LOL!!! it looks like nobody can make a claim (read: share his/her own experience) about any audio component, unless he/she can:
1 - Show detailed measurements on said components. Including proof / validation of the instruments used in the measurements,
and
2 - Show proof of scientifically controlled, ABX test, with a large enough pool of people to have any statistical meaning
If not, every claim is null and void! LOL!!!!
Thyname:
Here is my take, to show why I don't agree with that statement.
No one has to make themselves in to a scientist in order to enjoy or discuss high end audio. That doesn't suit many people's interest or goals here, and even among those who are more skeptical than others, it's impractical.
So it's up to any individual if he wants to avail himself of any engineering or scientific knowledge concerning the performance of equipment, psychoacoustics and the like. And to what degree he/she wants it to inform their own views.
I think the exchange of subjective experiences with equipment is wonderful. I love it. Whatever the mechanics involved, the fact is a sound system "sounds like something" and I like exchanging notes on "how things sound."
However, as I am aware of the numerous ways in which our perception can be fallible, and how our inferences from our subjective experience can be unreliable, I will sometimes look to what is plausible based both upon engineering and scientific grounds, in terms of if a claimed phenomenon is plausible, or whether it's audibility is plausible.
And I use that to put my confidence in a reasonable place about a specific claim.
So....when it comes to, say, loudspeakers, it's well known and well demonstrated in terms of engineering and psychoacoustics that different loudspeaker designs tend to sound different. So if someone is claiming "I heard speaker A and B and preferred speaker B for these characteristics" that's an entirely plausible claim. It COULD be that the person is in error somehow, and bias influenced his perception. If I think I hear a difference between speaker A and B it's possible I could be mislead by some sighted bias. It's simply being intellectually honest to admit that, and to admit that if I really wanted to warrant deeper confidence in my claim, double-blind testing is a tool to get that deeper level confidence.
But as a practical matter, since the claim of sonic differences are plausible, and such sonic speaker
differences are expected, and we don't all have double-blind labs to
test our speaker perceptions, it's reasonable to proceed making claims and exchanging notes based on our anecdotal, sighted experience. IMO. For similar reasons we exchange notes on our experiences for countless things everyday (and it would not be practical to try to scientifically test everything we do!).
This situation changes the more the claims move in to more contested territory - contested by people who have relevant technical and/or psychoacoustics knowledge. Not all claims are equally plausible.
This moves in to the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" territory. If you tell me you just bought a new 4K TV from Best Buy, since this is a completely plausible and uncontroversial claim, it's reasonable for me to accept the claim. But if you tell me you just bought a full grown, living Tyrannosaurus Rex...well...your say so isn't good enough. Given what is known about dinosaurs, the claim isn't plausible. And people lie. So any rational person would want to be more rigorous in the demands for evidence.
I employ that same rule of thumb for proportioning my confidence in both my own experience, and in the claims made by other people, in this case other audiophiles. If an audiophile is claiming that fuse A has different sonic characteristics than fuse B, or AC cable has a "smoother sound with tighter bass" then I'm looking for a plausible explanation for how that is the case, and will consider the method by which those claims were arrived at. If the technical claims seem implausible, if the general claims are "fishy" sounding (as they are from most high-end companies selling AC cables), and if the only method of vetting the claims have been "I'm sure I heard a difference" then I'll wait for better evidence.It's just intellectually honest to admit that the variables involved are problematic for establishing the claims GIVEN a lack of reliable, objectively verifiable basis for the claims.
That DOES NOT MEAN that anyone needs to stop making claims about their experience about ANYTHING. If you put a new AC cable in to your system and perceive some particular sonic character change, by all means, spread the word! This is *some* evidence towards the phenomenon. And people having repeatedly similar experiences also constitutes *some evidence* towards the claim. But to the degree anyone wishes for a more warranted level of confidence, he would have to admit that, depending on the claim, it's not terribly reliable evidence, where more controlled methods could yield results warranting greater confidence.
So long as you are open to a nuanced position, I hope that this clears up at least one person's position here.
