nonoise,
There are a huge number of audiophile tweaks out there, why would I be compelled to single out this one to take my time testing? And I'm not an EE, and also don't have easy access to testing equipment. So, like anything else, whether it's tests of car performance/mileage or whatever, I look to relevant experts with the test equipment to do these things, and from my layman's vantage point, note who makes claims and why, and who disputes them and why, and their relevant expertise. And also understanding the basics of the scientific method helps me identify when someone is appealing to an unreliable methodology.
To the extent it's useful or I care to, I will use blind testing in my own decisions.
But it's not accurate to think I'm some absolutist about all this, as if I'm saying we all have to blind test everything we do. Hardly. That's utterly impractical! I have been into high end audio for most of my life and I have had many things in my system I don't bother blind testing. Even some tweaky stuff. For instance, I wrote a long thread detailing my attempts to build an isolated platform for my new turntable. That definitely took me deep in to tweaky areas. I did my best to satisfy the side of me that likes to see some objective evidence, so I used some basic seismometer apps and other methods to ascertain any drops in resonance.
And I use tube amps....hardly the stuff of Hard Core Engineer Objectivists who want strict accuracy.
The issue arises when it comes to making claims, or the general level of confidence that is warranted in a belief. What if any of the steps I took actually had an audible impact on my new turntable? The honest answer is: I don't know. I could measure differences in the vibration transfer with and without the new platform. But did this change the output of my system? It's too cumbersome to possibly blind test, but hey....no big deal. I'm not trying to please anyone else but myself. And doing all that work scratched a theoretical "itch" and was also fun and satisfying.
But I'm not going to go declaring that I COMPLETELY CHANGED THE SOUND OF MY SYSTEM AND ANYONE WHO CAN'T HEAR THIS HAS EARS MADE OF CLOTH!
If anyone cast a skeptical eye on my methods I'd simply say "Yup, I can see the warrant for the skepticism. I agree I don't have a solid basis for presuming any sonic changes occured."
I find it no problem to admit my fallibility, and when I really don't have a high level of evidence and confidence in something. But should it be suggested to other people "hey, maybe you could be wrong...not ARE wrong...but could be wrong, like I've been before, and like science tells us to look out for..." then their reaction is to get upset, cast aspersions at anyone daring to challenge their experience as the Final Arbiter Of Truth!
There are a huge number of audiophile tweaks out there, why would I be compelled to single out this one to take my time testing? And I'm not an EE, and also don't have easy access to testing equipment. So, like anything else, whether it's tests of car performance/mileage or whatever, I look to relevant experts with the test equipment to do these things, and from my layman's vantage point, note who makes claims and why, and who disputes them and why, and their relevant expertise. And also understanding the basics of the scientific method helps me identify when someone is appealing to an unreliable methodology.
To the extent it's useful or I care to, I will use blind testing in my own decisions.
But it's not accurate to think I'm some absolutist about all this, as if I'm saying we all have to blind test everything we do. Hardly. That's utterly impractical! I have been into high end audio for most of my life and I have had many things in my system I don't bother blind testing. Even some tweaky stuff. For instance, I wrote a long thread detailing my attempts to build an isolated platform for my new turntable. That definitely took me deep in to tweaky areas. I did my best to satisfy the side of me that likes to see some objective evidence, so I used some basic seismometer apps and other methods to ascertain any drops in resonance.
And I use tube amps....hardly the stuff of Hard Core Engineer Objectivists who want strict accuracy.
The issue arises when it comes to making claims, or the general level of confidence that is warranted in a belief. What if any of the steps I took actually had an audible impact on my new turntable? The honest answer is: I don't know. I could measure differences in the vibration transfer with and without the new platform. But did this change the output of my system? It's too cumbersome to possibly blind test, but hey....no big deal. I'm not trying to please anyone else but myself. And doing all that work scratched a theoretical "itch" and was also fun and satisfying.
But I'm not going to go declaring that I COMPLETELY CHANGED THE SOUND OF MY SYSTEM AND ANYONE WHO CAN'T HEAR THIS HAS EARS MADE OF CLOTH!
If anyone cast a skeptical eye on my methods I'd simply say "Yup, I can see the warrant for the skepticism. I agree I don't have a solid basis for presuming any sonic changes occured."
I find it no problem to admit my fallibility, and when I really don't have a high level of evidence and confidence in something. But should it be suggested to other people "hey, maybe you could be wrong...not ARE wrong...but could be wrong, like I've been before, and like science tells us to look out for..." then their reaction is to get upset, cast aspersions at anyone daring to challenge their experience as the Final Arbiter Of Truth!