cliveb;184605 Wrote: > > I must take issue with your "problem number 2". The whole point of ABX > testing with real music signals is that it avoids ascribing importance > to differences that are too subtle to be audible. It's the one > measurement technique that tells us *directly* whether two systems will > sound different in actual use. In that respect, this is not a problem, > but a benefit.
No doubt, but if you don't care about "subtle" differences, 99% of audiophilia might as well be tossed out the window. My point in even starting this thread is really that there may be an alternative to A/B/X testing for audiophiles who don't like A/B/X testing (you know who you are already). It seems to me that hearing differences that can't be heard with A/B/X (by some listeners, anyway) is important, and would go a long way to actually validate some of the claims that the "flat-earthers" as you guys call them are routinely chastized for. OTOH, if the difference test again doesn't produce audible results, it's even one more nail in the coffin for -audiophile nervosa-. Either way, it seems productive. Maybe it's just me, though. -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3->EZDAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier->Speltz anti-cables->DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10" subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33127 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
