Actually you did and added another "Conspiracy!" I trust you patched the hole before leaving.
There are special adhesive tapes that can hold a hanger quite securely and when you leave they can be completely removed without damage to the wall by pulling the tape off in shear mode.
My words might be hard to understand, but I usually don't use clues (as I'm a "direct" person). My question about OPA627 vs DCB1, and from your clue I get it that OPA627 is more "hi-fi" to you than DCB1.
I understand your point (which is relevant especially when you do a critical research with circuit).
Many times I have experienced situations where I found measurement is not so useful (for my purpose), unless I need to tell people about it (so you speak with the same language). It can be because no accurate measurement is possible or that the measurement means a little or it is just a waste of time (e.g. your ears can predict the measurement result well).
LOL, objective as always
Now the subjective description...
Who said it had to be subjective? I'll take accurate any and objective any day.
Yeah, I wouldn't do it if I could think the way I do now. I didn't feel guilty back then
Not at all. I'm lousy with verbal, but very good with non-verbal communication.
It's a hanger (with many hooks) where you can hang your clothes. No adhesive tape can do that. At least I didn't know any.
But in reality you just believe that the differences fall at or below the threshold of audibility.
It might be a plausible hypothesis, based on the known thresholds for single parameters, but in fact for complex stimuli diverging in a multitude of parameters there is no threshold known.
To be double blind is usually part of the scientific requirements but there is no need for using the ABX protocol. It is not that easy; a lot of tests are unfortunately methodologically flawed.
But the data/publication was all that was asked for. Exists hard evidence already or is it a hypothesis that should be tested?
Absolutely; we all tend to jump to conclusions.....
I do remember it; there was no sound controlled listening experiment involved at all.
No, reading the lines means to find out the real intention. Because It can be "hidden", not intentionally. But some people lose focus and try to "attack" the grammar, the shoes, the shirts, whatever but the point. Not for logical reason, but psychological.
Okay, it is so obvious to you. To me, I don't even understand your intention or the meaning of your words here, the lines or between the lines (pardon my English).
Why do you guys waste our time by insisting that we cannot hear audio differences that are not easily measurable? What sound quality that an audio reproducer has, can be consistently determined by a good audio listener. Of course, many don't care that much about subtle differences, so they will accept mid-fi and often even table radio quality. This is not the people that should lead this discussion.
In reality, we hear what we hear, however, we CAN be deliberately fooled or confused by a psychological test set-up, and that is what is wrong with ABX testing. We discussed this in detail 35 years ago in TAA. We had Ph'd's and other audio experts commenting on both sides even then. There is no resolution, IF you don't believe that the differences in audio quality, for the most part are not real.
In reality, we hear what we hear, however, we CAN be deliberately fooled or confused by a psychological test set-up, and that is what is wrong with ABX testing. We discussed this in detail 35 years ago in TAA. We had Ph'd's and other audio experts commenting on both sides even then. There is no resolution, IF you don't believe that the differences in audio quality, for the most part are not real.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.