n/a
Last edited:
Take it for what it is - a subjective audio reviewer desperate to maintain his job and “status” in the face of overwhelming evidence that his reviews don’t stand up to even a casual evaluation.
the title of the article though, it could have been more explicit. I would have picked:
"I don't hate bananas when they're round and orange".
or maybe,
"I'm not racist, I have a friend who measures stuff".
Great article why I generally don’t participate in objectivist sound forums ...
I base my observations on what I like and which I prefer. This can be construed as blasphemous as I perceive these observations are fact...
Great article why I generally don’t participate in objectivist sound forums, I base my observations on what I like and which I prefer. This can be construed as blasphemous as I perceive these observations are fact...
I'm not going to dig too deep into this false narrative, but mere observations are not facts as far as science is concerned. Facts are empirical evidence. If only you can verify your claims, then it is not empirical, and therefore not a fact. In order for it to be considered empirical evidence in this subject area, one must conduct a double blind test, or provide measurements. Now, given the corpus of electrical engineering and acoustics/audio engineering peer-reviewed material, we don't always need to cite individual studies because scientific consensus has established rules that we can use to invalidate claims made that are in direct violation of these rules (some of which include the basic laws of physics and materials science). For example, a copper conductor assembled into a interconnect in an identical configuration as a silver conductor can not be audibly differentiated because the rules that govern the frequency response of such a system would have coefficients that render the conductivity of the material (the only relevant differentiator) at nearly a factor of zero across the entirety of the audible frequency range, and well beyond it.
That was more in-depth than I initially intended, but I think it is as clear as I've ever articulated the scientific rebuttal of the copper vs. silver myth.
Exactly you proved my point, I'm out.