[1] I can't propose a test better than a controlled blind test, but that doesn't mean that such a blind test is good enough to draw the kinds of sweeping conclusions which are sometimes asserted in Sound Science.
[2] There can be such a situation as "we're not sure, but leaning this way.
[3] I'm comfortable with saying that the blind tests conducted so far are probably sufficient to conclude that any audible differences between lossless vs somewhat lossy, DACs, amps, and cables are very likely to be very subtle at most for the vast majority of listeners. (The qualifiers I italicized make this sort of statement acceptable to me ...)
1. But we don't ONLY use "such a blind test" to draw the kinds of sweeping conclusions. Lossy compression algorithms have been tested extensively over a period of at least a couple of decades (and have been refined over that period) and not just with "such a blind test" but with countless and far more robust controlled double blind/ABX tests.
2. Yes, there can be but this isn't one of those situations!
3. You are of course entitled to your opinion but this is the sound science forum and what you personally are "comfortable with saying" or what "sort of statement is acceptable to you" is irrelevant. There is no evidence to support the assertion that the differences are "
very likely to be very subtle at most", all the reliable evidence indicates that the differences are "very likely to be completely inaudible". If there were audible but very subtle differences we would see some evidence of that, we would see a small minority of test subjects who could reliably identify a difference and we would expect to see a somewhat higher percentage when the test subjects were trained listeners using the highest quality (most accurate) reproduction systems/environments but we don't see this, we don't see ANY percentage of test subjects who can reliably identify a difference, even among the most highly trained listeners with the best reproduction equipment. The actual situation, as far as the evidence is concerned, is therefore: "We cannot be absolutely sure about anything but we can be reasonably certain".
[1] But, for starters, you will have to test it under ALL "normal listening conditions".
[2] You should probably also include a few of the proprietary surround sound modes offered by the major manufacturers.
[3] These are all "normal listening conditions" used by large numbers of "typical listeners".
1. Clearly that statement is false. It's clearly impossible to test every combination of consumer equipment and listening environment, let alone test every consumer with every combination of equipment/environment. There can be no absolute proof, only a weight of evidence.
2. If a consumer wants to take a lossy (or lossless) recording and completely change the fidelity/purpose according to their own preferences, that's entirely up to them but it's not a lack of performance if it's used for a different purpose than it was designed for. Using your own analogy, a Formula 1 car does NOT have "better performance" than a Nissan Versa, if you want to go to a store (with your wife or kids, and buy something) a Formula 1 car has no performance at all, let alone "better performance"!
3. No they're not, they are
abnormal listening conditions, not what lossy codecs were designed for. Additionally, it's not done "by large numbers" of "typical listeners", it's done by an extremely small minority.
[1] However, this leads us right around the circle, and back to a very basic question: WHICH claim is the one that we are supposed to reject without proof?
[1a] If we accept the criterion that "we shouldn't accept ANY claim without proof" then we simply have two unproven claims.
[1b] It is a logical fallacy to assume that either of those claims is some sort of "default assumption"; by your criterion there is no such thing as a default assumption.
[2] There was a time when "nobody could tell the difference between a cylinder recording and a live performer".
[2a] Then people insisted that vinyl "was so close to perfect that there was no point in looking for improvement".
1. It does indeed unfortunately lead us right around the circle again, and back to the very basic fallacy which you keep repeating! As there is and cannot be any absolute proof, the claim "we are supposed to reject" is the claim WHICH has no supporting reliable evidence in favour of the claim which has overwhelming supporting evidence.
1a. You can accept any criterion you choose but this is the Sound Science forum (not the "KeithEmo's Criterion" forum) and therefore we "accept the criterion" of science, which is that we accept the claim which is supported by reliable evidence and reject the claim which has none! For example, Evolution has not been proven, neither has Creationism but scientifically we do NOT "simply have two unproven claims". Scientifically, the claim of Evolution is accepted (without proof) because of it's weight of reliable evidence (and the lack of evidence for creationism).
1b. No it's a logical fallacy not to accept the "default assumption" of say Evolution.
2. No there wasn't! You keep contradicting yourself, you keep going on about proof and then make an assertion without even any supporting evidence, let alone proof. Why is that?
2a. What people? Clearly your statement does not apply to all people and specifically excludes entire groups of people (scientists and engineers for example). Why was the RIAA curve invented, why was digital audio invented, was no one able to measure anything 80 years ago?
And off we go again, round and round in circles!
G
