|
Computer Audio Asylum Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies. |
|
|
|
Computer Audio Asylum Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies. |
|
In Reply to: No, you are making a cynical prediction that is baseless posted by Sordidman on July 9, 2014 at 12:11:22:
"FMAK's reported tests were pretty good"
The OP built a PC but had vague, audiophile type complaints of the sound it had: "have been really dissatisfied with the defocussed and over smooth sound quality" whatever that means. The OP read somewhere on the internet that SATA cables might affect sound quality. He examined his SATA cables and was dissatisfied with their construction. He eventually replaced them with completely different cables that looked nicer to him and then listened to his system to check his results. Can you say "expectation bias?" Can you say "lack of controls?" If this is your idea of a "pretty good" test I'd hate to see what you call a bad test.
"No one made any claim that changing out a simple, (and incredibly easy to perform), SATA cable created any kind of major "game changer.""
Are you serious? The OP said: "Presto, sound stage, focus, as well as hf and lf balance have come back and I am a lot happier." Apparently this tweak has remastered the OP's entire music library. That sounds like a major "game changer" to me.
"If someone conducted similar tests and did not hear a difference, they would likely get a "fine" from the rest of the community, - along with a possible explanation of why they did not hear a difference."
Ah, yes, the explanation of why they did not hear a difference. Because, as I pointed out before, claims of hearing a difference are unassailable on this forum. I'd bet that none of the possible explanations would be that the tweak didn't actually do anything.
"It COULD POSSIBLY be difficult to repeat the same test, - as few have the exact same equipment as FMAK."
Isn't repeatability one of the hallmarks of a good experiment? If it only works on the OP's system then who else cares?
Now I'm not saying that the OP's tweak didn't work, but I am saying that he hasn't sufficiently demonstrated to me that it's likelihood of working is enough to get me to experiment.
And I still say, however well meaning the OP is, and he does seem sincere, or plausible his explanations may be, and they do sound reasonable, no actual "science" was performed here.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: No, you are making a cynical prediction that is baseless - Jaundiced Ear 16:27:02 07/09/14 (7)
- " no actual "science" was performed here" - Sordidman 09:22:02 07/10/14 (2)
- RE: " no actual "science" was performed here" - Jaundiced Ear 17:14:38 07/10/14 (1)
- Will be happy to exit as well: but your analogy embarasses you - Sordidman 10:39:49 07/11/14 (0)
- RE: No, you are making a cynical prediction that is baseless - Tony Lauck 07:10:09 07/10/14 (3)
- RE: No, you are making a cynical prediction that is baseless - Jaundiced Ear 17:22:03 07/10/14 (1)
- RE: No, you are making a cynical prediction that is baseless - Tony Lauck 18:20:33 07/10/14 (0)
- Perfectly stated - and is a mistery why it is not understood. N/T - carcass93 08:57:42 07/10/14 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]