Scroll down a bit and you will see:
Selective perception The tendency for expectations to affect perception.
Either that, or it was the wrong type of measurement - so all in all, it doesn't prove anything.
On this particular topic you and your DBX chums have no more validity than the subjectivists you so dislike because you are both using the same tools.
Wave to pinnae to brain. The only difference is what you both perceive
I wasn't talking about the operator error.
If a doctor misdiagnoses a patient, it still proves something, the doctor's flaw.
In your opinion, of course.
In the case of dacs, audio FFTs and other common AP measurements do not necessarily show all causes of audible problems. One is well served by learning how to listen. Of course, some people will deny what we are not good at measuring can't affect sound, or that low level THD has to be inaudible. Its their problem if they want to believe those things.
Last edited:
Opinion has nothing to do with it. Once that sound wave hits your pinnae all bets are off. Hearing, Listening, Perceiving or whatever you want to call it, can only be subjective just like sight,touch, smell and taste. There are no SI units for what goes on in your head. The numbers, and the tools to gather and apply them, have long since done their job which is to produce a number of viable, or blameless, options. You have concluded on the basis of your interaction with a number of these viable options that they all sound the same which is fine. You have reached this conclusion with no more tools than I or anyone else has, a set of ears and a brain. To then state that you are right and all that disagree with you are wrong seems a tad arrogant to me. Perhaps you can show some evidence that you and your fellow participants all experienced the same thing that goes beyond 'because we say so'. Perhaps an EEG?
Perception is affected by expectation, but you don't have people insisting you see what you expect to see so you can't trust your eyes, and then say what they just told you is called expectation bias. That would be nonsense.
For some actually useful insights probably worthwhile learning about Priming, the effects of which are ubiquitous in humans: Priming (psychology - Wikipedia)
Agreed. Just stop calling it "Hi-Fi", what about "Pleasant-Fi", Fidelity designed to Please you. This would stop all arguments for ever and then something.
Wait, I guess you want to have the "Hi-Fi" cake, and eat it too...
As soon as you show me what it is the device is supposed to be Hi-Fi to, if not an event that can only be experienced subjectively.
Last edited:
You left out audio measuring devices. No wonder you are still strawman arguing.
Duly noted, your highness.
Perhaps you can try an experiment that I've done before, gather those who tout about boutique audio cable or DAC sound. Have them bring their favorite cables or DAC to compare to cheap commodity cables or DAC. Have them audition each sighted to their satisfaction. Then you go behind the component rack and tell them which cable or DAC is connected while acting like you are switching without actually switching any. See what they say about the sound quality solely based on you telling them which cable or DAC is being used.
Oops... hit the submit
A researcher I once knew liked to remove "outlier" data that "coincidentally" didn't happen to support his intuitive and astute conclusions.
Can you try that again in plain language? It happens, anyone who has to judge the validity of what witnesses say have know it for a long time. Or are you merely hung up on scientific definitions (that wiki page, really?) of cognitive biases?
Dude, you should get a job at Philips. "Perfect sound ... forever!!"
BWAHAHAHAHAHA
Double blind tests are bunkum. Real engineers do the math, then spend time assessing how their creations actually sounds. If you believe the digital domain is immune to subjectivity I'd say that makes you very naive indeed.
I've seen your type come and go, blathering and disrupting forums, for 25 years. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and has a head like a duck, then it's probably a duckhead.
The only strawman is the notion you tout of electronic audio reproduction as an end in itself, an audio equivalent of photocoping, making copies simply for the sake of making copies.
And how does one acquire the sound against which the fidelity is gauged if not by listening ?
There are two ways of defining sound, the physical, for example, that which a microphone responds to, and the perceptual, obviously they are connected but not the same, which you seem to be implying?