 85 to 95% range, which indicates it is MUCH more likely that he heard
>>> a difference than that the result was by chance
>>>
>>> But, I know that you won't except that.
>>
>> u r kerect, i wont except that.
>>
>> Even if the confidence level were
>>> 80%, it is four times more likely that the result indicates the ability
>>> to
>>> discern a diference, than the result coming up by chance.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Note, wire is wire. If you want to challenge the idea, take up the
>> $5000.00 challenge being discussed on RAHE. So far the magic wire people
>> have let it sit for years, obviously their confidence level is somewhat
>> lower than 95%.
>>
>
> The results of the six tests on the subject were
> reportedly 15/15, 15/15, 15/15, 15/15, 12/15, and 10/15.
> Scott W. accepted that as statistically significant.
> Do you?
>
>
Yes, but I'd want to know more about the wire being compared, since no one
is arguing that wire can't affect the sound, only that 2 different wires of
simialr construction can't.

There are still people claiming that there is a problem with skin effect in
audio cables, do you think they have a case?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On 31 Aug 2005 11:29:49 -0700, George Middius wrote:

> Don Pearce said:
>
>>>>>> DO people who spend thousands on cables have a problem?
>
>>>>> Not as far as I know. You might want to ask them rather than reaching a
>>>>> decision in vitro, so to speak.
>
>>>> I have - and my decision was reached that way.
>
>>> Do elaborate about this. I'm sure it will end up proving the homily about
>>> a fool and his money, but tell us some details anyway.
>
>>Bored now.
>
> I suppose you know how this looks, right? You don't? Well, maybe I should tell
> you. We removed several layers of bluster surrounding your fear and loathing of
> expensive cables and we got to the nub: Supposedly you know people who paid a
> lot of money for cables and later regretted it. If you could produce details
> about these alleged individuals, you would undermine my suspicion that your
> complaint is really a class-warfare argument. But instead of that, your
> "evidence" conveniently disappears because you're "bored".
>
> To recap: You've admitted you're not involved in the cable business in any way,
> and you don't plan to be. You yourself have never paid a lot for cables, so you
> don't have any personal involvement to defend or avenge. All you were left with
> was the supposed "evidence" that some unnamed and unsummonable individuals got
> taken and presumably were chagrined as a result. But you can't tell us a thing
> about these individuals. So the only motivation left is the 'borg one: If it's
> expensive, it's bad. Period.

Oh George - where do I start? No. I really can't be bothered go here. Ever
seen 8 simple rules, where CJ tries to psychoanalyse the girls and always
gets it wrong and hugely over-complicated?

That's you, that is.

d

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

Don Pearce said:

> > To recap: You've admitted you're not involved in the cable business in any way,
> > and you don't plan to be. You yourself have never paid a lot for cables, so you
> > don't have any personal involvement to defend or avenge. All you were left with
> > was the supposed "evidence" that some unnamed and unsummonable individuals got
> > taken and presumably were chagrined as a result. But you can't tell us a thing
> > about these individuals. So the only motivation left is the 'borg one: If it's
> > expensive, it's bad. Period.
>
> Oh George - where do I start? No. I really can't be bothered go here. Ever
> seen 8 simple rules, where CJ tries to psychoanalyse the girls and always
> gets it wrong and hugely over-complicated?
>
> That's you, that is.


I should have thought you'd accuse me of oversimplifying, not
overcomplicating. Clearly your motivation in this "debate" lies in the
philosophical area rather than a practical one. The Major 'Borgs blabber
on about the prices of this or that and throw the "fraud" accusation out
with great frequency. If you have a philosophical foundation for your
crusading that's not rooted in class envy, please explain.

Unless you're bored, that is.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125517883_111@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:EQmRe.4733$9i4.1860@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1125505407_1981@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>>
>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ZzkRe.4671$9i4.2280@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:1125442034_8269@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:9Q1Re.4720$FW1.2319@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <elmir2m@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:1125425689.386705.286020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> NYOB says: (Google message 12, Aug. 29)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> cables
>>>>>>> where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In
>>>>>>> short
>>>>>>> wire
>>>>>>> is wire."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But "naturally" he is unable to quote "one single bias controlled'
>>>>>>> (his cryptonim for ABX/DBT) comparison between anything and
>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>> else in audio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've pointed you in the right direction. You can lead a man to
>>>>>> knowledge but you can't make him think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where are the reliable bias controlled comparisons that show some
>>>>>> other method is better or even as good?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He was challenged twice for a reference to a published
>>>>>>> report (Author(s), title , year, Nr.,page). of an ABX testing, where
>>>>>>> the majority recognised the difference.. And he clammed up twiice
>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>> to reemerge after a suitable interval.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not wanting to engage you in endless hairsplitting and denials is my
>>>>>> personal preference.
>>>>>> It's like trying to argue with a borna again Christian on the
>>>>>> non-existence of God. It's pointless. You will never admit that ABX
>>>>>> is the standard and that is relaible. You simply deny.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your
>>>>>>> "test" work?
>>>>>>> Ludovic Mirabel
>>>>>>> P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is one
>>>>>>> for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge
>>>>>>> cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83)
>>>>>>> Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one had
>>>>>>> 81% positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the
>>>>>>> ABX
>>>>>>> obstacle race.
>>>>>>> So much for "anyone,ever"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't really understand that 81% is not good enough and that
>>>>>> while it might be an interesting footnote it needs to repeated to
>>>>>> insure they weren't just lucky guesses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No one has.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We just showed you, SOMEONE HAD. 90 trials, 81%
>>>
>>>
>> What you showed was that people can sometimes guess well.
>>
>
> The odds are much higher that the result was not guesswork than
> that the results were guesswork.
> Its so much fun watching you cling to your religious beliefs.
>
>
Wrong again, but thanks for admitting you're as desparate as Ludo.

The wire being compared was sufficiently different in construction that
differences would be expected.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125517948_115@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:QSmRe.4735$9i4.3522@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> <elmir2m@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1125469644.662121.163990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> Mr Le Gal (Google message 86, Aug 30) quotes Greenhill's final comments
>>> on his cable test as a rejoinder to my text in my reply to Mr. NYOB:
>>> "P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is one
>>> for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge
>>> cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83)
>>>> Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one had
>>>> 81% positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the ABX
>>>> obstacle race.
>>> So much for "anyone,ever" (Mr.NYOB said that no one ever heard
>>> difference between cables under ABX)
>>> For Greenhill's comments refer to mr. Le Gal's message.
>>>
>>>
>>> So what else is knew Mr Le Gal? Greenhill, a good 'objectivist"
>>> that he was provided a nice, objectivist comment to suit the nice,
>>> objectivist mag. "The Stereo Review". Indeed the *majority*of
>>> his panel had 50% or less corrects- under ABX/DBT it all sounded the
>>> same to them. Just as happened in all the other trials of amps,
>>> preamps, cdplayers and dacs up to and including a very, properly
>>> designed loudspeaker trial by Sean Olive (JAES,vol.51, No.9, p.806).
>>> You ignored however the interesting part
>>> Greenhill found one consistently accurate panellist scoring 81%, in 5
>>> out of 6 trials, of 15 tests ech, called him the "golden ear" and
>>> observed: "Obviously certain listeners whether through talent,
>>> training or experience can hear small differences between components.
>>> But the majority_ etc" He had two others who came very close to that
>>> high score but said nothing about it. Instead, like all the other
>>> proctors in similar trials, he created through a "mix them all
>>> together" statistical sleight of hand a fictional Mr Average, who did
>>> not hear much.
>>> The fact though was that SOME could overcome the handicap of the DBT
>>> protocol and did well. Better than I would have done because every time
>>> I tried DBTiing with an ABX model I found that after four trials I no
>>> longer knew if it was Rimski Korsakoff or his cockerel that composed
>>> the snippet. But even if only one panelist hears a difference with
>>> statistically significant consistency then the difference is out there,
>>> real to him. That it may not be audible to a thousand others is not of
>>> the slightest relevance to an individual making his high-end choices.
>>> A virtuoso doesn't care if anyone else hears the difference between
>>> his Strad and a music store violin. (I wonder if he'd pass an ABX or
>>> if one of our "scientists" could provide measured specs. for the two?)
>>> In his conclusions Greenhill did not comment about this
>>> contradiction between his results and his "golden ear" comments.
>>> One year ago in the RAHE he was invited by his editor Mr. Atkinson to
>>> elucidate but he chose discreet silence.
>>> I can already hear the parrot cry (I do not mean you Mr. Le Gal):
>>> "I do not like this result. I want a repeat, and then a repeat again
>>> and again till Mr. Golden Ear gives in and signs up to my revealed
>>> faith."
>>> Funnily enough the same people
>>> are perfectly happy with Greenhill's very scrupulous statistical
>>> protocol- as long as it gives them the results they desire and wish
>>> for.
>>> Ludovic Mirabel
>>>
>> Some people are not smart enough to know that the tests you cite are in
>> line with good guesses.
>
> Like if you scored more tham 100 on an IQ test.
>
>
I suppose I could deliberately get some answers wrong, but what would be the
point?

That you don't understand or don't care that wire is wire is noted.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

Just a note about the "5000:00 $ cheque"
In the 4 decades of ABX existence the only available reports by a
thumping majority are" No difference-it all sounds the same"- whatever
is being tested.
Why should wires be different?. The 5000.00 $ stays safe in the
cloud-cuckoo land.
Ludovic Mirabel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"George Middius" <George_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:df4sut01u45@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>
> Don Pearce said:
>
>>>>>> DO people who spend thousands on cables have a problem?
>
>>>>> Not as far as I know. You might want to ask them rather than reaching
>>>>> a
>>>>> decision in vitro, so to speak.

In spite of the evidence that wire is wire? I'd say spending money trying
to achieve the impossible is a problem. There may be some people who spend
thousands on wire simply becuase they think it looks cool or some other
non-sound related issue, but I believe they are few.

>>>> I have - and my decision was reached that way.
>
>>> Do elaborate about this. I'm sure it will end up proving the homily
>>> about
>>> a fool and his money, but tell us some details anyway.
>
>>Bored now.
>
> I suppose you know how this looks, right? You don't? Well, maybe I should
> tell
> you. We removed several layers of bluster surrounding your fear and
> loathing of
> expensive cables and we got to the nub: Supposedly you know people who
> paid a
> lot of money for cables and later regretted it. If you could produce
> details
> about these alleged individuals, you would undermine my suspicion that
> your
> complaint is really a class-warfare argument. But instead of that, your
> "evidence" conveniently disappears because you're "bored".
>
> To recap: You've admitted you're not involved in the cable business in any
> way,
> and you don't plan to be. You yourself have never paid a lot for cables,
> so you
> don't have any personal involvement to defend or avenge. All you were left
> with
> was the supposed "evidence" that some unnamed and unsummonable individuals
> got
> taken and presumably were chagrined as a result. But you can't tell us a
> thing
> about these individuals. So the only motivation left is the 'borg one: If
> it's
> expensive, it's bad. Period.
>
The motivation is to counter deliberate falsehoods being printed by magzines
supposed to be educating conumers about things audio.

Not altruism, just common courtesy.
You should try it.

 

[dizzy]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:46:56 -0500, Dan <dan@nospam.com> wrote:

>Why have a fundamental EM theory explanation to say "what if"? Yes,
>Maxwell was a genius; he predicted the existence of EM waves. The
>question still is can human ears tell the difference. No if humans
>could hear as well as dogs can sniff, there might be something to
>pursue. But last I checked, the only sense that humans excel in is vision.

Well, I understand that "Middius" can smell a Vaseline/feces mixture
from a mile off, which is pretty impressive.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125528831_387@spool6-east.superfeed.net

> High end wire is not of similar construction to mass
> market wire.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

In almost all of the cases where high end wire is
constructed to appear different, it is functionally the
same.

There are a few high end wires that are constructed
significantly differently and have significantly different
technical properties. However, when used with most speakers,
their differing technical properties are moot.

Finally we come down to those very few combinations of high
end wire and esoteric speakers where the high end speaker
wire has some technical advantage over most wire. The same
technical advantage can be obtained with certain
widely-available kinds of generic cable.

Bottom line - high end wire is about paying vastly more for
wire than it is worth. This is typically done out of fear or
to obtain bragging rights.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On 31 Aug 2005 11:29:49 -0700, George Middius
<George_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

>To recap: You've admitted you're not involved in the cable business in any way,
>and you don't plan to be. You yourself have never paid a lot for cables, so you
>don't have any personal involvement to defend or avenge. All you were left with
>was the supposed "evidence" that some unnamed and unsummonable individuals got
>taken and presumably were chagrined as a result. But you can't tell us a thing
>about these individuals. So the only motivation left is the 'borg one: If it's
>expensive, it's bad. Period.

You always were a dumbass, Gorge. The objectivist position is that if
it's expensive, it should justify that expense in terms of its sound
quality. Speakers can, cables cannot.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:45:41 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
<artsackman@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>news:SPmRe.4731$9i4.4663@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1125506602_2025@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>>
>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>> news:_FkRe.4569$_84.2029@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>
>>> That you say that "no one has ever heard a difference.....81% is within
>>> probablitity",
>>> that probability for it being chance is very small indeed. You are
>>> claiming only
>>> 5% of the ground. Your knees must be wobbling.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that there were 15 trials for that person, in each of
>>> six runs, and that he had an 81% or 83% correct score (73 or 75 out of
>>> 90).
>>> I don't know the confidence level of that result, but I would think it is
>>> in the
>>> 85 to 95% range, which indicates it is MUCH more likely that he heard
>>> a difference than that the result was by chance
>>>
>>> But, I know that you won't except that.
>>
>> u r kerect, i wont except that.
>>
>> Even if the confidence level were
>>> 80%, it is four times more likely that the result indicates the ability
>>> to
>>> discern a diference, than the result coming up by chance.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Note, wire is wire. If you want to challenge the idea, take up the
>> $5000.00 challenge being discussed on RAHE. So far the magic wire people
>> have let it sit for years, obviously their confidence level is somewhat
>> lower than 95%.
>>
>The results of the six tests on the subject were
>reportedly 15/15, 15/15, 15/15, 15/15, 12/15, and 10/15.
>Scott W. accepted that as statistically significant.
>Do you?

I certainly do, and I sure hope that I would also be able to tell the
difference between thirty feet of 24AWG and thirty feet of 16AWG wire.
The surprising thing about *that* test is that no one else seemed to
hear any significant difference.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:51:25 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
<artsackman@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>news:77oRe.4777$9i4.1666@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1125517687_105@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>>
>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>> news:SPmRe.4731$9i4.4663@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:1125506602_2025@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:_FkRe.4569$_84.2029@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That you say that "no one has ever heard a difference.....81% is within
>>>>> probablitity",
>>>>> that probability for it being chance is very small indeed. You are
>>>>> claiming only
>>>>> 5% of the ground. Your knees must be wobbling.
>>>>>
>>>>> My understanding is that there were 15 trials for that person, in each
>>>>> of
>>>>> six runs, and that he had an 81% or 83% correct score (73 or 75 out of
>>>>> 90).
>>>>> I don't know the confidence level of that result, but I would think it
>>>>> is in the
>>>>> 85 to 95% range, which indicates it is MUCH more likely that he heard
>>>>> a difference than that the result was by chance
>>>>>
>>>>> But, I know that you won't except that.
>>>>
>>>> u r kerect, i wont except that.
>>>>
>>>> Even if the confidence level were
>>>>> 80%, it is four times more likely that the result indicates the ability
>>>>> to
>>>>> discern a diference, than the result coming up by chance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Note, wire is wire. If you want to challenge the idea, take up the
>>>> $5000.00 challenge being discussed on RAHE. So far the magic wire
>>>> people have let it sit for years, obviously their confidence level is
>>>> somewhat lower than 95%.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The results of the six tests on the subject were
>>> reportedly 15/15, 15/15, 15/15, 15/15, 12/15, and 10/15.
>>> Scott W. accepted that as statistically significant.
>>> Do you?
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, but I'd want to know more about the wire being compared, since no one
>> is arguing that wire can't affect the sound, only that 2 different wires
>> of simialr construction can't.
>>
>> There are still people claiming that there is a problem with skin effect
>> in audio cables, do you think they have a case?
>>
>
>High end wire is not of similar construction to mass market wire.

But if it has the same (or roughly the same) overall gauge, it does
*sound* the same as mass market wire. As the test you're all wetting
yourselves about showed. Nobody ever argued that 24AWG wire was the
same as 16AWG wire.........................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On 31 Aug 2005 21:24:04 -0700, elmir2m@pacificcoast.net wrote:

>Just a note about the "5000:00 $ cheque"
>In the 4 decades of ABX existence the only available reports by a
>thumping majority are" No difference-it all sounds the same"- whatever
>is being tested.

Just another despicable lie from the biggest liar and audiophool on
Usenet. ABX reveals differences every working day at many of the major
audio manufacturers R&D labs. That's what it's *for*, you cretin.

>Why should wires be different?. The 5000.00 $ stays safe in the
>cloud-cuckoo land.

Sure it does - because cloud-cuckoo land is of course your home
state.........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:52:35 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
<artsackman@comcast.net> wrote:

>"nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>news:AboRe.4779$9i4.1670@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

>> The wire being compared was sufficiently different in construction that
>> differences would be expected.
>>
>
>Ok, So, high end wire can sound different. Thanks

No, because the two 16AWG wires sounded the same - it was only the
24AWG wire that sounded different - as anyone would expect.

But thanks for continuing to reveal yourself as a dishonest cretin.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:37:30 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
<artsackman@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"ScottW" <ScottW48@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1125526704.545509.120300@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>> "ScottW" <ScottW48@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >
>>> > That is definitely statistically significant.
>>> >
>>> > I'd be interested in further details of the test.
>>> > Can you provide a link to the complete article?
>>> >
>>> > ScottW
>>> >
>>>
>>> 82/90 is 91% BTW
>>
>> I'm surprised only one participant did this well after hearing the
>> test was 24 AWG vs 16 AWG over 30 feet. How meaningless can one get?
>>
>> ScottW
>>
>
>According to Stewart.
>The other guy says that each run was of a alightly different
>comparison. So far, the facts are unknown.

Bullshit, that article was published in Stereo Review in 1983, it's
hardly a State Secret!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125528064_367@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:45oRe.4776$9i4.1990@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1125516851_93@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>>
>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1TkRe.4577$_84.2265@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:1125441635_8253@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:x90Re.4687$FW1.3544@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:1125410609_379@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4eadnR32hYohoYneRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:1125358027_153@spool6-east.superfeed.net
>>>>>>>>> "Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:qn3iush2g4pa.1kga5a9z1knu5$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying
>>>>>>>>>> cables.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Stereophile is about buying cables, not cables.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's the thousand monkey effect - after zillions of lying, mindless
>>>>>>>> posts, Art stumbles into cogency.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Duh, what else is is a consumer magazine for and about,
>>>>>>> buying things related to the hobby. You seem to have
>>>>>>> a problem with that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No problem with discussing things related to the hobby, it's the
>>>>>> outright fraud that they promote, that's the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, go out and buy some of that fraudulently recommended
>>>>> equipment, and sue SP for damages for recommending it.
>>>>> Do you have the balls?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> They'd just claim ignorance.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, you have no case.
>>>
>>>
>> I'm not being taken in by fraudulent claims, so I'm not a victim.
>> I also don't have the kind of resources one would need to fight and win
>> such a case.
>> It might be interesting to see if there's a firm that would consider a
>> pro bono case, perhaps a class action suit against Atkinson, et al.
>
> Surely there must be such a law firm as Class Envy and Borg
>
>
If you think my disdain for SP and their delude believers has to with class
envy, you are most assuredly wrong. I just don't like trying to decieve
people. I think the best thing for audio magazines or any hobby magazine is
to maximize the enjoyment by giving recomendations that will actually
improve performance. If there were something besides loudspeakers, room
treatment and EQ that would likely improve the sound of a system, I'd be all
for it. The simple fact is there aren't.

I certainly don't begrudge anyone spending as much as they can afford on
whatever they want for whatever reason they want, but I do think they ought
to be getting the best possible advice before they make the purchase.

Whatever advances that might be possible will most likely come from
somewhere other than the ultra expensive, small volume manufacturers, since
they don't have the resources for the research that would produce such
improvements.

When people flat out lie about the perfomance improvements that a peice of
equipment, it's my feeling that such information shoud be challenged. If
manufacturers want to chare high prices for gear they ought to expect
challenges. Aside from liking the way one peice of gear looks as opposed
to another, why would anyone want tos spend more monye than needed to
achieve the same performance. Do you think they'd sell more VW's of they
performed exactly the way Porsche does? Do you tink if someone made a car
that performed exactly the way a Porsce does that they'd likely sell plenty?

It's not about envy, it's always been about the truth of the claims.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125528831_387@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:77oRe.4777$9i4.1666@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1125517687_105@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>>
>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>> news:SPmRe.4731$9i4.4663@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:1125506602_2025@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:_FkRe.4569$_84.2029@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That you say that "no one has ever heard a difference.....81% is
>>>>> within probablitity",
>>>>> that probability for it being chance is very small indeed. You are
>>>>> claiming only
>>>>> 5% of the ground. Your knees must be wobbling.
>>>>>
>>>>> My understanding is that there were 15 trials for that person, in each
>>>>> of
>>>>> six runs, and that he had an 81% or 83% correct score (73 or 75 out of
>>>>> 90).
>>>>> I don't know the confidence level of that result, but I would think it
>>>>> is in the
>>>>> 85 to 95% range, which indicates it is MUCH more likely that he heard
>>>>> a difference than that the result was by chance
>>>>>
>>>>> But, I know that you won't except that.
>>>>
>>>> u r kerect, i wont except that.
>>>>
>>>> Even if the confidence level were
>>>>> 80%, it is four times more likely that the result indicates the
>>>>> ability to
>>>>> discern a diference, than the result coming up by chance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Note, wire is wire. If you want to challenge the idea, take up the
>>>> $5000.00 challenge being discussed on RAHE. So far the magic wire
>>>> people have let it sit for years, obviously their confidence level is
>>>> somewhat lower than 95%.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The results of the six tests on the subject were
>>> reportedly 15/15, 15/15, 15/15, 15/15, 12/15, and 10/15.
>>> Scott W. accepted that as statistically significant.
>>> Do you?
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, but I'd want to know more about the wire being compared, since no
>> one is arguing that wire can't affect the sound, only that 2 different
>> wires of simialr construction can't.
>>
>> There are still people claiming that there is a problem with skin effect
>> in audio cables, do you think they have a case?
>>
>
> High end wire is not of similar construction to mass market wire.
>
>
It's made from the same kind of wire. 16 AWG copper wire sounds the same at
25 cents per foot as 16 AWG wire at 500 dollars per foot.

The terminations make no difference to the sound in any way.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125541957_775@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
> <torresists@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1125539699.481277.232170@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>> news:77oRe.4777$9i4.1666@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>> >
>>> > "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> > news:1125517687_105@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>> >>
>>> >> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>> >> news:SPmRe.4731$9i4.4663@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> >>> news:1125506602_2025@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>> >>>> news:_FkRe.4569$_84.2029@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> That you say that "no one has ever heard a difference.....81% is
>>> >>>> within
>>> >>>> probablitity",
>>> >>>> that probability for it being chance is very small indeed. You are
>>> >>>> claiming only
>>> >>>> 5% of the ground. Your knees must be wobbling.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> My understanding is that there were 15 trials for that person, in
>>> >>>> each
>>> >>>> of
>>> >>>> six runs, and that he had an 81% or 83% correct score (73 or 75 out
>>> >>>> of
>>> >>>> 90).
>>> >>>> I don't know the confidence level of that result, but I would think
>>> >>>> it
>>> >>>> is in the
>>> >>>> 85 to 95% range, which indicates it is MUCH more likely that he
>>> >>>> heard
>>> >>>> a difference than that the result was by chance
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> But, I know that you won't except that.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> u r kerect, i wont except that.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Even if the confidence level were
>>> >>>> 80%, it is four times more likely that the result indicates the
>>> >>>> ability
>>> >>>> to
>>> >>>> discern a diference, than the result coming up by chance.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>> Note, wire is wire. If you want to challenge the idea, take up the
>>> >>> $5000.00 challenge being discussed on RAHE. So far the magic wire
>>> >>> people have let it sit for years, obviously their confidence level
>>> >>> is
>>> >>> somewhat lower than 95%.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> The results of the six tests on the subject were
>>> >> reportedly 15/15, 15/15, 15/15, 15/15, 12/15, and 10/15.
>>> >> Scott W. accepted that as statistically significant.
>>> >> Do you?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> > Yes, but I'd want to know more about the wire being compared, since no
>>> > one
>>> > is arguing that wire can't affect the sound, only that 2 different
>>> > wires
>>> > of simialr construction can't.
>>> >
>>> > There are still people claiming that there is a problem with skin
>>> > effect
>>> > in audio cables, do you think they have a case?
>>> >
>>>
>>> High end wire is not of similar construction to mass market wire.
>>>
>>>
>> Aside from possible differences in durability, if they are audibly
>> identical, who cares?
>>
>
> "if" they are.
> My experience in sighted evaluation is that there
> are differences for some of them, but not substantial differences, and
> the it is not cost effective for me to deal with it. I just buy
> better sounding equipment, it makes a more substantial difference.
> I fel the same way about most of what the borgs call tweak equipment
> like poweer line conditioners, etc. But I reserve to others
> to find for themselves what they will.
>
> I've always said that the piece of equipment that
> improves my sound the most is my record cleaner.
>
>
BOB MOREIN, where is your condemnation of Arts' posts and attacks on his IQ?
This post of his is full of errors. Aren't you going to tell him how low his
IQ is.