Golden Earring wrote: > Hi Wombat! > > We've actually hijacked this thread, but it had gone so spectacularly > off-topic before I intervened that I didn't think anyone would notice... > > Just at this moment, I'm enjoying Ozawa's 1967 recording of Messiaen's > Turangalila (here's a circumflex missing there that I can't be bothered > to look for) Symphony which is something of an acquired taste so my > neighbours are probably disliking me more than usual if any of them are > in. No actual complaints though, so I'm pressing on. > > Somewhat tragically from the sceptical objectivist viewpoint that I am > fending off, I still have to report that I'm enjoying it immensely & > hearing more clarity in its very dense & hectic soundstage than I > believe I've ever heard before. Could be retail therapy self-delusion of > course but since I'm in it for the musical experience I'm not really > that bothered. >
This would appear to be yet another rendition of the audiophile myth that people with the scientific viewpoint can't possibly enjoy art or beauty. In fact enjoying music is no tragedy for most of us. In fact, by means of science we do away with all kinds of audiophile myths that might distract us or waste our time with irrelevant activities such as meaningless pretend upgrades, and thus we can more rapidly progress past the mere mechanics of assembling a good system, and getting down to enjoying the music. > > As regards the dreaded rigorous audio double-blind trial, I'm still on > it. Have access to the equipment necessary to achieve 0.1dB (or > whatever) subliminal level matching but am realising that to do the > thing properly I'm going to have to make a switchbox since the only > thing I could find commercially available costs a ludicrous $1000 > (before shipping, insurance & UK import duty/VAT), appears to be full of > active components I don't understand the need for, & only supports > unbalanced interconnects which is just not the way I roll. > > I have sought expert assistance from a surprising source to try to > ensure I don't waste my time fabricating a dud. > Why not do something crazy like educate yourself from more conventional sources? There is an international standard from the ITU/EBU called Bs1116. Obtain it here: https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I/en There are also some informal discussions of it for example: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,16295.0.html Before doing the hardware abs you can get familiar with the basic test methodology by means of the FOOBAR2000 ABX Comparator sofrware - a free download: http://www.foobar2000.org/download http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx > > > I'm a bit concerned that the conventional wisdom seems to be to switch > sources within 20 seconds on the back of a theory that you can't > accurately remember any further back than that. > That is sorta true, but it vastly understates the problem. Our ability to reliably detect small audible differences starts going away within a second. However, that does not mean that you can only listen to 1 second snippets. Actually, one hallmark of ABX is flull listener control over the listening session. We designed the process and the ABX comparator so that you could lock yourself in a room and cozy up with your gear and music and listen as you will, and write down the conclusions you reach, and the results would be scientifically valid. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
