What is your belief based on? Can you cite some examples, where valid, non-top-secret DBT's yielded positive results for some audible phenomenon...and was rejected by the believers-comprehenders of science? Actual links would be nice.
I would certainly accept positive results of your DBT Tom. Then, having a rational, science based existence, I would want to know why. What was the cause. RF from the CD player? You did say it is some sort of exotic "hi end" design correct? Btw, didn't you also say you might be getting a new player?
Any possibility (if you get the new player) that you test yourself prior to SY coming to see if you can still hear the IC to the amp?
Lastly, any idea what tracks you would be using? It would be nice for you to tell us specifically (rather than the completely vague repetitions from Andre) what you listen for on what song when "hearing" wires, so that other may try this themselves on their systems.
cheers,
AJ
p.s. luckily it wasn't done this weekend, dang, it was awful chilly....maybe not the best for concentrating on music and listening to wires
@inclined plane
My MP3 comment was an attempt at sarcasm.
My point was, even a 128k mp3, which are reviled by all, is still pretty frikkin' musical, considering 90% of the info is just thrown away.
It was meant to contrast with the contention that, beyond (sometimes far beyond) the alleged thresholds of audibility, are effects that anyone who cannot hear them are physiologically deficient or somehow clueless as the joy of realistic reproduction.
And the contention that the engineers who created lossy compression have no clue about human hearing ability, in comparison to those who "know" all about over hyped consumer electronics.
Perhaps sarcasm is unwarranted, but it is usually a good response to condescension.
Eric
My MP3 comment was an attempt at sarcasm.
My point was, even a 128k mp3, which are reviled by all, is still pretty frikkin' musical, considering 90% of the info is just thrown away.
It was meant to contrast with the contention that, beyond (sometimes far beyond) the alleged thresholds of audibility, are effects that anyone who cannot hear them are physiologically deficient or somehow clueless as the joy of realistic reproduction.
And the contention that the engineers who created lossy compression have no clue about human hearing ability, in comparison to those who "know" all about over hyped consumer electronics.
Perhaps sarcasm is unwarranted, but it is usually a good response to condescension.
Eric
Hello Again SY!
As with most things in life I believe one's perspective of those who hold the opposing pov on any given issue, is greatly influenced by how they've been treated by those other people when attempting to discuss/debate/argue the topic with them. To be completely honest with you I'm hard pressed to consider those I'm conversing with as "the rationalist folks" when they seem to be incapable of having an intelligent discussion/debate/arguement without the need to resort to calling me and those others who believe like I do, irrational, or claim I/we probably also believe in magic, leprechauns, Santa Claus and/or the Easter bunny simply because we can hear things that are not ---{presently}--- explained by the types of testing they believe "should" be sufficient enough to define what we're hearing!
SY, without resorting to some sarcastic suggestion that we're fooling ourselves, imagining things or in need of psychiatric help, are you and those who believe as you do, honestly trying to tell me that you believe it is absolutely, unimaginable and totally outside of the realm of possibility for there to be an as of yet unexplored scientific reason why some people are able to detect sonic differences in wires that are properly constructed and working? Or are you attempting to suggest science has already spent the required capitol to have exhausted every possible avenue of why people could possibly hear audible differences in wires, besides LCR reasons, wire length etc?
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
I think there's a continuum of plausibility between "The Ravens will win the Super Bowl" on the left and "Someone will find out that the First Law of Thermodynamics is incorrect" on the right. Cable differences due to non-mundane factors are well to the right of center but not as unlikely as First Law violations.
As you can tell, I'm from Baltimore.
But first things first- someone has to demonstrate that he can actually hear those differences before "science" wastes any time chasing wild hypotheses.
+10
The real audio market is nothing like it used to be, that was killed off in the 90's and the aftermath of that still hangs around today. There is no real testing of Audio gear anymore , no one to call foul about bad products masquerading as " High end " there is no standard anymore.
That in itself produced a decade where very poor products costing an arm and a leg sounding worst than 70's mid-fi destroyed the Hi-Fi market .
Every year it's the same , next new mouse trap for a ridiculous sum with very little to no improvement over the so called previous reference .
How many times has one listened to a 100K speaker on a 100 k amp with a
100 K worth of ancillary gear only to be dis-appointed to the barely above mid-fi sound being produced from such ...
The Hi-end with it's redonculous price/performance ratio has priced itself out of the market place , the poor sound made it easy and a no brainer for people to walk away to A/V....
What you really want is the realisation that you already have them.Great, I want some of them too.
Good post.
For me different experiences over the same time frame, but the same conclusions.
cheers.
What exactly do you mean by "testing"?
Stereophile still runs a rather full suite of measurements on gear that's formally reviewed (i.e. as opposed to what's reviewed in the various columns).
se
Maybe. But it is real and it is live. Maybe a version of 'people watching' in cyberspace?Why do I keep coming back to this thread? Maybe it's a kind of mental-masochism.
What Stereophile is currently doing , used to be commonplace in hi-fi right up to the 80's.... Stereohile also test but a few products every year and amazing how little they are criticized today vs the past ...
I have been in the hi fi business for 45 years. I once even worked in a hi end hi fi store. While things change, they also remain the same.
Reviews made by 'High Fidelity' and 'Stereo Review' were real jokes, compared to 'Stereophile's' tests and reviews, today. Talk about cronyism, and back room deals.
It is true that hi end has broken away from the AES, but that is necessary, because there would not be any progress in realistic audio sound, if we stayed with double blind tests and no serious research for what makes better audio quality.
Reviews made by 'High Fidelity' and 'Stereo Review' were real jokes, compared to 'Stereophile's' tests and reviews, today. Talk about cronyism, and back room deals.
It is true that hi end has broken away from the AES, but that is necessary, because there would not be any progress in realistic audio sound, if we stayed with double blind tests and no serious research for what makes better audio quality.
No kidding. The only other magazine that came close was Heyser-era Audio. Maybe a couple freq charts and Hirschian thumbs up is better?
Am I the only one befuddled by this statement?
Controlled testing is less "serious research" than subjective impression?
How will we go about designing better audio without a theory as to how to create it?
How do we know when we have actually found "better" audio w/o testing? And how can you eliminate bias without it being double blind? Seriously.
All this "DBT is bad" c**p is insane. How else is bias eliminated? Why is it the gold standard for all testing except audio, dowsing and fortune telling?
How do you propose to "progress" in your research when you have no idea if what you wish to measure even exists beyond your perceptions, (Biased and variable perceptions at that. Assuming you're human and all...), much less how to define it?
Even if you are sure you hear a difference and all you are trying to do is figure out how to measure it, you are unqualified to do any testing until you prove your bias is not going to affect the test.
Seems to me, no matter how you look at it, trying to ascertain cause w/o quantifying effect first, is putting the cart before the horse.
Eric
No. Just the only one who bothered to reply to it instead of just shaking your head and moving on to the next post.
se
- Status
- Not open for further replies.