ok let’s cut to the chase. You are citing this study as evidence in support of your position. Does that mean you accept the study and the protocols and methodologies used in this study as a reasonable standard for valid data? Let’s just focus on that for the moment.

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 Limit

“ 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. 

“ 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. 

There is one thing you seems to not understand here ...

Double blind test are not practical for everybody in his OWN room with his OWN gear and his OWN listenings habits ..

Blind test are useful practice in many industry for his statistical signifiance...THATS ALL ...

Blind test are useless for an individual incremental step by step process of tuning an audio system/room with many devices ...

 

Supposed now in an experiment i put a piece of shungite on an amplifier...

This amplifier is mine , the system is mine , the acoustic room is controlled by me for my ears ...

I listen and i recognize a difference ( positive or negative) with or without this piece of shungite on the amplifier ( i can ask my wife to put it or not on the amp ) ... I will use a piece of music i know very well on my room /system doing this ...

If i do the same experiment with a piece of quartz, i will recognize or not a positive or a negative difference or no difference at all ...

But it will be with my gear and my acoustic room ...

With another gear, another room, another music ; this test will have no meaningful result ...

We can do it statistically with a crowd using the same system and room for all and had results which will be positive in a low % for the perception of an effect and change ...

But this low % of beneficial results will in no way change or contradict the value of this positive results for my ears, with my specific gear, and my specific room and my music ...

Then we must not infer that a negative % results about a "tweak" means that the tweaks had no value ...

It is not also good science to infer from a mere placebo explanation... It will be simplistic and the usual way hard core objectivist simplistically eliminate a real perceived effect in some conditions for some ears as illusory ...

i dont believe and i dont buy tweaks by the way ...

I created mine at no cost ...😁

Experiment is science ... using statistic goes both way it can establish the value of a result or discredit a result as easily if you know how to falsify anything with statistics ( half of medical articles are made this way paid by big pharma ) ... See big pharma criminal methods use of statistic and this is a fact confirmed by many direc tors of the more prestigious medical journals ...Google it ..😊..

i am neither in the crowd of subjectivist audiophile nor in the crowd of objectivist ...

Sorry ...

I enjoy music at low cost by my own creative effort in simple way adressing electrical noise floor, mechanical vibrations/resonance and acoustics my own way AT NO COST ...

I dont promote scientism but simple experiments...I promote creativity not costlier upgrades ...

Dont sell me your blind test salad to discredit anything ...😊

We must learn how to hear even as adult ... It is enough for me ...I dont buy the accuracy salad on the limits of hearings... Because it is not even wrong ...It is beside the main point : qualia recognition and interpretation ...

My low cost system is enough for me as i tuned it by the way... It gave me minimal acoustic satisfaction passed this minimal threshold ... The only upgrade i need will be the BACCH filters you already own...

my best to you ...

 

cool. So you accept the use of double blind listening tests as a valid protocol.

 

We all have our own beliefs, and decision making processes...there are hundreds and hundreds of threads essentially identical to this one...read and enjoy !