Eric Carroll;180431 Wrote: > > If illusions and confirmation bias exists in the taste and visual > worlds, why is it so hard to believe the auditory equivalent? Why *not* > measure?
Eric, Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think everyone agrees that the placebo effect is real and must be avoided. The real question is what is the right tool. DBT or ABX testing is extremely difficult and despite the many people clammering for it's use, you'll find that very few if any of the people here actually use these techniques for audio investigation. They're simply too difficult for audio hobbyists. So what's left? Traditional measurements such as total harmonic distortion (THD) are notorious for having poor correlation to sound. Face it, there are not many places in the world with the tools or interest to do quantitative tests on stereo systems. So we're left with our ears. The fact that there are charlatans out there trying to separate audiophiles from their hard earned dollars doesn't mean that *all* tweaks are bunk. The key is sharing experience and separating the wheat from the chaf. We have quite a few experienced audiophiles on this board who try to share their experience so that we can collectively learn from one another. Are these folks perfect? Obviously not. But they are trying to share what they've learned. I have learned a lot from the likes of Occam and Philnyc and my stereo system is much better for it. Eric Carroll;180431 Wrote: > Side B thus wants (in order of credibility): > - direct measurement with known correlation to audibility > - DBT > - blind personal ABX > - other testing with accepted engineering & scientific basis > My point is that a request for such testing is beyond the scope of 99.99% of the participants. Since that is true, calls for these types of testing really are a way of saying everything Side A is saying is bunk since they can't provide the proof requested. It's really proof by assertion that these differences can't exist since they can't be proven to the satisfaction of Side B. Eric Carroll;180432 Wrote: > I sure didn't read Hirsch's comments as criticism of DBT. I read it as > an informed practitioner's discussion of nuances of methodology and > issues to consider. > Regarding Hirsch's comments on DBT- I understand that he wasn't saying DBT is invalid. He was merely pointing out the misuse it seems to have gotten in the hands of Audiophile Objectivists. That's what I was agreeing with. ---Gary -- GaryB ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GaryB's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3169 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32352 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
