I mentioned, as an arbitrary example, the BT-SONY test. NOT to say that there is or is not a difference, not to say that such a test has or has not been done, but to illustrate the process. Boy, you really have to spell things out around here, and then some.
jan didden
>I reported my confirmed opinion to the friend who made the cables and he confirmed that the cable I preferred, tagged blue, was the 10db attenuated one. <
If I was given two cables and one was a 10dB attenuator, I think it might be a no brainer. Note also that attenuation from amp to speaker also involves a dramatic change in output impedance. In the simplest case a 16 Ohm series resistor, what does this prove?
If I was given two cables and one was a 10dB attenuator, I think it might be a no brainer. Note also that attenuation from amp to speaker also involves a dramatic change in output impedance. In the simplest case a 16 Ohm series resistor, what does this prove?I didn't direct the question at you, Jan, but at SY - he stated this
Rod asked him had the test been performed & I'm asking him again. Not really a Q for you!
>I reported my confirmed opinion to the friend who made the cables and he confirmed that the cable I preferred, tagged blue, was the 10db attenuated one. <
These are digital cables, & RF attenuators, sorry that wasn't made clear, doh!
My point is that this test I quoted above was rejected by SY, Jan & Aardv & yet they seem to state that even one example of a difference is a long way towards some proof. Not when presented with the above example, it seems. A bit like the tactic used above to state the Bt Vs Sony difference & the statements made by SY.
If the test was performed & there was no difference then link to it. If the test wasn't performed then how does his statement appear to readers, disingenuous?
Of course if we are told that that was not what was meant ............ further evidence of the disingenuous nature of these discussions
Last edited:
No but if any of you had read and/or understand my post and SY's follow up it would be CLEAR that it was a hypothetical case. Jeez.
jan didden
... when done as a controlled test, yes. Which of course wasn't the case here.
jan didden
Why are you answering on SY's behalf? Are you a team or something? I'm sure he's a big boy & able to fend for himself. His statement is unequivical
& if you are now saying that that was not what was meant..... I refer you to my prediction above & it's outcome
So what's the deal here, any statement can be made until the statement is challenged & then it is stated that that is not what was meant? Maybe you should have corrected SY's statement of fact when he made it?
Last edited:
I will leave the readers to make up their minds about how valid the test was & all your reactions to it & your rejection of it's validity!
You really have trouble following reasoning don't you?
I said, as a hypothetical case, suppose that someone can hear a difference between a BT and a SONY bla bla, also referring to a number of participants.
SY then questions that more participants are required to discern an audible difference between a BT and a SONY. I then say, no, if only ONE can hear a difference, under controlled tests, that would proof bla bla.
You then ask a completely irrelevant question: was such a test done? Of course not! It was a hypothetical case! The discussion was about the process.
I could have said, in the discussion of the process: suppose someone can hear a difference between a McIntosh and an AR, would you then have asked the equally irrelevant question: was such a test done?
jan didden
What does a controlled listening test set out to achieve? And what does anyone - other than the participants - hope to achieve from reading the results of such tests? I - for one - certainly don't want to trust the common denominator opinion of a few unknowns sitting in a laboratory.
Serious buyers trust their ears. Serious buyers make many mistakes - usually from a retrospective viewpoint, the position from which most mistakes are viewed...but that is life!
Other people buy what they - usually subconsciously - believe is the best for their purpose (what ever that may truly be). And most influence in deciding on a purchase is down to advertising in its many forms backed up by a good showroom performance - usually from the salesman.
Serious buyers trust their ears. Serious buyers make many mistakes - usually from a retrospective viewpoint, the position from which most mistakes are viewed...but that is life!
Other people buy what they - usually subconsciously - believe is the best for their purpose (what ever that may truly be). And most influence in deciding on a purchase is down to advertising in its many forms backed up by a good showroom performance - usually from the salesman.
Last edited:
Jan,
You are still trying very hard to defend the indefensible (& your buddy SY, it seems). Words do have meaning & you cannot deny the meaning of SY's statement
Jan, if you had made the statement above I would have asked you for the links to the test. I don't see what your problem is?
You are still trying very hard to defend the indefensible (& your buddy SY, it seems). Words do have meaning & you cannot deny the meaning of SY's statement
Why not let SY answer? BTW, Rod asked the question before me & I see that it was ignored & left unanswered!
Jan, if you had made the statement above I would have asked you for the links to the test. I don't see what your problem is?
Last edited:
The problem is that some people try to explain the ins & outs of controlled testing, and you completely ignore the effort and derail the discussion by asking irrelevant questions.
I told you there was NO BT-SONY test done, I told you I made up the hypothetical question. Do you want SY to confirm that I did? Is that the most important item you pick out from this discussion?
jan didden
No, the problem is the misuse of language in order to win an argument or prove a point. SY said this
which he now seems to deny?
So if there was never any test made, this statement is disingenuous!
So SY took a hypothetical statement of Jan's & made a statement around it to prove what?
Last edited:
I scanned that document 2quad, thanks "METHODS FOR THE SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF SMALL IMPAIRMENTS IN AUDIO SYSTEMS INCLUDING MULTICHANNEL SOUND SYSTEMS". I was interested in the test method as it was almost an exact description of what was carried out & described below.
It's interesting, when evidence of blind testing is put in front of the same people arguing for it on this thread, it is rejected as having been coached. There's no pleasing or satisfying some people
See here
I'll quote it
even the link gets scrambled by the swear filter, total SB isnt it, there are two instaces in the link that need correcting, then reload and you get the document.
I had to use the corresponding one for telephony when looking at some 2400 bit per sec codecs.
Wrinkle
- Status
- Not open for further replies.