Hey Mtry....

Printable View

  • 01-12-2004, 07:01 AM
    _Luke1_
    Hey Mtry....
    I think we all know you are an avowed disbeliever in many things audio, i.e. the effects of cables, power cords, differences in components and the like. I have to agree that cables and power cords are way at the bottom of my priority list.

    I would like to hear how you drew your conclusions on the inaudibility of changes to cabling and other "snake oil" products.

    Thanks.

    Luke
  • 01-12-2004, 10:09 AM
    Monstrous Mike
    I think your question is a good one and since I am in the same field of thought as Mtry, I will give my own answer.

    First, without trying to sound snotty, I have a Bachelor and Master's of Engineering so I do have a fundamental (if not extensive) background in physics, math, electricity, digital circuitry, etc. And I have been employed in hard engineering jobs for the past 24 years although my last two years after leaving the Canadian Navy, I have been a computer network engineer.

    In the Navy, as an electronics engineer, I had to deal with every conceivable type of cabling carrying signals which spanned the entire frequency spectrum. As you may know, a naval war vessel has miles of internal cabling connecting thousands of components.

    This knowledge and experience allows me to review technical presentations,like those found in white papers by audio cable companies, with a critical eye. To date, I have yet to see a single paper that does not have some flaw or hole in it as to make it technically incomplete or inaccurate or even misleading. And there are simply no test results that confirm anything that is being claimed.

    As well, I have done my own in-home testing (of course in a very unscientific manner) and have found no evidence of cable sonics. I've analyzed circuits and calculated parameters but this has led me nowhere with regard to coming up with golden egg.

    I fully believe that if there were any significant improvements to be gained by using some special sort of cable geometry, material or whatever that it could be scientifically presented by that company or even an independent third party in such a way that other scientists and engineers could verify the conclusions.

    Since this has yet to be done, any beliefs in cables sonics are purely based on faith which is reinforced by improper home testing methods, flawed scientific analysis and further propegated by others with similar desires.

    I cannot conclude that cable sonics as reported by audiophiles are completely invalid, but all current objective evidence points to this conclusion.
  • 01-12-2004, 10:41 AM
    bturk667
    To be honest...
    I'll be surprised if he give you an answers based on his personal experimentation and or comparisons. I have not read a response of his to any question or post in quite some time. But I might, just might,read what he has to write about your question.

    Good luck!
  • 01-12-2004, 05:31 PM
    RGA
    Monstrous Mike:

    Well I doubt anyone is going t disagree that from where you sit you should not be a skeptic. I would like to know if every 100% conceivabvle thing related to the field of audio(not the human testing side which is a whole other discipline outside that of engineering) has been attributed. As we both know there are numerous upon neumerous MEASURABLE audible differences between properly working SS amps, CD players, DA Converters, and alas Cables all occuring in the audible frequency band of 20hz - 20khz and measurable differences outside that band. I have not seen a cable comany say their cables sound better, what I have seen is them saying their cables sound wonderful because of X, Y and Z. The fact that the free one that came with the cd player also does that, well nothing illegal about it.

    The problem is that this fellow(link at bottom) is a world class expert with big-time credentials as well...He is not a subjectivist but doesn't throw out the baby with the bathwater either. There is engineering and then there is science which is supposed to be objective and draw from several sectors. Western Medical Science and Chinese herbal treatments get head to head debates....the former is arrogant that their way is best(Drugs and more drugs and is basically Science run first and foremost by alterior motives called money making drug companies) and the latter ---well they just continually get results. Where is the science coming from who made up the procedures what if any was the alterior motive. Kinda like the Dairy Corporation of Canada who with lots of science and Double blind tests came up with the long standing four food groups. Of course most people have no clue it was the Dairy Corp who invented that structure That most people 40 and under have been taught....and now that it has been proved wrong and revamped if not completely taken out where is the punishment for these sheisters?

    His degrees look impressive anyway.
    http://www.colloms.com/
  • 01-12-2004, 07:18 PM
    Monstrous Mike
    RGA,

    I do not disagree with the concept of not knowing all there is to know about any particular subject. As a matter of fact, I am quite open-minded scientifically speaking. Things that I feel are not understood and could have merit include accupuncture, hypnosis and other such practices, especially involving the human body or mind.

    And while I am not a religious person, I still consider the possibility of of some abstract level of consiousness that we do not understand. And my logic says that it is unlikely we are the only lifeforms in the entire universe.

    I could bore everybody and go on and on here but suffice it to say that I don't consider simple copper audio cables to as complex or have a general lack of scientific knowledge like that other ideas I mentioned earlier.

    And that link you gave, I really didn't catch the guy's take on audio cables. Although, given that he has worked in the industry for many years, it wouldn't surprise me that he has concluded that putting a more positive spin on cable sonic than guys like I do is probably better for everybody (around him and his work) in the long run.
  • 01-12-2004, 07:56 PM
    RGA
    Monstrous Mike

    I agree with you on cables as frankly you'll never hear me support them. I do play devil's advocate on them though because they are often dismissed out of hand. I have really only ever ONCE had a serious cable audition and it was with a MIT cable with a box attached. They were a $100.00 Cdn or so for the pair so it was not obscene.

    And there was a difference, they sounded much worse than the cheap cable because they rolled off the highs and generally sounded muted(resistor in the box???).

    Nevertheless I can hardly say that MIT cable is no different because well it is ... worse. These companies can deliberately alter the sound if they so choose to do, same for CD player and amp makers. It behooves them to DELIBERATELY make their products sound different.

    Burr Brown DACs for instance measure differently, different capacitorsmeasure differently within the audible spectrum. Colloms I don't think is cable friendly and he couches his reviews is noting the terms subjective listening revealed X result. Basically he doesn't throw them out because he has listened to so many units.

    Basically if the unit measures differently within the audible spectrum then theoretically given enough time and at the specific frequency at a specific volume in specific passages of music it may be heard. And that's not counting the companies that deliberately alter the sound.

    I agree with you on issues related to a being or life outside of this one. I would not say there IS a God or that there IS alien life...but just because i can't prove those exist doesn't mean they don't. The counter is that audio is testable...but in a DBT - which anyway anyone cares to slice it, in the field of social sciences isn't an accurate guage...It's not even accurate statistically - my University Textbook says it, my psych text says it. This does not mean we just rely on every half-baked person who says every wire has a sonic signature and they know which is best...but unfortunately I don't like to use a bad test to prove someone wrong. Especially since even if they pass the test then the test is thrown out as a statistical fluke anyway - talk about stacking the deck.
  • 01-12-2004, 09:37 PM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bturk667
    I'll be surprised if he give you an answers based on his personal experimentation and or comparisons. Good luck!

    Now why do I need first hand experience in everything in the marketplace? Is that what you do? Test everything before you make choices? Do you really go out and test all the nonsens? Do you consult the psychics? Why not? Do you consut astrology? Why not? Do you compare every brand of sugar in the store?
    Do you go beyond what others claim when you put your $$ on the line? Maybe consult some credible sources?
  • 01-12-2004, 09:38 PM
    mtrycraft
    [b_]I think we all know you are an avowed disbeliever in many things audio, i.e. the effects of cables, power cords, [/b]

    Disbeliever? I have not seen any evidence to support all the claims for differences for comparable cables. I do know speaker cables that are grossly different in ga will be audible.


    differences in components and the like.


    Well, some components have been found to be audibly different in DBT listening and have been published. So, I just don't accept claims for differences based on unreliable protocols. Sighted listening for differences is unreliable before you even start.

    I have to agree that cables and power cords are way at the bottom of my priority list.

    That is good, but it should be off your radar scope altogether :) Worry about important aspects of audio :)

    I would like to hear how you drew your conclusions on the inaudibility of changes to cabling and other "snake oil" products.

    Let me ask you how you determined that psychics are frauds? Homeopathic medicine is fraud, holistic healing is a fraud, talking to the dead is a fraud, etc?
    No, I do not have to try everything in the marketplace. I would not get off first base.




    Thanks.Luke

    You are very welcome :)
  • 01-12-2004, 09:47 PM
    mtrycraft
    Hey Luke :) - MM interesting link
    You should check this link out:

    http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...&pagenumber=14


    While it is very long, lots of technical discussions, it is interesting that people can support some of those claims for the high measurements of cable distortion while better equipment has only noise at 20+dB lower measured floor with nothing but random noise.
    Not even the claimed high level is in the threshold of audibility yet some still try to claim reasons for differences based on unreliable protocols. Some just don't know when to move on to important areas of audio.
  • 01-13-2004, 09:26 AM
    bturk667
    I bit, what a moron I am...
    just as I thought! Never ever again!!!
  • 01-13-2004, 10:38 AM
    Pat D
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    The counter is that audio is testable...but in a DBT - which anyway anyone cares to slice it, in the field of social sciences isn't an accurate guage...It's not even accurate statistically - my University Textbook says it, my psych text says it.

    DBTs not accurate statistically. Now just what would you even mean by stuch a statement?

    More importantly, just what DO your university textbooks say?
  • 01-13-2004, 02:37 PM
    jbangelfish
    I almost hate to jump into this
    I'm not a big believer in expensive cables or speaker wire but I believe that there could be something to it. It's not likely that I will ever go head over heels and buy 10k speaker wire or 2k interconnects or whatever but I would think that it should sound better than 18 gauge zip cord and that the high priced IC's should sound better than the stuff you get at K-Mart.
    Just how much better, I have no idea.
    It seems that better conductors like silver should bring a better signal through and allow for better sound but it is possible that good old copper is just good enough. I have had IC's that had a hum to them when brand new, I suppose a bad connection or short somewhere but this made me avoid the no name el cheapo. I recently threw some old IC's out as they were just old, tarnished and I figured they needed replacing. I moved all the way up to Monster 300 series and could hear no difference. I did not really expect to and I realize that Monster is not high end nor is it expensive. It gets the job done and no shorts or hums so I'm happy.
    Nearly 30 years ago, a friend dropped by and noticed that I was using 16 gauge zip for speaker wire. He told me about a small high end shop that sold something called cobra cable as speaker wire. He said that he was allowed to take a pair home for a demo with his Maggies and said that he could hear a definate improvement. I found it hard to believe but decided to try it for myself. I bought the stuff at nearly $3 per ft back in the mid 70's and this seemed quite high for the time. I too was certain that it made an improvement, somehow giving more clarity. Whether this was imagined or actually heard, I was pretty convinced.
    At any rate, I now use 12 gauge speaker wire off the spool from a local high fi shop (now defunct) and it seems again to be good enough. I don't think I would use a smaller wire as I have concerns with too small not having the current carrying ability that it needs. Maybe Mike, Mtry or RGA could fill us in as to whether this is even necessary.
    To me, once you have all of your components in place that you are satisfied with, maybe you can think about sturdying up your speakers with spikes or stands or possibly some other isolation concerns. If we all bought into all the tweaks, cable, wire and mods that are available we could stay broke for a long time without much satisfaction in actual results. When we buy something that is supposed to improve our system, we often might think that we did when in fact we did not. If it doesn't jump out at you as a considerable improvement, there might not be one at all.
    Bill
  • 01-14-2004, 07:24 AM
    Worf101
    Strictly based on personal experience...
    I swapped out my "out of the box" red and white spaghetti cables for various used and new cables off of ebay, none costing over $50.00. There was a marked improvement in sound quality from my cd player's analog outputs. That's a difference I could truly, truly hear. That's al I have to say on the subject. Cabling can make a difference when dealing with the crap gimme's you git out of the box.

    Da Worfster :D
  • 01-14-2004, 09:41 AM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    but in a DBT - which anyway anyone cares to slice it, in the field of social sciences isn't an accurate guage...It's not even accurate statistically -

    For a test not being statistically accurate interesting how the would of science, medicine, etc dend on it.

    Quote:

    my University Textbook says it, my psych text says it.
    You mean it is not as accurate as 2+2=4?

    Quote:

    This does not mean we just rely on every half-baked person who says every wire has a sonic signature and they know which is best
    Do you ever challenge such claims?

    Quote:

    ...but unfortunately I don't like to use a bad test to prove someone wrong.
    But you accept the original claim uncallenged? ?That is worse.

    [QUOTE Especially since even if they pass the test then the test is thrown out as a statistical fluke anyway - talk about stacking the deck.[/QUOTE]

    Not a fluke if it is repeatable.
  • 01-14-2004, 10:08 AM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bturk667
    just as I thought! Never ever again!!!


    Famous last words :)
  • 01-14-2004, 10:19 AM
    _Luke1_
    [QUOTE=mtrycraft]

    Let me ask you how you determined that psychics are frauds? Homeopathic medicine is fraud, holistic healing is a fraud, talking to the dead is a fraud, etc?
    No, I do not have to try everything in the marketplace. I would not get off first base.

    QUOTE]

    Sorry Mtry, you can't answer a question with a question. Is it just simple disbelief or did you follow some process?

    I'm not going to harass you about the answer, I'm just trying to understand your contempt.

    Thanks again.

    Luke
  • 01-14-2004, 10:39 PM
    mtrycraft
    [QUOTE=_Luke1_]
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtrycraft

    Let me ask you how you determined that psychics are frauds? Homeopathic medicine is fraud, holistic healing is a fraud, talking to the dead is a fraud, etc?
    No, I do not have to try everything in the marketplace. I would not get off first base.

    QUOTE]

    Sorry Mtry, you can't answer a question with a question. Is it just simple disbelief or did you follow some process?

    I'm not going to harass you about the answer, I'm just trying to understand your contempt.

    Thanks again.

    Luke

    Oh, the question serves a purpose. The same way one determines that those mentioned are frauds, evidence and lack there of. Same apllies for for audible differences in audio. The evidence and lack of evidence. Simple.
    If, audible differences in cables of comparable gauges were so different as people claim, tests, real tests would support those claims. Guess what. First, the bases of the original claims are from uselss sighted claims. Useless. Nothing left of a claim so there is no more claim to test.
  • 01-16-2004, 07:51 PM
    Monstrous Mike
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by _Luke1_
    Sorry Mtry, you can't answer a question with a question. Is it just simple disbelief or did you follow some process?

    I'm not going to harass you about the answer, I'm just trying to understand your contempt.

    Thanks again.

    Luke

    Perhaps you should look at your own contempt. Did you follow some process for every belief you hold? Does anyone even have enough time in their life to follow a process for every belief they have?

    I think the answer is no, so think again how you formed your beliefs. By simply being educated in science, physics, and math, you can formulate and discard beliefs without having to go through any "processes" (this only concerns beliefs that centre on scientific evidence of course not abstract, religious or philosphical beliefs and I think cables can only be classified as a scientific belief).

    Do you consider a belief or disbelief to be "simple" if you haven't gone through a "process"?

    And while I can't speak for Mtrycrafts, I tend to think his belief about cables are predicated on the evidence at hand and the arguements presented by credible scientists and engineers. If you ask him, he can probably produce a list of reference material that you can read regarding cable sonics. Most people who believe they have heard a magic cable simplly dismiss these references, and I don't mean questionable ones, I mean ALL of them.

    Your insinuation that Mtrycrafts needs to have followed some protocol or process where results have conclusively determined that cable sonic are a myth is a false arguement. It is a strawman. Single out one guy who has not done any DBTs or lab testing or molecular analysis and use that to tear down the whole arguement.

    Every arguement a person puts forth in favour of magic cables can be disected and dismissed except for personal anecdotes, which cannot neither be confirmed nor denied. That's the simple truth and frankly it is confusing to me why some people simply ignore that fact.

    Where exactly are going with your questioning?

    I do not believe Mtrycrafts has contempt for cable sonics. He simply has weighed the evidence and it points to cables being benign objects with little influence on sound.

    It's really quite odd that people like you use the term contempt for such a silly topic. It amazes my how irritated some people get when they are exposed to the concept that physics contradicts what they think they are hearing.
  • 01-17-2004, 08:39 PM
    hifitommy
    bangle-
    neither am i a believer nor buyer of costly cables. better than the giveaway stuff, YES! better than another similarly priced cable, yes. better than a similarly gauged wire but different execution of design, yes.

    now and again a reeeeely cheeeep wire will sound great and have a few of those too. i have dabbled in the less than a hundred buck wires with some pretty good results. kimber pbj ferinstance sounds VERY good between my cdp and preamp.

    the lower the signal level, the more effect on the signal a cable has. if you really want to hear a difference, improve the headshell or internal tonearm wires in your system (provided there is a tt there).

    as for speaker wire, i was using monster twinlead (12 or 10 ga) and went to audioquest type 4 and was at first disappointed because i though the lows were less well produced, thinner and not as deep. after a week, i realized that the lows were better defined and indeed reached lower. this was not due to expectations and i was ready to go back to my older wire.

    currently, i use kimber 8tc, scored for $50, slightly better detail. bass about the same. i would not have spent the $500 that the 8tc would have cost new but the used price was not to be missed.

    as for differences that DONT have to jump out and bite you, and they DONT have to---long term listening is ultimately more revealing than the A/B and dbt tests for audio. i call dbt BTs4Ds (blind tests for dummies). it works in the medical biz, but not in the audio biz. two different animals.

    subtle diffs are sometimes the most meaningful. try it for yourself fast a/b switching, and even the vaunted dbt (if you can get enough willing victims to cooperate). its like the big fart going on at AAs hi rez forum with dui, the snippet vs the whole thing. a swatch of cloth vs the bolt. two different animals.
  • 01-20-2004, 06:12 PM
    RGA
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    For a test not being statistically accurate interesting how the would of science, medicine, etc dend on it.

    You mean it is not as accurate as 2+2=4?

    Do you ever challenge such claims?

    But you accept the original claim uncallenged? ?That is worse.

    [QUOTE Especially since even if they pass the test then the test is thrown out as a statistical fluke anyway - talk about stacking the deck.

    Not a fluke if it is repeatable.[/QUOTE]

    You ALWAYS jump to the reverse of a position don't you mrty. No grey area for you...it is either this way or it is that way. Man you must be devout Christian or some other religious zealot...you either believe Christ died for sins or you dont and if the latter you're going to hell.

    Why is it that if someone voices an objection to aspects of conclusions drawn from tests that have not covered the variables...just like all those medical scientists on nutrition - suddenly makes me support every claim some guy makes about his cable. I have the intelligence to actually take whatever anybody says about their product, owner or inventor with a grain of salt. The person says he prefers his X over the Y great, he says cables sound different to him then i can sit back and do two things. 1) think he's hearing his difference because it's really there or 2) that he simply believes it is there and it's a nice placaebo effect. Neither of these however is going to make me BUY a product on the whim of some unknown intenet poster's bias or informed opinion. Lot's of people are informed to the hilt on political issues and still lean opposite in their viewpoints.

    I have no way to attack a claimant's view other than to argue for some pain in the ass test which no one is likely ever to do, or I can use non - remotely perfect testing to discount what they say - which will run into long spiral go-nowhere retread arguments of the same posts from 5 years ago on these forums.

    Do I expect you to take the claims seriously - No. But you cannot prove A and B sound the same with a DBT. It's right in the definition from the very site you often link from the uni of Oakland. Why you pick and choose the very paragraphs from your own links is puzzling. You infer a conclusion when they themselves didn't make one???

    And their testing was flawed because they averaged everyone's numbers and DID NOT individually account for the scores. That aside it was a nice effort to further reliability just like the medical scientists kept reliably producing their info for 40 years. Being invalid at the core we'll ignore.

    PATD. You look up the definition of validity and DBT any Psych/stats book will have it. I posted them word for word many times and I'm not going to dig the texts out to do it again.
  • 01-20-2004, 08:11 PM
    mtrycraft
    ] Man you must be devout Christian or some other religious zealot...you either believe Christ died for sins or you dont and if the latter you're going to hell.


    Now why would you think this or bring it up?
    Since I ask for evidence for claims made in audio, why do you think I would not ask for it elsewhere in life?

    I have the intelligence to actually take whatever anybody says about their product, owner or inventor with a grain of salt.

    That is you. How about others?


    The person says he prefers his X over the Y great, he says cables sound different to him then i can sit back and do two things. 1) think he's hearing his difference because it's really there or 2) that he simply believes it is there and it's a nice placaebo effect. Neither of these however is going to make me BUY a product on the whim of some unknown intenet poster's bias or informed opinion.

    Again, this is you. How about others?


    I have no way to attack a claimant's view other than to argue for some pain in the ass test

    Do you even point out the vagaries of sighted listening, how unreliable they are for differences?

    But you cannot prove A and B sound the same with a DBT.


    Only no audible differences can be heard. That should be plenty.



    It's right in the definition from the very site you often link from the uni of Oakland.

    It points out A=B which is an algebraic expression, isn't it?
    The tests show if one can differentiate or not.


    And their testing was flawed because they averaged everyone's numbers and DID NOT individually account for the scores.

    Which reference are you referring to?
  • 01-20-2004, 08:36 PM
    Pat D
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA

    Do I expect you to take the claims seriously - No. But you cannot prove A and B sound the same with a DBT. It's right in the definition from the very site you often link from the uni of Oakland. Why you pick and choose the very paragraphs from your own links is puzzling. You infer a conclusion when they themselves didn't make one???

    And their testing was flawed because they averaged everyone's numbers and DID NOT individually account for the scores. That aside it was a nice effort to further reliability just like the medical scientists kept reliably producing their info for 40 years. Being invalid at the core we'll ignore.

    PATD. You look up the definition of validity and DBT any Psych/stats book will have it. I posted them word for word many times and I'm not going to dig the texts out to do it again.

    Why is it you attribute positions to us that we do not hold? Where do we conclude that one can prove two things are the same in a DBT? Where? One never achieves absolute certainty in a DBT, either positively or negatively. It's all probability. We have pointed this out many times, and that is our technical position. I have quoted the following from the ABX site before, a text you choose to ignore:

    " <TABLE cellPadding=3 width="85%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=right>HYPOTHESIS: </TD><TD align=left>The difference between Component A and Component B can be heard. </TD></TR><TR><TD align=right>NULL HYPOTHESIS: </TD><TD align=left>A sounds the same as B. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE width="85%"><TBODY><TR><TD>In the ABX Double Blind Comparison the goal is to statistically disprove the null hypothesis to confirm the hypothesis. </TD></TR><TR><TD>When an individual ABX Comparision is completed, the responses are checked against the key in the ABX Comparator in ANSWER mode. The number of correct responses is compared to the number of response attempts to give a score such as the example of 20 correct out of 30 attempts, which we have written briefly as a fraction or a percentage: 20 / 30 = 67%. The score is then compared with the probability table from which the probability that it is a random score is determined. Thus the result is stated: 20 / 30 = 67% (p = 0.049). This literally means that the score (20/30) is probably not random except for a 0.049 chance that it is random. Thus the result of the experiment is that the null hypothesis is not true except for a 0.049 chance it is true, or in audiophile terms, A sound different from B except for a 4.9% chance that they are the same. </TD></TR><TR><TD>Note that no matter what score is achieved, A = B cannot be proven. That is the ABX Double Blind Comparison can never be used to prove two audio components sound the same. The notion that ABX can prove components sound the same is a common misconception about ABX."

    http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_p9.htm

    There is no certainty in science.

    You have no evidence that the data on the ABX site is invalid. If you want to find out more information, you should Email Dr. Carlstrom.
    </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
  • 01-23-2004, 06:21 PM
    RGA
    Actuallyy the quote Patd just brought up is the one I was referring to for Mrty."Note that no matter what score is achieved, A = B cannot be proven. That is the ABX Double Blind Comparison can never be used to prove two audio components sound the same. The notion that ABX can prove components sound the same is a common misconception about ABX."

    That site's testing average the overall scores of all participants. The Null Hypothesis is not in agreement in sciences so if that is the debate then that's fine I understand where you're coming from. It however is not a totally accepted approach in pscychology or brain research - which is why it follows that these entities also don't rely on DBT's. But I understand better where you two are coming from. I was under the impression that Mrty was drawing a conclusion that if someone doesn't pass the test it meant that they can't hear a difference - whch is of course is a silly thing to conclude since we know so much about the testing procedure itself musddies the waters . His writing style perhaps threw me to think that he thinks that actually means something outside of the testing environment and is a correlational proof of some sort that the test with the specific people and equipment on the specific time and date and environment correlates ouside of those parameters...sorry. Of course we know it is not directly correlational outside of that environnment. And if you are aware of this that is fine by me too...I'm a little puzzled though that it's never mentioned. And when i bring it up I'm targeted as someone who accepts every sighted claim...I don't - but I also don't dispell them with a test that doesn't prove them wrong and isn't really a valid test to the normal listening environment - because of course no test environment of psychology covers all the variables and because it's a test on the brain then any TEST intoduces it's own anxiety bias. And again if you know all of this then that's fine but again I don't see it equally discussed and if it is ignored then explain why.
  • 02-06-2004, 09:45 PM
    Haoleb
    Mtry are you still rustling up trouble in the cable forums? lol.

    I havent been here for nearly a year... brings back memories for sure!
  • 02-06-2004, 10:43 PM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Haoleb
    Mtry are you still rustling up trouble in the cable forums? lol.

    I havent been here for nearly a year... brings back memories for sure!


    Sure. Here, there, everywhere. Just look around :)
    Where have you been?