Quote:



Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

Quote:



This is reasonable until you factor in placebo. When you combine the fact that measurements (and the known laws of physics) do not verify cable differences AND the inability to pass tests to verify that you can really hear a difference it becomes compelling evidence that measurements overruling ears is indeed "more reasonable".

Quote:



Yes, that is the case when I am not capable of really comparing two things. And to compare two things they have to be both in the same testing condition (Level output being the same, you have to avoid the bias of price difference, aesthetics, etc...). I think it should be done by others as well.

Quote:



And what makes your ears so special as measuring instruments when you have a very limited frequency range (whereas some microphones and equipment can capture very low and high frequencies in a very precise way), when you depend on many factors that affect your hearing, and when every day that passes your hearing capabilities are being reduced? (Due to aging).

Quote:



True, measurements may not capture everything, but can you capture THD+N%, SPL, ...? Can you with your ears tell exactly what corresponds to what, simply by hearing it? No you can't. So your ears are also far from perfect. To add one more difference, our hearing depends on how we feel at the time of listening. Machines, different equipment doesn't depend on that. They act in the same way, regardless of the weather.

If you are as "open minded" as you say -believers, in general-, you would give a thought to what I have written here. Meanwhile I will be looking at the end of my nose

Quote:



This thread seems to be bouncing about. PhilS has been talking recently about DACs; you're now talking about cables.

Quote:



Your flaw here is your assumption that your aural perception is entirely the result of what your ears are sending to your brain.

This is provably not the case as we know that perceptions of differences may result even in the complete absence of any difference sent by the ear to the brain.

This is why more objective means are used to establish whether or not something is actually audible and to control for this phenomenon.

It's all well and good to "trust your ears" when it comes to determining your own subjective preferences. But when you attempt to pass off your subjective experience as more than just that, it's a whole other ball game, and you have the onus to substantiate your claims with something more than stamping your feet and insisting that certain things are actually audible.

k

Quote:



I don't think I have the onus to prove anything to anyone. I'm sharing my opinion (I think the one you're referencing) that a certain two DAC's quite clearly sound different, despite the fact that they specs re S/N ratio and THD are in a certain range, as well as implying that most experienced listeners with decent associated equipment would also hear a difference.

You're free to disagree (although if you heard these DAC's, I think you'd agree, although perhaps you'd say your ears are being fooled). But there's no burden of proof on me, any more than there is a burden of proof on someone to establish that measurements are perfect and tell the whole story about what we hear or DBT's are perfect.

I'm just saying all these things should be considered, and a lot of "you guys" just consider half of the evidence -- and also consider anyone who doesn't agree to be unreasonable in their viewpoint.

Anyone care to reply to Donald's post #33? Objectivists keep on bashing while conveniently looked over his post.

Quote:



Because the goal is to get the music to sound good to your ears. I don't "listen" to music by reading charts of data.

Quote:



Not sure precisely what you're asking but, again, I'm not trying to "measure" anything with my ears. I'm enjoying the music, and my goal is to make it sound as good as possible to my ears.

Quote:



True, our ears are far from perfect. So are the people who conduct DBT's, and the tests themselves, and so is our knowledge of the intracacies of the human brain, etc.

Just curious...

You guys from the objectivist camp: Do you think the developers of expensive digital gear, such as Bel Canto, Wadia, Weiss, Mark Levinson, Chord, Spectral, Benchmark, Lavry, Meitner, dCS, Nagra, Linn..., are aware that their DACs sound no better than cheap products? Or are they deluded themselves? Are we on the track of a gigantic audio conspiracy?
.

Quote:



They sure don't all measure the same

Quote:



You and I know that (but the differences may still be valued as below the hearing threshold by conservative or narrow-minded standards).
.

I am uncertain what the point is. Who is claiming that DACs or CD Players all sound the same? Different DACs and CD sources have measurable differences that are therefore audible do they not?

Post #33 shows such a difference.


You seem to be saying something like: "Since the differences in DACs/CD Players are obvious but not measurable then the fact that differences in cables not being measurable is invalid and has no bearing on whether or not the differences should be audible".

Is that right?

If not please sum it up for me. What's the connection?

1) Now comes the part where objectivists say that a blind test is needed to support that the difference in measurement is audible.

2) Then the other camp will say that blind tests are flawed as they don't reproduce our usual listening condition while we use different part of the brain for enjoyment of music and under testing conditions.

3) Then objectivists will now say that blind testing's all we've got and we should stick to it since it's currently the closest possible scientific method to perfection.

4) The other camp will now say that there are unknown variables still due to our imperfection in knowledge of our brain and auditory system.

5) Go back to 1 and continue to loop.

We never get anywhere.

Quote:



Using option 4 of my last post. Perhaps we're not measuring the right thing? Properties of cables (ex. silver and copper) are different. Now I don't know if cables do make a difference or not but I'll keep an open mind.

Now continue to loop and go through option 1 through 5.

Quote:



I agree with you, in the sense that the whole reason audio exists is to please the ears (or more precisely, please the brain)---so "ears" are the final say.

Now, can "ears" get things wrong? Are they subject to illusion? Sure. But...

Quote:



... you are right that measurements do not capture everything and scientific knowledge is not complete.

Now, regarding the idea of "trusting your ears", there is a related idea, which is trusting your internal observations of your listening process. For example, I have some understanding of what features of music delight me most. I developed this understanding by observing myself. I also understand that my ability to perceive these features vanish under quick-switch conditions. I trust this observation. That's not the same thing as "trusting my ears." In fact, I don't trust any random subjective experience of sound to be perfectly revealing and truthful. Rather, it's trusting what I learn about my process from introspection, and believing I need these facts in order to design a valid blind test.