The Absurdity of it All

I listened some costly tweak product on youtube marketed by a well known company and it is EVIDENT that there is an audible effect....

Was that the one where he placed a large metal object (effectively) right against the microphone? Well duh! (not to you), of course that is going to make a difference! Or is it the one that had the shelved output that would not correlated to the communicated changes? All this is readily evident when you do correlated analysis of the audio samples. Not everything is as it seems.

No i listen to ALL the video on youtube with many customers...

Simple... But an audible effect is one thing, and not the story...

Remember: i personaly NEVER BUY "tweaks"

I created my own at NO COST....

Negating an audible effect is not my way...I will let sunday club scientist debunking some unreal and sometimes some real audible effects....

Investigating to create a better effect at no cost is my way....i prefer my listening experiments...

It is better to teach people how to fish without complicated means or tools than to use blindtest to criticize any means or tool for fishing without teaching people how to fish at NO COST....Some effects created by costly tweaks are real.... Negating all audible effects is non productive.... I prefer to assume the effect is there and VERIFYING IT at no cost....Improving my audio system is my goal, not a pretense to science with blindtest....

I am not against blindtest... Why not?

Especially for costly product...

But this does not solve the problem of HOW to improve at no cost my audio system...

I prefer sometimes assuming that something is real, some acoustical audible effect and trying to replicate it at NO COST... why contesting in principle ALL testimonies like placebos? The goal of a statiscal experiment using blindtest cannot be useful for me, save for particular spectacular costly product... It is not a general solution for customers listening their music and wanting to improve their S.Q..... Making my own listening experiment at no cost or at low cost is more useful and fun...Speaking about the results in my case is not promoting a brand i use only homemade or very low cost products...

Simple....

Nobody learn to fish blindfolded...

Listening acuity increases with hours logged of listening time and the more time you spend listening the more you hear the little differences that matter the most and you want to hear what the sound equipment will do at that time and will accept nothing mediocre at that point.

I generally don’t read much on this site.  Mostly because the topics seem a little silly.  In this case, everyone likes what they like, almost never the same as someone else on a regular basis.  I work for a company that requires a hearing test every year.  My position doesn’t require the test, but I do it anyway just to see how my hearing is doing.  I am 71 and think my hearing is great.  Wrong, during the last 5 years, my hearing has degraded considerably.  Not for regular hearing, but for the higher notes, dropped lots.  I hear base just fine, but the highs stop at 14db.  I’m told that is normal for my age.  The question becomes how much do you spend to improve the sounds you can’t hear?  My digital system now, sounds as good as my analog system did years ago.  Buy and listen to what sounds good to you.  Don’t argue the point, it’s a futile argument that can never be solved.

"He heard the clarity of the speakers, and commented on that."

What was the comment?

"Listening acuity increases with hours logged of listening time..."

I think that imaginative listening increases with hours logged of listening time.