 
|
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 |
70.166.116.8
In Reply to: RE: You think so? posted by Analog Scott on June 27, 2023 at 10:10:47
"Goober, if you are reading this, does my fight seem so unreasonable now?"
Yes. Here's why -
" The choice of audio mythology and anecdotal evidence derived from non controlled casual listening over objective evidence and research from an entire field of science is the opposite of being pro fact, pro science and pro rational thought."
Non controlled casual listening is exactly how I evaluate audio gear. Objective evidence and research from an entire field of science will never trump casual listening. Choosing audio equipment and building audio systems is an art not a science just like making an album is an art not a science.
Objective evidence and research only plays a part in this art. However one values the results varies from each system owner to the next.
Follow Ups:
"Non controlled casual listening is exactly how I evaluate audio gear. Objective evidence and research from an entire field of science will never trump casual listening."
That is a point of major disagreement. Which is fine. It's audio. But at the same time I have offered Michael Fremer and numerous other folks who think their hearing perceptions under such casual conditions trump science a $20K bet that under double blind conditions their "hearing" won't do what they think it can do. I have even gone so far as to make it my $20.K vs. My travel expenses to come to whoever thinks they can hear these differences. I'm talking in most cases better than 10-1 odds!
No one will take any of the bets. No one! If the shoe were on the other foot? I'd be all over those offers. ANYONE who wants to bet me $20K that I can't hear differences in anything audio that I firmly believe makes an audible difference will immediately be taken up on such an offer.
Honestly, what do you think an entire field of science is missing and getting wrong that casual audiophiles are routinely picking up on? Does that really seem feasible to you?
"Honestly, what do you think an entire field of science is missing and getting wrong that casual audiophiles are routinely picking up on? Does that really seem feasible to you?"
This question is getting old. Measurements cannot tell us how a component audibly performs beyond the most basic criterias.
Actually it's your anti scientific audio religion that is getting old. Wanna take my bet? I'll bet you whatever you want to risk that you can not reliably identify difference between the analog audio signal of your choice, using the source material of your choice on the stereo system of your choice from a real time hi res ADC/DAC step in the signal.
3 conditions.
1. Level matched
2. Double blind ABX
3. A positive has to meet the basic scientific statistical criteria of 95% confidence level.
I look forward to your excuses not to take the bet
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 © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
