[Rockinghorse Winner[_7_]]

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:48:00 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

This week's stereophile in its online offerings has a gem of an article.

'AudioQuest Headquarters Tour'

http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...dquarters-tour

If one would want to produce subjective results guaranteed, the "tests"
described at the wire company could not have been setup more perfectly.

See if you can spot the obvious flaws in the "tests"? Extra points for
those who spot the attempts to vaccinate the author's remarks against
these flaws?


For an even more interesting question, why did they bother when the
outcomes were predictable? Might it have something to do with trying to
vainly evoke science in support of a marketing department?


Magazines have advertisers and often some of the biggest advertisers are
cable companies. After all, cable companies are selling, essentially, nothing
at, often, very high prices. Their profit margins are astronomical! They can
afford to spend a lot of money to advertise. If you ran a magazine would you
want to lose that amount of advertising revenue? Of course not. So naturally,
your not going to bite the hand that feeds you. It's simple business.

Of course. Sometimes the only thing to be said is the obvious.


Interestingly enough, most audio writers actually BELIEVE that wire makes a
difference, So, of course, when they review a cable, they go on at length
about how much better this cable is than what's in their system now. And,
just as naturally, the cable under test is never worse than what they are
currently using, and just as naturally, they never use a carefully set-up DBT
to ascertain whether or not their "observations" are the product of their
ears or their eyes.


*R* *H*
--
Gaudium mundi, nova stella cæli, Fedora12 (2.6.32 kernel)
procreans solem, pariens parentem, Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76
da manum lapsis, fer opem caducis,
virgo Maria.