"droberson02, isn’t audiosciencereview actually the opposite of pseudo science? They’re actually quantifying w/ measurements, or at least attempting to, while the other camp’s argument is "well it sounds better to my ears you cant measure emotion etc" I have no dog in this fight as I believe measurements aren’t everything but just thought that was kind of an ironic statement"
Sure there’s a middle ground, but it’s a misrepresentation to say that if you don’t believe in someone’s measurements, and interpretation of those measurements, that you’re relying on emotion. Part of science is empirical evidence with repeatable results, to observe and classify, even if you can’t completely explain things. Pseudo-science boxes you in to a limited set of conclusions. Just my opinion after many years of experience in audiophilia, most recently with a very high-end server that made a huge difference, while so many asserted it couldn’t (they’re such experts you know ;).
Not that the "other camp" couldn’t measure and quantify; I believe they could. But at some point you have to prioritize limited time. That said, I noticed someone attached Swenson’s white paper, which does explain some things.
Sure there’s a middle ground, but it’s a misrepresentation to say that if you don’t believe in someone’s measurements, and interpretation of those measurements, that you’re relying on emotion. Part of science is empirical evidence with repeatable results, to observe and classify, even if you can’t completely explain things. Pseudo-science boxes you in to a limited set of conclusions. Just my opinion after many years of experience in audiophilia, most recently with a very high-end server that made a huge difference, while so many asserted it couldn’t (they’re such experts you know ;).
Not that the "other camp" couldn’t measure and quantify; I believe they could. But at some point you have to prioritize limited time. That said, I noticed someone attached Swenson’s white paper, which does explain some things.