Quote:
Yes.
But spacial perception is very much a psychoacoustical phenomenon. Trying to analyze it using measuring equipment is close to impossible.
This is a fact which we have to accept.
Can you other than spacial perception -- which is immensely complicated -- give another example?
It's hard but not impossible. It's about how inter-aural time and level differences vary with the position of the source.
Quote:
Sometimes Chinese medicine is in your head, sometimes it's not. You need to experiment to find out. Link to experiments on ES9023 versus ES9018, or NE5532 versus AD797 / OPA627, afaik they don't exist. So the medicine is... not tested. =p
I have personally conducted thousands of studies on such matters, including all the chips you mention, which prove you wrong. Unfortunately I'm not allowed to show them to you for contractual reasons. They still exist until you prove they don't.
Maybe the reason that opamps sound different to you is because your home is built over an underground colony of Audio Gnomes that tinker with your gear whenever you're not home. Have you set up hidden cameras to test for that? You can't rule it out until you do!
See how that kind of thing works? There's no reason to expect some previously unknown difference to appear when any two chips are tested against each other because we already have plenty of evidence supporting the idea that making the usual THD, IMD crossover distortion, ensuring a high enough slew rate, etc good enough is what actually matters and that people readily "hear" imaginary differences between even the same thing heard twice when provided with the proper stimulus. Do we have to drain Loch Ness before we say that people looking for a monster in it are wasting their time or is the fact that the lake doesn't contain enough food for a breading population of such large animal enough to draw a reasonable conclusion? Is my claim about a large body of confidential research too suspiciously ad hoc to be believed? Is the fact the the existence of gnomes has not been confirmed and is not likely based on what we know of biology enough to discount them as a potential factor?
You could be right kiteki. Any madman with a sandwich board on a street corner proclaiming the end of the world
could be right. The question isn't just why should anyone believe you but why anyone should even bother taking you seriously. Would you even bother to thoroughly investigate the ravings of a madman before discounting them as crap? Most people usually require some evidence before even spending a small portion or their mortality on investigating some random assertion and rightly so. Most new ideas turn out to be wrong.
That doesn't mean you should never accept new ideas, only that they should be supported by evidence first and that the amount of evidence required should be proportional to the idea's implications. That doesn't mean you shouldn't test new ideas either but there are still standards. Testing every stupid idea that someone comes up with regardless of it's plausibility is not only boring but a massive waste of resources. If you think there's a decent chance of finding something new or if you're just interested in doing it then go ahead and test it yourself. If you can't then convince someone else that it's worth testing. Calling someone out for testing an implausible claim themselves is like calling someone out for ignoring the madman proclaiming the end of the world and not thoroughly investigating his doomsday scenario. In both cases prior experience predicts a general trend. The probability of any individual claim being true along with the general exclusivity of the individual claims mean that due to the miniscule chance of any one being true you're better off treating it as false until someone else demonstrates otherwise.
That may sound complicated but that's really how most people deal with such things even if only unconsciously. That's why I used the "madman on the street example". They're mostly ignored and people are correct in doing so. Of course discoveries can be made by madness that pursues avenues everyone else rightly assumes are improbable based on current data as well as genius which sees what no one else saw before but that's hardly an argument for madness as productive tool of discovery given it's hit rate. The bottom line is that if you want to prove that everything we think we know about audio reproduction is wrong then you're going to need some rather interesting evidence just to get most people to take your claim seriously.
Quote:
Oh look I just found the differences between AD797 and OPA627
Why is it not in the THD+N or FR oh noes my snow kingdom of science in the sky is melting help meeee
Do you even know what those graphs mean kiteki?
,
