Home Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

  Register / Login

Re: I keep telling those guys, give me funding to do the tests you demand, and I'll happily comply. But their money is..

Clark,

I firmly believe the Objectivists amongst us don't want to know the truth, they just want to be right. If everyone (Objectivist & Subjectivist) would only look at this one question with an OPEN MIND we'd see that there is a definite problem with DBT's, ABX's and "measured proof" as their being used today.

For this example let's use extremely opposite ends of the spectrum (an SET amp and a solidstate amp) for our question, ok? But this same argument holds true for interconnects, tubes or your favorite audio component. Here's the question... Why is it when using todays set of criteria to measure an audio component's performance, we find the solidstate amp ( or whatever other component you choose ) is measuring the more accurately of the two? Yet when listening the opposite occurs and now the SET amp ( or other component that measures less accurately -- or maybe even the same ) appears to be the more accurate at replicating music!

The typical Objectivist would have us believe that these tens of thousands of SET amp owners ( or other component that measures less accurately -- or maybe even the same ) are either all fooling themselves or they're all imagining the SET is more realistic sounding! What really surprises me though, especially taken in the light of Objectivists usually being very scientifically oriented in nature, is how easily accept that ALL these SET amp owners are imagining the SAME thing! (i.e. SET amps sounds more realistic) For this arguement "more realistic" means it sounds more like live music.

If the Objectivists are incorrect in their beliefs and all these SET owners aren't either all fooling themselves or imagining they hear these differences how can we explain why a solidstate amp is measuring more accurately, yet when listening the SET amp appears to be the more accurate at replicating music?

I believe there's a logical conclusion. Scientists are not measuring the correct critera. True they're taking measurements but not measurements that are indicative of:

A) What the human ear uses to measure differences in sound.
B) How the brain then uses what the ear heard to decide what sounds real and what dosen't.

This seems so simple, yet it appears to be overlooked. No one seems to be looking for what the proper criteria is. Or if they are I don't know about it. The reality is if we aren't getting these two things correct (A & B above) then all the DBT's, ABX's and "measured proof" are only validating data that plays no or at best a little part in determining what's actually the more realistic sounding audio component, as far as the human ear/brain combo goes that is.

As I've said in the past, one day, when scientists finally discover what is the actual set of criteria the human ear uses to determine whats live music and what isn't and how to measure it, I believe that Objectivists will discover:

1) Subjectivists haven't been "fooling themselves."
2) SET amps are more accurate than solidstate amps.
3) The human ear is very reliable.
4) DBT's & ABX's aren't required (unless of course you don't trust your ears) for the Subjectivists have been choosing the more accurate component soley by listening for years.

Thetubeguy1954




This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Parts Connexion  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.