I find it suspicous that
every source for that story goes back to Robert Harley
article you linked to.
Jeez, chill, try searching for the study it referenced...
link
Ok, I did some searches, and there's too much
controversy surrounding that study, so I retract that example, OK? If you want to continue discussing it we can take it to a different thread.
I'm open to the possibility that some Hi-Fi enthusiasts with marketing incentive may want to discredit blind testing with flawed tests, I'm very open to the possibility the opposite is happening too.
Like I said earlier in this thread, err... in post
#31, there is a
divide in this issue often with an emotional incentive related to price / marketing, which you sortof touched on in post
#85.
Still, a little unclear on the part where you wrote your favorite response to ridiculousness is ridicule.
There aren't exactly "massive" amounts of publicly available well controlled tests [/]
Of course even if none of that existed there's still no good reason to believe that things which measure the same should sound different.
Oh, in that case, then for the sake of the conversation, pretend none of the studies exist? Then... you're right, there
is no good reason to believe things which
measure the same should sound different.
Every assertion I've seen for components sounding different is supported by some differing measurements somewhere, or at least a theory that they will measure different eventually in a certain system.
Example - "To-99 op-amps sound better", afaik there is no measurement or study to support this, but there are theories of less EMI, RFI or radiated RFI, whatever, and Texas Instruments is making them, why? In fact can I ask, why is TI making higher performance audio IC's at all, if something like NE5532 is 100% sonically transparent?
Why don't you write a letter to TI and ask! I've seen at least one response from National.
Originally Posted by
maverickronin /img/forum/go_quote.gif
you should not believe things which are not evidenced.
Include that in your letter to TI!
Originally Posted by
maverickronin /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I find it quite amusing that you reference parapsychology while essentially claiming
psi-missing on the M&M study.
I did not claim psi-missing on the M&M study. I claimed statistical failure.
I can retract my DNA comments from the conversation, but it's relevant to point out that a horse is not "A giraffe with 00.0001% deviation", or it is... kinda... it all depends on how you look at the data set.