Actually, Kurt was quoting me in the referenced article, using quotation marks instead of the QUOTE tags.
Certainly, this change can do no harm and costs nothing. However, claiming something makes a big difference in sound, and saying it does no harm are two different things. What I was satirizing was the audiophile bandwagon effect. That is, someone draws a conclusion based on an uncontrolled experiment. Then others, not wishing to be called "tin-eared" by saying they hear no difference, also chime in with their agreement, again based on uncontrolled experiments. If you go back to the beginning of the thread, the original claim of an improvement was based on changing two things at once - setting both the digital and analog attenuations. One change affects the digital output data directly, and the other does not. The claims of improvement will cause an expectation bias in the experiment, so to get an unbiased picture requires a test method that removes expectation bias. I have no issue with people going with what works for them, based on uncontrolled subjective experiments. I do this myself with my own system all the time. But there is a difference between saying "X works for me" and saying "X is true". The difference is that people will claim these results to be some kind of indisputable fact when no controlled experiments have ever established that. The idea is that once an assertion has been repeated often enough, it is considered to be true, regardless of the facts of the matter. This phenomenon is known rather harshly as the "big lie theory". -- andy_c ------------------------------------------------------------------------ andy_c's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3128 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26332 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
