atkinsonrr;158261 Wrote: > > I would hope that modders could show some empirical, instrumented, > improvements.
Perhaps there are some modders out there doing that, but I (in my limited experience with the modding community) have not seen it. > On the other hand, I wouldnt claim a modder is full of BS simply because > all he could say is he performed listening tests and found his mods > sounded better. I would take that as information, even if not very > compelling information. It would be more compelling if he could > substantiate it was done independently, with a variety of equipment, a > variety of listeners, there was some control for bias, listening was > done over an extended period of time, etc. Of course, most compelling > would be if said modder could report results of empirical listening > tests. Having a social and not physical science background I believe > there is a way to make non-instrumented testing empirical as well. > Unfortunately, I dont think we have found it yet. It's especially not compelling when the modder in question uses such things as Bybee filters. There is an easy, empirical, non-intrumented way to do a test - simply do a blind listening test. It's free, fast, and (if done properly) just as reliable and convincing as using a scope. I've never (again, my experience is limited) heard of a modder doing such a test to prove his mod actually makes an improvement. The test should first demonstrate that there is a difference and then - *still blind* - ask which source the listeners prefer. -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
