In Reply to: A couple of problems with that posted by Commuteman on August 23, 2004 at 15:16:04:
I'm waiting for better suggestions. I've been waiting for about 30 years. The audiophile cable industry hasn't offered any. Nobody else has either. Every practical suggestion gets shot down with a litany of objections which make little sense."You suggest listening to the cable in a different or artificial context, e.g in the tape loop."
Not necessarily. I said that the test should use a shunt. The shunt could be from external bus bar shorting the test cable for all I know. I just used the example of a tape loop as an easy way for me to satisfy myself. A scientifically acceptable test would of course have to be far more rigorous using specially designed equipment. Being passive devices which merely conduct a signal from one point to another, cables have the unique property that their effects can be alternatively inserted and bypassed in a circuit to observe what effect their presence has. Don't you accept that notion?
"The act of listening in an attempt to identify differences is a fundamentally different task than listening to music, so you have introduced another variable. Has anyone proven that the results are the same?"
If you don't belive that they are, then you don't belive in the math and science which tells us how to break down complex waveforms into simpler ones so that they can be analyzed to a far greater extent than a jumbled incomprehensible squiggle on an oscilloscope. At one time we'd have had to throw up our hands. But today, if that is what is required, computers can be programmed to analyze the squiggles that humans can't and to make sense of any differences caused by the addition of a wire into a circuit.
Are you saying that nobody can devise a method for correlating perceived differences and any objective electrical measurement technique? Is there something about it which defies analysis by anyone ever? What I am saying is that if you reject the analytical techniques available today, show us where and why they are flawed and point the way to developing satisfactory ones which will be acceptable.
"AFAIK, there are no switching methodologies that have been shown to reliably detect small differences."
Then show us where they are flawed and then there is the opportunity to devise new ones that will work.
So what is the logical conclusion of your arguement? We have no way to test or analyze cables objectively and we can never develop one? There is no way to ever find a correlation between the objective electrical performance of cables and their subjective effect. I think that is what you are saying.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: A couple of problems with that - Soundmind 16:29:46 08/23/04 (34)
- Some misunderstandings - Commuteman 17:34:52 08/23/04 (33)
- Re: Some misunderstandings - jneutron 10:49:23 08/24/04 (2)
- Now we're gettin' somewhere! :-) - Commuteman 14:52:33 08/25/04 (1)
- Re: Now we're gettin' somewhere! :-) - jneutron 06:01:30 08/26/04 (0)
- Re: Some misunderstandings - Soundmind 19:20:30 08/23/04 (29)
- The Gloves are off! - Jon Risch 20:07:42 08/23/04 (28)
- Re: The Gloves are off! - jneutron 06:00:04 08/24/04 (20)
- C'mon John... - Commuteman 08:21:27 08/24/04 (19)
- Hi peter - jneutron 09:09:44 08/24/04 (18)
- But he hit the nail on te head..... - Commuteman 09:27:59 08/24/04 (17)
- What nail? - jneutron 10:15:25 08/24/04 (16)
- Re: What nail? - Jon Risch 19:41:38 08/24/04 (10)
- Re: What nail? - Mudcat 11:34:38 10/28/04 (1)
- Re: What nail? - Mudcat 11:36:52 10/28/04 (0)
- more denigration there Jon?? do any synchronized swimming lately? - jneutron 06:34:46 08/25/04 (7)
- There was some content in JR's post. Gonna answer, or continue to sling mud? nt - Commuteman 13:05:40 08/25/04 (6)
- Lets review the content...and see what there is to answer.. - jneutron 13:37:31 08/25/04 (5)
- Wow, John... - Commuteman 14:14:34 08/25/04 (4)
- Stop with the between the lines stuff. - jneutron 06:52:48 08/26/04 (3)
- Sorry - wont chicken out again on you ;o) nt! - Granholm 06:09:43 08/27/04 (2)
- Well ok.. - Granholm 06:19:54 08/27/04 (1)
- Re: Well ok.. - jneutron 06:49:29 08/27/04 (0)
- OK - Commuteman 10:56:37 08/24/04 (4)
- Re: OK - Dan Banquer 11:58:37 08/24/04 (1)
- Great post....see we can discuss reasonably...... - Commuteman 17:28:44 08/24/04 (0)
- Re: OK - jneutron 11:53:44 08/24/04 (1)
- Re: OK - Dan Banquer 12:37:45 08/24/04 (0)
- Re: The Gloves are off! - Soundmind 04:53:26 08/24/04 (6)
- One last attempt. - Jon Risch 20:38:34 08/24/04 (1)
- Incorrect again, dude... - jneutron 06:58:11 08/25/04 (0)
- Hmmmm... where have you been? - Commuteman 09:12:29 08/24/04 (3)
- Hmmm - jneutron 10:19:40 08/24/04 (1)
- Hey, everybody has moments of weakness....;-) - Commuteman 11:32:30 08/24/04 (0)
- Re: Hmmmm... where have you been? - Soundmind 09:20:33 08/24/04 (0)