In Reply to: You're missing the point - or is it the boat... posted by mkuller on December 7, 2006 at 10:58:39:
“You're missing the point...â€I was addressing Richard’s point: “I just know that for over three decades not one audiophile has been able to prove to witnesses that he can hear differences among wires intended for audio use while listening to music…â€
And I was making the broader point, to wit, that objectivists simply don’t believe the myriad claims made by subjectivists when it comes to discerning subtle differences between different pieces of gear. Thus my modest proposal was offered as a way of shedding some much needed light on the many doubts and questions posed by objectivists on this board.
“...part of the problem here is that amatuer (sic) DBTs are pretty worthless and usually end up with null results.
“IMO, they are a waste of time and show nothing.â€
Yes, yes, by now we’re all painfully aware of your aversion to DBTs. Moreover, you and I have had enough exchanges on this subject that you’re well aware I’ve never advocated DBT testing. Such testing methodology (even when conducted by trained professionals) contains inherent problems that make it ill suited for evaluating audio gear. That’s why I’ve been consistent in always proposing a relaxed A/B evaluation with *no* time constraints. All I ask is that the participant(s) not enjoy the luxury of a priori knowledge while evaluating said gear. What’s more, have both units in plain view while the participant is attempting to distinguish one from the other.
“However, I am more than willing to demonstrate to anyone - who is willing to come to my place in the SF Bay Area - the audibility of cables in A/B listening trials.â€
Yes, but are you willing to do so without benefit of *knowing* which piece of gear you’re listening to at the time of evaluation? I envision a scenario in which you’re given ten opportunities to evaluate your reference wire against a wire of Richard’s choosing. If your powers of discernment are as keen as you suggest, then I see no reason why you would not be able to identify your wire with a high degree of regularity, say, eight out of ten times. Agreed? After all, the evaluation would be performed in *your* listening room. In any event, there’s no need to muddy the waters by thundering against the inadequacies of DBT testing when you and I are already on the same page in that regard.
Wishing you and yours a lovely holiday season, Michael.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: You're missing the point - or is it the boat... - regmac 14:22:13 12/07/06 (20)
- Re: You're missing the boat... - mkuller 17:04:44 12/07/06 (19)
- The boat... - Ozzie 19:35:17 12/11/06 (2)
- Ok, cable differences... - mkuller 16:06:09 12/13/06 (1)
- Re: Ok, cable differences... - Ozzie 15:17:51 12/14/06 (0)
- Re: You're missing the boat... - regmac 18:23:39 12/07/06 (15)
- Evidence... - mkuller 20:09:52 12/07/06 (14)
- Grasping at straws, MKULLER? - regmac 09:50:48 12/08/06 (13)
- Re: Grasping at straws, MKULLER? - Pat D 18:15:21 12/08/06 (7)
- Oh PatD, now you're telling little fibs... - mkuller 10:26:59 12/09/06 (5)
- Very careless use of quotation marks, but they were meant to indicate what you do and were not a direct quote. - Pat D 15:08:46 12/09/06 (4)
- Caught in the act ... now blabbing like an IDIOT. What else is new? nt - bjh 15:40:52 12/09/06 (3)
- An ad hominem argument is still a fallacy whether it is true or not. - Pat D 19:45:46 12/09/06 (2)
- STFU! Oh that was rude. I forgive myself. All better. ROTFLMFAO nt - bjh 06:56:30 12/10/06 (1)
- Yes, that was rude but not an ad hominem argument. - Pat D 10:18:25 12/10/06 (0)
- Seems unlikely Pat-D-cake! - bjh 06:14:12 12/09/06 (0)
- Are you calling JJ a liar? He's very sensitive about that I'll have you know! - bjh 11:16:25 12/08/06 (3)
- Regmac is an honest man--no need to chastise him. - Pat D 18:17:00 12/08/06 (2)
- Since you are dishonest above about me, therefore...(nt) - mkuller 11:11:51 12/09/06 (1)
- An ad hominem argument is still a fallacy whether it is true or not. - Pat D 15:14:46 12/09/06 (0)
- Right - your little test would have been MUCH more definitive...(nt) - mkuller 10:02:15 12/08/06 (0)