|
|
|
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
(S888Wheel) wrote:
....many snips....
By certain persons I suspect you are including me. That is an interesting
question. Does such a body of evidence even exist? When Tom Nousiane made his
offer of such evidence the body of evidence he offered was hardly conclusive
about the audibility of amplifiers.
Please don't make up things that I didn't offer. You said you had never seen
ANY evidence about the audibility of amps, wires and parts. I offered to send
you one such report. Indeed one of the ones I did send you lists a couple dozen
amp experiments.
What I find interesting is that not ONE credible, replicable bias controlled
report verifying the audibility of nominally competent amps, wires or
capacitors in normally reverberant conditions exists. Not one.
This begs the question are some people
drawing definitive conclusions with less than adequate evidence to draw such
conclusions? Do you think the two cited articles supply sufficient evience to
draw any definitive conclusions about the audibility of amplifiers?
Find a credible one that suggests otherwise, why don't you?
Do you
think the evidence in those articles qualify as scientifically valid bodies
of
empirical evidence? Do you think the issue of test sensitivity was
sufficiently
addressed in those tests based on the content of those articles?
Yes. Definitely.
I said
Unfortunately four of the six articles
you sent me had no raw data to examine and only offered conclusions.
Arny said
Would this have made a difference?
It does to me when I am asking for empirical evidence. conclusions and
analysis
is not data. analysis and conclusions without the raw data is just opinions
IMO.
The statemrnt about lack of data is simply not true. All the reports sent to
him contained raw data. The other was a compilation of results from a couple
dozen previously conducted amplifier tests. All Mr Wheel has to do is look them
up.
But again he originally suggested that no evidence on the matter, one way or
another, actually existed.
At the very least one should recognize that plenty of it exists, that
interested parties have had public access to same over the past 30 years and
that you can't find a single experiment that supports the claimed audibility of
amps and wires.
I said
Given the fact that the two articles that did offer raw data drew
conclusions that I find questionable i have trouble feeling confident
about the conclusions drawn in the other articles missing the raw
data.
What's funny is that Mr Wheel examines the raw data and rejects the conclusion
"no single listener was able to reliably identify amps under blind consitions"
that the data clearly depicted.
Arny said
Bottom line, there are plenty of opportunities now to do your own
experiments, gather and analyze your own data, etc.
1. That is irrelevant. Tom was claiming one could use the extant body of
evidence to make purchasing decisions. I was addressing that claim. 2. That
is
not neccessarily true. Unless if we are trying to limmit this to
scientifically
valid tests.
I've been making high quality decisions based on this evidence for a quarter
century.
I said
So I find the evidence to date that I have seen less than
helpful in purchase decisions.
Those who will not see and won'y examine historyt are doomed to repeat
historical mistakes and apply resources intended to improve sound quality that
have no sound quality aspect.
|