nonoise,
Strawman.
Nowhere have I voiced any flat out denial. In fact I wrote:
"I’m not declaring fuses can’t make an audible difference. Only that the type of evidence for this claim is far too wanting to compel me to spend time or money on it. "
I think about a week.
That’s a very common claim. But it doesn’t actually hold up to scrutiny. Especially to the degree it is used to dismiss blind testing.
I work in post production sound. I am recording and altering sound all day long (Pro Tools). Often minute changes in EQ, loudness, pitch, etc.Especially if we are talking subtle differences in a sound, being able to direct ly compare them, switch back and forth, is MUCH more efficacious in aiding the perception of these difference than extending the time between the changes.
Let me ask you: If I took a sound - a voice or whatever - made two versions, and increased the second version’s volume by 2db, or increased via EQ some part of the frequency by 2dB, in which scenario do you think it more likely you’d be able to detect the difference:
1. Being able to switch back and forth between both sounds as you require, right now.
or:
2. Listening to one sound, and coming back a week later to hear the other one?
In other words...just how good to you actually think your acoustic memory is?
In blind testing you set it up so you can switch as quickly as you like between two sources to spot a difference. The idea that extending the time frame of reference is necessary, and that weeks or a month later you can be listening to your new tweak or source or whatever and say "Ah, I can hear the difference between this and when I had the other unit in a month ago!" is....well...it’s not very reasonable, especially in terms of what we know about acoustic memory. (It’s not that you *couldn’t possibly* hear a sonic difference over such time - if it’s big enough that’s possible. But to think that it is MORE conducive to detecting subtle sonic differences is another matter entirely).
Again, I manipulate sound all day long. If hearing subtle sonic differences when a sound file is altered actually required weeks of "getting acquainted" with the sound of that file, we sound designers couldn’t even do our job! But audiophiles like to make up whatever principles they need to cling on to not testing their beliefs.
Nope. I said all the other implausible audiophile tweaks, by which I refer to those for which dubious and highly disputed (by people in the relevant fields) claims are made. So there is an initial reason for skepticism...and then the rest of the support for the tweak comes from sighted tests.
I don’t care about the reasons any of these are done; so long as a tweak has those characteristics, my skepticism is warranted.
Yes. I’ve been interested in the philosophy of science for a long time and
any scientist can tell you science doesn’t deal in "proofs" strictly speaking. Which is why you never saw any such claim from me.
Cheers.
sure it does---a flat out denial without true benefit of debunking amounts to just another load of hooey
Strawman.
Nowhere have I voiced any flat out denial. In fact I wrote:
"I’m not declaring fuses can’t make an audible difference. Only that the type of evidence for this claim is far too wanting to compel me to spend time or money on it. "
As for your music server, how long did you listen to it before deciding it sounded the same as your previous one?
I think about a week.
Listening over the long haul is the only way to correctly ascertain it.
That’s a very common claim. But it doesn’t actually hold up to scrutiny. Especially to the degree it is used to dismiss blind testing.
I work in post production sound. I am recording and altering sound all day long (Pro Tools). Often minute changes in EQ, loudness, pitch, etc.Especially if we are talking subtle differences in a sound, being able to direct ly compare them, switch back and forth, is MUCH more efficacious in aiding the perception of these difference than extending the time between the changes.
Let me ask you: If I took a sound - a voice or whatever - made two versions, and increased the second version’s volume by 2db, or increased via EQ some part of the frequency by 2dB, in which scenario do you think it more likely you’d be able to detect the difference:
1. Being able to switch back and forth between both sounds as you require, right now.
or:
2. Listening to one sound, and coming back a week later to hear the other one?
In other words...just how good to you actually think your acoustic memory is?
In blind testing you set it up so you can switch as quickly as you like between two sources to spot a difference. The idea that extending the time frame of reference is necessary, and that weeks or a month later you can be listening to your new tweak or source or whatever and say "Ah, I can hear the difference between this and when I had the other unit in a month ago!" is....well...it’s not very reasonable, especially in terms of what we know about acoustic memory. (It’s not that you *couldn’t possibly* hear a sonic difference over such time - if it’s big enough that’s possible. But to think that it is MORE conducive to detecting subtle sonic differences is another matter entirely).
Again, I manipulate sound all day long. If hearing subtle sonic differences when a sound file is altered actually required weeks of "getting acquainted" with the sound of that file, we sound designers couldn’t even do our job! But audiophiles like to make up whatever principles they need to cling on to not testing their beliefs.
another purposely misleading statement that requires one to accept that all other implausible tweaks are done by the same people for the same reason
Nope. I said all the other implausible audiophile tweaks, by which I refer to those for which dubious and highly disputed (by people in the relevant fields) claims are made. So there is an initial reason for skepticism...and then the rest of the support for the tweak comes from sighted tests.
I don’t care about the reasons any of these are done; so long as a tweak has those characteristics, my skepticism is warranted.
Have you read/seen this article: Scientific Proof Is A Myth?
Yes. I’ve been interested in the philosophy of science for a long time and
any scientist can tell you science doesn’t deal in "proofs" strictly speaking. Which is why you never saw any such claim from me.
Cheers.