i know what they look like .... -10-20db at 20khz with your usual harman curve, tho its the harman curve because you perceive 20khz still like on speaker, even tho they are down 20db or so... because the driver sits directly at your ear, why i have to explain this to you?
Explain this to him?
its another thing to have
C. Continuing to listen with our eyes and misinterpret visuals from impulse responses to figure out how thing sound. Usually the most intuitive false conclusion becomes that no filter or very weak filtering increases accuracy because the response looks more like a Dirac pulse.
It all depends on how you program them.
Firstly, it’s not the same thing that happens with pre/post ringing. A minimum phase filter does not have any pre-ringing but it has more post ringing. Secondly, a minimum phase filter does affect phase and typically at some freq above 10kHz but of course you cannot state “that’s why it’s audible” because human hearing is not very sensitive to phase even in the most sensitive regions of hearing, while in the high-mid and high freqs it is insensitive. So, you would have a rational case for stating the opposite of your assertion, that “it’s inaudible” but not for “it’s audible”, unless you have some very robust, reliable evidence!
Of course you don’t know what a 0.5dB point at 20-22kHz sounds like, that’s an absurd claim. A tiny difference of 0.5dB is difficult enough to discern where our hearing is at it’s most sensitive (~3kHz) but discerning it in the ultrasonic range, where by definition we can’t hear anything, even big differences, is just a ludicrous claim that even a school child should be knowledgeable enough to realise!
You have to explain it to us for the same reason you would have to explain why the earth is flat or why 1 + 1 = 5, IE. It’s such utter BS that anyone in their right mind is going to need some explanation for why anyone would believe such ridiculous nonsense!
While apodizing filters were already widely used, no one called them apodizing, they were just filters or minimum/linear phase filters. It was our old friend Bob Stuart at Meridian who started calling them apodizing and as you say, it was pure marketing. Introducing the term “apodizing” made it sound like some new invention that was different to other filters.
How is it delusional to think that audiophiles suffer from placebo just like all other humans? What’s truly delusional is believing that audiophiles are not humans, that they’re somehow super-human. While “us guys can’t discern it with our own ears” because it’s inaudible to human adults and unlike you, we’re all human adults.
Firstly, we did “had this talk before” and unfortunately you learned nothing and stuck to the “I’m a super-human audiophile” nonsense! Secondly, we don’t have to “theorise about placebo” it’s been well studied for over a decade and is why double blind testing was invented in the first place! And lastly, how on earth do you get to the nonsense assertion that “objective works pretty much the same way as good old subjective placebo”? Why do you think DBT was invented, you think that maybe some scientists got bored one day, decided to make testing more difficult just for the fun of it and all other scientists just jumped on the bandwagon because scientists never test things and have no interest in methodology or accurate data? Don’t you even know what science is or what scientists do? Would you be happy taking medicines that had not been through various rigorous phases of DBT? If so, I’ve got a range of snake oil, homeopathy and other useless BS just looking for a dumb sucker who doesn’t know or believe that snake oil was debunked over a century ago and to anyone with even basic education is nothing more than a joke!
Yes, “us guys keep wanna make the claim” which assumes you’re human and therefore that you cannot hear 0.5dB at 20kHz (or 0.1dB at 15kHz) and we’re going to keep repeating it because science established that fact well over a century ago and no one, including super-human audiophiles have ever provided any reliable evidence to the contrary. And Yes, “everyone with two working ears” and half a brain could verify this for themselves but you refuse to, you just keep making up BS assertions instead of verifying it. This indicates you do not meet the required conditions, IE. Either you don’t have two working ears or you don’t have half a brain, or both!like i know what mp3 vs flac, recontruction filters, 0,5db at 20khz (eq 0,1db at 15khz or so) sound like, yet you guys keep wanna make the claim you know better than me, i mean keep thinking that but everyone with two working ears can verify this for themself
like you said yourself, no one is save by (occousional) placebo and its a thing, even for objectivist who read objective studys on how is something audible, like you suggest "audiophools" always suffer from reading marketing, its just the other way around for objectivists in my book, and some people not aknowledging this fact is plain up stupid even if DBT trys to compensate "some" biases, its not flawless tho you guys can keep believing that
you are entitled to your own opinion
Would you believe me if I say I can fly? Of course not! What you claim to be able to do is something humans are not able to do. However human are influenced by placebo which does explain easily your claims. That's why we don't believe you. You need to prove us you are a genetic freak or superhuman for us to believe you.its far more dilusional to think every audiophile is a slave of his placebo because you guys cant discern it with your own ears
we had this talk before, if you wanna theorise about placebo and what not start with how being only objective works pretty much the same way as a good old subjective placebo
like i know what mp3 vs flac, recontruction filters, 0,5db at 20khz (eq 0,1db at 15khz or so) sound like, yet you guys keep wanna make the claim you know better than me, i mean keep thinking that but everyone with two working ears can verify this for themself
That’s right, that’s why we have double blind testing and studies and “yes” even us objectivists need to do DBTs on occasion because we are human and subject to placebo and cognitive biases just like everyone else.
Firstly, you don’t have a book and even if you did, it would be useless because it wouldn’t contain any verified facts. The actual fact, that you’ve demonstrated you are going to avoid at any cost, is that it’s not “just the other way around”. How long have you been posting here? And after all that time you still don’t know what verifiable, published, peer reviewed scientific studies are, what they’re for or the difference between them and marketing? That’s astonishing, as even school children who’ve never even frequented a science discussion forum should know what scientific studies are! Thanks for proving my point! Not to mention, even if scientific studies were no more factually accurate than marketing, still it wouldn’t be “just the other way around” because unlike audiophiles, us objectivists have done and/or actually do objective testing ourselves!
Again, you have that backwards; as explained above, what you’ve claimed is NOT a fact, it’s just some BS you’ve invented which contradicts the actual facts that even school children or an adult with half a brain should know. If we were to acknowledge your BS as fact, we would indeed have to be “plain up stupid”!
Oh good, two fallacious arguments in just one sentence, impressive, you’ve outdone yourself! First of all, we have your old favourite strawman argument fallacy (because us guys do not believe DBTs are flawless) and secondly, you’ve also gone for the Nirvana/“Perfect Solution” Fallacy. Even though DBTs can be flawed, well designed ones do indeed eliminate most of the more pernicious biases (such as placebo). The alternative of course is sighted testing which does not eliminate any of the pernicious biases, in fact it actually encourages them. Modern cars, aircraft and ships are also “not flawless”, so do you reject all of them as well, and just get by with a donkey? In fact pretty much all technology is flawed to some degree, so do you live in a mud hut in the pre-stone age?
And this is the most simple part that even a child should understand but that you don’t, even after it has been explained to you numerous times! How is that anything other than “just plain stupid”? To explain it to you yet again: “Yes” he is entitled to his opinion as are you. For example, bigshot is entitled to the opinion that the earth is spherical and that 1+1=2, while you’re entitled to the opinion that the earth is flat and that 1+1=5 but your equal entitlement to an opinion is obviously NOT relevant to whether your assertions are actually true or have equal standing/value! The huge difference is that the established science/facts support bigshot’s opinion but contradicts yours, not only in these two examples but also in the opinion you’re asserting of hearing things that are inaudible to humans!you are entitled to your own opinion
