In Reply to: RE: I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation: posted by middleground on December 5, 2014 at 02:42:33:
Suppose Dave says that SACDs sound better than CDs in his system, and in particular there's this hybrid SACD where both the SACD and CD layers were equivalently mastered, and it's really easy to hear the superiority of SACD on track 1. Now suppose Brad says that he's listened to SACDs before, including this one, and he can't hear a difference between the SACD and an equivalently mastered CD. Who is right? They both are - they simply hear what they hear.
Now imagine there are 100 DBTs conducted involving 1000 different audiophiles using high end and some SOTA systems, where the protocol was chosen to be as sensitive as possible. And the results of all 100 tests are null. Do you think Dave is suddenly going to stop hearing that improvement in the SACD layer over the CD layer? Do you think Dave is going to be able to successfully talk himself out of hearing the difference and stop buying SACDs, or that he would even want to?
Conversely, suppose one or more of the DBTs has a statistically significant positive result, and others are able to duplicate the positive results with the same protocol. Is Brad going to suddently start hearing a difference where previously he could not? Is he going to start buying SACDs anyway even though he doesn't hear a difference, just because a blind test demonstrated that some other people could hear it?
DBTs in audio are conducted to win arguments.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation: - Dave_K 11:26:08 12/05/14 (55)
- To win arguements? - mkuller 14:42:59 12/05/14 (2)
- You're right that nobody wins, but they keep trying (nt) - Dave_K 05:18:34 12/07/14 (1)
- The Dogged Pursuit of Mediocrity - E-Stat 08:37:42 12/07/14 (0)
- RE: I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation: - middleground 14:06:32 12/05/14 (50)
- RE: I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation: - Tony Lauck 18:46:23 12/05/14 (48)
- RE: I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation: - Pat D 19:55:26 12/06/14 (11)
- Scientific method? - mkuller 12:16:37 12/07/14 (8)
- RE: Scientific method? - Pat D 16:00:43 12/08/14 (7)
- RE: Scientific method? - Tony Lauck 18:40:40 12/08/14 (0)
- RE: Scientific method? - mkuller 16:44:52 12/08/14 (5)
- RE: Scientific method? - Pat D 18:54:10 12/08/14 (4)
- RE: Scientific method? - mkuller 12:07:14 12/09/14 (3)
- RE: Scientific method? - Pat D 20:07:13 12/09/14 (2)
- RE: Scientific method? - mkuller 20:11:39 12/09/14 (1)
- RE: Scientific method? - Pat D 20:38:40 12/09/14 (0)
- And yet... - E-Stat 08:41:40 12/07/14 (1)
- Novelty toy makers, not experimental scientists - Tony Lauck 15:19:26 12/07/14 (0)
- RE: I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation: - John Atkinson 09:20:36 12/06/14 (35)
- RE: I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation: - Tony Lauck 10:45:15 12/06/14 (34)
- RE: I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation: - stehno 12:26:05 12/14/14 (2)
- RE: I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation: - Tony Lauck 13:27:16 12/14/14 (1)
- RE: I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation: - stehno 14:41:13 12/14/14 (0)
- BTW - E-Stat 14:36:06 12/07/14 (30)
- RE: BTW - Pat D 19:28:44 12/08/14 (29)
- RE: BTW - E-Stat 08:18:58 12/09/14 (28)
- RE: BTW - Pat D 20:15:00 12/09/14 (27)
- Finally, an accurate amplifier... - mkuller 21:37:45 12/09/14 (23)
- RE: Finally, an accurate amplifier... - Pat D 13:50:13 12/10/14 (22)
- RE: Finally, an accurate amplifier... - Tony Lauck 21:19:51 12/11/14 (8)
- RE: Finally, an accurate amplifier... - Pat D 16:27:01 12/12/14 (7)
- RE: Finally, an accurate amplifier... - Tony Lauck 17:40:55 12/12/14 (6)
- RE: Finally, an accurate amplifier... - Pat D 18:41:54 12/12/14 (1)
- Oh, you "suggest"? That's so generous of you.... - carcass93 15:25:40 12/13/14 (0)
- Sorry - E-Stat 18:04:08 12/12/14 (3)
- The only one you mention... - mkuller 11:07:39 12/11/14 (12)
- RE: The only one you mention... - Tony Lauck 21:17:01 12/11/14 (1)
- I always... - mkuller 10:40:54 12/12/14 (0)
- Ditto - E-Stat 11:59:45 12/11/14 (9)
- Maybe PatD will tell us... - mkuller 12:25:01 12/11/14 (8)
- Perhaps accurate for those who listen to - E-Stat 12:34:55 12/11/14 (7)
- RE: Perhaps accurate for those who listen to - Pat D 16:33:03 12/12/14 (6)
- Wrong amp - we're talking about the 4B-SST...(nt) - mkuller 10:06:19 12/13/14 (4)
- RE: Wrong amp - we're talking about the 4B-SST...(nt) - Pat D 11:12:03 12/14/14 (3)
- RE: Wrong amp - we're talking about the 4B-SST... - mkuller 11:28:15 12/14/14 (2)
- RE: Wrong amp - we're talking about the 4B-SST... - Pat D 10:43:51 12/15/14 (0)
- RE: Wrong amp - we're talking about the 4B-SST... - lord addleford 12:13:17 12/14/14 (0)
- Thanks for ongoing humor! - E-Stat 16:48:15 12/12/14 (0)
- RE: BTW - E-Stat 20:37:09 12/09/14 (2)
- RE: I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation: - Dave_K 14:37:31 12/05/14 (0)
- Much more elaborate than I'd ever could (or bother) to put it - ... - carcass93 12:23:17 12/05/14 (0)