I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'm bugged.

Did you consider yourself the arbiter of the matter of this thread because you are a scientist? If so you are wrong....My post is related to this useless debate...

The horse is dead. Long live the horse. You seem at a loss for why no one commented. I am taking a stab at the likely reason. Even the most ardent tweakaholic has lost interest.

I didn’t arbitrate anything. I just stated rather clearly that until you either prove beyond reasonable doubt that the claims are really heard or provide some relevant scientific basis for differences to be heard, then the posts are simply self indulgent.

How our brains work or our auditory system works is not even relevant. This is all external observation. From my reading there is a large body of work in what is audible, whether level, distortion, frequency response, noise, phase, and I am sure a large number of other factors that could define audio, primarily electronics as this appears to be the topic under discussion. These tests all appear to be done under special conditions meant to give us poor old humans every chance at success, as opposed to music for which it will be harder.

Your posts do nothing to advance whether what is perceived as being heard is really being heard, nor that there is a real physical mechanism for the difference, nor whether the tested limits of human audio perception for measurable differences is significantly better than already shown by those working in the field. I suggest starting with the first as it will require by far the least experimental rigor or knowledge to accomplish.

Your posts do nothing to advance whether what is perceived as being heard is really being heard,

All this debate can be summarized around this sentence with emphasis on "really"...

First this debate emerged in audiophile circles, not from people who enjoy the subjective REAL pleasure to listen...But from others...

Some Amir disciples come and say no this dac is better than this one,no need to listen to it...

Did you not see why this is ridiculous, to claim that some measures replace all listening, and as ridiculous as saying that some listening replace all measure, in the two cases?

Do you think only audiophiles can de deluded in life?

What is heard by seomeone is most of the times "real", but it can result from a positive or a negative set of biases, but also it can be in some case a slight illusion...Like in ridiculous cables debate ...

This does not means that all audiophiles reviews are meaningless if they are not  based only on all possible  hard factual set of measures... No more so this do not means that the designer who measure their ongoing design dont know what they are doing because they dont listen to it while doing it...

Pretending that any audiophile must PROVE his experience is ridiculous, like asking to a designer to listen to his design before creating it....

But any audiophile must learn basic acoustic to understand sound concretely, and any designer must study psycho-acoustic to improve his results...This is common place fact...

Then your critic of my post is right on one count...

These new science revolution pass over the head of most people and then i posted it to help at least ONE person for which it will be interesting... It seems that this ONE person is not you.... 😁😊

Then i apologize for this "useless" information for most here, about these very new research if no one give a dam for sure...

But i was hoping to be useful for ONE unknown person here... This will be more than enough.... Anyway this debate between some fetichists and some zealots is useless for EVERYONE and forever useless anyway because based on a false alternative...

For any wise person there is no debate because it is a trivial evidence that listening and measuring must be correlated...

Not only i am born "naive" but i was born enthusiastic by the way and all my life i communicated about all ideas, it was my job anyway ... 😁😊

I didn’t respond as I didn’t see any relevance to audio much less anything at all. Looked like quack nonsense to me. 

I didn’t respond as I didn’t see any relevance to audio much less anything at all. Looked like quack nonsense to me.

Perhaps you dont understand what these articles and videos spoke about...

I am not surprized...

But saying like deludedaudiophile that these articles and videos are not related to this thread matter is one thing, and he is right in the sense that this is not evident that they are related to this thread... He is right on that, we differ because for me there is a relation...

But deludedaudiophile being intelligent and polite NEVER say like you just did that this articles and video about a Nobel Prize winner, a Fields medallist and a new genius in advanced neuro-computing research were "QUACKERY" ...

Then spoke your mind , say i am a quack... it will be clearer...and less damaging for your own persona here...

😁😊

« "If it quack like a duck it is a duck"...No, it is an elliptic curve sorry»-Groucho Marx 🤓

Some Amir disciples come and say no this dac is better than this one,no need to listen to it...

Did you not see why this is ridiculous, to claim that some measures replace all listening, and as ridiculous as saying that some listening replace all measure, in the two cases?

This whole need to label people in camps is an ongoing failure in audio (and society).  To more accurately state what many believe is that if certain measurements are sufficiently good (and they appear to include significant tolerance in those measurements) and there are no system induced issues, then those two devices will sound the same. I have yet to seen that view proved conclusively wrong. I did follow a long thread on ASR where one of the prolific posters found an audible difference between DACs when he listened, but when he measured the units, he found a significant measurement difference. I believe the final conclusion was a software driver issue.

I think I have mentioned I got really into headphones. One popular Youtube reviewer was fully convinced of the difference in audibility of headphone amplifiers that measured the same and he had even convinced himself he was right with AB tests (all with awareness of what he was listening to). He took the challenge expecting he would have no problems telling them apart when he could not see what he was listening to. The result?   They sounded exactly the same.

I had my own revelations many years ago now, thinking that I could easily hear differences between amplifiers, speaker cables, and yes CD players. Then someone forced me to do a listening test without knowing what I was listening to. All those changes I thought I heard disappeared. As opposed to dismissing the tests, I delved into the technical details and realized there was little reason I should hear a difference. I just had not really given it enough thought before.

When I "discovered" the high resistance of the Fidelium cable and was doing Google research, I came upon an article by the much lauded Nelson Pass about speaker cables. His article deals almost exclusively with simple circuit elements, R, L and C. He does discuss a corner condition he experiences but ensures his new designs do not experience that condition. Also he indicated the most common cable issue is dirty connections. Atmasphere also noted a cable difference in a power cord, and my interpretation is this was exclusively a factor of high resistance or simple circuit elements.

When respected scientific research and respected technical users are predominantly in agreement, it is unwise to not give credence to their conclusions, especially if you cannot unequivocally, and as important easily show them to be incorrect.