There are numerous correctly done studies out there, but subjectivists choose to ignore them because, in general, they do not support thier current beliefs. People loved the idea that I could show how two amplifiers that measured the same under current protocals could easily sound very different, but they rejected the idea that the same facts indicated that distortion in a loudspeaker was inaudible. Subjectivists pick what they want to believe and reject the rest.
Your point about "who pays" is a very real one since marketing loves the current situation where "black magic" rules audio. They can manipulate this scenario in a million different ways to continue to milk the public of its cash. The last thing that marketing wants is valid objective assements that show just how bad their products really are. An ignorant public is a pliable and gullable public.
Self doesn't think much of differences in capacitors, either. He and I debated caps in LTE's in 'Wireless World' and 'HFN' for years, until Dr. Lipshitz came in and said that while my measurements were OK, and my math was correct, it didn't mean anything, in any case, because ABX tests of caps showed them all sounding similar. This was 25 years ago. Do you see a similarity in what we are discussing here, today?
Last edited:
Absolutely - its the same issue - objective data versus subjective data. One is scientific and the other is not. Nothing has changed except the component. Then when the current one gets dispeled by disbelief a new one will be created to replace it. This has, and will go on and on.
Hello AJ. I want to address some points you raised in your post #12014. As you addressed 5 different people I though responding like this was best.
1) I made a comment about what I mistakenly thought was your definition of subjectivism or subjectivists. You then replied "Uhh, Tom, that wasn't my definition, it's the definition. Do you disagree from a logic perspective?" I believe my previous response in post #11974 I presented you with my disagreements to the "logic" of such a belief system. Perhaps you believe differently but, not one subjectivist I know believes they're infallible, as this "logic" assumes.
==========================================================
2) When I stated "I don't want to start anything with you AJ but, even your recent statement about the EnABL'ed drivers, based on your disbelief was and still is unobjective, unscientific."
You replied "Sorry Tom, this is a big, fast moving thread, so which statement? Could you please quote it directly so that there is no subjective interpretation of what I stated vs what was actually stated? Thanks."
In post #11832 you said "Might be. Adding mass/stiffness/damping to a driver is nothing new. Just like people being influenced by the sight of dots." As there had just been a few posts about the EnABL'ed drivers, I assumed this is what you were commenting on.
I believe that's what Cal Weldon assumed as well when he quoted you in post #11841 and then Cal replied to you "Taking pot shots at things of which you are not familiar does nothing to improve your credibility."
==========================================================
3) I previously stated "I get a laugh out of objectivists who use mult-way speakers with steep crossovers that are highly equalized" and you then asked me "Why is that Tom? I thought you said only a F and I would comment on a speaker/system they had never heard? I thought you said you had not heard the Orions (which fit your above criteria exactly)? Or are you referring to something else?"
First: AJ in glad you commented on the fact that your speakers fit my criteria exactly, because poor terry j seems to believe most everything I say is about him or his speakers as evidenced in his post #12005. Perhaps you'd like to inform him how many YEARS passed before you and I manged to work things out and patch it up!!! Terry can go and attack someone else's audio system and beliefs. I have no desire to communicate with him.
Second: you're quoting me out of contex to raise a point I never intended! My entire quote was "I get a laugh out of objectivists who use mult-way speakers with steep crossovers that are highly equalized, and then want to comment on how horrible my single fullrange drivers are! My POV on this "if" a person wants to use mult-way speakers with steep crossovers, I have no issue with that but, if they have to highly equalize their speakers to get acceptable performance ---{be they single or multi-way}--- then how good is the speaker design in the first place? I'm willing to listen to both before deciding which is the closest to live, unamplified music, but using the mult-way speakers with steep (or not steep) crossovers, unequalized, like mine are would be a more fair and true comparison of the two differing designs!"
The point I was making, which I thought was crystal clear, was not that I can judge whether or not a speaker that uses mult-drivers and steep crossovers that are highly equalized, will sound better than mine or not BEFORE hearing it but, rather if people who use these types of speakers and then want to comment on how horrible my single fullrange drivers are, they should question how good is ANY speaker design in and of itself IF someone has if they have to highly equalize it to get acceptable performance from it?
Would you or anyone you know else buy ANY other audio component be it an amp, preamp, CD player whose performance was so unacceptable BEFORE it was highly equalized? I imagine such a design would be considered broken or improperly designed! Why are speakers somehow exempt from same criteria? So as I said above, I'm willing to listen to both types of speakers before deciding which is the closest to live, unamplified music, but using the mult-way speakers with steep (or not steep) crossovers, unequalized, like my single fullrange drivers are would be a more fair and true comparison of the two differing designs!
==========================================================
4) Thank You for recommending Don't Smoke in Bed by Holly Cole. I love this CD especially the cut "Get Out of Town" Thanks again! Excellently recorded CD. I am throughly enjoying it!!!! I also noticed a bit of siblance but, I never know if that's because of the speakers or the recording. Unless of course I ONLY heard the siblance on my speakers and no one elses, anywhere!
This siblance is also one of the "problems" I have with trusting microphones instead of my ears. Whenever I've been at a live, unamplified musical event I've never heard any siblance ---{at least not the type of siblance heard on recording, only an instrument's natural siblance}--- yet I've heard recordings of the event and now there's siblance! Obviously the mics are either hearing something my ears don't or they're adding something to the music! If the mics are hearing something my ears don't that means they don't hear like I do, so why should I trust their assessment of audio components and speakers? If they're adding something to the music they're recording they must also be adding something equipment they test. I've yet to see anyone address this issue in a manner that's satisfied me. Until someone does I'll continue trust my ears!
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
1) I made a comment about what I mistakenly thought was your definition of subjectivism or subjectivists. You then replied "Uhh, Tom, that wasn't my definition, it's the definition. Do you disagree from a logic perspective?" I believe my previous response in post #11974 I presented you with my disagreements to the "logic" of such a belief system. Perhaps you believe differently but, not one subjectivist I know believes they're infallible, as this "logic" assumes.
==========================================================
2) When I stated "I don't want to start anything with you AJ but, even your recent statement about the EnABL'ed drivers, based on your disbelief was and still is unobjective, unscientific."
You replied "Sorry Tom, this is a big, fast moving thread, so which statement? Could you please quote it directly so that there is no subjective interpretation of what I stated vs what was actually stated? Thanks."
In post #11832 you said "Might be. Adding mass/stiffness/damping to a driver is nothing new. Just like people being influenced by the sight of dots." As there had just been a few posts about the EnABL'ed drivers, I assumed this is what you were commenting on.
I believe that's what Cal Weldon assumed as well when he quoted you in post #11841 and then Cal replied to you "Taking pot shots at things of which you are not familiar does nothing to improve your credibility."
==========================================================
3) I previously stated "I get a laugh out of objectivists who use mult-way speakers with steep crossovers that are highly equalized" and you then asked me "Why is that Tom? I thought you said only a F and I would comment on a speaker/system they had never heard? I thought you said you had not heard the Orions (which fit your above criteria exactly)? Or are you referring to something else?"
First: AJ in glad you commented on the fact that your speakers fit my criteria exactly, because poor terry j seems to believe most everything I say is about him or his speakers as evidenced in his post #12005. Perhaps you'd like to inform him how many YEARS passed before you and I manged to work things out and patch it up!!! Terry can go and attack someone else's audio system and beliefs. I have no desire to communicate with him.
Second: you're quoting me out of contex to raise a point I never intended! My entire quote was "I get a laugh out of objectivists who use mult-way speakers with steep crossovers that are highly equalized, and then want to comment on how horrible my single fullrange drivers are! My POV on this "if" a person wants to use mult-way speakers with steep crossovers, I have no issue with that but, if they have to highly equalize their speakers to get acceptable performance ---{be they single or multi-way}--- then how good is the speaker design in the first place? I'm willing to listen to both before deciding which is the closest to live, unamplified music, but using the mult-way speakers with steep (or not steep) crossovers, unequalized, like mine are would be a more fair and true comparison of the two differing designs!"
The point I was making, which I thought was crystal clear, was not that I can judge whether or not a speaker that uses mult-drivers and steep crossovers that are highly equalized, will sound better than mine or not BEFORE hearing it but, rather if people who use these types of speakers and then want to comment on how horrible my single fullrange drivers are, they should question how good is ANY speaker design in and of itself IF someone has if they have to highly equalize it to get acceptable performance from it?
Would you or anyone you know else buy ANY other audio component be it an amp, preamp, CD player whose performance was so unacceptable BEFORE it was highly equalized? I imagine such a design would be considered broken or improperly designed! Why are speakers somehow exempt from same criteria? So as I said above, I'm willing to listen to both types of speakers before deciding which is the closest to live, unamplified music, but using the mult-way speakers with steep (or not steep) crossovers, unequalized, like my single fullrange drivers are would be a more fair and true comparison of the two differing designs!
==========================================================
4) Thank You for recommending Don't Smoke in Bed by Holly Cole. I love this CD especially the cut "Get Out of Town" Thanks again! Excellently recorded CD. I am throughly enjoying it!!!! I also noticed a bit of siblance but, I never know if that's because of the speakers or the recording. Unless of course I ONLY heard the siblance on my speakers and no one elses, anywhere!
This siblance is also one of the "problems" I have with trusting microphones instead of my ears. Whenever I've been at a live, unamplified musical event I've never heard any siblance ---{at least not the type of siblance heard on recording, only an instrument's natural siblance}--- yet I've heard recordings of the event and now there's siblance! Obviously the mics are either hearing something my ears don't or they're adding something to the music! If the mics are hearing something my ears don't that means they don't hear like I do, so why should I trust their assessment of audio components and speakers? If they're adding something to the music they're recording they must also be adding something equipment they test. I've yet to see anyone address this issue in a manner that's satisfied me. Until someone does I'll continue trust my ears!
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
Unfortunately Tom I have made a retraction here,
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ke-difference-any-input-1206.html#post2082088
as it appears that AJ has done some testing of the EnABL principle. I can't get at the pics unless I go back to the original site and sign up so I'm not positive but that is what I read in his post. If so, I'd be interested in knowing what his thoughts are. On second thought perhaps I already do.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ke-difference-any-input-1206.html#post2082088
as it appears that AJ has done some testing of the EnABL principle. I can't get at the pics unless I go back to the original site and sign up so I'm not positive but that is what I read in his post. If so, I'd be interested in knowing what his thoughts are. On second thought perhaps I already do.
Such a blatant misrepresentation of what I and other subjectivists actually believe is almost too ridiculous to take seriously, let alone respond to! A man of your obvious intelligence and achievements should, at the least, be honest in your statement of what your opponent's actual postion is in your rebuttals.
I can assure you sir I am not naive. Nor do I believe my eyes or my ears or any of my other senses are infallible. That said as with all my other senses as I've grown from an infant to a man of 56, I've come to realise my ears are NOT presenting me with false information the vast majority of the time. The vast majority of the time our senses ---{yes, unfortunately for objectivists that means our ears too}--- are presenting us with information correctly! They would have to be or else we wouldn't have survived for long as a species.
Nope that sabertooth tiger I hear growling isn't really there. Just these fallible ears of mine tricking me once again. Absolutely no need for us to hide, We're safe as safe can be. Hey buddy why don't you lead us away from here now? 😀 OOPPSS looks like the darned sabertooth really was there. 😱 Same thing with that spear I saw the neanderthal throw at my friend an hour later. It just looked like it was coming straight at him. It's was actually 8 feet to his left. There was no need to warn him to move. It's just those darned fallible eyes being tricked once again. OOPPS! Guess these funny old fallible eyes weren't wrong after all. 😱 Sorry about that! Maybe I should learn to trust what I'm seeing and hearing the vast majority of the time...
I'm sure you know that illusionists like Harry Houdini of old or Chris Angel these days make careers out of tricking the people's eyes, correct? Right in front of you they'll fool your eyes! They'll make it appears as if a silver ball floats around a cloth, an assistant floats in mid-air, a scarf dances in a sealed bottle, or the magician themself is hovering a few inches off the floor!So sir knowing that our eyes are also not infallible why have you come to your eyes? Why aren't you constantly doing DBTs so you'll know your eyes aren't deceiving you? Afterall you depend on your eyes to keep you out of dangerous situations driving, walking, while at work or play! How do you really know the car in front of you is actually in your lane and not the lane next to you? The reality is you've simply learned to trust your eyes aren't deceiving you the majority of the time, even though they aren't infallible.
What would happen if your wife/girl friend/significant other called you on the phone and asked you a personal question you'd wouldn't want anyone else but her to know? Would you proceed to drill her with a series of questions only she could possibly know the answer to, thus verifing your belief that you're speaking to whom you believe you're speaking to OR do you trust your ears even though you know with complete confidence that they aren't infallible?
What I find strange is for some strange reason when something like the hobby of audio is involved, the objective, scientifically oriented amongst us want to be absolutely 100% postive that our ears aren't possibly being deceived!!! Yet in a life & death situation these same people are willing to subjectively trust their ears. For Eaxmple: theyll stop their car BEFORE if they "believe" they hear a train's horn blowing ---{even if they cannot see the train}---- suddenly they're 100% willing to trust those same old pesky, fallible ears that are always so darn deceiving when we're listening to our audio systems!
So they'll trust their fallible ears aren't tricking them in a life and death situation but, when a hobby is involved THAT'S when they want you want proof your/our ears aren't being deceived? Sounds like someone has their priorities a$$backwards to me and it's not the subjectivists. Why don't objectivists practice what they preach? Just remind themelves how fallible their ears really are and continue with their cars over the train tracks, without stopping or looking? Why the sudden switch to subjectively trusting your ears aren't being deceived? The answer is simple. Because when push comes to shove and their lives depend on it, objectivists know what subjectivists know i.e., the ears are NOT presenting us with false information the vast majority of the time!
I've come to learn that with time and practice, learning to recognize a person's voice is really no different than learning to recognize the "voice" of different live unamplified musical instruments. So while my ears, which indeed aren't infallible, may be wrong. However I know that the vast majority of the time they aren't presenting me with false information and so do you!
First I've already explained to you why the subjectivist does not have the same requirements objectivists have. Second the "problem" is that some of the most vocal "objectivists" in these audio forums don't hold themselves to the same standards that they requires of others.
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
Wrong. The claimant excludes the VERY reason that objectivists postulate - psycho-acoustics.
Its all in their mind.
Even given the simple fact that the effects they hear "disappear" under test conditions or can only be detected in very specific and personal circumstances point to this simple answer.
And yet it is consistently rejected, probably because it is seen as an insult to their hearing, perception or intelligence. When in fact to recognise it would improve all.
TG54 - respect to you for doing the testing thing mate, but there are sooooo many holes of logic in your diatribe above, I'd suggest you review it and possibly withdraw it to maintain credibility...
Last edited:
Tom, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I know you know that, but it must be made clear that "extraordinary" doesn't mean "life or death." It's not life or death whether or not Uri Geller can bend spoons with his mind (there's easier ways to bend spoons!), but it is indeed an extraordinary claim.
When I'm walking on the train tracks, feel vibration, and hear a whistle, it's not extraordinary to conclude that there's a train coming, though it certainly is life and death!
When I'm walking on the train tracks, feel vibration, and hear a whistle, it's not extraordinary to conclude that there's a train coming, though it certainly is life and death!
Why the insistance of having unknown variable added i.e., an ABX box? This ABX box is never part of anyone's home audio system! The wires ---{which are the device actually being tested}--- can easily be manuelly switched without providing any Clever Hans clues provided proper protocols are followed!
I know, I know, not adding an unknown variable and only testing the wires... it's just not fair, right??
Thetubeguy1954
Why add a ABX box?
Because the ABX box (or it's PC equivalent) is so successful (and quick) in other audio areas for detecting very small differences!
Never get into a listening contest using your test method (whatever it might be) against a person using an ABX box. They will detect smaller differences and do it in much less time.
Yes well its never been the physical event that I question, it's the fact that the brain gets involved and that changes everything. And yes, you are nieve if you think that you can control that.
IS that the claim?? I asked many pages back whether or not it is possible that LCR IS sufficient for the 'believers', few have answered but Bud at least seems to think so.
I thought at one stage that TG too thought that, but his statement is a little ambiguous so I can't really conclude.
In any case, how would you decide based on Toms successful test (if that's what happens)? He passes, you measure both (and are presumably different_, what then makes you decide it was not LCR differences but rather non-mundane factors??
Seems to me the simplest answer is 'any audibility present is due to LCR differences', or am I missing something?
Does it matter in the end?? We should just leave it at 'can Tom pass and hear the differences he claims'. There is going tpbe enough interest one way or the other even if left as simply as that! (that is my prediction, wonder how truly psychic I am ?? haha)
Poor reading skills Tom? Tsk tsk, especially from who readily get's on his high horse (called Offended I presume) and then takes great pains and effort to go thru multiple posts to get relevant posts....
Nope, NO-ONE on our side is asking or suggesting you use a switch box.
Have you got that?? It is YOUR test, and we urge you to do what you feel maximises your chances of success. If that means no switch, then fine. No switch.
That the conversation tends to wander around a bit whilst we wait the main event is neither here nor there!! And you Tom, are the main event!!
See?? Jakob has got it. Thanks jakob.
Oh hi Tom, this is poor terry j talking! hahaha Hey, that's MY line.
Yep, got it. I understand the difference. AJ merely slurred your wife with (in your words I think) obscene lewd sexual suggestions, pfft, nothing.
Me, well yeah I really insulted an audiophile didn't I. It's just one of those silly things you can do in life then later realise how bad it was.
Like innocently asking a woman (in all seriousness and with genuine curiosity) "Are you pregnant?''
I mean you only do it once in life if you follow me.
DID I actually comment on how horrible your speakers are??😕 I do completely remember commenting that in no way shape or form could they be described as accurate, therefore strongly questioning the claim that they 'take you closer to the live unamplified sound'.
A logical thing if you will. Not a comment on subjective perception.
Brett did make the comment about a trabant, but I certainly didn't. [funny thing happened in the forum tho. You asked what purpose it serves describing the sound of a system...when it did not serve your interest that is. Hmm, wonder how this whole thing ever came up if YOU didn't continually describe (or quote others doing so) the sound of your system. How else are we to know that your system sounds like an electrostat with bass if you didn't continually keep telling us?? (or whatever your exact description was) So can I conclude that when you do it and it 'backs your case' it is fine to tell us how it sounds, but when someone does not fall over in a swoon with 'your sound' then it is not ok??]
NOW, if you really want, I CAN comment on how your system would very likely sound. See, unlike you (who has not heard a highly equalised system with steep crossovers) I have heard the fostex 206e (or whatever the hell they are...too lazy to get the exact numbers yada yada). Oh, and it too was a system that kinda followed your philosophy, expensive cdp (top of the line Moon...or maybe they only make one model?), valve pre amp with valve main amp. What it did not have was expensive cables, the guy does not think they are worth iy. So a difference there.
It was, well, a trabant. There, even I said it now. But at least it was based on an actual listen (much to your dismay I suppose)
Ok ok, I know I know, your drivers are the special edition 206 R..ohh, they have the proprietary five step Risoli process..ohh and are in a special box..ohh and that means what I heard has absolutely no correlation at all to what you have. None whatsoever.
Then you are correct, I cannot say I have heard anything similar to yours at all.
Interesting Tom. Define highly equalize. What is highly equalise. Why do you use that expression? Where is an example of these highly equalized systems you are talking about?? Asked you all this before...silence.
Why do you just not say 'I have no fricking idea what I am talking about'?? Leaving aside we do not know what you mean by highly equalised, what you have not got the faintest idea of is why we would do any sort of equalization.
I'll let AJ answer this if he wishes, but assuming you put the question out so that anyone (including me) can answer then NOPE. I would not buy such an obvious POS. Would YOU Tom??
Would YOU buy a cdp, pre or amp that was such an obvious POS that had the FR of your speakers??
You wouldn't? Then why is it fine and the cutting edge when the speakers are so poor??
Oh, you like them. Then that is totally fine Tom.
Indeed. And when you can answer that question the little light may turn on somewhere.
or maybe not.
Gee, you have got it bad haven't you. Quite apart from the mics being used in two totally different ways (ie you cannot make the argument you just did) can you answer me this.
Your (or any) system is so blameless that any source if sibilance is and can only be the microphone?
Hmm. There is the answer. ANY reproduction problem cannot lie in the audiophiles system, it is the recording (or mic if you wish).
Here is an interesting way to ask the question. Note I am making one small assumption, that any audible effects of cables are, at least in small part, due to LCR differences.
That will most likely show itself by very small FR differences between cables.
In other words, very small differences in FR can move someone closer (or away from) the live unamplified sound.
So, to Tom we can conclude that small differences in FR can be significant, and also that his ears are very sensitive to this 'unstable' FR of the system. (unstable because very small changes show up audibly...not a perjorative)
Yet Tom will deny that the poor native response of his speakers are something to even worry about???😕😕😱😱
That either shows that Tom (despite his science lecture before about harmonics and overtones which relates to timbre etc) actually does not comprehend what Fr can tell us about accuracy, or his ears are unique and have some sort of inverse response to his speakers, which make them sound neutral.
To be honest, I couldn't slog through your entire post, so I'll have to limit myself to this part... In any case, Tom was kind enough to specify what equipment he was using and gave me references to the cables. Doing some back of the envelope calculation, LCR should not be an issue here. To double check, I certainly intend to take a quick frequency response measurement- that's where LCR has its effect, barring stupidly designed, unstable components (which does not appear to be the case here).
😛. Perefect analogy, though sure to rankle some of the kids 😉
Hi Tom,
Rather than rehash all that and your possible technical misconceptions about amplitude response and mass/stiffness/damping (not to mention online logic class quotes), how about we just stick to the thread topic of wires - and your upcoming test.
Good to know that you are getting some practice in and hopefully, this will move us closer to an actual test (me in attendance or not).
Tom, we are actually in agreement! I fully agree, that if an electronic device like an amp or cd players amplitude output looked like this:
It would indeed be broken! We have no disagreement there Tom.
Actually Tom would you believe that not only do certain categories of individuals accept this:
for the output of an electronic device, they rave about how much it sounds like real (live) music...and pay $350,000 😱
Tom can you believe that? Really makes one wonder eh?
Anyhow, whether or not I get to attend the dbt, I still looking forward to hearing your system. I think it would be fun if some of the Space Coast guys could attend also (parking allowing). I could bring over an extremely linear amplitude (or "heavily equalized" as you would refer to it) compact system to put right beside you mains and compare side by side.
Maybe that Maynard fellow, as he is a DIYer as well?
My only request Tom,would be that I get to bring the music tracks, as I listen to wide range, highly dynamic (low/no compression) acoustic recordings when analyzing loudspeaker performance. Mainly classical, big band and acoustic jazz. I see here that you listen primarily to Smooth Jazz, New Age and Rock, all of which I also enjoy, but would not use to test system performance.
I'm glad you hear the siblance now that I've pointed it out Tom. It appears Andre completely missed it with his superb hearing and his ultra revealing "details" system. Weird how that works eh?
Hard to trace exactly how it would have got in there, perhaps post process heavy equalizing? With recordings (might also have been a myriad of things in the studio, op-amps, caps, resistors, wires, digititis, etc, etc.) who knows?
Btw, bit chilly today eh? Snow in N Florida, who would have thought 🙂.
Maybe wait until early summer for any testing so that the ears aren't frozen 😀.
cheers,
AJ
In fact, the claim right from the beginning of the cable discussion back in the seventies was just, that an audible difference occurs after exchanging some cables.
It first has to be our goal to find out if a positive test result will occur after exchanging cables.
If this positive result occurs and we can sort out other factors as the reason (remember that a negative control is necessary? ), than we can begin to test the possible variables that led to the positive test result.
At this point it seems, that you were arguing that it is better to avoid any control (and to risk that the listener is "half deaf" under blind test conditions) than to ensure that we have a very sensitive listener participating in the test.
Wishes
Last edited:
That's your claim and not one I've seen from any listener or manufacturer. Floating goal posts have been covered multiple times before. Every time a measurable difference of a potentially audible nature, one previously ignored or unconsidered to the Roger Russell/Audioholics crew, arises those calling themselves objective take possession of it and change the scope of the claim with consulting the claimants.
It is fair to say some claim audible differences beyond the measurable, or at a measurable level with no correspondence to known audible thresholds, but that's leagues away from the "NOT due to mundane factors" claim.
I don't know why you guys are looking for a control. You already have one. His unaltered system that he is comfortable with and he can clearly here differences in. That's all you need.
He says he can hear differences between cables in his system during sighted evaluations. Lets find out if he can double blind.
Rob🙂
He says he can hear differences between cables in his system during sighted evaluations. Lets find out if he can double blind.
Rob🙂
Actually AJ I noticed the siblance BEFORE you mentioned it in a post. I didn't mention it for two reasons:
1) First and of primary importance, I've only heard this recording on my system. Without first hearing the recording on a few different systems I don't know where to lay the blame.
2) Overall I believe it's a very good recording. I wasn't attempting to provide a detailed critque of the recording. I was simply thanking you for recommending a recording and gave a brief explanation of why I was doing so.
I find nothing weird about this at all. No one's audio system is perfect. EVERY audio system I've every heard I could critque and point out it's shortcomings. Whose to say that both your speakers and mine aren't adding, or accentuating the recording's siblance whereas Andre's speakers aren't?
I wasn't there when the recording was made, so I surely don't know...
Yes it's cold here in Orlando relatively speaking of course. If I still lived in Connecticut I'd look at a day like this as nature's revealtion of the soon to be coming warmer weather! Next I'd be looking for robins to appear. Which I saw for the first time this year in Orlando 2 weeks ago.
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
So "if" in the upcoming DBT SY will administer in my home, I prove I can hear differences in wires, what will that say about all the "correctly done studies" that have proven wires, interconnect in this case, sound the same?
Can you possibly explain to me the scientific reason how two amps that measure the same can sound different? As a subjectivist I believe that statement is true and would attribute it to it being caused by a distortion that's not being picked up in the measurements being used. However when viewed in the light that most objectivists claim mics are much more sensitive than human ears so "if" it doesn't show up in the measurements it either doesn't exist or cannot be heard, I must be mistaken in my belief!
Many objectivists pick what they want to believe and reject the rest too!
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
- Status
- Not open for further replies.