The "and" implies two different things to me, the bias connected to supposed "expensive is better" statements from goodness knows where.
No, you are wrong! I would happily accept results of any science-based test.
Yes - every ABX test done up till now.
Yes, I want the proof.
Don't you want or need a proof? Lucky you...
Last edited:
This from airvoid, "As neither you nor the op seem to grasp, science does not provide proof but only conclusions drawn from facts and observations, as a propagandist for science I find this sorely lacking in the above." is far more meaningful to me than any demand or need for proof.
“ Yes - every ABX test done up till now.”
Please link some that reflect testing of those parameters I mentioned (DA, EMR, ES, FRes)
Please link some that reflect testing of those parameters I mentioned (DA, EMR, ES, FRes)
I have to correct myself, but not in the way you want. There is scientific evidence, not scientific proof.
So, the science does not provide only "conclusions drawn from facts an obsevations", but in fact provide evidence.
Scientific evidence - Wikipedia
Nobody here provided scientific evidence supporting the idea "expensive caps are better".
??? 😕 ???
Every ABX test involves at least two different capacitors.
In which way they are different? Different DA, EMR, ES, ...
Specifically testing that may compare measurements of these parameters to audibility, for example thresholds of what may or may not be audible within said measurements.
Why are you looking for quantifying audibility thresholds, when all capacitors, including the dirty cheap ones, are indistinguishable from expensive boutique caps in all ABX tests?
If that was actually true we could easily toss ABX tests (which aren't the only useful test) out of the window. 😉 Could we please stop with the extreme pontifications, they're not helpful for those of us who want an interesting discussion, which has developed, amazingly 🙂
Yes, it is true. And no, you can not toss ABX tests - you can not toss the scientific evidence that cheap and expensive caps sound the same, only because you don't like that scientific evidence. I don't like coffee, by the way (I prefer tea).
I don’t accept abx testing as the end all for this particular debate.
My testing has been consistently repeatable and the only thing that drives me is curiosity, these bias that keep popping up don’t really matter to me as I put very little importance on which brand capacitors sound ‘best’ in my system……..it so happens one of my most expensive caps I’ve ever bought sits in the parts box because I couldn’t make it work on any of the setups I tried it in.
My testing is a bit unorthodox to most, I test at extremely high spl levels……..in fact that’s how i objectify my testing by peak spl @ lp, it’s fairly obvious at high spl when distortion kicks in. Disclaimer- if done improperly this method can lead to hearing damage…….proceed at your own risk. My conclusions come from almost 2 years of testing…..not just some random day of cap swapping.
There’s way too many people that agree with my stance, I just want to know why I hear the things I do…….not be told its a overactive imagination…….I eliminated that possibility through extensive testing.
My testing has been consistently repeatable and the only thing that drives me is curiosity, these bias that keep popping up don’t really matter to me as I put very little importance on which brand capacitors sound ‘best’ in my system……..it so happens one of my most expensive caps I’ve ever bought sits in the parts box because I couldn’t make it work on any of the setups I tried it in.
My testing is a bit unorthodox to most, I test at extremely high spl levels……..in fact that’s how i objectify my testing by peak spl @ lp, it’s fairly obvious at high spl when distortion kicks in. Disclaimer- if done improperly this method can lead to hearing damage…….proceed at your own risk. My conclusions come from almost 2 years of testing…..not just some random day of cap swapping.
There’s way too many people that agree with my stance, I just want to know why I hear the things I do…….not be told its a overactive imagination…….I eliminated that possibility through extensive testing.
Last edited:
ABX testing is 50's methodology. The dual pair (4IAX) discrimination method (f.i) is demonstrably better:
(PDF) A Thurstonian model for the dual pair (4IAX) discrimination method
(PDF) A Thurstonian model for the dual pair (4IAX) discrimination method
Last edited:
Science strongly objects on this one!
Anyway, you don't accept science evidence, so it doesn't matter.
Oh, really? Try the ABX test sometimes.
And you just throw the science trough the window... again.
Overactive imagination is more stubborn and stronger than any nonscientific "extensive testing".
Excellent! So you can post, or give a link, to a peer-reviewed paper using this methodology, demonstrating difference in capacitors?
I can hardly wait...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.