Its the inconsistancy that bothers me. When the audibilty is significant then the data should be unequivacal. Its not in this case. They ALL didn't prefer one, most did. In any random toss there is likely to be a winner. There is too little data to be sure of the test other than what is there is questionable.
We have no idea how to measure sound quality. Yes certainly we can measure distortion, clipping, inter modulation etc, the problem is that these seem to have only a poor correlation with sound quality.gedlee said:
I understand that the sound quality tracks these kinds of measurements reasonably well when the flaws are extreme, such as when distortion is 5%. The objective.subjective problem seems to show up for very small distortion measurements. During the 70's the Japanese were busy building receivers whose distortion ws 0.001% or less, most agreed that they sounded awful.
So until we finds "the" measurement or measurements that correlate well with "cable sound" you will get highly subjective reviews. Some reviewers will respond differently for different days, seating, rooms etc.
In science, observations mostly precede explanations.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.