Cable "burning": Real or VooDoo ???

Redkiwi,

You're too polite, mate. "Rhubarb" would not be my first choice, but since most of the posters here seem refined and educated, I'll refrain from proferring the word I had in mind.

Glad to see you're still hanging around, as it were. I'm opting out now because there are some technical questions the measurement set has refused to answer but which, IMHO, bear upon the whole topic. Willful blindness perhaps? Will still keep reading and watch the saga unfold.

Fuhgeddaboudit!

Please forgive my ignorance but what's the explanation of this Rhubarb acronym that y'all are throwing around - am I missing a good joke here?

Detlof: Actual, double blind tests are of prime importance in things psychological. In pharmaceutical testing, there are always those who will report feeling better because they were seen by a physician and given a pill or medication; this is called the placebo effect. This would skew a test to a possible false positive unless you have a control group receiving placebo treatment to compare to the ones receiving real medication.

Redkiwi, Albertporter, Amanteus: What's to fear about double-blind testing? All I suggested was to actually determine whether "burning in" cables produced audible changes, and well, that's the way to do it.

No 70242.241, that's not "the" way to do it. That's "a" way to do it. This is exactly the reason you've been asked to change your aproach. You believe this is the way to do it, there are other ways, to bad you've chosen to not accept that.