So even with the highly trained hearing perception (via self analysis) from selling equipment over 20yrs...and the super "resolving" system (via self analysis), it would take a week for your perceptions to adjust to hearing differences?? Hmmmm. Interesting.
I wonder if Yuri just needed more time...to bend that spoon...
Thanks boconnor. I have no doubt most of your post will fall on deaf ears. t\There have been a few here urging us to read toole, as they pick one concept out of his book and somehow feel he is backing their stance.
Nope. I did mention it before, he is very much convinced that blinded testing is the only way to truly determine sonic differences.
Even tho it deals with loudspeakers, here is a fantastic read of someones epiphany regarding sighted/knowledge influences
Moulton Laboratories :: Some Reminiscing About My Experiences With Subjective Testing
Again, I doubt anyone will read it, but there it is for posterity.
the continuing education of curly. That is how long it normally takes you to test a bit of gear yeah?? It should be, you have told us a thousand times.
Then, why should a dbt take any longer??? ALL you need do is not know the identity, then everything else is exactly the same.
Can you not grasp this???
Andre
bzzt. you did it again. look at what you wrote.
Sorry terry, it's just that I'm convinced there are differences between cables, ask Janneman also.
We know andre, we know you are convinced. We DO believe you, we do not think you are making it up.
Can you NOT see that you are operating off a presumption, one that is colouring everything else? BECAUSE you are convinced, you do not accept results of cable tests.
This was the point I was trying to make before, ok then, per you obviously the test is flawed (as no differences were found), so find the flaw, correct it and conduct a new (better) test and get a positive result!
It gets unbelievably boring to have believers simply carping about tests that have been done, repeating the mantra 'I hear it I hear it I hear it' yet never get off their frickin arrse and do something!
I have lost count of how many times I have offered to go to andy g's and do a proper test, all *we* get is refusals and then a return to 'nah nah nah, the other tests are wrong but I am not going to do anything'.
C'mon. someone DO something please. have the courage of your convictions!
Nope. I did mention it before, he is very much convinced that blinded testing is the only way to truly determine sonic differences.
Even tho it deals with loudspeakers, here is a fantastic read of someones epiphany regarding sighted/knowledge influences
Moulton Laboratories :: Some Reminiscing About My Experiences With Subjective Testing
Again, I doubt anyone will read it, but there it is for posterity.
the continuing education of curly. That is how long it normally takes you to test a bit of gear yeah?? It should be, you have told us a thousand times.
Then, why should a dbt take any longer??? ALL you need do is not know the identity, then everything else is exactly the same.
Can you not grasp this???
Andre
bzzt. you did it again. look at what you wrote.
Sorry terry, it's just that I'm convinced there are differences between cables, ask Janneman also.
We know andre, we know you are convinced. We DO believe you, we do not think you are making it up.
Can you NOT see that you are operating off a presumption, one that is colouring everything else? BECAUSE you are convinced, you do not accept results of cable tests.
This was the point I was trying to make before, ok then, per you obviously the test is flawed (as no differences were found), so find the flaw, correct it and conduct a new (better) test and get a positive result!
It gets unbelievably boring to have believers simply carping about tests that have been done, repeating the mantra 'I hear it I hear it I hear it' yet never get off their frickin arrse and do something!
I have lost count of how many times I have offered to go to andy g's and do a proper test, all *we* get is refusals and then a return to 'nah nah nah, the other tests are wrong but I am not going to do anything'.
C'mon. someone DO something please. have the courage of your convictions!
tch tch
lack of respect for other's professional position is a double edge sword, my friend 🙄
many people in this country believe that childhood vaccines cause autism, or that antropogenic warming is legit... it's a tough world we live in, eh?😉
such tender sensibilities...
lack of respect for other's professional position is a double edge sword, my friend 🙄
many people in this country believe that childhood vaccines cause autism, or that antropogenic warming is legit... it's a tough world we live in, eh?😉
such tender sensibilities...
Live musical performance as a reference
One could wonder if such a methodology for evaluating musical content would preclude attendance and subsequent evaluation of live performaces, seeing as the musical environment under said conditions is by definition evanescent...
Logically then, live music cannot be used as a reference from this perspective. 😉😉
One could wonder if such a methodology for evaluating musical content would preclude attendance and subsequent evaluation of live performaces, seeing as the musical environment under said conditions is by definition evanescent...
Logically then, live music cannot be used as a reference from this perspective. 😉😉
Some negatives can be proven - eg squaring a circle. It's impossible, and has been proven to be. Another example would be proving that gravity does not follow an inverse cube law...
I, however, have not 'proven a negative' here. I've done three things - shown that the electrical properties of cables lead to frequency and phase responses that are clearly inaudible (the ear cannot distinguish level differences of 0.025dbs at ANY frequency, much less 20kHz), and I've shown that all these responses are of the form of a simple rolloff and that no more complex response curves are evident, etc.
Secondly, I've pointed out that a DBT is the only way to assess subjective experience or to assess objective matters where a subjective experience is part of the signal chain ("Did you hear that?").
And I've pointed out that subjective evaluation by itself cannot be relied upon to assess 'edge of perception' small-signal variations, especially where there is bias present (assuming the variations exist, without prior reason other than hearsay).
You would be wise to adopt a more sophisticated analysis than simply saying "he's proving a negative, which is impossible, therefore he's wrong". For a start - measuring limits of human sensory perception is in no way about any kind of negativity. From that, it's straight forward to look at particular signals and determine if they should be audible or not.
One 'negative' that HAS been repeatedly shown though is the fact that the claims of the subjectivists of objective fact have all been shown false when subjected to DBT methods. But *I* didn't prove that, the test subjects did - by failing to hear what they claimed they could hear.
Sorry but i am not listening to a live performance I am listening for differences and what effect that they have on my system. At least i do try to listen for difference where as most here would prefer that everything sounds the same so that they would not feel bad about what ever it is that they own or build. Give me a break already.
Last edited:
You assert a great of gibberish and say little except what you have read somewhere. Any real experience at anything to do with audio?
What experience do you have that makes you such "reference" with respect to audio? I doubt any from what I am continual reading from your posts. Reading books is wonderful, but experience is a better teacher than theory in my eyes.
Last edited:
Thanks for the link - nice read. I particularly like this part:
"In one class, I remember that after the tests were over, and we had pulled off the grill cloth, one student exclaimed, 'Oh, man! I can’t believe I have such terrible ears! I really down-rated B (a famous, highly regarded brand), while everybody knows it’s a great speaker!'
What a great example of group-think! What a clear example of brand prejudice! The student would prefer to choose speakers based on what his colleagues and trade-mag ads told him to choosing with his ears! And he blamed his ears for not going along with the party line!! He never even considered the possibility that maybe, just maybe, his ears were right!!!"
What a great example of group-think! What a clear example of brand prejudice! The student would prefer to choose speakers based on what his colleagues and trade-mag ads told him to choosing with his ears! And he blamed his ears for not going along with the party line!! He never even considered the possibility that maybe, just maybe, his ears were right!!!"
What those who criticise DBTs seem to misunderstand is that controlled tests put the emphahsis on our hearing, taking it as given that we have the ability to hear differences, if they exist to be heard. DBT is not anti-hearing or anti-listening. Quite the opposite. It just seeks to remove all the stuff that should not have any bearing on the sound quality, such as price, model number, name of manufacturer, size, or colour.
As someone once said: what additional audible insights do you get by knowing the name of the cable?
Curly:
Yet more ducking the question... Gibberish? How so? Go on, reason your answer - if you can. Yes, what we read - and learn - is important. But you're so obsessed with your own subjectivist experimentalism you can't acknowledge that books are a valuable, indeed, essential source of learning. Mock them all you want, but in the end you make a fool of yourself. And what has my experience got to do with anything? Where was I arguing from experience? I was arguing from scientific fact and rational thinking. Too much for you? I assume so, since you've never meaningfully responded to what I've put - just ducked and weaved to dodge the issues.
It is almost funny to see that in this thread. 🙂
I believe most are only asking for DBT's to be done in such a way that the outcome at least have a chance of being realistic. I for one don't care what the 'average' listener may hear or not, so average results are meaningless to me, I'm concerned about what is possible.
I refuse to answer anything that you post. You sir are not worthy of my time. You have called me a "charlatan" and that was as bad or worse than calling me a liar! Just keep posting the company line and you will feel better for it, as there are more than enough that also share your views here. Pay Michael Fremer to do your testing if you feel that compelled. I have zero interest in tests that I do not believe are worth my efforts due to many unknown pitfalls in the procedures and how they would be setup to afford level matching that would not guarantee transparency.
Last edited:
Differences may be detected early.It is if these differences are real and worthwhile improvements that takeS longer.Either you believe it or not, if the differences are improvements,but small to justify the cost,even "audiophools" like us will not pay for them.😛
And you know why?We are not more idiots than ANYONE else😀
(Not at you Panicos)Sure gross difference can be heard if the cables are complete crap, as I said before. Any abberation that apparent will tell me that something is seriously wrong somewhere. The subtle differences take time to hear and understand. That is why I typically listen to any new component for at least "one week", as I stated before, so that I can make sure that I am not imagining things and allow me time to listen to a wider variety of my music, before making any decisions. It seems as if many here want these differences to be day and night. Where did anyone ever claim that?
The short time frame that most of these A/b DBT are setup for is not enough time to make any type of valid choice. It is not a wonder that most end up as random as they have come to be.
I don't think that subjectivists will dissagree with you.The student simply made his choice by ear.Now if he is fool to pay for the "famous" speaker,is another story🙂
In the absence of any prove that Curly is a "charlatan"(Mr.Doom has to present a proof),this may be against the forum rules too.Perhaps a moderator can check it?
Mr.Doom called Curly a "charlatan" when he was refering to Curly's customers.
Too unfair,and a clear persomal attack???.....wothy of sin bin? Just wondering.
Last edited:
Well on top of that how about being called a "liar" by a moderator(and two other members) and a "troll" by the same moderator, over the past two days in this thread, because I refuse to agree with the principles of DBT! It would seem if you do not agree with opinions shared by a moderator, you are fair game for all to insult and pile on without recourse!
Last edited:
Curly, just put your fingers in your ears.
Remember to take them out when you listen to your music or else everything will sound the same. 😀
- Status
- Not open for further replies.