The importance of Components?

[milkweg]

Testimonials from users are mostly hyperbolic BS, either that, or they are taking some very powerful placebos.

 

[PhilS]

I thought the original question was a good one and had the potential for some interesting discussion. Too bad it's degenerated to the point it has.

milkweg, if all you're interested in is ABX tests and you think testimonials are worthless, why are you here? It's sort of like coming on a forum where oenophiles get together to share their preferences for different kinds of wine, and you say you don't believe any wine tastes different from any other without an ABX test and testimonials about the taste of different types of wines are worthless.

It seems like all you care about or ever share is ABX tests and comments about how people are full of it in claiming they hear something.

 

[olblueyez]

Talk of blind testing is against the rules. It is also of no use to anyone here. Especially in this thread, I don't know what everyone considers expensive but I personally have had great results with the cables in my signature. Tangible results that I can hear and my recommendation to everyone is to try experimenting with cables but on a slow time line so you can get used to each cable before trying the next. The slow method demonstrates to me the significant differences between cables, especially between silver and copper. I have tried the quick method and it provides confusion and enables bad decision making, nothing more, and nothing less. I don't have a scalable piece of test equipment in my head so graphs and numbers mean absolutely nothing. A good example is the 650 vs 701 chart on Headroom that leads people to believe the 701 has more bass. Nothing could be further from the truth and anyone who had listened to both headphones would know this. I tried them both and I know this to be true, and I even used the same ears I used to evaluate my cables. Hopefully people are smart enough to sort through all the posts and distinguish between people posting real experience and those who are trying to involve all of us in some kind of social kink.

 

[milkweg]

Talk of ABX testing is not forbidden in this particular forum as far as I know. If talk of ABX testing is forbidden then it isn't a "science" forum. If some winos claimed wine A tastes much better than wine B but when given an ABX test they fail to be able to tell them apart then you are damn right I would tell them they are FOS.

 

[olblueyez]

Your right, I am mistaken about the science forum. Has it ever occurred to you that "Not everything can be evaluated properly in a quick fashion"? Answer me this Milkweg, is that idea a possibility?

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif If some winos claimed wine A tastes much better than wine B but when given an ABX test they fail to be able to tell them apart then you are damn right I would tell them they are FOS.

Good analogy.

And while you didn't answer my question directly about why you're here, your response above should give everyone a pretty good idea.

 

[odigg]

As I don't want to derail this thread any further, I'll bow out now. I'll just leave it with my original statement in that I don't think components (other than transducers) really make a difference and that the focus should be on speakers/headphones.

If anybody wants to talk about blind testing further, feel free to send me a PM.

 

[olblueyez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif Talk of ABX testing is not forbidden in this particular forum as far as I know. If talk of ABX testing is forbidden then it isn't a "science" forum. If some winos claimed wine A tastes much better than wine B but when given an ABX test they fail to be able to tell them apart then you are damn right I would tell them they are FOS.

Once again everthing in the world except experience takes priority.

Whats next, the kitchen sink?

 

[b0dhi]

Guys there's already an ABX thread going: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/l...thesis-410317/.

I'm really curious to hear the rest of the filter conversation.

 

[krmathis]

Probably rank them like this:
1. Recording
2. Source
3. Headphone
4. Amplifier
5. Cables

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Good analogy. And while you didn't answer my question directly about why you're here, your response above should give everyone a pretty good idea.

What do you man by "why am I here"? Does being a member of headfi come with an unwritten requirement that we all follow the dogma that ABX tests are flawed and that cables do make a difference or what? Get a grip on reality. Being a member here doesn't mean I have to subscribe to any pseudo belief system. Just because I don't subscribe to the general BS spread around here doesn't mean I don't appreciate good SQ and you have no right to question why I am here at all. This is a science forum and not copper sounds different from silver wire just because someone says so. The science just does not support that claim even .00001%.

 

[clasam]

Isn't the Bitrate and sample rate part of the "quality of original recording"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregorio /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm curious as to what Head-Fi users consider to be the importance of the various elements and components which contribute to sound quality. -snip- 260,000 = Quality of the original recording -snip- 500 = Higher sample frequency 0 = Higher than 16bit. Cheers, G

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif What do you man by "why am I here"? Does being a member of headfi come with an unwritten requirement that we all follow the dogma that ABX tests are flawed and that cables do make a difference or what?

Not at all. I think a dialogue on these subjects is welcome here, provided it is conducted in a certain way, and I'm interested in learning more about, and evaluating, alternative points of view on ABX tests, the ability of people to hear differences between various components, etc. I'm sure others are too, and nobody has ever said that "objectivists" are not welcome here or anything of the sort.

On the other hand, a large number of your posts seem designed to advance your agenda that ABX tests are the "be all and end all," and that nobody can possibly hear things that you don't hear or that are not conclusively proven to exist by some scientific test, and, more important, you regularly make disparaging comments about people who claim to hear audible differences between various components, etc., and you quite regularly throw out insults about the membership here in general. (You even go out of your way in your most recent post on the null hypothesis thread to be insulting.) That's why I wondered why you're here. But it was really a rhetorical question, as what I was suggesting was that you're here because you have some deep seated desire to show how smart you think you are and to insult people. And it's pretty childish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif Get a grip on reality. Being a member here doesn't mean I have to subscribe to any pseudo belief system. Just because I don't subscribe to the general BS spread around here doesn't mean I don't appreciate good SQ and you have no right to question why I am here at all.

"The general BS spread around here." LOL. You're so blinded by your neuroses that you just can't help but prove the very point I'm trying to make. Hilarious.

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clasam /img/forum/go_quote.gif Isn't the Bitrate and sample rate part of the "quality of original recording"?

Bit depth and sample frequency is part of the original recording but is often different to the bit depth and sample frequency of the finished product. When I put "Higher Sample Frequency" I meant to quantify the importance of using a higher sample frequency than CD standard (44.1kFs/s) during playback. Same with bit depth.

G

 

[Real Man of Genius]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I thought the original question was a good one and had the potential for some interesting discussion. Too bad it's degenerated to the point it has. milkweg, if all you're interested in is ABX tests and you think testimonials are worthless, why are you here? It's sort of like coming on a forum where oenophiles get together to share their preferences for different kinds of wine, and you say you don't believe any wine tastes different from any other without an ABX test and testimonials about the taste of different types of wines are worthless. It seems like all you care about or ever share is ABX tests and comments about how people are full of it in claiming they hear something.

Being a serious oenophile myself I can tell you with absolute certainty that the quality of gasoline used in the vehicle to deliver the wine has a significant impact on the taste of the vintage. We do not need to prove this. We can taste the difference and that's all that matters.
Paying exorbitant amounts of money for wine that was transported by vehicles using this specially made petrol is therefore completely reasonable.
Any fool can see the logic here (and don't even get me started on the importance of the tires!)
The fact that no one has ever once been able to remotely PROVE any difference is meaningless.
I trust my taste buds.