@scottwheel i don’t put much stock into folks that can’t hear the difference. As long as I can hear the difference that’s enough
WHY IS THERE SO MUCH HATE FOR THE HIGH END GEAR ON AUDIO GEAR?
It seems like when I see comments on high end gear there is a lot of negativity. I have been an audiophile for the last 20 years. Honestly, if you know how to choose gear and match gear a lot of the high end gear is just better. When it comes to price people can charge what they want for what they create. If you don’t want it. Don’t pay for it. Look if you are blessed to afford the best bear and you can get it. It can be very sonically pleasing. Then do it. Now if you are also smart and knowledgeable you can get high end sound at mid-fi prices then do it. It’s the beauty of our our hobby. To build a system that competes with the better more expensive sounding systems out there. THOUGHTS?
- ...
- 429 posts total
“ I don’t put much stock into folks that can’t hear the difference. As long as I can hear the difference that’s enough”
I didn’t ask you to put stock in me. I’m asking you if you put stock in yourself. Do you think *YOU* can reliably identify those differences in a proper level matched ABX or ABChr DBT? Can you really hear the difference without knowing in advance which is which? |
Lets cut the chase i have no reason to doubt their methodologies , and in spite of certain criticism , theirs conclusions goes with the reseacrh trends in this hearing studies field ... I am not an objectivist nor a subjectivist... I am only interested by hearing, acoustics, sounds, musics ... And the source of qualia ... What they say in their conclusion goes hand in hand with the deep and important research of J.J. Gibson in the visual field ... Then it appear to me that reversing that trend is not possible because hearing and seeing are way less stranger and distant to one another for the brain that what we think generally as non scientist ... And by the way this article is related by me to the second article i put in my post by a physicist van Maanen about the conditions of application of the Fourier mappings in amplifier design for continuous sine waves signals versus dynamic musical signal in relation to the human ears ...
https://maa.org/news/math-news/human-hearing-not-constrained-by-gabor-limit«Human Hearing Not Constrained by Gabor LimitJacob N. Oppenheim and Marcelo Magnasco of the Laboratory of Mathematical Physics at Rockefeller University have conducted experiments indicating that the human brain does not use the Fourier transform when resolving a cacophony of noise into individual sounds and voices. While the Gabor limit associated with the Fourier transform stipulates that you can’t simultaneously determine a sound’s frequency and duration, the 12 musicians subjected to Oppenheim and Magnasco’s battery of tests beat the limit by as much as a factor of 13. The Fourier transform cannot, therefore, fully explain the machinations of the human brain. "The actual algorithm employed by our brains is still shrouded in mystery," says Magnasco. Read New Scientist’s coverage. Read a more in-depth account and listen to sound samples at phys.org.» |
“ Lets cut the chase i have no reason to doubt their methodologies “
cool. So you accept the use of double blind listening tests as a valid protocol. So do I. And when audiophiles can produce repeatable verifiable evidence in the form of double blind listening tests with positive results I will accept their claims on the audibility of interconnect cables, power cords and other similar claims. That’s the difference between a legitimate scientific study like the one you cited and anecdotal evidence that was subject to multiple variables, had no meaningful controls and is unverifiable or repeatable. |
- 429 posts total