On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 23:11:08 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:vcL0c.95418$4o.117983@attbi_s52...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:32:27 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

Now, having said that, I am aware that some participants
of this forum...long since committing themselves to a
basic "...all sound the same..there is no difference..."
mindset..will pile into this somewhat humorous fray.

They will be very adamant in knowing what "you" can
and can't hear! The humor of that stance comes to
play when one can easily follow the logic that you
or I, nor anyone knows what another individual's
mental processes are doing to the interpretive
processes. This is unique to each individual.

The humour is however somewhat dissipated when you consider that what
is being said is analagous to my stating as an absolute fact that
*you* cannot run a mile in three minutes.

The point of course is that no human can do this, in the same way that
there is *no* evidence that *any* human can tell apart two nominally
competent cables (i.e. not comparing 8AWG to 28AWG or other such
silliness).

Gosh, Stewart, how long did it take you to test every human and every piece
of wire ever used by them, and then verifying "competency" tests on those
that might have sounded different, to prove you point.

I don't have to, since all existing evidence and all medical and
engineering knowledge, says that I am right about this. If *you* wish
to claim otherwise, then that is an extraordinary claim, and the
burden of proof is on *you*.

Or might this be,
just might it be, and assertion, a judgement, your considered opinon?

It's a considered opinion based on a *total* lack of evidence to
support the existence of 'cable sound'.

Naw, it surely is a "fact".

It surely is a good working premise - unless you can offer *any* shred
of evidence in rebuttal.

Perhaps, we have a group that missed their calling...
..neuro-research..or some study of the myriad of
variables in the mental processes on the analysis of
input from external sources.

Indeed so - and there has been a raft of research over the last
century into human hearing thresholds and acuity, all of which
supports the notion that 'wire is wire'.

Last I looked, this thread was about amplifiers and what Michael feels he
heard in comparing five of them.

Clearly, you didn't look at the thread title. Michael is claiming that
he can't possibly be mistaken in what he thinks he hears in sighted
tests, we are pointing out that it's not only possible, it's highly
likely.

So, I respect your hearing differences...no arrogance
here about what you do or do not hear. If one hears
cable or amplifier differences..so be it!

However, not one has been found who can do this when they don't *know*
what is connected, so your 'respect' is rather misplaced.

Gosh, Stewart, what happened to the *properly designed* and *nominally
competent* disclaimers? A few more opinions slipping into fact?

Merely brevity - the disclaimers still apply to amps, but may safely
be extended to *all* so-called 'audiophile' cable.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering