And if you’ve ever been involved in blind testing
You blind test idea is completely ridiculous the way you wanted to use it in your audio agenda...
I lived through many hundreds incremental changes in my 2 years full time installation of embeddings controls, in the mechanical electrical and especially acoustical dimensions...
You want to reduce any claim of improvement to a singular borderline change that you could debunk one at a time?
Sorry but i dont needed your blind test fallacy in my audio journey...
Like i already said blind test is a serious STATISTICAL methodology in science not a tool for the disciple of the James Randy sunday club...
There are 2 falsehoods i see percolating in the audio industry...
---One is a sin by OMISSION by the electronic design marketing companies when they suggest: buy our own electronic design and your audiophile experience is assured and warrented...
This is half truth nevermind the real S.Q. value of the product because audiophile experience is ALSO mostly tributary of the controls of many psycho acoustical factors outside the scope of the electronic design of any piece of electronic gear speakers included....
---The other sin is by FALSIFICATION of science by abuse of some aspect of technology... Some tried to convince people that audiophile experience is reducible ONCE AND FOR ALL to the measures of some known chosen parameters... This is completely false because audiophile experience is generally tributary of many psychoacoustical factors outside of the scope of these selected chosen parameters...
I know what i speak about i designed my own listening experiments for 2 years without buying any upgrades nor any tweaks but using peanuts cost materials and products to act on some aspect of these complex psychoacoustical factors...With complete success...I even devised on psychoacoustic principle my own mechanical equalizer inspired by Helmholtz...Peanuts costs....
Psychoacoustic is a science the most important one for audio...
Dr. Floyd Toole noted:
Technical measurements are demonstrably precise, repeatable events. Hearing perception is not. Obviously, the perceived event is definitive – if it does not sound good, it isn’t good. The task is to correlate what we measure with what we perceive – This is psychoacoustics.
I will add that generally this CORRELATION PROCESS cannot be abolished by a once and for all set of measures in engineering because it will be the erasing of psychoacoustical science itself.....Is it not saimple to understand especially for a "prof" ?
😁😊
I will let speak 2 acousticians for me here:
« Since the primary purpose of our music and movie systems is our own entertainment in accurately reproducing the “real” event, ultimately it is our perceptions that become our point of reference. Accuracy is thus defined by our perception of the reproduction of the event, and a microphone can’t tell us that. Sure, the microphone has it’s uses; measuring a room’s response can help integrate and optimize the low-frequency response, at least to a point. While the quality of the low-frequency response is certainly important to our perception of accuracy, it is not all that matters. These measurements will not tell us anything about how the speakers present the soundstage. We will have no clues toward the spaciousness of the soundscape. Capturing that information would require far more sophisticated measurements and a lot more knowledge than the average consumer has access to. In fact, when Dr. Floyd Toole reviewed this article, he summed up the issue with typical consumer room measurements, which use a single Omni-directional microphone and an FFT analyzer as “dumb” relative to human hearing. It lacks the sophisticated signal processing to detect sound and provide us with information that our ears can quickly accommodate. The purpose of this article is not to be damning of measurements, because they have their place, and they can be fun and helpful. However, there is also no denying that there has become an over-reliance on the perceived objectivity of measurements and a diminished reliance on what our own ears tell us about the accuracy of our system. This shift is to the detriment of good sound. Many consumers would be far better served spending time training their ears as to what good sound is. Learning to hear what different room reverberation times sound like, what specific changes in tone sound like, or experiencing the “real” event first hand. How can we know what a trumpet is supposed to sound like if we have never heard one live and unaided by electronic amplification? The key takeaway here should be that a flat in-room response is not a guarantee of good sound; this is not necessarily a desirable trait, and if this is achieved based solely on in-room measurements without regard for many other important factors in good sound reproduction, is more likely to lead to a bad sounding system.»
https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/accurate-microphone-or-ears A final remark about the reason why some people insult you here:
Some are tired of your arrogant pretense and the way you treat adults here like children....
I myself propose arguments not insults and i will wait for answers...
But to this day save for youre own appropriation of science authority i dont see any serious thinking....Your agenda is classical skeptic sunday class for children....You divided falsely the crowds here in 2 gangs: subjectivist ignorant audiophiles and yourself, enlightened "objectivist" spirits....
This fabricated division has nothing to do with science nor with sound thinking and common sense....
