Now you I think you are being a little deliberately contentious. I said it is possible for two DAC's or whatever to be so close in sound a person's preference is essentially random. OTOH I said someone can have a distinct preference for a deliberately colored sound colored far beyond any difference in commercial DAC's.
If you have not experienced this maybe you should. At times it's almost like a fuzz pedal in the chain.
In my view, every chain has some fuzz in it - it comes down to a matter of what kinds and how much.
Sure it's possible but that wasn't the way you stated it - you stated it as a forgone conclusion, not a possibility "In that case I hope the preference being completely random and changing by the hour/day is an acceptable result."
So now that we cleared that up, there are some other possibilities - no preference is established (which, I guess is what you said) or that a preference is consistently established.
In recognition of this last possibility, I asked you " if a consistent preference is determined with the same two DACs the o/p used what does this tell you?"
I allowed for a possibility not a forgone conclusion!!
Last edited:
He has a tendency to start by rephrasing
Scott Joplin was great for a bit of rephrasing himself
The idea is that with ABX we seem to be activating System 2 brain processes to make the decision. With A/B it may be easier to let System 1 processes make the decision.
It may help to understand it is System 1 processing that is operating between the ears and conscious awareness (System 2). It is quite possible for System 1 to prefer A or B, but not pass that preference along clearly to System 2. In addition, it is System 1 that is responsible for intuitions and emotions, it is the source of liking or not liking.
Why do we never posit that maybe there are people who simply cannot hear differences between components? Funny that never seems to come up even though that is far more plausible than there's no difference between anything. When the usual suspects argue objectivist nonsense it is predicated on the unspoken assumption that we all hear the same. Which is a VERY big assumption.
Subjectivists really need to stop playing defense and call out this internet lab coat charade. Look past the aggressive over compensating bluster and deconstruct their argument and you see it is really no less subjective than anything else on the internet.
Subjectivists really need to stop playing defense and call out this internet lab coat charade. Look past the aggressive over compensating bluster and deconstruct their argument and you see it is really no less subjective than anything else on the internet.
You have an interesting way of reading others comments, an acceptable result is a forgone conclusion not just one possible outcome?
No bias here of course, how about the usual suspects argue subjectivist nonsense that will really get us somewhere. Sigh!
I guess asking for any kind of accountability is an "objectivist" thing.
Last edited:
Not your average ragtime Scott Joplin - Solace performed by Phillip Dyson - YouTubeScott Joplin was great for a bit of rephrasing himself
There are undoubtedly such people, but many or perhaps most people can learn to listen for more details of sound than they do by default. Of course, not everybody may want to bother with it, no reason why they should unless they say it matters to them.
Imho there is just a low percentage of the population of genetically gifted people that hear significantly more than others.
+ a million factors that will influence every listening session...
Then again what sounds good to one sounds horrible to the other.
And vice versa.
Each person will perceive sound ( and also sound equipment ) differently and also with a different "resolution". Genetics play a major role. Different auditory canals, eardrums, ..., development of the brain, neuronal nets, past experiences, and and and...
And then the interesting occurences where the brain tricks itself by expectation, etc..
It will perceive sound different although nothing has changed.
Or it will perceive the same sound although a lot has changed.
So seen objectively we will end up nowhere.
If it sounds good or better or different or bad or the same... etc. to YOU, it just sounds good or better or different or bad or the same... etc. to YOU.
If it doesn't sound good or better or different or bad or the same... etc. to YOU, it just doesn`t sound good or better or different or bad or the same... etc. to YOU.
If in blind tests there was no difference perceived doesn't mean there was no actual difference.
Everything is different.
I could say, the left hearing differs from the right hearing.
So the better amp is the one that sounds more pleasing to the "dominating" hearing side... but is it actually better?
No one knows...
Thanks for reading.
+ a million factors that will influence every listening session...
Then again what sounds good to one sounds horrible to the other.
And vice versa.
Each person will perceive sound ( and also sound equipment ) differently and also with a different "resolution". Genetics play a major role. Different auditory canals, eardrums, ..., development of the brain, neuronal nets, past experiences, and and and...
And then the interesting occurences where the brain tricks itself by expectation, etc..
It will perceive sound different although nothing has changed.
Or it will perceive the same sound although a lot has changed.
So seen objectively we will end up nowhere.
If it sounds good or better or different or bad or the same... etc. to YOU, it just sounds good or better or different or bad or the same... etc. to YOU.
If it doesn't sound good or better or different or bad or the same... etc. to YOU, it just doesn`t sound good or better or different or bad or the same... etc. to YOU.
If in blind tests there was no difference perceived doesn't mean there was no actual difference.
Everything is different.
I could say, the left hearing differs from the right hearing.
So the better amp is the one that sounds more pleasing to the "dominating" hearing side... but is it actually better?
No one knows...
Thanks for reading.
Yes, Thinking Fast & Slow is exactly what I was getting at
Of 2 Minds: How Fast and Slow Thinking Shape Perception and Choice [Excerpt] - Scientific American
Let me pick you up on something I missed before in your post - you present just two binary choices - no preference or a preference based on one device being colored sound.
Why would one device not be preferred because it presents sound in a more realistic illusion, not because it's colored?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.