8,621 posts
@benanders Your post is as slanted as it is ineffective in its stated upfront point…
Heyya @soix , was your reply chat GPT-generated? It missed the point of my hypotheticals (= people sometimes perceive what they “want” to, so it’s dubious that audiophiles’ hearing isn’t prone to known human limitations). Oh well, maybe that’s on my writing.
Im not sure I’m clear on how you meant me to interpret the term “measurement” as you applied it in your rebuttal. Seems you haven’t further interest, and that’s fine; otherwise you’re free to read on.
@audphile1 that video - strong effort, some audiophiles heed no limits (respect!), except respecting (uh oh, I sense a ‘but’…) the importance of sample size for study of behavior / perception. YouTubers and forum-goers continuing to avoid / dismiss a properly controlled sampling of human listeners for inquiries like this is not in line with methodological reality of how factual info is demonstrated. Is that tendency really due to some audiophiles’ assumption of (1) needing to be skilled / trained at listening to components, or just that (2) they might be inexperienced / untrained about how experiments must be structured? Maybe both are at play?
I respectfully remain doubtful. Not for insisting whether there could be audible differences, but for some audiophiles persistently assuming properly controlled studies haven’t relevance for comparison in hifi.
That is the common ground x Achilles heel of (1) most / all subjective listening tests and (2) most studies based on device-derived measurements (many lack properly controlled listener preference assessments with which to correlate conclusions). It’s a two-part equation but each “camp” keeps assessing one side only, from what I can tell. Whatever happened to A, B, C it’s easy as 1, 2, 3? As simple as… Doh!
Hence my stance these discrepancies could be resolved.