|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: RE: I agree - but it works both ways. posted by Presto on October 12, 2010 at 16:13:36:
Hi
“The extremist from both camps, IMHO, are missing the picture.”
That posture is generally a requirement in order to be an extremist or adopt any type of fundamentalist position on a subject.
“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.”
Here is a good example of where a casual blind test is most powerful and a situation I have been in personally.
Lets say you made a crossover for the speaker, one made of generic but proper parts, the other made from all exotic audio parts.
When you listen, the exotic one clearly sounds better as it should given what you know at this point. You set up so that you can quickly switch back and forth between the two crossovers and search for music that brings out the differences the best.
Now, with a selection of music and a clear picture of how it sounds different, arrange the test so that you do not know which was which and go back and forth again.
When I have done this with parts and speaker cables, the differences that were pretty clear before hand, became much smaller or inaudible. The only thing that had changed was “knowing” which was which.
For the home listener, that “knowing” is part of the experience, part of what makes the system satisfying.
For the person engineering a product, he is only concerned with the things that can be heard blind because he has no way to communicate his beliefs, his “knowledge” to the end user.
As a speaker designer, the arguments about flaws with blind testing appear to focus on the scientific method and data issues, all of which are valid concerns when one is writing a paper or developing a new drug. Also though, these same arguments ignore the tremendous and otherwise unrecognized effect of prior knowledge on ones perceptions, which is the whole point of why one does this kind of reality check. People consciously perceive in part what they believe, know and expect.
Does this cable really sound better than my old one?
Does this amplifier sound better than that one? Does the $800 inductor sound better than the $8 one? Can I hear these marbles or magic clock?
Ask these kinds of questions without a causal blind test and your sighted judgment might be fine as an end user but potentially misleading / costly in the design / development process .
Lastly, the critics cite examples of companies saying “look this is perfect in blind testing”.
The appearance of science is an effective marketing tool, heck, look to the largest in audio or any area and you usually see companies with the image of technology with much less real substance behind it.
Using data or science to sell is not a new idea and having a technique or measurement tainted by marketing doesn’t make the technique or measurement invalid.
Best,
Tom
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. - 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)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
