Stupid things you hear from the DBT/Null test crowd....

steveinaz

ANYTIME you read an equipment review, you should realize, up front, that preference, perception, and subjectivity will be involved. It's the nature of the beast. The best you can do is look for negatives, rather than positives--and see if there is a pattern of this observation in other reviews. You can also see what caibre of equipment the reviewer is comparing it against; but the bottom line is, it's still no guarantee that you will like it. We all have our personal preferences and beliefs about how something should sound.

heiney9

Drenis wrote: »

What's harmful about asking an opinion of something? What is your experience with it and how have your results been?

Nothing of course, and it's encouraged to do this. BUT, the naysayers (I'll lump them all together) aren't at all interested in an opinion, they want scientific proof and demonstrated facts to their own liking before they will allow you to say you hear a difference. Even when you present that to them in a rational, logical manner they have other excuses why it's not true.

I love getting together with my audio buddies (The RAS group) and bouncing ideas, opinions, etc off each other and even disagreeing about things. In the end it's fun times with good people and it's never taken too seriously.

In fact as serious and inflexible many call me here, in person I don't take anything or anyone too seriously. I still have my beliefs but face-to-face interaction is so much more rewarding than words on a screen.

H9

Syndil

heiney9 wrote: »

In fact as serious and inflexible many call me here, in person I don't take anything or anyone too seriously. I still have my beliefs but face-to-face interaction is so much more rewarding than words on a screen.

Ditto. I'll drink to that. As heated as these discussions can sometimes seem, that's just the nature of the Internet. And actually I think this one has been rather civil, as far as Internet debates go. But in person? I just dare you try to get my blood pressure up.

SCompRacer

Syndil wrote: »

I am not a fan of the "wall of words" argument. For my sake and yours, I'll keep my points brief.

To me, that "wall of words" is Raife sharing the actual material he has used to develop a stand on. It has substance that relies on facts and should not be dismissed lightly. There is no useless fluff in there and I think he gets his points across rather well.

When a person wants something to be true, they will often make themselves believe that it is, despite the facts. If you spend $2,000 on cables, you damn well better find out that they sound better than some cheapo Monoprice cables, otherwise you'll feel like an utter clot for spending that kind of money on them. All the more reason it is important to make that judgment blindly.

I've often said you can't lie to anybody like you can lie to yourself. I'll also add that I think some folks buy gear just to be 'like Mike.' I used to race and went by results; time slips with elapsed times, mile per hour, 60 foot times. You either went faster with part x, or as fast and something lasted longer, worked better, etc. However, if a person has to decide on something blindly or demand that you do, doesn't that also put their character in question? I keep what I like and sell the rest and it doesn?t need to be done blindly.

maximillian

steveinaz wrote: »

We all have our personal preferences and beliefs about how something should sound.

Yeah, but I have a decent LSi system. I know it's not HiFi, but don't know how much better it could be. Maybe you can record your system's output and send it to me so I can tell what good audio can sound like?














:cheesygrin: Hey, it's Friday afternoon and quittin' time....

DarqueKnight

Syndil wrote: »

The music hall analogy does not apply to audio systems. Part of the enjoyment of the music hall is indeed picking out instruments (with your eyes) that are making the sounds you hear. There is no such visual component to audio gear.

Dr. Fletcher's paper does not deal with music hall performance. He was not providing an analogy. He was discussing how his research team was attempting to bring the excitement, three dimensional imaging and tactile sensation of a live performance into the home of music lovers.

Obviously you have never listened to a high performance audio system and "watched" a sound float from one side of the sound stage to the other. You probably have never read the reports from members of this forum discussing how their pets will sit and stare at a sound image produced outside the physical boundaries of their speakers.

T. Somerville indicated that part of the stereophonic experience was being able to "see" where a sound image was coming from.

Syndil wrote: »

Furthermore, critical listening of a music hall has very little in common with critical listening of audio gear. When you are going to a music hall, you are not judging how close the quality of the sound comes to a live performance--it IS a live performance, so that would be silly. The entire analogy is baseless.

Again, Dr. Fletcher mention of music hall acoustics was in relation to what they were trying to recreate in the home. As a professional musician, you must know that there are acoustic differences in performances venues. A music hall is a transmission medium for a live performance similar to the way a stereo system is a transmission medium for a recorded performance.

Syndil wrote: »

As for tactile sensations, you can indeed feel bass rumble and the like, but you will feel that whether or not you can see the equipment that is producing the bass.

I'm glad you now realize there is more to stereo than just the sound.

Syndil wrote: »

The potential for such a bias does exist when you are pitting brands against each other, as is commonly done in audio gear comparisons. And when that potential exists, blind testing eliminates it.

The only thing that eliminates bias, and the fear of being tricked, is training.

Syndil wrote: »

The same problem lies with your argument regarding the original pioneers into audio. At that point, they were not judging established products from competing brands, they were experimenting to determine which methodology produced the best results. There was no potential for bias. So once again, apples to oranges.

The original pioneers evaluated many systems and component prototypes in order to settle on the system that would be commercially offered. What is the difference in evaluating different prototypes and evaluating gear from different manufacturers? They were still pitting one component against another or one system against another. There was a huge potential for bias between three channel/three speaker stereo systems and two channel/two speaker stereo systems. Fletcher and his colleagues were torn between the higher performing three channel system and the more economically feasible two channel system.

It would have been foolish for the pioneers to propose a testing methodolgy for themselves and then expect consumers to use something else. The literature is quite clear that they did not engage in such foolishness. I repeat:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Two Bell Telephone Laboratories scientists, F. K. Harvey and M. R. Schroeder, presented a paper at the 12th Annual Convention the the Audio Engineering Society on October 11, 1960 ("Subjective Evaluation of Factors Affecting Two-Channel Stereophony", Journal of The Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 9, No. 1, January 1961, pp. 19-28).

"Critical listeners were sought in these tests because of a desire to set permanent standards. At the moment, only a small percentage of people fully appreciate high fidelity. Even less appreciate or understand stereo. However, there is a growing sophistication evidenced among users of stereo equipment. Anticipating the future, it seemed wise to avoid naive or unconcerned personnel in these tests to prevent establishing loose standards which eventually might have to be abandoned.

The listeners chosen were sophisticated in the art of sound localization either by working in this field or by education before testing. They were felt to be the equal of any serious listener who is accustomed to playing the same records many times and thus becomes familiar with the more subtle artistic and technical effects."[/b][/color][/i]

Did you notice that Harvey and Schroeder were interested in establishing permanent standards of stereo sysem evaluation FOR THE CONSUMER, or, as they put it, for the "serious listener"? Did you notice that the test subjects they used were considered to be the equal of "serious listeners"? What is the basis for leaping from this reality to the "belief" that consumers were expected to use blind tests for audio equipment?

So, once again, if blind testing was the be-all/end-all it is purported to be, why would Harvey and Schroeder propose a subjective evaluation methodology for "serious listeners" based on listener training?

Syndil wrote: »

As for the adequacy of my ear, I would pit it against absolutely anyone's. I am a classically trained, performing musician with over 25 years of experience. The last hearing test I took was a group hearing test (one of those trailers they bring to your workplace), and I finished the test a full 10 minutes before the next person. If you are not familiar with the nature of the test, the less tones you can hear, the more they repeat them, so the longer the test takes. I keep a pair of Etymotic Musician's earplugs with me at all times on my keychain, and use them whenever I feel the sound is too loud. Which is often, especially when I go out.

The potential to do something does not mean proficiency. Proficency in one area does not guarantee proficency in another. Excellent hearing and proficiency with a musical instrument does not equate to proficiency in evaluating the performance of stereophonic equipment. It does indicate that, with proper training, you might be more sensitive than the average person.

Syndil wrote: »

One might possibly argue that I have not trained myself to listen to the audio gear instead of the music coming out of it, but to that I would say, why would I want to do that? It's all about the music. This is also why I refuse to invest ridiculous amounts of money in audio gear. Some say it's chasing that last 1%, but that is a percentage of a larger subset that is, even at its theoretical best possible level, nowhere near as good as the real thing. Recordings by their very nature are inherently inferior, and as they say, you can't polish a ****. Actually the Mythbusters proved that you can, but it's still a ****. If I were to ever spend more money in a year on audio gear than I did on attending live performances, I would be absolutely ashamed to admit it.

I vividly recall being at a House of Blues concert and noticing my girlfriend fidgeting. When I asked her if something was wrong she replied:

"I don't like this. Your stereo sounds better than this."

If I can get a good seat, in a good hall, with good performers, on a good day, then I prefer live music. Most of the time, however, the live performance didn't/doesn't live up to the recording. The performers are not always on top of their game. The best seating wasn't always available. Sometimes there were obnoxious distractions from the audience.

Syndil wrote: »

But still, even when I do spend modest amounts of money on gear, as I did this last year with my pre/pro purchase, I buy several, and audition them blindly in my home. This last time I pitted an Adcom GTP-880 against an Outlaw Audio 990, and I knew I had to do it blindly because I already owned several Adcom amps and preamps. The Adcom GTP-880 looked much better in my audio rack than the 990 does, since it matches everything else, but the 990 sounded better to my ear.

Whatever works for the individual is what they should use. It is not a matter of contention with me. I just don't see any scientific validity to the exclusive use of blind tests to eliminate bias in audio equipment evaluation. As Harvey and Schroeder, and others, indicated, the trained ear is the best defense against bias.

Syndil wrote: »

When a person wants something to be true, they will often make themselves believe that it is, despite the facts. If you spend $2,000 on cables, you damn well better find out that they sound better than some cheapo Monoprice cables, otherwise you'll feel like an utter clot for spending that kind of money on them. All the more reason it is important to make that judgment blindly.

This is a sweeping generalization that applies to people who shop on the basis of price and snob appeal. A more accurate statement would have been:

When some people want something to be true, they will often make themselves believe that it is, despite the facts.

This is particularly true of the ABX/DBT/Blind Testing For Stereo adherents who fanatically and religiously insist that blind testing is the only way to elimate evaluator bias even though there is overwhelming contradictory evidence. The statement from Harvey and Schroeder is a prime example of such evidence. It is not clear to me how someone could read Harvey and Schroeder's clearly stated intention to establish permanent standards of stereo equipment evaluation for the "SERIOUS LISTENER" and then dismiss it as "oh, well, they were just using subjective methods in the research lab".

sucks2beme

My biggest gripe- they dismiss all listening as suspect.
I guess they guys have never test driven a car?
Same principals apply. It's all the taste of the guy
with the money to spend. All cars get you there. Some
just do it with more style!

heiney9

syndil wrote:

One might possibly argue that I have not trained myself to listen to the audio gear instead of the music coming out of it, but to that I would say, why would I want to do that? It's all about the music. This is also why I refuse to invest ridiculous amounts of money in audio gear. Some say it's chasing that last 1%, but that is a percentage of a larger subset that is, even at its theoretical best possible level, nowhere near as good as the real thing. Recordings by their very nature are inherently inferior, and as they say, you can't polish a ****. Actually the Mythbusters proved that you can, but it's still a ****. If I were to ever spend more money in a year on audio gear than I did on attending live performances, I would be absolutely ashamed to admit it.

Have you tried it? Have you heard a really high end rig? Your tone and use of the word "ridiculous" makes it seem like you have never heard a really high end system and are just summarily dimissing it and the people who choose to persue it. Chasing that 1% for any true music lover/audiophile shouldn't be about getting it to be "real thing", the recording and playback medium renders that moot since it's not capable, but it's about greater enjoyment visceraly, visually and audibly.

If you don't desire that type of envirnoment via better gear, you shouldn't deride and belittle those that do desire it and have the means to aquire and persue it. If you have owned several higher end systems and still don't feel the extra $$$, time, effort involved is worth the cost and prefer to be farther down the ladder, there's nothing wrong with that. Perhaps a better explanation is in order because it sounds like you are being very dismissive of those that do value and persue that last "nugget" of audible bliss.

H9

DarqueKnight

newrival wrote: »

DK, my biggest issue with your argument for trained listeners is the lack of a reliable baseline. I have not seen any reliable method of calibration of the human listener. At best one can only approximate it, and is far too variable to me.

Fair enough. I would ask you to consider how any human sense (sight, touch, taste) is calibrated. The answer is experience and training. Scientific studies (Petri-Larmi, et al 1978, and 1980) have shown that the most discriminating and sensitive listeners were not always the ones with the best hearing ability, but the ones with the most training, listening experience and knowledge of audio.

newrival wrote: »

That's kind of my point. By relying on the human as the measuring device, you're immensely increasing the exposure to interference, thus reducing the reliability of the "measurement." Of course by measurement, I mean the report from the trained listener.

Well, for an experience enjoyed by humans, no machine can say how much the experience will be enjoyed by humans. Hence, some of the worst measuring gear goes on to become highly desired audio classics...because of how if sounds to a large number of people rather than how it measured in the lab.

I have read many reports from trained listeners, tried the thing and hated it. I have tried many expensive, good looking audio products and returned them because they didn't live up to the hype. The sound didn't even live up to the published specs.

heiney9 wrote: »

Nothing of course, and it's encouraged to do this. BUT, the naysayers (I'll lump them all together) aren't at all interested in an opinion, they want scientific proof and demonstrated facts to their own liking before they will allow you to say you hear a difference. Even when you present that to them in a rational, logical manner they have other excuses why it's not true.

Yeah, the target keeps moving.

1. First, scientific proof is demanded.
2. If such proof is provided, it will be discredited as inapplicable or inappropriate, regardless of rigorous scientific substantiation, if it does not agree with the belief system of the naysayer.
3. Any thing that agrees with the naysayers belief system will be religiously clung to, no matter how scientifically inappropriate.

Case in point:

1. Proof was demanded that subjective tests with trained listeners is scientifically valid.
2. Peer-reviewed scientific journal articles were referenced which showed that the INVENTORS of home stereo used subjective test methods based on trained listeners, even though the inventors were experts in applying blind tests to telephony audio.
3. The "proof" in #2 is discounted because the pioneers only used subjective tests with trained listeners for laboratory evaluation. Their methodology is invalid for consumers evaluating different audio gear from the marketplace. No "proof" or substantiation is offered for this position.
4. A previously ignored journal reference from two pioneering stero researchers is again offered which showed that Bell Laboratories was interested in establishing permanent standards for an evaluation methodology for audio equipment that would be used by "serious listeners". Blind testing was not a part of it.

Now what?

gdb

More of the SOS.

heiney9

gdb are you like 10 years old? It's getting old.

H9

newrival

^Keiko is rubbing of on him, I think

newrival

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Fair enough. I would ask you to consider how any human sense (sight, touch, taste) is calibrated. The answer is experience and training. Scientific studies (Petri-Larmi, et al 1978, and 1980) have shown that the most discriminating and sensitive listeners were not always the ones with the best hearing ability, but the ones with the most training, listening experience and knowledge of audio.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a fair amount of ABX-type listening be necessary for the training of the professional listeners? I realize you haven't discounted ABX wholesale, but it seems to me that ABX testing would be necessary even if only for confirmation of theory.

There is much I like in the papers you hav published on this, however there are just the few logical dots that I can't whole-heartedly connect. I feel these and other methods should be used as part of a testing aggregate, rather than one method to rule them all.

heiney9

Perhaps you could expound on the areas you can't connect and explain how "other" methods (which you don't mention) would benefit in those area's? Lots of responses here are like yours in that there is no substance, just generalities. What specifically about the ABX methodology would help reinforce the area's you are questioning from the research that DK has posted?

H9

DarqueKnight

newrival wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a fair amount of ABX-type listening be necessary for the training of the professional listeners?

Absolutely not.

newrival wrote: »

I realize you haven't discounted ABX wholesale, but it seems to me that ABX testing would be necessary even if only for confirmation of theory.

Here are some dots for you to connect.

1. Forced-choice discrimination test methods, such as ABX, A/B, etc., are not suitable for multi-dimensional stimuli. They are more suited for simple discrimination tests where the subject's senses are not affected by a number of simultaneous stimuli. A "dimension" in this case being a characteristic or unit of measurement.

2. A stereophonic sound field is multi-dimensional in nature in that it presents a complex set of simultaneous stimuli to the listener: sound stage height, width and depth; the location and character (clarity, weight, detail, dynamics, etc.) of images in the sound stage, and tactile sensation.

3. The Bell Laboratories scientists who invented home stereo systems were experts in the application of forced-choice discrimination test methods to telephony audio. Such methods, like ABX and A/B, were well suited for discerning simple quality differences in limited bandwidth telephone voice circuits.

4. When these same Bell Laboratories telephony scientists turned their attention to developing home audio equipment, the evaluation methods for such equipment was based on trained listeners who knew how to properly evaluate all the dimensions in stereophonic sound reproduction. Furthermore, peer-reviewed scientific journal literature clearly states that the stereophonic test methods used by Bell Laboratories scientists were intended to be adopted by the consumer.

What could be more clear and straightforward than 1-4?

If someone sends me a $100,000 amplifier for comparison to what I now have. I don't need to be "blinded" to evaluate what I have against the $100,000 amp. I won't be impressed by the $100,000 price tag. I have sense enough to realize that high price does not always correlate to high performance. I'll play the same music through them multiple times, carefully catalog what I hear, and let the evaluative chips fall where they may.

If someone screams that my test results are invalid because I didn't do a blind test, I'll just remind them that the entire concept of home stereo is invalid because Fletcher and his crew didn't do blind tests when they were inventing the thing...even though they knew how.

Face

Syndil wrote: »

When a person wants something to be true, they will often make themselves believe that it is, despite the facts. If you spend $2,000 on cables, you damn well better find out that they sound better than some cheapo Monoprice cables, otherwise you'll feel like an utter clot for spending that kind of money on them. All the more reason it is important to make that judgment blindly.

Unfortunately, it works both ways. If you believe Monoprice cables sound as good as $2,000 cables, they will.

Face

gdb wrote: »

More of the SOS.

Good job keeping things classy.

DarqueKnight

Face wrote: »

Unfortunately, it works both ways. If you believe Monoprice cables sound as good as $2,000 cables, they will.

...and you will rig some fallacious test that will "prove" the Monoprice cables sound exactly the same as the $2,000 cables.

This is a general question to no one in particular: Dr. Fletcher and his colleagues continually discussed stereophonic performance parameters such as sound stage dimensions, image localization, dynamics and tactile sensation in their writings. Thinking back on all the articles you have read on ABX tests applied to stereo, how many of them mentioned even one of the basic stereophonic performance parameters?

WilliamM2

DarqueKnight wrote: »

This is a general question to no one in particular: Dr. Fletcher and his colleagues continually discussed stereophonic performance parameters such as sound stage dimensions, image localization, dynamics and tactile sensation in their writings. Thinking back on all the articles you have read on ABX tests applied to stereo, how many of them mentioned even one of the basic stereophonic performance parameters?

What if none of them mentioned those parameters? Can't you still listen for sound stage, localization, dynamics, etc, without knowing the brand of equipment you are listening to?

I've never thought of ABX testing as a way of evaluating differences in equipment (preference), only a tool to see if a difference really exists. Nothing more.

DarqueKnight

WilliamM2 wrote: »

What if none of them mentioned those parameters?

Please clarify. I am not sure if the "them" you refer to is Fletcher and crew or the ABX articles that did not mention stereo performance parameters.

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Can't you still listen for sound stage, localization, dynamics, etc, without knowing the brand of equipment you are listening to?

Absolutely...and that provides what? Freedom from bias? The scientific literature, and common sense, indicates that blinding can lead to another insidious type of bias: guessing. This is particularly true of untrained subjects.

If a subject is properly trained in evaluating stereophonic performance, the type of bias you are so fearful of is not an issue. The writings of Fletcher, Harvey and Schroeder clearly indicate that stereophonic systems were not designed for "casual" listeners. They were designed for "serious" listeners, who, according to Harvey and Schroeder, are "sophisticated in the art of sound localization either by working in this field or by education".

There is a learning curve with every hobby. It amazes me that people who are novices in stereophonic audio think that doing a blind test will automatically give them the same discriminating ability of someone who has been seriously pursuing the hobby for a decade or more with progressively higher resolution equipment. The uncertainty and doubt and fear of being scammed goes out the window with training and experience.

As for your often repeated rant as to why don't more audiophiles prove what they hear by doing blind tests, I must ask you, who are you that someone needs to prove something to you? That is a very arrogant assumption. Why would an advanced practitioner in a hobby need to prove anything to a novice or anyone else? There is nothing wrong with asking for explanation or clarification, but to continually rave that someone did not hear what they said they heard i unless they prove it with a blind test is the height of ignorance. If you don't want to accept someones experiences don't accept them.

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I've never thought of ABX testing as a way of evaluating differences in equipment (preference), only a tool to see if a difference really exists. Nothing more.

What if the difference is something that has nothing to do with stereophonic performance? I mean, what sense does it make to listen just to discern a difference? Stereo is not about listening for differences, stereo is about listening to music. If we are going to test, shouldn't the test be an evaluation of some parameter directly related to stereophonic performance?

WilliamM2

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Please clarify. I am not sure if the "them" you refer to is Fletcher and crew or the ABX articles that did not mention stereo performance parameters.

You asked about ABX articles, that's what I was referring to.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Thinking back on all the articles you have read on ABX tests applied to stereo, how many of them mentioned even one of the basic stereophonic performance parameters?

Absolutely...and that provides what? Freedom from bias? The scientific literature, and common sense, indicates that blinding can lead to another insidious type of bias: guessing. This is particularly true of untrained subjects.

So use trained subjects.

As for your often repeated rant as to why don't more audiophiles prove what they hear by doing blind tests, I must ask you, who are you that someone needs to prove something to you? That is a very arrogant assumption. Why would an advanced practitioner in a hobby need to prove anything to a novice or anyone else?

I'd say it's far more arrogant to keep claiming things as facts, when you've never been able to prove they are audible at all. And then to proclaim yourself an "advanced practitioner"? Give me a break. I've never asked that "more" audiophiles prove anything. I'd just like to see one. Instead, all I see is a bunch of novices easily convinced by any marketing that comes along.

What if the difference is something that has nothing to do with stereophonic performance? I mean, what sense does it make to listen just to discern a difference? Stereo is not about listening for differences, stereo is about listening to music. If we are going to test, shouldn't the test be an evaluation of some parameter directly related to stereophonic performance?

So all these tweaks that continually get discussed have nothing to do with stereophonic performance? I guess we finally agree on something.

DarqueKnight

WilliamM2 wrote: »

You asked about ABX articles, that's what I was referring to.

See items 1-4 in post #78.

WilliamM2 wrote: »

So use trained subjects.

See items 1-4 in post #78.

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I'd just like to see one.

You should set higher goals in life.

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Instead, all I see is a bunch of novices easily convinced by any marketing that comes along.

Let them have their fun and waste their time and money as they see fit. I'm sure the novices aren't concerned about how you spend your time and money.

WilliamM2 wrote: »

So all these tweaks that continually get discussed have nothing to do with stereophonic performance? I guess we finally agree on something.

Not sure what you mean here. Do you have a specific example of what you are talking about? In every tweak review I have posted I specifically mentioned how it enhanced stereophonic performance.

gdb

heiney9 wrote: »

gdb are you like 10 years old? It's getting old.

H9

Funny, I was about to make the very same query of you and your drearily repetitive posts. I mean....MY GOD..... have you counted them or searched for what might differentiate one from the other ? Just so much gaseous........ Your self righteous pomposity combined with the juvenile flavor you add is equally old. Levity lessens monotony, for me anyway! Lighten up mein herr heiney !!!

PS. see my/your signature quote. It's a beaut, ain't it ?

[Deleted User]

All this talk about devices that measure stuff that always get involved in discussions such as this. The blind test. I would take it, if I were blind but I am not. I really on all my senses. But, that is a discussion I rather not get into.

These measurable things that people speak of. I am curious. Lets take the approach; devices that could measure sound, watts, volts, whatever pleases you. Great.. Now, may I present politely.

If I had only two speakers, front left and front right. I play some music or sound (knowing our terms of definition may differ), that has great soundstage and separation. I have two speakers. The acoustic guitar is clearly heard on the left. I hear a door open, the lead singer is walking in, from my right. I hear the footsteps moving to center stage. Acoustic guitar picks up again on the left, a bass guitar comes in on the right, and suddenly.. The singer is in the middle, right smack dab in front of me.

Now, while devices are picking up all those things... and telling me all the hard data. Things I do not give a **** about. It's like me standing outside in the rain and the weather guy is telling it is raining.

I want to know. Why is it, that device could not tell me what instruments I am hearing and from where? I also want to know why this device could not tell me, Blind Tested or Not, why the vocals are center? I hear sound from locations that have no speakers. If the device could not do that, what makes you think it is capable or telling me anything beyond what it measures? Remember, devices are incredibly fast and incredibly stupid. In that sense, Humans are incredibly slow, but intelligent. Some things could not be measured, the limitations are obvious.

Halen

WilliamM2

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You should set higher goals in life.

One seems to be too high of a goal already.

Not sure what you mean here. Do you have a specific example of what you are talking about? In every tweak review I have posted I specifically mentioned how it enhanced stereophonic performance.

Many people make outrageous claims, nothing new there.

FTGV

Face wrote: »

Unfortunately, it works both ways. If you believe Monoprice cables sound as good as $2,000 cables, they will.

Is this applicable for tweeters as well?If by believing my SB's sound as good as RAAL's will they?:idea::cheesygrin:

BeefJerky

I've pretty much stayed out of this debate so far, and probably will continue to do so unless I really have something to say. There are interesting arguments from both sides already, so I don't feel the need to get involved right now. I am also trying to be less "hard headed" as another person put it in a prior thread.

That said, I do take issue with this comment:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Yeah, the target keeps moving.

1. First, scientific proof is demanded.
2. If such proof is provided, it will be discredited as inapplicable or inappropriate, regardless of rigorous scientific substantiation, if it does not agree with the belief system of the naysayer.
3. Any thing that agrees with the naysayers belief system will be religiously clung to, no matter how scientifically inappropriate.

This lumping of all "naysayers" together is just as bad as those who try to lump all audiophiles together. Case in point: me.

I made claims regarding power cables in another thread and asked for scientific proof of an audible difference. I was given said proof by DK and I accepted it. And, thank you again for that helpful information DK!

So no, not all naysayers will deny scientific proof when it is given to them. I do realize that the statement probably wasn't aimed at me directly, but I still found it bothersome.

headrott

Syndil wrote: »

Furthermore, critical listening of a music hall has very little in common with critical listening of audio gear. When you are going to a music hall, you are not judging how close the quality of the sound comes to a live performance--it IS a live performance, so that would be silly. The entire analogy is baseless.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Again, Dr. Fletcher mention of music hall acoustics was in relation to what they were trying to recreate in the home. As a professional musician, you must know that there are acoustic differences in performances venues. A music hall is a transmission medium for a live performance similar to the way a stereo system is a transmission medium for a recorded performance.

I would also like to point out (and you eluded to it Ray) that just as there is a difference in acoustical sounds in a concert hall: and therefore sounds better or worse from a tonal, clarity, attack and decay (realtes to clarity), soundstage presentation, and many other characteristics. So too can a stereophonic system sound different (better or worse) in these presentations. After all, that's what Dr. Fletcher was trying to reproduce. Plus, now with added variables such as many more capacitor, resistor, rectifier, wires, etc. etc. etc choices we have even more variation.

Greg

DarqueKnight

BeefJerky wrote: »

So no, not all naysayers will deny scientific proof when it is given to them. I do realize that the statement probably wasn't aimed at me directly, but I still found it bothersome.

A naysayer is going to irrationally deny a different viewpoint no matter what. Here is a perfect example of how they do: Reading Is Fundamental

If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

DarqueKnight

WilliamM2 wrote: »

One seems to be too high of a goal already.

Many people make outrageous claims, nothing new there.

See items 1-4 in post #78.