It's a new experience being accused of spreading audiophile dogma!
I would not consider Earl an audiophle in the usual sense (often a sluir around here) but likes his music.
I did meet Earl at an AES (NYNY ‘99) presentation session.
dave
Movies have audio, and honestly I get more music through movies than otherwise. HT does have different requirements than a purely music sourced audio system.
The crux of the problem, in a nutshell... Designing a valid test is a hard thing to do. I am married to a test engineer who spent her whole career designing and conducting (and later overseeing) electromagnetic testing. I got to hear all about it every night at dinner... There are thousands of ways to do a test wrong, and only a few ways to do it right.
The most dangerous kind of test error is an invalid test which, by coincidence, gives the correct result to the small set of validation test cases. The engineers and scientists then move forward believing the test was valid. They use the flawed data with confidence since the validation cases came back good. The common analogy we used is "a broken clock shows the correct time once a day"...
j.
So how could the various conflicting statements in this thread be resolved in a scientifically valid manner? Setting aside asking people that know the science or looking at the solutions the people that know the science adopt and instead addressing the topic in a scientific manner as if it was unknown. The scientific method (cut-and-paste from wikipedia setting aside caveats to kick things off):
- Define a question
- Gather information and resources (observe)
- Form an explanatory hypothesis
- Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
- Analyze the data
- Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for a new hypothesis
- Publish results
- Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
Last edited:
Part of the problem here is that someone thinks they have already followed the scientific method.
And here is the publication: https://ethanwiner.com/speaker_isolation.htm
The problem with it is that its wrong.
And here is the publication: https://ethanwiner.com/speaker_isolation.htm
The problem with it is that its wrong.