7500 for USED cables? Are they joking?

If I can sell this whole hobby SHORT I would.

Lmb: Here's where we differ: We both agree that there are cables which sound different when compared sighted, but which are indistinguishable in a blind test. You conclude that there must be something wrong with the blind test. I, and the scientific community that studies such things, conclude that sighted information is a factor in the perceived difference in sound. You're entitled to your conclusion. And I'm entitled to point out that mine has some solid experimental work backing it up.

You ask scientists to come up with some measurement that will explain what you perceive. Don't hold your breath. They already have their explanation, you see.

I don’t think we are communicating, but at least we can discuss this rationally and agreeing we disagree is certainly a valid outcome – nice change. I was trained to be a scientist. I do believe in repeatable, documentable processes. What I was trying to say in the last post is that previous double-blind testing did not involve people adept at detecting small differences in phase response, amplitude variances at a particular frequency, etc. I believe subjective audio analysis cannot be done by a layman lacking in the skills to perform the task. The listener must be trained to recognize and practice recognizing minute differences in audio phenomenon. Something that is not instinctual. My understanding is human ears seem to be designed to aid our survival (e.g. direction, distance) not our pursuit of accurate sound reproduction.

In a very recent test with audio reviewers, a small sample set which can imply invalid sample size, in a double-blind scenario gave consistent, repeatable scores well above random guessing, (80% and higher if memory serves me). The scientists then hypothesized with further testing, this may invalidate the layman testing done previously. I agree with the premise. I agree more testing needs to be done, but at least there is some reasonable assertion that we’re not all convincing ourselves of manifestations of our minds. I think this holds true in many disciplines. Article appeared in TAS or Stereophile and no I don’t believe everything I read.

I am with you man. I understand the issues on your side-of-the-fence, which most of the time is my side-of-the-fence. However, my perceptions tell me otherwise and on this one, and I have jumped ship. I am simply saying consider it. Whack, the ball’s in your court.

Anyone trying to bring science into this discussion I question what your religion is? Science will not admit that a power greater then us is possible, could they(scientists) be wrong twice?
~Tim

Tim, I was not aware that science and religion were mutually exclusive. Where did that come from? If one equates faith in God with faith in Nordost Valahalla's ability to "transform" a system, and/or the fact that some scientists are aetheists because they cannot prove the existance of a supreme being and therfore all scientists are areligious, are we not blowing this out of proportion? BTW, I am an Episcopalian. Enjoy your tunes. Charlie