Originally Posted by Rutgar
Krabapple, as usual you take one single sentence out of an entire body of text and completely skew the point.
Well, I *could* have critiqued every one of your anecdotes in that post, but you'd surely have considered that an act of antagonism. So, instead I cut to the chase, and now I'm accused of skewing your point. The point is that you're confident you heard differences between the MITs and others....under non-DBT conditions. (As was Mike, I noted) And you're not confident you could do so under controlled conditions. (But if the differences are as real as you believe, you should be able to, I noted).
I have already said several times that I don't put much stock in such tests. Especially the way the one Mike's and Chris's was done.
Please clarify...by 'such tests' do you mean DBT generally? Or do you mean only DBTs that aren't done a certain way?
And I stated quite clearly why I picked the cables I'm using, and how I furthur reinforced my decision in doing so.
Yes, indeed you did, and nothing I wrote 'skewed' that to be other than what it was. I trust you understand why the anecdotes you offered don't constitute good evidence?
I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt in most of this discussion, but I'm really beginning to think that your only purpose here is to antagonize.
Please , don't give me the benefit of doubt. I assure you I will always
be skeptical of anecdotal evidence such as you posted, for claims of cable difference. If you - or anyone -- is going to post such such anecdotes as evidence that cables sound different, you can expect some commentary on a thread about cable testing.