 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
12.160.24.74
In Reply to: RE: "everything that is audible is measurable but not everything that is measurable is audible" posted by 1973shovel on September 25, 2021 at 06:23:08
EEs are not scientists working in the field of psyhcoacoustics. They are just as suceptable to bias effects since they are human beings and have just as much of a capacity to be unaware of the science behind bias effects on aural perception.
And lets be clear. I don't reject either the subjective or objective. That is a gross mischaracterization of my position. Subjective opinions formed under sighted conditions are unreliable due to the infusion of bias effects. They are far more reliable when formed under blind protocols. They are no less *subjective* because of blind protocols. And I clearly do not reject objective data either. I just insist that it be put in objective context. It is a fact that we can measure things that measure differently and make no audible difference so the context that is always needed is where those measurable differences fit in context of human hearing threasholds. It's not "my narrative." It's science. You can accept science or reject it. That's on you. But it ain't "my narrative."
I find that comment rather ironic given how many audiophiles will reject science because it does not fit their "narrative." Accpeting science means accepting it even when you don't like what it tells you.
Follow Ups:
That's been my observation too, and I generally consider myself a snake oil skeptic, which may not always be evident.
The reason I moved the topic over to film capacitors is because I have more experience with them affecting a circuit and how the sound is perceived than I do with any efficacy of power cords. I offered up varying measurable dielectric absorption as a possible cause. Teflon having very little DA for example, while Mylar has quite a bit. That was dismissed by you with the assertion that sometimes measurements don't matter. But when don't they matter? When they don't serve one's position?
Objectivists often cite expectation bias as a possible reason as to why people hear differences which they claim don't exist. After all, if someone's paid a large sum for product X, they're going to be predisposed to think it makes a difference, correct? While that's certainly a possibility, how does it explain the number of DIY tube people (including me) who get great results using surplus Soviet military Teflon or paper in oil capacitors? Why would I prefer a $2 Soviet cap over a $25 audiophile boutique one, given I paid far more for the latter?
My observation and conclusion that you have a "narrative" is because one important aspect of science is to be inquisitive, to keep an open mind, and to experiment. From what I've read here, that's not you.
Do your results and the results of other DIYers hold up under double blind protocols?
...while I find thinking about double-blind testing tedious.
I have taken place in one blind (but not double-blind) interconnect test years ago. Only the cable switcher knew what cable we were "listening to" at any given time.
I went into it a skeptic, but after all four of the listening panel independently ranked one interconnect as "best" and another as "second best" did I began to question what I thought I knew.
I'm sure you'll find more holes in our little experiment than someone would find in Albert Hall, and I'm OK with that. As noted in my subject line, I'd rather be listening to music than discussing scientific methodology.
"...while I find thinking about double-blind testing tedious."
Music brings me pleasure too. DBTs can be tedious. One of many reasons they are mostly best left to experts. But I do think they are worth the trouble for me when I am making very expensive decisions about what and what not to buy. I would much rather take the time to do tedious DBTs than burn tens of thousands of dollars on things that don't actually sound any different. That is a personal preference of mine.
"I have taken place in one blind (but not double-blind) interconnect test years ago. Only the cable switcher knew what cable we were "listening to" at any given time.
I went into it a skeptic, but after all four of the listening panel independently ranked one interconnect as "best" and another as "second best" did I began to question what I thought I knew.
I'm sure you'll find more holes in our little experiment than someone would find in Albert Hall, and I'm OK with that. As noted in my subject line, I'd rather be listening to music than discussing scientific methodology."
Whatever holes I would find in it would be the same holes I would find in any other test, *if* the holes are there in the methodologies or statistical analysis. I do not judge the merits of any test by the results but by the methodologies used. And the standards by which I judge do not change.
One can listen to music and discuss scientific methodology just as easily as one can listen to music and build DIY components with various capacitors. If you want to know why different capacitors sound different to you whether it be bias effects or actual physical differences that are audible you have to be some what scientific about it. It may be tedious but it is also far more reliable. It just takes a bit more effort to get far more reliable results. Whether or not that reliability is worth the effort is a personal choice we all have to make.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]