[dvw]

Quote:

Interesting dvw. You make good points. I'm not so sure about discerning differences between headphones for that matter. Do you think burn in exists? Could those experiencing those differences be attributed to this "supposed phenomena?"
 

IME, there is burn in with some phones and with some phones it does not matter. For me any way, I think my ears get burned in to the phones. Once I stop listening to it, then I will need more burn-in. My theory is my brain start compensating for the shortcoming of the phones and made it better.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

The question is are people really hearing those differences.

 
Rather difficult to determine that when those who make the most boastful claims are usually the first ones to run away when you suggest doing a test to try and determine just that.
 
Quote:

Plus if it has been documented and confirmed via test results, how many are still gonna see the evidence as flawed?

 
If the evidence is sound (no pun intended) then it should be able to withstand scrutiny. So you're suggesting to not do it at all because some may be critical of the results?
 
And what if the evidence is flawed? Should it just be ignored?
 
se

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

 
Says who that measurements are usually only applicable to static conditions?
 
 
Ok. But I'm still not sure what the point is.
 
se

 
That's not quite what I said or meant.  I presumed you were talking about how measurement gear surpasses the typical auditory response for say test tones, like hearing beyond 20-20.  If that's the case, my point was that most of these type of static measurements do not indicate the lack of possible perception by the same auditory system under more dynamic conditions like listening to music.
 
The point is to improve the testing process.  Tons more would have to be done as well.  Conducting tests under improved conditions is how we can verify or question previous research.  I think this is better than some dude inviting a bunch of people over to listen to a mega buck speaker system and randomly swapping in an iPod when no one is paying attention and claiming to have proved something useful other than bad methodology.

 

[lee730]

Quote:

 
Rather difficult to determine that when those who make the most boastful claims are usually the first ones to run away when you suggest doing a test to try and determine just that.
 
 
If the evidence is sound (no pun intended) then it should be able to withstand scrutiny. So you're suggesting to not do it at all because some may be critical of the results?
 
And what if the evidence is flawed? Should it just be ignored?
 
se

 
My point is what if the evidence isn't flawed, and it still is disregarded because it doesn't fall into place with ones needs or beliefs?

 

[lee730]

Quote:

 
That's not quite what I said or meant.  I presumed you were talking about how measurement gear surpasses the typical auditory response for say test tones, like hearing beyond 20-20.  If that's the case, my point was that most of these type of static measurements do not indicate the lack of possible perception by the same auditory system under more dynamic conditions like listening to music.
 
The point is to improve the testing process.  Tons more would have to be done as well.  Conducting tests under improved conditions is how we can verify or question previous research.  I think this is better than some dude inviting a bunch of people over to listen to a mega buck speaker system and randomly swapping in an iPod when no one is paying attention and claiming to have proved something useful other than bad methodology.

Strangely enough anaxilus I was able to hear much lower in audible distortion through test tones than through music. I got down to -54 db and could still make out distortion at that point. I even posted my results in the diaries thread... I guess the differences could also be attributed to how sh#tty the recording  was to begin with. I think I got down to -36 dB on the actual song.

 

[Currawong]

^ It requires proper interpretation as well. Not the generalisations that one set of measurements or one DBT declares the truth for every product of some type or brand.

 

[dvw]

Quote:

 The question is are people really hearing those differences. 

 They may be hearing these difference by their brain. The brain is very powerful. one example, we see everything right side up. But through the optic of our eyes, the image is actually upside down in the optical sensor. The brain corrected/edited the image to be right side up.

 

[paradoxper]

Quote:

 
My point is what if the evidence isn't flawed, and it still is disregarded because it doesn't fall into place with ones needs or beliefs?

So it's just impossible.....

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

The brain is very powerful. one example, we see everything right side up. But through the optic of our eyes, the image is actually upside down in the optical sensor. The brain corrected/edited the image to be right side up.

 
Wait, so you're saying North America is actually in the Southern Hemisphere?  This thread is amazing!!  

 

[lee730]

Quote:

 They may be hearing these difference by their brain. The brain is very powerful. one example, we see everything right side up. But through the optic of our eyes, the image is actually upside down in the optical sensor. The brain corrected/edited the image to be right side up.

Presto. Plus the brain is responsible for perceiving sound to being with. Not sure if you checked out that link I had posted earlier on in the thread. It was an interesting short read and who knows? Maybe it could be attributed to such phenomena.

 

[lee730]

Quote:

So it's just impossible.....

Well coming to an agreement rather. Subjective + Objective = 

 

[JadeEast]

^ I never noticed it before, but in that emoticon the horse is definitely smiling.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

 
That's not quite what I said or meant.  I presumed you were talking about how measurement gear surpasses the typical auditory response for say test tones, like hearing beyond 20-20.  If that's the case, my point was that most of these type of static measurements do not indicate the lack of possible perception by the same auditory system under more dynamic conditions like listening to music.
 
The point is to improve the testing process.  Tons more would have to be done as well.  Conducting tests under improved conditions is how we can verify or question previous research.  I think this is better than some dude inviting a bunch of people over to listen to a mega buck speaker system and randomly swapping in an iPod when no one is paying attention and claiming to have proved something useful other than bad methodology.

 
Oh no, it goes well beyond simple stuff like beyond 20-20. And as for static measurements, we humans do better at detecting things when using pure tones rather than music. Because of masking alone, there's quite a lot that can hide within music that we can't perceive.
 
Quote:

The point is to improve the testing process.  Tons more would have to be done as well.  Conducting tests under improved conditions is how we can verify or question previous research.  I think this is better than some dude inviting a bunch of people over to listen to a mega buck speaker system and randomly swapping in an iPod when no one is paying attention and claiming to have proved something useful other than bad methodology.

 
What testing process are you referring to? You mean testing using instrumentation? If so, what exactly needs to be improved?
 
se

 

[lee730]

Quote:

^ I never noticed it before, but in that emoticon the horse is definitely smiling.

Either that or Rigor mortis is setting in .

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

 
My point is what if the evidence isn't flawed, and it still is disregarded because it doesn't fall into place with ones needs or beliefs?

 
If the evidence isn't flawed, then those who would dismiss it wouldn't have any rational foundation to do so.
 
Why do you keep arguing for not doing the tests just because not everyone will accept the results?
 
se