In order for the differences to be further investigated, it would need to be proved that these differences cannot be accounted for by existing theories.
The reality is that all perceived differences could by accounted for by the application of theories of cognitive bias. The only way to rule out cognitive bias is to conduct controlled ABX testing. Testing that is then peer reviewed. If the ABX testing rules out cognitive bias then you’ve got the attention of your scientists. (And before people complain about ABX testing being “unrealistic”, that’s the whole point. We’re talking about scientific enquiry, not the actual experience of listening at home.)
The problem is that nobody has yet managed to get the attention of any scientist because there has, as yet, been no evidence that any perceived differences cannot be accounted for by cognitive bias.
It’s not that scientists refuse to investigate, it’s that there’s nothing to investigate. In the absence of evidence, the status quo remains!
Anyway, a cup of tea and an evening in front of the TV with Mrs. SITG awaits.
This is not quite true, as matters are more complex.
When an observation conflicts with a theory, there are two possibilities of resolving that conflict. Either you dismiss the observation or you begin to question the validity of the theory (or as pertaining to the relevant domain of the conflict).
Hard-nosed objectivists rig the game as they dismiss the validity of the observation out of hand (that is an a priori judgment, and is frightfully unscientific). They can only point to unconscious biases (which exist, nobody call that into doubt), but seem blind to their own biases.
They will argue that science (in this case measurements) cuts through the tangle of biases and somehow makes for a clear view of the naked truth. Not a good counter-argument, though, as science has its own biases to contend with, such as the belief (itself scientifically unprovable) that science can settle the issue of the complex interactions between matter and the mind.
So let’s all remain humble and remain civilised as well as reasonable.
You need to understand that ”facts” told me in the internet don’t change a single thing if I can hear the difference with listening test. It means nothing to me in comparison since I only aim for the best sound quality for myself. I’m pretty sure that these threads turn zero people from either camp to the other side.
Bill_Janssen
(Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)
2366
I don’t know who these “hard-nosed objectivists” are. Rational thinkers always rely on a fanned-out spread of hypotheses, aware that new evidence may alter the relative probabilities of their ordering. Priors are an important part of that probability calculation, of course. They dismiss nothing “out of hand”, but weak evidence (some stranger saying on the Internet “I think I heard something”) usually doesn’t alter the probabilities of the various hypotheses very much.
I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again. This whole thing is subjective and not objective.
The ‘truth’ we make for ourselves in this crazy world of listening to music systems is our ‘truth’, and no one else’s. We make our own ‘facts’.
I rail-against the sort of ‘group-think’ seen in ASR. REPEAT AFTER ME: ‘The Topping D90 is the BEST DAC ever made.’ It isn’t, and people may, and indeed do, prefer the sound of other DAC’s.
Think for yourself!
For example, I just love the sound of my system, but my neighbour might think it sounds ■■■■■ Does that make my opinion any more worthy than his, or vice-versa? Of course not.
In that case, the answer to “Does xxx affect sound quality?” is always true, no matter what “xxx” is, and there’s no way to argue otherwise, no common ground and no common sense.
Bill_Janssen
(Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)
2372
I just searched the site for that. Couldn’t find it.
I would grant that the folks who yak on that site are obsessive about not allowing normal cognitive biases and confusions to lead folks astray. They want to think not only for themselves, but also without mistakes.
Oh, agreed! Neither is worthy of attention. Outside of a pub with some beer, that is!
