Gary, Thanks for your very well thought out response. I think I understand the A viewpoint better now. I understand how these claims for testing could be frustrating given your posting.
You put it quite well: GaryB;180436 Wrote: > 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. > Your point is that direct testing is misleading, and perception testing is impractical, so claims for testing are in effect simply a tactic to shout down side A claims and this is frustrating. I understand. There is a frustration on the B side, too, let me see if I can get to it. Would you not also agree that claims of performance and efficacy based on single users hearing it, given all the issues I listed and which you did not dispute, are also a form of proof by assertion by side A? Also, would you agree that claims that violate known rules of engineering and physics have a higher burden of proof than a simple claim of "I heard it"? For example (to make this tangible not to be critical), the claim that putting vibration isolators under an SB3 improves the sound. We can't test it; there is no direct measurement. We can't prove out the claim perceptually, you state its impractical to test. Side B views this also as proof by assertion. But for side B, the issue is this violates known rules of engineering and physics - there is no known process by which large scale vibration could influence electronic processing (analog or digital). The dampening co-efficient can be calculated and doesn't enter into quantum mechanical domain, etc etc. So the question is if this this a confirmation bias, or placebo effect? How to check this? But by Side A argument, this is impractical to check and we should accept the perception at face value. Thus, side B is asked to accept something that goes against all professional training. So this claim may be true. If it is true, its important. But there appears no way to confirm the truth of the claim. If you can't (or won't) test to confirm its not an effect of something OTHER than the vibration dampeners, then in effect anything goes with no ability to determine the truth. Its sort of a great relativistic morass. It isn't any engineering discipline I understand, and it absolutely is not based on scientific process. Personally, I don't accept your premise that you cannot do these perceptual tests at home. With a little help, I think you can and I think its fun. But that's just me (and yes I have done it). One thing that has impressed me over and over again is that for any claim of change to SB3 or Transporter, Sean goes out and tests it, both with direct measurement and blind or not blind self-AB testing. I know you respect Sean from reading your postings, so perhaps we could find common ground here - how could we follow his example? Are there no common ground principles here? If we can't find any, then its a stalemate and we might as well get seperate groups. I hope this posting is helpful and not provocative. I am trying hard to understand here. -- Eric Carroll Transporter-Bryston 3B SST-Paradigm Reference Studio 60 v.4 SB3-Rotel RB890-B&W Matrix 805 SB3-Pioneer VSX-49TXi-Mirage OM7+C2+R2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Carroll's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9293 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
