ncarver;581944 Wrote: > And this is supposed to be meaningful to anyone else why exactly?
Only in that it illustrates that blind tests don't need to be done on short samples. > You have a clear bias against hearing differences Do I? When I first got into audio, I believed most things I heard. Why not, after all? As I got more serious about it I started to approach things more systematically. I'm a professional physicist, and so I'm trained to do that. Over the years I've tested many different components, from DACs to tube amps to tubed preamps to speakers to recordings to room placement and room treatments. In some cases I heard very clear differences (speakers, room placement, a few of the amps and DACs that were so badly designed I'd consider them defective), and in others I couldn't hear any difference. In the end I concluded that audibility more or less conforms to what common sense and science says it ought to - that when the differences between components measure well below established audibility thresholds (as they do for DACs and amps and cables), the differences usually are inaudible, and when they don't (speakers, room placement, room treatments), they don't. > Since you obviously made no effort to establish the resolution of your > test setup, your negative result has virtually no value. What would it mean to "establish the resolution of your test setup", and how would I go about doing it? > So sorry, but my anecdotal evidence trumps yours IMNSHO. :) And you're certainly entitled to your opinion. -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82067 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
