DO CABLES REALLY MATTER?

taras22,

My goodness, firing the personal insults at full blast! Is this going continue to be your modus operandi? Maybe you don’t care, but whatever titillation comments like those may bring you, it makes it harder to take your posts seriously.


You made some claims to cd318 about "facts" and I believe I showed it would be a rush to judgement to just accept your anecdotes as establishing the "facts" you assert to be true.

Given your attitude is one of disparaging what I write, I presume the article you linked to is meant to act as some form of riposte to what I’ve been saying here.

I’ve read it before. And read it again tonight.

I’m left with this question:

What do you actually think that article establishes, and how is it relevant to what I’ve written?

Is it really that complicated.  

prof

... it’s a misnomer to think that scientists don’t talk of subjects "failing" tests. Of course they do. For instance study subjects in medical trials can be said to have "failed to respond to the control treatment," etc.

You're being silly. The purpose of a drug trial is to test the efficacy of a treatment. It's not to test the patient.

Of course double blind (or single blind) listening tests can test a listener.
What do you think happens in a hearing test?

You're being silly. Of course you can test a subject's hearing. You can also test a subject for fluency in Spanish, or calculus. But the topic of this thread is, "Do cables really matter?" To ascertain the answer, you test cables, not listeners.



 

Here's what esteemed reviewer Herb Reichert wrote in Listener (early '90's): "Wire is like a condom. If it works everything is fine. If not ..."

roberjerman

"Wire is like a condom. If it works everything is fine. If not ..."

If you think wire is like a condom, you're using at least one of them wrong.