Perhaps subjectivists believe double blind tests are flawed because they don't tell them what they want to hear. (there's a pun in there somewhere)
Magic is indeed a loaded term in a negative sense because science has become a loaded term in a positive sense because of its achievements. Audiophiles will almost always express a belief in science, as can be seen in some of the earlier postings, even though they reject the basis of scientific thought and knowledge. They will also almost certainly deny that they believe in magic even though they usually know that what they believe is in conflict with existing scientific knowledge. Can you suggest an alternative politically correct term for a belief in magic?rdf said:
I am still interested in knowing if the people expressing this belief in "matters in conflict with scientific knowledge" are regular speaker DIYers or more passive consuming audiophiles.
andy19191 said:
What's up with "regular speaker diyers"? Are they more objective than "regular amplifier diyers"? Or just more salt of the earth type guys? 🙂
Ironically andy19191, I've come to regard the perspective expressed in your last post - broad characterizations of strangers without presenting evidence, stereotyping, etc. - as anti-science too.
I don't know about others, but my Ultra-Fi Fast Forward and Back Again! speaker cables are so good, that no known components can realistically utilize their full potential. After numerous attempts to find an appropriate synergy, I was forced to sell all my gear and now just listen to my cables.
Based on these "investigations" I am now a confirmed True Believer.
In fact, this being a Holiday in the States, I believe I'll have a beer!
Best Regards,
TerryO
CEO and Lead Designer,
Honest Olson's Ultra-Fi Emporium and Laundromat
Based on these "investigations" I am now a confirmed True Believer.
In fact, this being a Holiday in the States, I believe I'll have a beer!
Best Regards,
TerryO
CEO and Lead Designer,
Honest Olson's Ultra-Fi Emporium and Laundromat
Praise your house,or,the roof will fall on your head.Interesting belief,although not very original.
They actually do have "scientific" ways to measure beauty.
For all those who hear a difference and also "sort of" believe in Science, I have two questions.
1. Why do the FR plots, polar plots, IMD, Impulse, THD measurements show NOTHING different?
I mean if the difference is so audiable then one of the standard measurements should show it.
2. When any audio test is done should people not remove any uncontrollable variable? Ie....brand name, price tag, etc.
Just eliminate them and see what happens.
Andy G said:
Hi Andy, so you are still around which is great. Thought you'd gone somewhere, ever since Sean appeared.
I don't refuse to understand or deal with basic science, cannot speak for others.
As I said before, am willing for YOU to set the test methodology. That way it will be scientific yeah?
And no, I was not bringing arguments from another forum here. YOU may have forgotten, but I have not. It was HERE (around page 108?? if memory serves) that I offered to drive to YOU to see if we cannot progress this further.
You have not taken me up on that (and I am sure if I suggested it that I could swing by Brett and he'd love to come as well) but continually make excuses why it cannot be done.
Yet you have the gall to make this statement??? I have told you one of the many problems, if you can't fix it then don't make it my problem.
So let's just gently massage that in such a way so that we can actually progress this yeah?? How about you fix the problems you cite 'why it cannot be done' so it can be done?
Don't make it my problem.
doug20 said:
1. I've seen tests done with real speakers and amplifiers using different cables, showing that cables have an influence from as low as 1khz.
I believe however that our hearing (trained) is more complex than only level measurements will show.
2. I have no problem with blind testing as long as it is performed on a well known system of adequate quality to reveal these differences, using experienced listeners and well recorded music of unamplified instruments.
According to me, it is only worthwhile to consider cable effects on a relatively good system and you are a critical listener. To some detail doesn't matter much and to other the detail is what make reproduced music sound 'real' or believable, therefore I can't see why it is so important for some to try and force everybody into the same camp.
I have yet to read about something that can not be measured. measurement equipment is actually more accurate then our hearing considering as a general concept since measurements will show us lots of problems in the response that our ears can not pick up.
Sure
But you need to understand the correlation between ALL the measurements 100%, just to have a small idea about what you hear
And thats still not possible
Maybe in the future there will be software to simulate our brain functions and hearing
So far they dont know how the brain really functions
Its still a mystery
But you need to understand the correlation between ALL the measurements 100%, just to have a small idea about what you hear
And thats still not possible
Maybe in the future there will be software to simulate our brain functions and hearing
So far they dont know how the brain really functions
Its still a mystery
doug20 said:
The difference is that the ears know that the sound they heard was a violin.The instrument doesn't.The instrument will never be able to discriminate between similar sounds that might measure tha same.Finally,ears hear what they need to hear.If they had to be instruments,you know nature would have made them in a different way.IMO of course.Ask someone with hearing loss,and he will let you know how important it is to have that "limited human hearing"at its full.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.