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

**Marco** · 29-10-2008, 08:34

Originally Posted by tfarney

I can. And I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on whether or not that distinction adds legitimacy or destroys objectivity.

Well the simple truth is the difference either exists or it doesn't - *if* the system is able to resolve it, and the test subjects possess the ability to hear it or not.

All the above are relevant and must be considered before a conclusion is reached which could be deemed objectively as fact. If the difference is subtle and not easily identified, which quite often it is with hi-fi, the matter isn't likely to be resolved within a few hours in a science lab

Marco.

**StanleyB** · 29-10-2008, 08:54

There are things that can be heard, but not measured for comparison. Take filter networks of different designs but same frequency span. Or digitally oversampled audio versus digitally upsampled audio.

**Labarum** · 29-10-2008, 09:01

"Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent."
Ludwig Wittgensein

**StanleyB** · 29-10-2008, 09:23

One commonly mentioned comment is that digital is digital, and that a better digital lead makes no difference. How many people believe that the TOSLINK lead on the right sounds the same as the one on the left, and why?

**Marco** · 29-10-2008, 09:29

There are things that can be heard, but not measured for comparison

How very, very true Stan. And it's most refreshing to hear it coming from a respected audio designer

Here's another: audio tubes from manufacturer to manufacturer and vintage to vintage often (easily) sound different, yet measure exactly the same (I have witnessed this) using known parameters...

Clue: those last two words are very important!

Quite simply, where audio is concerned, science currently can't provide all the answers; that's why we have to use the God-given things attached to the sides of our heads and have faith in them, or forever remain uncertain and disillusioned.

Marco.

**StanleyB** · 29-10-2008, 09:43

Talking about God:
God created man in his liking. But man is fallible and not perfect.
Man created measuring parameters and test instruments. Would you accept as fact any answers provided by an instrument created by an imperfect man?

**Marco** · 29-10-2008, 09:49

Indeed. I like that!

Here's something else to ponder: analysing hi-fi to death takes the beauty out of music...

Marco.

**Filterlab** · 29-10-2008, 10:31

Originally Posted by Sensimilia

One commonly mentioned comment is that digital is digital, and that a better digital lead makes no difference. How many people believe that the TOSLINK lead on the right sounds the same as the one on the left, and why?

Not I, and I have audible proof that TOSLink cables make a HUGE difference.

**Marco** · 29-10-2008, 10:37

Yes but are you absolutely and utterly sure beyond any significant margin of error that some bizarre psychological effect wasn't taking place to skew the results... For example the influence of Ganja?

Marco.

**Filterlab** · 29-10-2008, 10:48

Originally Posted by Marco

Yes but are you absolutely and utterly sure beyond any significant margin of error that some bizarre psychological effect wasn't taking place to skew the results... For example the influence of Ganja?

Marco.

Well, if I followed the JC school of thought then there would be no difference because it can't be measured. However I can confirm an audible difference without drugs.

With drugs there's a visible difference too.

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

Thread Tools

Display

I give you today's 'factoid'...

Posting Permissions