darrenyeats;229705 Wrote: > For example, the fact I've done blind tests doesn't mean my sighted > listening is reliable from now on.
Not at all. But no one I know who's done blind hasn't done sighted ones also - they're formative. Scepticism is fine with me, but let me tell you something: among the people I've met and/or corresponded with in this environment (or shall we call it milieu?) over the years, the two most unnerving categories may be: 1) Electrical engineers (more rarely acousticians or physicists) who stubbornly deny an audible difference something non-measurable and/or (seemingly) unscientic makes to frowned-upon audiophiles, until some years later, papers, tests and diagrams, i.e. scientic proof is being published - and all of a sudden, the same engineers claim they can hear that difference, too (and worse: always could). 2) Audiophiles who insist they hear a sonic improvement because something seems to make sense, or merely because the idea or appearance of it appeals to them, and of course because it cost a lot of effort or money to build or put into practice. Now guess which of the two I find most ridiculous? The former. Why? Because the latter are hobbyists, thus may be excused for being self-delusioned. Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru ------------------------------------------------------------------------ acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
