And so the next major audiophile engineering challenge is, err, well what?

[Labarum]

Funny you mention that...

Nothing wrong with your case, Stanley. Less is more . . .

[Ali Tait]

Spend the money where it counts! -on how the thing sounds.A nice case is a bonus,but not really necessary IMHO.It's the sound quality that really counts.

[tfarney]

I completely agree with that, Simon! Particularly this bit:





That's why blind tests don't work!

Marco.

That wouldn't work because it would be a mis-use of blind testing, which cannot determine whether or not one piece of gear is qualitatively better than the other, but only whether or not a person or group of people making up a statistically significant sample can hear a difference between the two components at all. Scientifically conducted AB/X listening tests do what they're intended to do quite well. But once it is determined that you can hear a difference between a system with and without Tweak A, it is solely up to individual judgment to determine if that difference is a benefit or a curse.

And that, of course, is not the stuff of science.

Tim

[Marco]

Yep you're right, Tim. But as I would have no interest whatsoever doing blind-testing with anything other than hi-fi equipment or related ancillaries (and even that doesn't interest me much) then any other process than that which determines whether or not one piece of gear is qualitatively better than the other is totally irrelevant.

That's why we (as subjective-minded audio enthusiasts) adopt the assessment process as described earlier, and as I said, why our heads must be in the right 'zone' in order for meaningful conclusions to be reached.

Marco.

[tfarney]

Yep you're right, Tim. But as I would have no interest whatsoever doing blind-testing with anything other than hi-fi equipment or related ancillaries (and even that doesn't interest me much) then any other process than that which determines whether or not one piece of gear is qualitatively better than the other is totally irrelevant.

That's why we (as subjective-minded audio enthusiasts) adopt the assessment process as described earlier, and as I said, why our heads must be in the right 'zone' in order for meaningful conclusions to be reached.

Marco.

I agree, Marco, that it's not of much use to individuals. The testing, in that case, would seldom exceed the margin for error anyway, and would, therefore, not be scientifically valid anyway. AB/X testing would, IMO, be very useful in professional reviews or kit evaluations, though. Imagine if every publication's review of every piece of kit began with "We first tested the Audiophile Magic Beans by soaking them, according to the manufacturer's instructions, in unpasturized virgin goat's milk for 24 hours and placing them 1/4" in from the corners of the amplifier in our reference system consisting of X, Y & Z. In AB/X listening tests, X% of the responses identified a difference in the system with the beans in place. Is that difference an improvement? We think so..."

With the biggest chunk of psychological bias bi-passed, we could now go on with the subjective stuff, knowing it is subjective, knowing it is, at least, based in reality.

On the other hand, imagine the review that begins with "We first tested the Audiophile Magic Beans by placing them, according to the manufacturer's instructions, 1/4" in from the corners of the amplifier in our reference system consisting of X, Y & Z. In AB/X listening tests, only X% of the responses accurately differentiated the examples. This sample, well below the margin for error, indicates that the beans had no audible effect."

Next review?

Surely such a simple process would avoid a lot of voodoo and hokum, and save audiophiles a lot of time, money and effort. And really, the only reason to not conduct such simple, reliable tests would be a firm belief that there is no voodo or hokum in the audiophile world to be exposed and avoided.

In which case I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...

Tim

[niklasthedolphin]

You're both moving on the old path towards acknowledging that objectivism is non-existing.
If you dig deeper you will also find fate in the same locker.

Now you are introduced to the analytical philosophy as a science.

From now on questions will rise, like:
"What to use data sheets for"?
"Will therapy make my gear sound better"?

Soon you will also figure out that DD-TT is an inferior construction.


"dolph"

[Steve Toy]

lol

[Labarum]

virgin goat's milk

MM

A lactating virgin would be about as rare as hen's teeth!

[tfarney]

MM

A lactating virgin would be about as rare as hen's teeth!

Exactly.

Tim

[tfarney]

You're both moving on the old path towards acknowledging that objectivism is non-existing.

Quite the contrary. I believe that if a statistically significant sample of civilians/audiophiles/recording engineers (take your choice) cannot hear something, it is inaudible, regardless of the subjective opinions of audiophiles who want to believe.

Tim