Propeller Head Plaza

Posted by Analog Scott (A) on January 11, 2008 at 08:43:02

In Reply to: RE: Carver Challenge PDF file online posted by andy_c on January 10, 2008 at 13:45:19

> Anyway, scientific validity was not the point. If one is intent on rejecting scientifically invalid information, then most information in Stereophile (except some of the measurements) would end up being thrown away.>

Isn't that what the rabid "objectivists" do anyway?

> The point was not to determine in a scientifically valid way the depth of the null required for audibility, but to demonstrate that with a deep enough null, the differences between amps would be inaudible on an informal basis.>

That is an interesting point. To me there is nothing to discuss when it comes to a deep enough null affecting a no real difference. To me that is inherently obvious that if the signal is significantly similar enough there is a threshold at which the difference will become inaudible in practice. I don't think any writer at Stereophile has ever said otherwise. Any subjectivist who believes otherwise doesn't really understand the idea of a null signal or are off the deep end. Do you actually know any such individuals?

But your point goes a bit further. You talk about audibility on an *informal basis*. Indeed that was what happened. Taken straight from the article: " It is true that there were no 'controls' here - no double-blind precautions against prejudices of various kinds. But the lack of these controls should have, if anything, influenced the outcome in the opposite direction. we *wanted* Bob to fail. We *wanted* to hear a difference." What does this say of the claims that all such informal auditions are poisoned by bias to the point that they are worthless? It seems that you are arguing, and the article supports, that reviewers and audiophiles can tell that amps sound the same when they actually do sound the same under sighted conditions. I would think this would lend greater credibility to informal reports of differences under sighted conditions. I think the truth lies in the grey area. I think it is well established that biases *can* affect one's perceptions but they don't always make one's perceptions meaningless.

• RE: If that was the point....It's an interesting point that supports subjectivists methodologies - andy_c 14:38:34 01/11/08 (5)
  • RE: If that was the point....It's an interesting point that supports subjectivists methodologies - rdf 15:58:32 01/11/08 (2)
    • RE: If that was the point....It's an interesting point that supports subjectivists methodologies - Analog Scott 18:27:38 01/11/08 (1)
      • RE: If that was the point....It's an interesting point that supports subjectivists methodologies - rdf 18:58:00 01/11/08 (0)
  • RE: If that was the point....It's an interesting point that supports subjectivists methodologies - Analog Scott 14:57:48 01/11/08 (1)
    • RE: If that was the point....It's an interesting point that supports subjectivists methodologies - andy_c 15:26:33 01/11/08 (0)
• i meant support not subort. don't know where that came from. nt - Analog Scott 08:45:52 01/11/08 (0)

Post a Followup:

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]
[ Comment ] [ Edit ] [ Delete ] [ Copyright Warning! Click for Details ]

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---