[1] As about as useful as me saying the moon is made of blue cheese.
[2] Just like how the DD vs BA/planar debates go there no real proof that detail/res and speed is even a thing,
[3] It could very well be that FR is much more complex than it looks.
[4] Same with spotify you'll get the same boring claims that 320 is easy but then change the subject when DBT is asked for?.
1. But if you did say that, then of course you'd be wrong. We have various scientific tests that allow us to determine the basic composition of the moon and of course we've actually been there and directly analysed moon samples.
2. There's plenty of proof of these differences in the basic driver technology, supplied to start with by Newton's basic laws of motion, mass and inertia. We also have to be careful to distinguish between "
no real proof" and the existence of evidence/proof that we personally are not aware of. Not making this distinction is a common failing in the audiophile community, resulting in false assertions that "we don't know ..." (instead of "I don't know..."). This is due either to the proof/evidence not being publicly available (say behind a paywall or not publicly disseminated in the first place) or more commonly, because they simply couldn't be bothered to search for the actual evidence/proof. However, we also have to consider that we're not dealing with ONLY the basic driver technology: There are strengths and weaknesses with all of the different driver technologies, how the weaknesses are addressed/mitigated can vary between different manufacturers and almost invariably, the mitigation of weakness also reduces the "strengths", so, it's a case by case trade-off. In addition, the ultimate performance of headphones isn't solely determined by the driver technology anyway. The typical audiophile "
DD vs BA/planar debate" is therefore a fallacious debate to start with!
3. Fundamentally, for that to be true, Fourier would have to be wrong and the technologies that rely on Fourier would not work, digital audio for example! However, "
than it looks" introduces various subjective determinations! The subjective decision of how to present FR, as a hugely simplified published "specification" for example or say as a fully detailed waterfall plot and then, the subjective determination of how we interpret the presented FR. This is another typical failing of the audiophile community; not appreciating the difference between "measurement" and "published specifications".
4. It really isn't the same. We have a wealth of theoretical science that explains why 320 shouldn't be audible and reliable evidence that it isn't in practice, while with different headphone technologies we have a wealth of theoretical science that explains why they can sound different and reliable evidence that they can sound different in practice.
"I have a scientific background, one thing I learned is that: Always be skeptical about subjectivity, but be just as skeptical about "objectivity". Then try to live in peace between the two. "
Pretty much me in most ways since i don't support the ">1% distortion is bad" crowd that plagues ASR headphone/speaker threads.
I don't understand how not agreeing with the "
>1% distortion is bad crowd" supports the assertion to be equally sceptical about subjectivity and objectivity, and "
to live in peace between the two"? "
>1% distortion" is an objective measurement that we don't need to be at all sceptical about, but whether that "
is bad" (or not) is a subjective determination that we should be sceptical about. The actual truth does not live "between" these two facts, it lives in the objective measurement but also requires understanding what subjectivity is, it's importance and how it relates (or doesn't) to the objective measurements.
However, this raises the issue that some measurements have been developed in order to quantify what we perceive. In these cases, while the measurements themselves are still objective facts, how well they correlate to perception is not so clear cut. Typically they correlate either quite poorly (particularly older measurements of this type) or moderately well but only under specific conditions. This leads to numerous false assumptions and assertions in the audiophile world about the lack of accuracy/precision of ALL measurements, when the issue isn't the measurements themselves but how they are applied/interpreted relative to subjective perception. Distortion is a good example, because it generally doesn't directly correlate with subjective determinations at all, but sometimes can under certain conditions. For instance, rock music (and it's derivative sub-genres) largely relies on the fact that greater than 50% distortion is subjectively preferable to less than 1% distortion (with electric guitars for example) and even classical music relies to a significant extent on distortion, although acoustic distortion rather than electronic.
[1] The best way to determine audibility is with ears, preferably your own.
[2] A controlled listening test is the best way to determine audibility.
[3] When you go out to buy an amp, you look at the specs for two models. One has a noise floor of -130dB. The other has a noise floor of -100dB. One isn't "better sounding" than the other because you can't hear either noise floor when you are listening to music. They are both equally suitable for the purpose, and a controlled listening test would be the way to prove that.
1. No bigshot it's not! One's own ears are "preferable" ONLY for determining audibility for oneself, not necessarily "audibility" in general, for anyone or everyone else.
2. Again, not it's not. I realise my post #17 was probably too long for you to be bothered to read but not being bothered to read something is no excuse for repeating the same mistake, as you yourself point out to others!
3. And again, a controlled listening test is not "the" way to prove that, it would be "a" way to prove it for oneself. The measurement itself and logic would be another (and more reliable) way to prove it. For example, if listening to music at a peak level of say 90dBSPL (or lower) then even the amp with noise at -100dB would be producing noise at -10dBSPL, which will be inaudible.
Another thread of useless circular arguments. I'm sure it will satisfy the usual in this neck of the woods. What a lonely place to be!
Don't you find your post even slightly ironic? The audiophile community constantly relies on circular arguments to uphold it's many myths and false claims and could hardly be lonelier, as it's almost completely isolated even from the rest of the audio world, let alone science and other communities.
G
