Julf wrote: > And my "speculation" is that "-some differences might be extremely > small, and require a lot of training and concentration to pick out."- > > What part of that do you think is speculation, and what part of that do > you disagree with?The speculation comes in the continuation of your post > which you omitted _\"__I_guess_the_non-audiophile_in_me_tends_to_go_\"and_if_the_differences_are_that_small,_does_it_actually_matter?\",_as_in_\"does_a_difference_so_small_that_I_have_to_go_through_extreme_measures_to_hear_it_actually_affect_my_enjoyment_of_the_music?\"_.
You take the speculative leap that because it is only possible to use small audible elements as identifying audible tells in order to be able to pass an ABX test that therefore this is the only difference between the two samples. Your speculation is that there are no other small differences unnoticed by that particular tester that another tester may identify. What is your speculation about the number of occurrences of such differences throughout a piece of music & how may that effect the perception of the piece? Does it only occur once i.e in that single isolated snippet or throughout the music. The guy gave a very fair & balanced view of just what he heard when doing the ABX test & that it was not possible to identify it using certain types of electronic music - only with music that preserved ambience cues & realistic sound staging. He also stated that he had a generally audible preference for higher res source material from his work. This was his overall perception based on his experience & not because he had previously isolated specific small elements as he was forced to do in order to pass ABX testing > That is why I used double quotes - to show that it was you quoting him. > > As pointed out by a number of postings in that thread, there were a fair > number of uncontrolled parameters.Examples, please! > The words "provable" and "reality". One single, uncontrolled and > unverified test does not establish "provable reality".For him, it is a > provable reality & that is the point to anybody endeavouring to verify whether their sighted perception is not a "delusion". Of course, your feigned "scientific" rigour is just that - an insatiable demand for further tests when the results are not to your liking > i have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion/conjecture from the > thread you quoted.It's not just a conclusion from that test - it's well > documented in the BS.1116 standards. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=96407 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
