Quote:
|
That is what I tried to suggest to Mosfet even before the test. However, he think it would be too difficult to explain to listeners how to do this but I never understand why that is should be the case.
|
I think this would have placed too much on the testers WG. If for instance they were asked to record in words what they were hearing. I was keen the concentration should remain on the salient points of recording difference and improvement.
The best summation of possible conclusions I’ve seen (better than I could manage) so far is by ‘Meninblack’. Posted here for those who haven’t read.
1. The cables made essentially no difference.
Fits the facts. The only counter-evidence is Mr. C's assertion that differences were plain to him. Tony, were you sighted or unsighted of the cables? If unsighted, did you correctly identify the kettle lead every time?
2. The cables made a difference, but it was so slight that the resolving power of the experiment was inadequate.
Possible, but with three blind testers and only one variable each time this would imply that the differences were very slight indeed. Very, very slight in fact.
3. The results were somehow fiddled by the panel or the experimenter.
Paranoid nonsense!
4. The panel's hearing is inadequate. The differences are like night and day, but only to the platinum-eared elect.
What, we've randomly ended up with three keen audiophiles and cable believers who just happen to be deaf? Unlikely.
5. Some other unidentified factor prevented the differences from being heard.
Always a good get-out! Anyway, Tony heard them. Why not the other three.
http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/1104-2.html