The nonsense that one can judge the quality of a piece of audio electronics by listening to it was rigorously discredited a long time ago by true scientists and engineers such as Peter Baxandall. It is a crying shame that this sort of delusional ignorance persists in the 21st century.
The reason I use an audio gear is to enjoy listening to the sound it produce and judge however I like because I spend the money. Do whatever nonsense you like with the stuff you buy with your own money.
there are statements in forums to which one should rather remain silent.
Happy listening
Sunny
It may have looked like science, but it wasn't necessarily good science. Moreover, a long time ago what is now a substantial body of knowledge about how to properly conduct human perceptual testing was almost completely unknown.
Some of these comments make me laugh! In the realm of HiFi audio, a past time dedicated to critical listening, we actually have people here making the following argument:
"I spend countless hours and dollars analyzing and implementing differences that I cannot hear, much less form a preference about. In fact my "science" proves that nobody can hear such differences, only analyzers can do that. But numbers are what true HiFi is really all about! Only complete morons engage in critical listening! "
And the above bloke on the home front:
"Hey honey, let me take you out to dinner to celebrate my success in this new DAC I created!"
"But I can't hear any difference, dear. You left me by myself for eight months for that?"
"Yes honey! Isn't it WONDERFUL? Get your coat, let's go!"
And finally, the bloke's rep talking to a potential customer at a trade show:
"I can assure you, our products sound no different than everyone else's. And let me be clear about this, you're a total idiot and I hate your guts if you think otherwise. In fact anyone who thinks that needs to find a new past time because HiFi is 100% about the numbers, listening is completely irrelevant. Now come over here and let me show you the reason you should spend $10K on our DAC instead of theirs. It's this number right here on the spec sheet! No, wait, look, right here on the spec sheet, come baaack!"
lol, and that would be checkmate for those keeping score...
"I spend countless hours and dollars analyzing and implementing differences that I cannot hear, much less form a preference about. In fact my "science" proves that nobody can hear such differences, only analyzers can do that. But numbers are what true HiFi is really all about! Only complete morons engage in critical listening! "
And the above bloke on the home front:
"Hey honey, let me take you out to dinner to celebrate my success in this new DAC I created!"
"But I can't hear any difference, dear. You left me by myself for eight months for that?"
"Yes honey! Isn't it WONDERFUL? Get your coat, let's go!"
And finally, the bloke's rep talking to a potential customer at a trade show:
"I can assure you, our products sound no different than everyone else's. And let me be clear about this, you're a total idiot and I hate your guts if you think otherwise. In fact anyone who thinks that needs to find a new past time because HiFi is 100% about the numbers, listening is completely irrelevant. Now come over here and let me show you the reason you should spend $10K on our DAC instead of theirs. It's this number right here on the spec sheet! No, wait, look, right here on the spec sheet, come baaack!"
lol, and that would be checkmate for those keeping score...
True. The problem lies where people turn a good and useful tool for discovery into a religion of dogma. Of course the tool (science) when properly used is refined as discoveries are made, reinforcing the tool via a positive feedback loop of information.
Meanwhile the dogma of science hijacked into religion becomes more and more rigid as the dogma is revealed as errant and the adherents endlessly double down. This phenomenon is usually observed in people who are not scientists, don't really understand the nature of science, but do like to parrot a lot.
What evidence do you have that the experiments done by Baxandall et al. were not good science? You invoke the nebulous "human perceptual testing" while apparently having no understanding of what it means.
In fact, the tests of Baxandall et al. demonstrated for all time that the human ear and the way in which the brain processes the information therefrom makes it hopelessly unreliable as a tool for determining the quality of a piece of audio electronics. To test for audio quality, one needs instruments that guarantee repeatability, consistency, accuracy and precision. All these are attributes that the human ear-brain combination singularly fail to achieve. Only those for whom intellectual slothfulness is a virtue and ignorance is bliss have failed to appreciate these elementary truths.
For human perceptual testing, one of the main modern references on the subject is:
"Sensory Discrimination Tests and Measurements: Sensometrics in Sensory Evaluation, 2nd Edition," by Jian Bi
https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Sensory...nsory+Evaluation,+2nd+Edition-p-9781118733530
Also, please see:
"Perceptual Audio Evaluation–Theory, Method and Application"
Wiley Book
Where is your evidence supporting your claims, particularly a research finding that specifically states, "...the way in which the brain processes the information therefrom makes it hopelessly unreliable?"
"Sensory Discrimination Tests and Measurements: Sensometrics in Sensory Evaluation, 2nd Edition," by Jian Bi
https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Sensory...nsory+Evaluation,+2nd+Edition-p-9781118733530
Also, please see:
"Perceptual Audio Evaluation–Theory, Method and Application"
Wiley Book
Where is your evidence supporting your claims, particularly a research finding that specifically states, "...the way in which the brain processes the information therefrom makes it hopelessly unreliable?"
Last edited:
^^^LOL, and the adherents of their failed religious dogma simply double down ad infinitum.^^^
The best reproduction system in the world completely sucks compared to the original performance it is attempting to reproduce, and your argument is "it takes specialized instruments to tell us which piece of equipment sucks worse, because we sure as heck can't hear the difference".
As Spock would say: "fascinating". LOL!
Last edited:
This posting is incredibly presumptuous and impudent. Here one believes to have found the ultimate truth. As in other forums: you shouldn't feed trolls
How do you listen to DACs?
That's because it is nurtured and propped up by those with business interest.
A curious statement to make for one clinging to flimsy claims of absolute proof of human inabilities with respect to hearing sound...
As in all forums, don't start a mud-fest unless you're prepared for someone to reveal your errant thoughts for all the internet to see...
Diligently seek AND read the references in chapter one of Self's "Audio Power Amplifier Design". You clearly are very ill-informed as you self-evidently have not read the references you invoke.
Last edited:
What are the points made in those books in regards to human's perception of sound reproducing electronics?
Sooo...your'e tacitly arguing the best sound reproduction system in the world doesn't suck compared to the original performance its attempting to reproduce?