Double blind peer-reviewed study with a large sample size. What would pass for other sciences.
Demonstrably measurable is how I would respond to your second question - something that can be put on paper. I'm fine with coming up with a test or measurement as long as it is done correctly.
We should probably agree to end this line of discussion or move it to another thread, though, since it's got nothing to do with AK4499.
I 100% agree.
Last edited:
Mathematically, a "measure" on a set is a systematic way to assign a number to each suitable subset of that set, intuitively interpreted as its size (see Wiki for more).
The immediate result is that "measure" has two preconditions: a) define the subset (for example, "the currents"), and b) define a "metric" (for example the Ampere). There are some mathematical constraints in choosing these, out of which the metric injectivity is essential.
By the very nature, listening reports are not injective functions, because they don't conform to the "measurement" requirements. As a result, the whole metric spaces theory doesn't apply, in particular the additivity property. Which means that you can no longer claim that changing a capacitor changes the sound for better (or worse), or that using a LDO instead of a 7805 worsens the sound, without exposing yourself to ridicule, at least from those who know what they are talking about. Which are in fact never the message target when stating such logical nonsense, so you are safe to carry on.
You could start a thread about that, it could well fair better than Jakob's since mmerrill is quiet these days.
Hilarious, but not an answer to the question of what Chris719 meant (intended) by his use of the term 'measurable.'
I thought I defined the concept of "measurable" pretty good, perhaps you are missing the Lebesgue measure definition, or it's extension (Borel measure definition) on topological spaces? I can help with that, otherwise, once again, I am happy for you feeling entertained.
Of course you thought so, since it reached the conclusion you wanted. Another case of confusing physical reality with mathematical models. No need to bother with that and no need for me to ask you since you have already made quite clear what you believe about the value of listening. Unless of course, you now want to agree that listening has value for usefully judging audio design performance?
Good for future reference.
Ouch, that pretty much clarifies everything
. Your standing was much better before this bold statement .
Your standing was much better before this bold statement
Relevance to a DAC thread : zero, nada, zilch, sweet FA. Entertainment value - pretty high! Keep going!
I wish everything didn't have to turn into a holy war here, but it is what it is. Maybe the forum would be better off with a section where there are no subjective impressions discussed in threads, and another where there are. I don't know. Even though many of us (including myself) have been involved in taking threads in these directions, it gets old seeing the same arguments pop up on page 20 of any technical discussion.
What would it take to lift the fatwa on subjective impressions d'ya think?
I'd say (FWIW) the OP might do well to indicate whether subjective impressions are unwelcome - the default being they're OK since this is a hobbyist site, not HA.
I'm not sure. It would help if people wouldn't promote their subjective experiences as accepted fact.
Just because it's a hobbyist site doesn't mean the format couldn't change a little or additional sub-forums be created. It's not gonna happen here, I know that.
It seems like a fairly common refrain from the 'objective' side that the subjective impressions are being promoted as such. I for one don't take them that way - are there any others on the 'subjective' side who do? A show of hands would be good.
This was a technical discussion? Give me a break.
JohnW related an anecdote about what he had the opportunity to listen to, and suggested that if the announced production pieces sounded as good as what he heard, he'd guess that it might be a great combination. You and others jumped on him and demanded that he justify, what, his experience?
This thread should have been moved to the lounge days ago.
There needs to be qualifiers with subjective experiences with zero evidence because this forum is filled with BS.
I asked him a simple question. You know he thinks he has the "secret sauce". He's not the only one here who thinks that way.
Qualify your statement or be prepared to put up. If you want to push the idea that, as an example, close-in phase noise is the secret of audio reproduction quality, then either drop the certitude or be prepared to give real data. You know how many people there are here with different subjective opinions they push as gospel? Lots. I was just told not long ago that this DAC is 100% certainly crap anyway because it's not R-2R.
Last edited:
Fine as a concept but the 'objective' side do not practice this any more than the subjectivists do. I asked @Naaling for evidence of his claim that subjectivists expect objectivists to believe them at face value. None has been forthcoming so far so I take it there is none. So all the preaching about 'back up claims with evidence' is hollow.
Those who make the claims need to bring the evidence. This is how the rest of the world works. I'm not sure why so many people here don't understand that you can't prove nonexistence without being all-knowing. I don't know Naaling or anyone else you want to lump me in with on this thread, either.
Then where's the evidence that subjective impressions are being promoted as accepted fact on this thread?