Re: Some serious cable measurements with interesting results.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> On 29 Nov 2003 16:21:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael
> Scarpitti) wrote:
> 
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Eddy) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >
> >> >
> >> >The idea that everything we 'hear' is due to acoustic stimuli is patently
> >> >absurd.  It's akin to claiming that people have no auditory imagination,
> >> >which if true would be very sad.  Fortunately, it isn't.
> >> 
> >> Yes. There's a considerable amount of psychology behind our aural
> >> perceptions. Yet even when you can get some people to even acknowledge
> >> this fact, they insist that they're somehow immune.
> >
> >I am.
> 
> No, you're not. *No one* is.
> 
> > Only when one is intimately familiar with the sound of one's
> >system can one notice the slightest changes. 
> 
> Which is irrelevant to the point at hand.
> 
> >The problem with much
> >testing is that the test subject is presented with two or more
> >variables, not one of which is he intimately familiar.
> 
> This does not apply to any of the classic trials, in particular to the
> 'Sunshine Trials', where the dealer's own reference system was used,
> the only variable being the introduction of another amplifier.
> 
> > When I listen
> >in MY system, I know what it sounds like already. The change is
> >blatantly obvious.
> 
> Of course it is - because you *know* that something has changed. Why
> are you so afraid to *trust* your ears by using a blind test?

I closed my eyes and listened. Is that 'blind' enough for you?