[OddE]

 
In my view anyone who doesn't understand what goes on inside an amp or dac or any type of electronic audio equipment, should not be telling me that i'm wrong when i present such claims. Because they don't understand it in the first place yet demonstrate bias

that's a bit strange IMO...
 
PCB (Printed Circuit Board) :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printed_circuit_board
 
  Ohmm  my (pardon the pun)  what do we have hear ( pardon the pun) http://www.circuitspecialists.com/soungenkit
Read the first link i have here to get a better understanding, then take a look at the sound generator circuit boards in the second one. Have none of you considered that the components on PCB's vary in quality....what do they do? carry the signal - that's what! now higher quality components will be healthier for the signal's journey to our ears...ok?!

 
-Sigh. I've never been very good at leaving well enough alone.
 
a) Thank you for linking to the Wikipedia article, so that I may finally find out what a PCB is. (Fun fact: I've designed and constructed PCBs of various complexities for some 20 years, both professionally and as a hobby; heck, I got lucky once and was hired to design and build hardware which needed to be space-qualified. Now I design stuff which is supposed to work under a pressure of 500 atmospheres. (That makes for a number of interesting design choices!) I know a thing or two about PCBs. Do you?
 
b) For the umpteenth time - nobody argues that there isn't difference in quality between different components at different price points. However: You don't need better than audibly transparent. If all noise and distortion products are down far enough relative to the signal, it will sound perfect. It doesn't need to be, say, an order of magnitude better at three orders of magnitude larger cost - because we wouldn't be able to hear any difference anyway. Or, more precisely - we wouldn't be able to hear any difference unless we were doing a sighted evaluation.
 
So, bottom line is nobody can challenge your claims unless you are happy that they are qualified to do so, whereas the rest of us cannot challenge your (ludicrous) claims as you are not considering us qualified to do so? Troll.

 

[OddE]

Oh my, another thread lost into the astroholic trolling caves. Well, it was good as long as it did last. Guess I'll now use my ears to get out of here.
Someone ping me please when you are done "arguing" with the ears brigade.

 
-Hey, cut us some slack, will you? On the rest of Head-Fi, we tend to get posts deleted and warnings issued if we speak up against such looney claims...

 

[Audioholic123]

   
-Sigh. I've never been very good at leaving well enough alone.
 
a) Thank you for linking to the Wikipedia article, so that I may finally find out what a PCB is. (Fun fact: I've designed and constructed PCBs of various complexities for some 20 years, both professionally and as a hobby; heck, I got lucky once and was hired to design and build hardware which needed to be space-qualified. Now I design stuff which is supposed to work under a pressure of 500 atmospheres. (That makes for a number of interesting design choices!) I know a thing or two about PCBs. Do you?
 
b) For the umpteenth time - nobody argues that there isn't difference in quality between different components at different price points. However: You don't need better than audibly transparent. If all noise and distortion products are down far enough relative to the signal, it will sound perfect. It doesn't need to be, say, an order of magnitude better at three orders of magnitude larger cost - because we wouldn't be able to hear any difference anyway. Or, more precisely - we wouldn't be able to hear any difference unless we were doing a sighted evaluation.
 
So, bottom line is nobody can challenge your claims unless you are happy that they are qualified to do so, whereas the rest of us cannot challenge your (ludicrous) claims as you are not considering us qualified to do so? Troll.

You are contradicting yourself now. And people saying they cant hear audible differences is what brought me here to counter that claim in the first place. I brought it to their attention that it is possible. Otherwise i wouldn't have came here would i?!
 
So i've had my say now.

 

[prot]

-Hey, cut us some slack, will you? On the rest of Head-Fi, we tend to get posts deleted and warnings issued if we speak up against such looney claims...

Hope you are having fun ... cause otherwise, trying to change ears with logic would be a seriously stupid & useless attempt wouldnt it?

 

[OddE]

Hope you are having fun ... cause otherwise, trying to change ears with logic would be a seriously stupid & useless attempt wouldnt it?

 
-Calling it 'having fun' would be exaggerating a bit, it is more that I nourish a naïve hope that perhaps some poor soul wishing to put his money where they will give him the best bang for the buck may stumble upon threads like this one and at least see that cable-and-voodoo-sentiments are not universally accepted as Gospel.
 
 

 

[Articnoise]

I buy my hifi gear because I like the sound of the music then playing with them. If you really can’t hear the difference between gear (DAC, AMP, speakers, cables) and need some kind of proof in form of measurements to tell you the difference…. That’s the point of having “better audio gear” in the first place? Isn’t hifi and music about hearing, feeling and connect to the music by our senses? Can’t see that it can be done with measurements.

 

Measurements is a way of describe the technical capability in some areas one by one, sure that can be somehow useful to know, but will not tell me how it actually sound with music. To me music is much more than technicalities; it’s about soul, connection, rhythm, finesse and soundscape. If they started to measure gear with real complex music instead of sinus tones it would be more of a value to me.

 

IMO

 

[cjl]

Most of us "sciency types" wouldn't need measurements actually. If you could show an audible difference with a double blind test, that would work too, and the only thing that uses to tell the difference is your hearing.
 
(Of course, if you could show an audible difference between two pieces of gear that measured identically, we'd want to start wiring them up to perform more measurements, but that's a whole separate thing...)

 

[goodyfresh]

  I buy my hifi gear because I like the sound of the music then playing with them. If you really can’t hear the difference between gear (DAC, AMP, speakers, cables) and need some kind of proof in form of measurements to tell you the difference…. That’s the point of having “better audio gear” in the first place? Isn’t hifi and music about hearing, feeling and connect to the music by our senses? Can’t see that it can be done with measurements.

 

Measurements is a way of describe the technical capability in some areas one by one, sure that can be somehow useful to know, but will not tell me how it actually sound with music. To me music is much more than technicalities; it’s about soul, connection, rhythm, finesse and soundscape. If they started to measure gear with real complex music instead of sinus tones it would be more of a value to me.

 

IMO

 

  Most of us "sciency types" wouldn't need measurements actually. If you could show an audible difference with a double blind test, that would work too, and the only thing that uses to tell the difference is your hearing.
 
(Of course, if you could show an audible difference between two pieces of gear that measured identically, we'd want to start wiring them up to perform more measurements, but that's a whole separate thing...)

I guess the ultimate point here is that if audilble differences can be shown to exist in double-blind testing, but the equipment is measuring the same, THEN FURTHER MEASUREMENTS ARE NECESSARY.  It is a simple fact of logic that if there is an audible difference, there HAS to be a measurable difference which can account for it.
 
However, with the first poster above, we run back into teh same fallacy of sound-"science" that I and others have been pointing out. . .namely, people are relying on SUBJECTIVE impressions of "this sounds better" based on sighted, non-blind testing.  That is not scientific and does not belong in a discussion about sound-science.  I don't understand why saying so makes people so angry and defensive.  This is the sound-science forum, it is not a place for subjective impressions, it is a place for controlled testing which follows the scientific method.
 
Moreover, with detailed enough measurements in all possible areas, it is ENTIRELY possible to know how something will sound with music solely by looking at measurements.  The issue I have been bringing up again and again is that the commonly-taken measurements often seen for DAC/amps (THD and IMD and what-not with pure-sinusoid tones) does not give a detailed-enough picture.  We need more. . .along with frequency-response curves, we also need to see impulse-response, phase variations and nonlinearities, and the actual DECAY of teh frequency-response over time like what is seen in waterfall-plots for headphones.  It is already a well known fact that two headphones with the EXACT same frequency-response, THD, and IMD measurements can sound drastically different due to having different waterfall-plots, meaning the actual decay across the frequencies differs.
 
I don't see how anyone, anywhere, could be daft/dense enough to not comprehend or admit to the fact that if there is an ACTUAL (as in, can be verified in blind a/b testing) audible difference between equipment, that there absolutely HAS to be some scientific, quantifiable means of measuring that difference.  Moreover, it just seems OBVIOUS to me (maybe because I have been learning about science my whole life and am not the kind of person to accept things based on blind faith or propaganda?) that the only way to establish ACTUALY audible differences is with blind testing, because sighted testing quite obviously causes there to be expectations and biases.

It has been shown in various tests that MANY "hardcore audiophiles" will identify a sound as "warmer, fuller, with better soundstage" and crap like that, when TOLD that they are now listening to a tube-amp rather than a solid-state amp, and then are SHOCKED when it is revealed to them that in the second listening session they were actually listening to the EXACT SAME solid-state amp, with the same file being played at the same volume, as in the first session.  That's what expectation-bias does to people.  Just one little example right there.

When people LISTEN for more detail, they hear more detail.  WHen they listen for more bass, they hear more bass.  That is because our hearing is selective. . ,.we are never able to focus our actual CONSCIOUS mind on ALL the audio input that is coming into our brains.  Rather, we listen for certain things consciously, and our brain focuses on those.

 

[Articnoise]

  I buy my hifi gear because I like the sound of the music then playing with them. If you really can’t hear the difference between gear (DAC, AMP, speakers, cables) and need some kind of proof in form of measurements to tell you the difference…. That’s the point of having “better audio gear” in the first place? Isn’t hifi and music about hearing, feeling and connect to the music by our senses? Can’t see that it can be done with measurements.

 

Measurements is a way of describe the technical capability in some areas one by one, sure that can be somehow useful to know, but will not tell me how it actually sound with music. To me music is much more than technicalities; it’s about soul, connection, rhythm, finesse and soundscape. If they started to measure gear with real complex music instead of sinus tones it would be more of a value to me.

 

IMO

 

FYI double blind test is difficult to preform if you want to include also the difference that is more evident after long time listening like listening fatigue, capability to sound divers, capability to play different type of music, accurate tonality etc etc.  

 

One uses hearing yes, but the sound has to be processed by the brain.  

 

[Articnoise]

   

I guess the ultimate point here is that if audilble differences can be shown to exist in double-blind testing, but the equipment is measuring the same, THEN FURTHER MEASUREMENTS ARE NECESSARY.  It is a simple fact of logic that if there is an audible difference, there HAS to be a measurable difference which can account for it.
 
However, with the first poster above, we run back into teh same fallacy of sound-"science" that I and others have been pointing out. . .namely, people are relying on SUBJECTIVE impressions of "this sounds better" based on sighted, non-blind testing.  That is not scientific and does not belong in a discussion about sound-science.  I don't understand why saying so makes people so angry and defensive.  This is the sound-science forum, it is not a place for subjective impressions, it is a place for controlled testing which follows the scientific method.
 
Moreover, with detailed enough measurements in all possible areas, it is ENTIRELY possible to know how something will sound with music solely by looking at measurements.  The issue I have been bringing up again and again is that the commonly-taken measurements often seen for DAC/amps (THD and IMD and what-not with pure-sinusoid tones) does not give a detailed-enough picture.  We need more. . .along with frequency-response curves, we also need to see impulse-response, phase variations and nonlinearities, and the actual DECAY of teh frequency-response over time like what is seen in waterfall-plots for headphones.  It is already a well known fact that two headphones with the EXACT same frequency-response, THD, and IMD measurements can sound drastically different due to having different waterfall-plots, meaning the actual decay across the frequencies differs.
 
I don't see how anyone, anywhere, could be daft/dense enough to not comprehend or admit to the fact that if there is an ACTUAL (as in, can be verified in blind a/b testing) audible difference between equipment, that there absolutely HAS to be some scientific, quantifiable means of measuring that difference.  Moreover, it just seems OBVIOUS to me (maybe because I have been learning about science my whole life and am not the kind of person to accept things based on blind faith or propaganda?) that the only way to establish ACTUALY audible differences is with blind testing, because sighted testing quite obviously causes there to be expectations and biases.

It has been shown in various tests that MANY "hardcore audiophiles" will identify a sound as "warmer, fuller, with better soundstage" and crap like that, when TOLD that they are now listening to a tube-amp rather than a solid-state amp, and then are SHOCKED when it is revealed to them that in the second listening session they were actually listening to the EXACT SAME solid-state amp, with the same file being played at the same volume, as in the first session.  That's what expectation-bias does to people.  Just one little example right there.

When people LISTEN for more detail, they hear more detail.  WHen they listen for more bass, they hear more bass.  That is because our hearing is selective. . ,.we are never able to focus our actual CONSCIOUS mind on ALL the audio input that is coming into our brains.  Rather, we listen for certain things consciously, and our brain focuses on those.

 

I have already explained that the measurements that are commonly used are not made with real music they are made in a constructed artificial way that does not mimic real use of the gear or a live performance. Music is much more complex than the tones that are used to make the measurement.

 

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The picture/music is more than its parts. Synergy is impotent because 1+1 is not always 2 etc etc.

 

I am sure it is possible to measure everything. What I don’t think is that we are doing it now, far from it.

 

Sure if you aren’t interested in my view, no problem.  

 

[sonitus mirus]

   

FYI double blind test is difficult to preform if you want to include also the difference that is more evident after long time listening like listening fatigue, capability to sound divers, capability to play different type of music, accurate tonality etc etc.  

 

One uses hearing yes, but the sound has to be processed by the brain.  

 
To me, hearing is the process that uses the ears and brain.  The goal of a double blind listening test is to attempt and remove as many biases as possible to isolate only hearing.  When claims are made to "use our ears", what they mean is "use our hearing". That is exactly what many of us want, but there is clearly a divide in what this means.  I want someone to use their hearing ability to listen for differences, and NOT their sight and any other outside influences that may introduce bias when attempting to determine if a difference can be heard.
 
The best method that I am currently aware of to isolate hearing is with a properly implemented ABX test.

 

[Sal1950]

   

I have already explained that the measurements that are commonly used are not made with real music they are made in a constructed artificial way that does not mimic real use of the gear or a live performance. Music is much more complex than the tones that are used to make the measurement.

 

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The picture/music is more than its parts. Synergy is impotent because 1+1 is not always 2 etc etc.

 

I am sure it is possible to measure everything. What I don’t think is that we are doing it now, far from it.

 

Sure if you aren’t interested in my view, no problem.  

What part of the below didn't you understand? You have to prove what you claim to hear isn't a figment of your imagination inflated by the subjective medias constant reinforcement of exaggerated claims of heard differences. Don't drink the Kool-Aid, say I'm from Missouri, SHOW ME. Until anyone can PROVE they hear what they claim to hear through tightly controlled ABX-DBT tests they will forever remain exactly what they are, just someones opinion.
 
"I don't see how anyone, anywhere, could be daft/dense enough to not comprehend or admit to the fact that if there is an ACTUAL (as in, can be verified in blind a/b testing) audible difference between equipment, that there absolutely HAS to be some scientific, quantifiable means of measuring that difference.  Moreover, it just seems OBVIOUS to me (maybe because I have been learning about science my whole life and am not the kind of person to accept things based on blind faith or propaganda?) that the only way to establish ACTUALY audible differences is with blind testing, because sighted testing quite obviously causes there to be expectations and biases"

 

[Sal1950]

   
-Calling it 'having fun' would be exaggerating a bit, it is more that I nourish a naïve hope that perhaps some poor soul wishing to put his money where they will give him the best bang for the buck may stumble upon threads like this one and at least see that cable-and-voodoo-sentiments are not universally accepted as Gospel.
 
 

Yep. If I could get just one of the "sounds good" crowd to engage their brains and instead of spending thousands on useless expensive cables and put the money into upgrading to some true high quality, accurate speakers I'd be thrilled.

 

[castleofargh]

the quasi-modo post:
there are 2 reasons why I haven't self imploded and removed most fallacy posts that don't even know what they are trying to demonstrate.
1/ the topic moved to sound science mid way, so it's only fair not to instakill the non sciency guys.
2/ audibility is in the end a subjective factor(as we don't all have the same hearing capabilities). so I cannot prove the guy doesn't hear a difference. but he can demonstrate that he can hear something. when he decides not to do it, I decide not to trust him. this is fair game. don't go all being offended from distrust when you make no effort whatsoever to back up your claims. "what? I'm posting on the internet and some people don't take anything I say for granted? call the internet director!!!!"

 
now 1 doesn't mean we have to accept totally irrational arguments, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to construct an argument without straw man, fallacy, and irrational claims. and 2 doesn't mean that we have to accept any claim from anybody. a human being while slightly different from one another will never be a bat, and will never run like a cheeta. extravagant claims are just that.
 
 
 
 
 
 
@ audioholic123: you've long lost yourself in a fight to be right, where you've decided to prove stuff can sound different. the thing is, nobody ever argued the possibility, people argue that it's not because you tell them, that it's true. very different problem. and you going all "a piano doesn't sound like a giraffe" achieves nothing to demonstrate what you heard. if we're talking audibility, you have to demonstrate you really can identify 2 components or whatever by ear only. and the only way to do that is to pass a blind test. because looking at the 2 components and saying I know which one is which... duh... we can all do it, we don't even need to listen.
 we're not saying you're a liar, we're saying it doesn't matter what you say if you never make the effort to demonstrate it with methods we acknowledge.
 
 
 
 
 
 
the castleoflol post:
 
no method is perfect, but sighted evaluation is the worst and it's been demonstrated soooooo many times. people who see nothing wrong with sighted evaluation are doing so by ignorance. there is no other way to say it, and no rational argument to show that adding potential biases to an audio experiment, we will be more accurate than when we remove some.
http://seanolive.blogspot.fr/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html 
 
 
it's ok not to care about all that in the comfort of my home. and it's ok if I buy a DAC because I believe R2R is analog and DS is bad and full of noise. or because it's pretty and Purrin said it was great. as long as it makes me happy, I'm right to do just that. this is not what anybody here is going against, nobody is trying to force another dude to change what he does for himself.
and it's ok for me to have my opinion on everything, even the things I will never actually understand. because an opinion is personal and doesn't have to be correct. so as long as I say "I think....." it's not so bad if it's not accurate.
 
but a claim like  "all DACs will sound different" on the other hand. it's not an opinion anymore it's someone trying to establish a fact for everybody in the world. so it better be efffffing true!!! 
 to that kind of claim of course I say "prove it". as the burden of proof is on the guy making the wild claim, it's not my job to demonstrate he's wrong. it's his job to demonstrate he's right. but he can't! because to prove it, he would need to test all the DACs in the world in a blind test and he can't possibly do that in your lifetime.
so he's made a wild empty claim, have bitten more than he could chew, and made a fool of himself.
and that kids, is why people should clearly express the difference between their opinions and a claim.
 
we make a claim when we have proof. everybody should know and respect that. and everybody should know about that friend who claimed he could do something crazy and when asked to put up or shut up ended making a fool of himself. because a claim have meaning only when you can back it up. else it's foolish bravado.
 
 
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
now back to R2R and DS, nobody tried to answer my questions about how we could test the acual differences instead of testing a random DAC vs another random DAC, and if getting 2 bitfrosts with both techs could give a lead on the potential sound differences?

 

[goodyfresh]

  What part of the below didn't you understand? You have to prove what you claim to hear isn't a figment of your imagination inflated by the subjective medias constant reinforcement of exaggerated claims of heard differences. Don't drink the Kool-Aid, say I'm from Missouri, SHOW ME. Until anyone can PROVE they hear what they claim to hear through tightly controlled ABX-DBT tests they will forever remain exactly what they are, just someones opinion.
 
"I don't see how anyone, anywhere, could be daft/dense enough to not comprehend or admit to the fact that if there is an ACTUAL (as in, can be verified in blind a/b testing) audible difference between equipment, that there absolutely HAS to be some scientific, quantifiable means of measuring that difference.  Moreover, it just seems OBVIOUS to me (maybe because I have been learning about science my whole life and am not the kind of person to accept things based on blind faith or propaganda?) that the only way to establish ACTUALY audible differences is with blind testing, because sighted testing quite obviously causes there to be expectations and biases"

Thank you sir, I see SOMEONE understood what I was trying to say
 
 

  Yep. If I could get just one of the "sounds good" crowd to engage their brains and instead of spending thousands on useless expensive cables and put the money into upgrading to some true high quality, accurate speakers I'd be thrilled.

Nice cables MAY be a good investment, all aspects of what that may mean still have yet to be tested, although I seriously doubt that they actually are, as I believe that most LIKELY, there aren't actually audible differences between cables anywhere above the upper-mid-fi price-range/level.  What should be accepted though is that as long as one's cables are at least decent mid-fi level, at that point the actual headphones or speakers, and then after those the amp, source files (quality of master rather than lossless vs. lossy, I mean), and DAC, are the most important things to invest money in, and that beyond those things cables should be the LAST thing a person gets around to spending exhorbitant sums of cash on.
 
 

  the quasi-modo post:
there are 2 reasons why I haven't self imploded and removed most fallacy posts that don't even know what they are trying to demonstrate.
1/ the topic moved to sound science mid way, so it's only fair not to instakill the non sciency guys.
2/ audibility is in the end a subjective factor(as we don't all have the same hearing capabilities). so I cannot prove the guy doesn't hear a difference. but he can demonstrate that he can hear something. when he decides not to do it, I decide not to trust him. this is fair game. don't go all being offended from distrust when you make no effort whatsoever to back up your claims. "what? I'm posting on the internet and some people don't take anything I say for granted? call the internet director!!!!"

 
now 1 doesn't mean we have to accept totally irrational arguments, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to construct an argument without straw man, fallacy, and irrational claims. and 2 doesn't mean that we have to accept any claim from anybody. a human being while slightly different from one another will never be a bat, and will never run like a cheeta. extravagant claims are just that.
 
 
 
 
 
 
@ audioholic123: you've long lost yourself in a fight to be right, where you've decided to prove stuff can sound different. the thing is, nobody ever argued the possibility, people argue that it's not because you tell them, that it's true. very different problem. and you going all "a piano doesn't sound like a giraffe" achieves nothing to demonstrate what you heard. if we're talking audibility, you have to demonstrate you really can identify 2 components or whatever by ear only. and the only way to do that is to pass a blind test. because looking at the 2 components and saying I know which one is which... duh... we can all do it, we don't even need to listen.
 we're not saying you're a liar, we're saying it doesn't matter what you say if you never make the effort to demonstrate it with methods we acknowledge.
 
 
 
 
 
 
the castleoflol post:
 
no method is perfect, but sighted evaluation is the worst and it's been demonstrated soooooo many times. people who see nothing wrong with sighted evaluation are doing so by ignorance. there is no other way to say it, and no rational argument to show that adding potential biases to an audio experiment, we will be more accurate than when we remove some.
http://seanolive.blogspot.fr/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html 
 
 
it's ok not to care about all that in the comfort of my home. and it's ok if I buy a DAC because I believe R2R is analog and DS is bad and full of noise. or because it's pretty and Purrin said it was great. as long as it makes me happy, I'm right to do just that. this is not what anybody here is going against, nobody is trying to force another dude to change what he does for himself.
and it's ok for me to have my opinion on everything, even the things I will never actually understand. because an opinion is personal and doesn't have to be correct. so as long as I say "I think....." it's not so bad if it's not accurate.
 
but a claim like  "all DACs will sound different" on the other hand. it's not an opinion anymore it's someone trying to establish a fact for everybody in the world. so it better be efffffing true!!! 
 to that kind of claim of course I say "prove it". as the burden of proof is on the guy making the wild claim, it's not my job to demonstrate he's wrong. it's his job to demonstrate he's right. but he can't! because to prove it, he would need to test all the DACs in the world in a blind test and he can't possibly do that in your lifetime.
so he's made a wild empty claim, have bitten more than he could chew, and made a fool of himself.
and that kids, is why people should clearly express the difference between their opinions and a claim.
 
we make a claim when we have proof. everybody should know and respect that. and everybody should know about that friend who claimed he could do something crazy and when asked to put up or shut up ended making a fool of himself. because a claim have meaning only when you can back it up. else it's foolish bravado.
 
 
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
now back to R2R and DS, nobody tried to answer my questions about how we could test the acual differences instead of testing a random DAC vs another random DAC, and if getting 2 bitfrosts with both techs could give a lead on the potential sound differences?

Exactly, our hearing may not be as good as the guy who claims to hear a difference.  But in that case, the burden of proof falls to him. . .if he wants to volunteer for a double-blind test in which he shows the ability to consisently identify which equipment, files, or whatever are which with significant better accuracy than random chance, THEN we can accept his claims as valid.  Also, claims about "the listening sessions aren't long enough" are bunk, too.  Some studies in the past HAVE done double-blind testing in which people sit for longer listening sessions of minutes or even an hour at a time with each piece of equpiment.
 
People just don't seem to understand that one of the fundamental tenets of the Scientific Method is that when one person makes an extraordinary claim, the burden-of-proof to validate that claim in a controlled setting falls squarely on that person's shoulders.  And it's hilarious and also borders on hypocrisy when people DO know that, and simply choose to say "well it doesn't always apply because blah blah," becuase these same people are using ALL KINDS of high-tech doohickies (the internet, anyone?) that could never have been developed without an entire community of folks strictly adhering to that very same Scientific Method in their research.
 
It seems to me that how to test whether R-2R vs. DS, specifically, is audibly different, is a very sticky subject, but that most likely the best means available AT THE MOMENT to test such a claim would be something like you suggested:  Blind ABX testing of units which are available in both DS and R2R versions, such as the Bifrost or Gungnir.  However, one would have to look into and make sure that the implementations being utilized are equivalent in all conceivable ways except for the obvious aspect of one having to interpret an R-2R output and the other a DS output, and the differences that would be necessary in the implementations in order to achieve that.  If one with the sufficient engineering background were to verify, "yes, the Bifrost/Gungnir multibit is essentially implemented in the same fashion as the DS version," then we could proceed to find a bunch of folks who can easily pass the Golden Ears Challenge with flying-colors and no training, and get them to see if they can consistently identify audible differences between the R-2R and DS versions of the same equipment in a blind test.
 
 
On a more general note, I think the reason people have such a tendency to use logical fallacies and straw-man arguments and such when debating (hell, even I've been guilty of doing so plenty of times in my life) is because such fallacious arguments are the majority of what we get exposed to on a daily basis in the media, from politicians, and elsewhere.