[Scott[_6_]]

On Jun 13, 10:48=A0am, wrote:
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"? =A0Extra 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? =A0Might it have something to do with trying t=
o
vainly evoke science in support of a marketing department?

The obviosu problem with the first demo is that while on the surface
it may appear to be blind it is in fact not entirely blind. Even if
one does not know which is A and which is B one does know that one of
them is Audioquest and one of them is cheap no name cable. So the
listener does know what A and B are just not which is which. So it's
hardly proof of audible differences to claim one heard a difference
between A and B. This little bit I found to be interesting fro JA

"Quote:
One controlled blind test would suffice, thank you very much.

Michael Fremer and I independently took part in a blind test organized
by a Wall Street Journal editor at a CES a few years back. When the
scoring was analyzed after the test, it appeared that each of us could
distinguish between the cables by listening. Interestingly, neither of
us knew we were listening to cables when we took the test. Instead we
were under the impression that the test was investigating lossy
codecs.



John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile"