In Reply to: I agree - but it works both ways. posted by carcass93 on October 12, 2010 at 13:29:55:
Well, some DBT proponents are out to prove that all audio equipment sounds the same, in which case they are entitled to their labcoats and $100 best buy stereo systems. Others want to devalue sighted listening auditions in general, the reasons being for this vary.
I think objectivists are far too quick to throw away the benefits of sighted listening, aural training and attempts to listen sighted without being biased. (Then again, some say that's not possible, yet most people audition and purchase gear this way). As for subjectivists, some seem to get hung up on the "null result" hypothesis and completely dismiss DBTs and all other forms of blind testing as 'irrelevant to audio'. The extremist from both camps, IMHO, are missing the picture.
Ask any speaker designer who does a/b comparisons between crossover iterations. He'll be trying to decide whether or not an added eq or impedance compensation circuit is worth the added cost and complexity. If the sonic benefit is not there (aka there is no sonic benefit or the benefit is extremely small) he may choose not to include the addition.
The design of the addition and it's measured effect are objective.
The choice to include them or not is highly subjective.
In this example, you can't have one without the other. Without objective design there is no design. Without subjective choice, all designs which theoretically improve the sound must be used whether or not they actually make audible improvements worth doing. And that's not how audio equipment is usually designed. A lot of "theoretically best" designs are changed so they sound good instead of just being theoretically best. In other cases, "theoretically best" designs are not always selected as the best sounding either.
At the end of the day, the exact corollary between what measures good and what sounds good is not 100% established. Although we have some general ideas, the right measurement for the "perfect sound" does not yet exist. And even if it did, it would surely not please everyone.
Cheers,
Presto
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: I agree - but it works both ways. - Presto 16:13:36 10/12/10 (107)
- RE: I agree - but it works both ways. - b.l.zeebub 08:44:48 10/22/10 (0)
- RE: I agree - but it works both ways. - josh358 14:05:10 10/16/10 (0)
- RE: I agree - but it works both ways. - Pat D 10:25:56 10/13/10 (102)
- RE: I agree - but it works both ways. - kerr 13:12:05 10/13/10 (101)
- RE: I agree - but it works both ways. - tomservo 07:34:20 10/15/10 (8)
- RE: I agree - but it works both ways. - josh358 14:10:55 10/16/10 (0)
- RE: I agree - but it works both ways. - Pat D 15:29:06 10/15/10 (2)
- RE: I agree - but it works both ways. - tomservo 18:52:15 10/15/10 (1)
- RE: I agree - but it works both ways. - josh358 14:12:02 10/16/10 (0)
- RE: I agree - but it works both ways. - kerr 08:27:00 10/15/10 (3)
- One interesting question about "differences" is... - Presto 13:28:46 10/16/10 (2)
- RE: One interesting question about "differences" is... - kerr 17:21:35 10/16/10 (0)
- RE: One interesting question about "differences" is... - josh358 13:47:24 10/16/10 (0)
- RE: I agree - but it works both ways. - Pat D 14:58:24 10/13/10 (89)
- RE: I agree - but it works both ways. - kerr 04:25:22 10/14/10 (88)
- RE: I agree - but it works both ways. - Pat D 02:55:02 10/15/10 (10)
- RE: I agree - but it works both ways. - kerr 08:30:25 10/15/10 (9)
- RE: I agree - but it works both ways. - Pat D 11:45:03 10/15/10 (3)
- RE: I agree - but it works both ways. - kerr 11:56:46 10/15/10 (2)
- RE: I agree - but it works both ways. - Pat D 14:22:59 10/15/10 (1)
- The only thing you've ever proven... - kerr 18:51:10 10/15/10 (0)
- Have you ever tried.... - carcass93 08:50:05 10/15/10 (4)
- Those who function with nothing but beliefs... - kerr 10:04:45 10/15/10 (3)
- You guys are repeating yourselves. (nt) - Pat D 11:46:12 10/15/10 (2)
- How much longer must we? nt - kerr 11:58:09 10/15/10 (1)
- RE: How much longer must we? nt - Pat D 18:31:09 10/15/10 (0)
- homework - Tony Lauck 20:28:49 10/14/10 (76)
- RE: homework - kerr 08:23:29 10/15/10 (75)
- RE: homework - Tony Lauck 10:04:14 10/15/10 (1)
- RE: homework - kerr 10:11:15 10/15/10 (0)
- "Good response Soundmind" - E-Stat 09:15:40 10/15/10 (72)
- RE: "Good response Soundmind" - kerr 09:56:12 10/15/10 (71)
- Sorry, I misunderstood - E-Stat 10:05:21 10/15/10 (70)
- Thanks for digging this out. It was before my time here - who was that... - carcass93 11:30:09 10/15/10 (3)
- One of many fools who have come and gone...-nt - E-Stat 12:31:08 10/15/10 (0)
- RE: Thanks for digging this out. It was before my time here - who was that... - kerr 11:41:07 10/15/10 (1)
- RE: Thanks for digging this out. It was before my time here - who was that... - Ted Smith 21:54:21 10/24/10 (0)
- This looks promising - kerr 10:21:15 10/15/10 (65)
- With actual citations in hand... - E-Stat 11:40:19 10/15/10 (64)
- RE: With actual citations in hand... - Pat D 11:52:08 10/15/10 (62)
- The Power of Poor Memory... - E-Stat 12:26:48 10/15/10 (34)
- Ah, I see, a "tu quoque" argument. - Pat D 14:03:42 10/15/10 (33)
- Wrong again - E-Stat 14:31:15 10/15/10 (29)
- Since you resist the point below, let's analyze. - Pat D 19:36:56 10/16/10 (11)
- I'm not going to dissect this next journey into confusion - E-Stat 06:37:05 10/17/10 (6)
- You keep changing your ground. - Pat D 05:03:15 10/18/10 (5)
- You need to read again what I said - E-Stat 06:18:56 10/18/10 (4)
- Changing your ground again. - Pat D 07:22:14 10/18/10 (3)
- Evidence? - Tony Lauck 07:50:25 10/18/10 (0)
- Your memory fails you again - E-Stat 07:33:22 10/18/10 (1)
- RE: Your memory fails you again - Pat D 10:23:28 10/19/10 (0)
- Please fix your references. - Tony Lauck 21:13:41 10/16/10 (3)
- The URL works for me. - Pat D 04:53:10 10/18/10 (1)
- Thank you. - Tony Lauck 06:46:09 10/18/10 (0)
- There is no reference to BassNut's test - E-Stat 06:31:11 10/17/10 (0)
- So how does this show cables sound different? (nt) - Pat D 15:20:44 10/15/10 (16)
- It doesn't - E-Stat 15:39:35 10/15/10 (15)
- I know. - Pat D 18:10:36 10/15/10 (14)
- RE: I know. - josh358 14:38:45 10/16/10 (4)
- RE: I know. - Pat D 19:52:33 10/16/10 (3)
- RE: I know. - josh358 20:27:09 10/16/10 (2)
- RE: I know. - Pat D 05:16:33 10/18/10 (1)
- RE: I know. - josh358 09:11:02 10/19/10 (0)
- You know what? - E-Stat 20:40:37 10/15/10 (8)
- It would help if you actually read that old thread at AR. - Pat D 19:44:30 10/16/10 (7)
- That is exactly what I would say to you! - E-Stat 06:29:13 10/17/10 (6)
- Why do persist in propagating falsehoods? - Pat D 04:44:15 10/18/10 (0)
- You're not getting it! - kerr 08:21:59 10/17/10 (4)
- RE: You're not getting it! - Pat D 05:21:16 10/18/10 (1)
- RE: You're not getting it! - kerr 09:41:53 10/18/10 (0)
- Such just boggles the mind -nt - E-Stat 09:00:16 10/17/10 (1)
- I don't think that's true - kerr 09:48:30 10/17/10 (0)
- Geez.... When people say that the only thing that's worse ... - carcass93 14:19:03 10/15/10 (2)
- As usual, you have nothing to add beyond name calling. - Pat D 14:25:19 10/15/10 (1)
- You, with each of your posts, just YEARN to be called names. - carcass93 14:30:36 10/15/10 (0)
- Burden of Proof - Tony Lauck 12:14:02 10/15/10 (26)
- If you can spare wasting a few minutes of your life... - E-Stat 12:28:35 10/15/10 (25)
- RE: If you can spare wasting a few minutes of your life... - Pat D 15:18:09 10/15/10 (24)
- Sophists? Inquisitors? - Tony Lauck 09:10:10 10/16/10 (22)
- RE: Sophists? Inquisitors? - Pat D 10:20:30 10/19/10 (0)
- "Possibly deliberate"? - E-Stat 09:49:44 10/17/10 (0)
- RE: Sophists? Inquisitors? - josh358 10:17:30 10/16/10 (19)
- RE: Sophists? Inquisitors? - Tony Lauck 11:06:36 10/16/10 (18)
- RE: Sophists? Inquisitors? - josh358 11:49:09 10/16/10 (17)
- Follow the money. nt - Tony Lauck 12:15:45 10/16/10 (16)
- RE: Follow the money. nt - josh358 12:46:56 10/16/10 (15)
- RE: Follow the money. nt - Tony Lauck 18:15:05 10/16/10 (14)
- RE: Follow the money. nt - josh358 18:44:05 10/16/10 (13)
- RE: Follow the money. nt - Tony Lauck 19:30:01 10/16/10 (12)
- RE: Follow the money. nt - josh358 20:06:39 10/16/10 (11)
- Beware of Experts - Tony Lauck 21:31:24 10/16/10 (10)
- RE: Beware of Experts - josh358 06:24:35 10/17/10 (9)
- RE: Beware of Experts - Tony Lauck 08:09:50 10/17/10 (8)
- RE: Beware of Experts - josh358 08:57:42 10/19/10 (7)
- RE: Beware of Experts - Tony Lauck 07:30:14 10/20/10 (6)
- RE: Beware of Experts - josh358 09:33:36 10/20/10 (5)
- RE: Beware of Experts - Tony Lauck 11:02:12 10/20/10 (4)
- RE: Beware of Experts - josh358 06:55:29 10/21/10 (3)
- RE: Beware of Experts - Tony Lauck 08:25:09 10/21/10 (2)
- RE: Beware of Experts - josh358 10:29:20 10/21/10 (1)
- RE: Beware of Experts - Tony Lauck 10:56:02 10/21/10 (0)
- You really need to get a grip on reality - E-Stat 15:45:01 10/15/10 (0)
- RE: With actual citations in hand... - kerr 11:42:26 10/15/10 (0)
- Others - E-Stat 13:44:10 10/13/10 (1)
- RE: Others - Pat D 15:05:04 10/13/10 (0)
- RE: I agree - but it works both ways. - tomservo 07:13:22 10/13/10 (1)
- RE: I agree - but it works both ways. - rick_m 09:11:39 10/13/10 (0)