geoffkait18,479 posts11-25-2019 2:43pmHow do you buy a TV?
Blind test of course ;-)
The Truth About Power Cords and there "Real" Price to Performance
geoffkait18,479 posts11-25-2019 2:43pmHow do you buy a TV? Blind test of course ;-) |
And most people take that same TV set home, complete with the awful settings in the store, set it up in their house, and then leave it in cartoon mode till it eventually dies, never knowing how much better the image could be especially for movies. I have shown many friends how much better their TV can look. I also have friends and acquaintances who wouldn’t think twice about paying a few hundred dollars for a professional calibration on their TVs or projectors, I did a lot of research, and fortunately reviews on televisions include pretty good performance measurements. Then I hit stores (Blueray in hand) and get the remote so I can change/adjust to suitable settings, then I look for characteristics in the images I like / dislike, and I won’t do it in the bright lights of the "field" at a BestBuy. While there is variability from "perfect" in televisions, for the most part, at least now, it is becoming less and less of a subjective evaluation as objective measurements tell a lot more of the story than they ever will with speakers. ... and this is an audiophile forum, not a Sonos forum. |
@blumartini Thanks for being a good sport. I’m not looking to tear down the conversation you actually want to have.It’s just that occasionally I think it’s good to hear from the variety of voices among audiophiles, which includes audiophiles who are more skeptical of cable claims, and cautious about relying on pure personal anecdote to settle controversial technical claims. Carry on... Cheers. |
mahgister, There is some objective collective truth in sound perception, but musical perception is more complex than just sound perception and taking into account the different genetic potential of each one of us and our own different individual listening history, it is impossible and illusory to reduce this individual history to some objective collective laws of hearing... I find your writing on these subjects to be unclear as you seem to conflate separate issues: that of musical appreciate, or personal reaction to music, vs the question of the actual *audibility* of any particular technical claim. To take a hypothetical example, if a cable manufacturer claims they have reduced the presence of a distortion that occurs in the frequency of 25kHz which therefore produces a "better sounding cable," that's a claim that does not require all this personal musical history mumbo jumbo to investigate. Right off the bat there is reason to be skeptical, given the well known *general* limits to human hearing. So right off the bat it would make sense to ask for evidence we can even HEAR the problem being claimed. You could claim all you want to hear above 20kHz, but no appeal to your musical history will suffice to wave away a hearing test that shows you can not, in fact, reliably detect the presence of anything above 18kHz.(And such tests are of course done blind, so you are not given visual cue, or information, as to when the tones are playing...reducing those variables to concentrate only on what you are actually detecting via your hearing). The same goes for the fundamental question "Does cable A actually 'sound' delectably different from cable B?" So, take a possible blind test one could conduct between an audiophile AC cable and a standard "came with the device" audio cable. Let's say we want to investigate the AUDIBILITY (forget preference...lets first establish if A and B are even delectably different!) of an audiophile cable on a DAC. And let's say this audiophile cable - the "audiophileWOW cable" was purported by others to obviously improve the sound of a well known DAC. Maybe you have even "heard" it do exactly that, with that DAC. How to test this more rigorously? (*caveat: a double-blind set up would be even better, but even a single-blind test goes far further to reducing variables than the average "stick it in my system and listen" version used to anecdotally vet claims in hi-end audio). You could have two samples of the same DAC, both outputting to a switcher (pre-amp, whatever), so you can switch between the signal coming out of either DAC. First you do a blind test (e.g. someone else switching in a way you, the subject, can not know which DAC you are hearing), to first determine if you can reliably detect any difference between the two DAC units (again, the same DAC model), using this switching method. Presuming you can not, the inference being they sound alike to you as one would expect, you can move on to introducing the audiophile AC cable in the test. Just have one DAC unit using the supplied AC cable it came with, the other is now using the audiophileWOW AC cable. Now, repeat that same blind test. Can you even DETECT a difference between them to a statistically reliable degree? If not, if the results mirror a similar randomness as when they each had the same stock AC cable, then you've failed to show any positive correlation of sonic changes brought to the table by the audiophileWOW AC cable. Which is suggests that you really can't hear a difference. (Do enough of these tests, and you can establish ever more confidence that you can not hear a difference. Do it with enough people, and you gain ever more confidence that there is no audible contribution made by the audiophileWOW cable. None of this has to do with "personal musical history," it's about investigating the question of audibility, just like we do with hearing tests. But once components are established to actually sound different, then preference can play a plausible role, and it makes sense to talk about "which sonic presentation you like more" and for what reasons, how it effects your reaction to the music, etc.
Which is a strawman. No one suggests that we simply reduce music listening to A/B/X tests. It's just a more concise tool for investigating whether sonic differences are detectable or not. It can be expanded to preference-testing, if you like. But it's just conflating issues to mix up all this "personal musical history" stuff with a much narrower goal.You are making the typical audiophile exception for your hobby, as if the lessons of science, useful in most other areas, just don't apply to audio.It's special pleading. |
We all have bias's. That's why we like things a little different from each other. That is ok isn't it. What is a sad is some here don't want to discuss a subject, but rather dig their feet in and make fun of or argue their position. Sad that so many of us older ones can't seem to enjoy one anothers input whether we agree or not, and help each other out and just have a nice productive discussion that leads to enjoying our hobby more. My listening to music is not a life or death thingee. I enjoy it and it is going to stay that way even though I am not an industry insider, or know anything about my equipment. I do appreciate the insider's that contribute something positive to this place. But the old saying(it's not old, I am just now making this up)'I would rather enjoy some ice cream with my dog than have a steak dinner with a crude know it all. |