|
Tweakers' Asylum Tweaks for systems, rooms and Do It Yourself (DIY) help. FAQ. |
|
|
|
Tweakers' Asylum Tweaks for systems, rooms and Do It Yourself (DIY) help. FAQ. |
|
In Reply to: Re: Minor corrections… posted by Steve Eddy on March 15, 2005 at 21:52:02:
"'m simply saying that I think our time and resources would be better spent attempting to first establish actual audible differences. When you do that then you clear the ambiguity off the table and you now have a known point of reference to do the subsequent work."I wonder whether our time and resources is always better spent trying to establish whether there is an audible difference.
No doubt there are times when it is, and I think the "Intelligent" chip is one of those — IF you wanted to do any testing in relation to the claims made for it. The explanation given for it doesn't make sense based on current knowledge and there is no obvious way in which it could do anything at all. Attempting to find out if it actually does something by starting to investigate all of the possiblilities that exist for making an audible difference is simply too expensive and time consuming so conducting listening tests to find out whether it produces a repeatable and reproducible difference makes a lot more sense.
On the other hand, there is an awful lot of dispute about listening tests and they can be time consuming and expensive to conduct. If the "item" under consideration is one that is supported by a sound and plausible theoretical explanation, and if the nature of the claimed physical/electrical results appears to correlate well with what observers report, then simply testing to see whether or not it actually delivers the claimed physical/electrical results may be quicker, simpler and cheaper and may satisfy everyone, simply because if those tests show that it does do what is claimed, the way it works conforms with current theory, and the perceptions that people report do correlate well with what is known of other devices producing similar physical/electrical effects, then there's nothing questionable about any of the claims.
I just hate seeing people wanting to test every claim in exactly the same way, regardless of the nature of the claim. It simply doesn't make sense, especially when research resources are scarce and expensive. Some claims are simply totally implausible so why test? Put the onus of proof back on the claimant rather than try and do their work for them, unless of course there is something really interesting and potentially useful in the claim that merits actually spending the time and effort on it, and that probably means that the claim has to have value above and beyond 'mere' audio uses. Other claims really do demand listening tests to determine whether people actually do hear a difference if we're going to start anywhere at all, and still others are plausible enough that it should be sufficient to verify that the 'item' actually works as claimed in the physical/electrical domain.
Sorry about the misunderstanding on the "vanity and ego" bit. I don't think it's clear in your original post that that is what you meant because that passage occurs in your initial response that subjective perceptions are not always associated with actual differences. Your comments about people who refuse to acknowledge this actually occur a little later in response to a different point.
David Aiken
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Minor corrections… - David Aiken 23:38:23 03/15/05 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
