Okay, now dinner is over and I can take my time and address your comments...

Hey fmcorps: I'll try to address each A,B,C individually to avoid confusion.

Okay. How do we know that all/some components are not performing alike? Where are the DBT/ABX trials which show this? How could you make such a statement without them for some, and not for all??? Please show me the DBT/ABX trial results for the latest Technics vs Denon units?

So... according to this statement you agree with me? A copper cable may sound differently than a silver cable since it is "made differently". Good thinking.

So, you are admitting that by your listening experience, you too can tell the difference between stuff when they exist? Is that what you are saying?

This is my last entry on this subject! I'll check-in in a few days when hopefully the subject has changed to something that has not been beaten to death and is being handled with a slightly higher level of maturity than 'high school debate bait-and -switch' and 'nyah, nyah nyah'. first of all this is a very, very old debate. As long as there has been high fidelity componentry and a way to connect it, this debate has flourished. So y'all haven't come up with something new! It's human nature for us to believe that we are 'special' and can discern trace differences in an audio signal that is being effected by this or that interconnect. It hurts our fragile egos to admit that we can't. Now let me be VERY clear. I said interconnects, NOT components. Please don't confuse that or try to twist it around. Also for clarification, I'm talking about good quality, similarly constructed interconnects. Not somebody's coat hanger! (Yes, I know that was a digital comparison, but I'm making a point so please don't try to twist that around either.) You've been given good information from Tom G. about blind testing with professionals under controlled conditions. You've gotten good information from me about testing done by professionals with no axe-to-grind and nothing to gain by the choice of either this, or that, component or intrconnect. We were just looking for what sounded best for our audiences. In both testing situations it was found that there was no discernable difference in good quality interrconnects. Not by testing instrument, or the human ear. Further, if you could test,by instrument, differences in an interconnect, then the differences would only amount to degradation of signal quality and the inferior interconnect would be tossed in the trash as non-functional. Interconnects are only a conduit for electron flow. They either work, or they don't. They are most definately not 'mini passive eq's' that impart there own character on a signal. (does anyone else notice how silly that idea sounds?) If they do, then throw them away because they are flawed. Sorry kids, what you are talking about is NOT physically possible! Until we are talking about some new technology for electron flow, the physical laws governing the technology that we currently using, will remain firmly in place. Metalurgical advances may change impedence, capacitence, and inductence, but they won't change equalization.
I've said my piece in a logical, non-adversarial way. Feel free to twist it, confuse it, misdirect the logic involved, or take it off on a tangent. The truth remains. And no, I don't think that I've said something profound. Just collated real information and thinking for your review.
Until next time,
Mix

Oh, why am I getting involved...

I'm a big believer in spending my upgrade money where it makes an actual noticeable difference. Now, I don't personally go around doing double blind tests all day, but you'd be surprised what a little "A/B testing" vs. "A and then (later) B" testing can show you. Before upgrading my inexpensive JVC receiver to a Yamaha DSP-A1 a few years back, I did extensive listening tests. I discovered that when I tested units back to back, differences were subtle, but easily discernable. However, when I brought different units home one by one, I could no longer reliably distinguish the subtle differences between each unit enough to justify a huge outlay of extra money. My wife - who had not been in the store for the A/B tests - declared that they all sounded the same to her. (The processing and DSP modes ended up clinching the upgrade - they were dramatically different, and when used judiciously, an improvement.)

With cables, the importance of "properly shielded" and good build quality cannot be underestimated. When I first got the home theater itch, I had read the ABX results that all well designed cables basically sound the same, and combined it with a "I have no money - so cheap cables it is!" mantra. When I noticed that cymbals didn't shimmer and horns didn't spit, I first checked the speakers, then the gear. Then I thought to look at the lamp cord that served as my speaker cable, and noticed brown imperfections? burned out areas? in sections of the stuff. When I switched it out for 'the original offering from a monster company in the cable business' I was treated to simply amazing results: there was no high end before, now there was. I'm sure Merc will point out that some cables clearly DO sound different. In any case, I've used better quality, name brand stuff ever since.

Finally, to all the ABX'ers out there who delight in trashing Bose, I seriously hope you've spent time ABXing Bose systems vs. competitive lifestyle systems. Have you?

-avi

Mix: Sorry, but what scientific proof did you offer in all you script??? I must have missed your links in your somewhat prolific post.

Please post your proof of what you say so that we too can believe you???

If you too have no DBT ABX proof for ALL of everything that you say, then we can no true'er believe you than we can those who merely make sonic decisions with their own senses and brains and pass them on to us all. Can We???

Please... I'd really like to believe you, but how can I without proof which is reached via scientific DBT ABX trials done to a significant p value.

Where can I find your proof???
Otherwise, according to your own previous posts, you are only full of bullshit when it comes to judging audio/video comparative performance. Sorry... but why should we believe you for one component and not for another....???

------------------
Take Care,
merc

Yo AVI,
In most cases... the change I suggested to try would save the user money. Silly me... DOH!!!

there is no need to abx bose befor you trash them. there is pretty good proof that they are bad, http://www.intellexual.net/boseframes.html check this site out. i just had to put this. hahaah.

Hey, youngguns... Your link didn't post any ABX DBT comparison so none of us can really be sure that the poster's opinion was correct without a DBT/ABX type comparison. As far as we know... (based on some of the previous posters opinions), we MUST assume that the Bose crap is as good as the Wilson/Watt stuff until it is formally and scientifically tested.

Until then... we should all believe that the Bose speakers are at least equivilent. Right???

no. i thing we should go buy what we hear, and data that is scientificly mesured, like the graph.

Yeah baby! I agree with you entirely. If you are judging two units which measure closely, GO with the one which sounds best to YOU... That is Fantastic Advice... I can only hope others think about following those words...

I tried not to respond. I really did.
Merc, I find your use of profanity truly literate, mature, and effective! My response is just to keep my previous post clear of confusion. I'll address yur comments proceding last-to-first in order:
In one of my other posts I asked the advice of others with seemingly more experience in the video realm. I've always left the projection aspects of production to those that specialize in it. As they have always left the audio concerns to me. So, once again, you are using mis-quoting and misdirection to try and argue your point. To the point, I asked advice on video monitors. How that translates to me not knowing anything about all components, I'll never know. By so blatently misrepresenting the quotes of others you only lessen your own crediblity. Back to the subject. I don't have 'links' to the testing that I have been involved in because the results weren't for broad release. As I stated, the testing done was performed for the sole purpose of evaluating equipment for new installations at the Disney properties in Florida. These tests were performed in the late 80's. Cable construction technology hasn't changed much since then, so I still find the results valid. As for Tom G's tests, he may have quantifiable results. You'd have to ask him.
Now you go back to your little debate. Do you even remember the question? Some of us have work to do tomorrow.
Mix