|
|
|
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
(S888Wheel) wrote:
Tom said
Actually if nominally competent components such as wires, parts, bits and
amplifiers have never been shown to materially affect the sound of
reproduced
music in normally reverberant conditions why would ANYONE need to conduct
more
experimentation, or any listening test, to choose between components? Simply
choose the one with the other non-sonic characteristics (features, price,
terms, availability, cosmetics, style...) that suit your fancy.
That is the 64,000 dollar if.
Tom said
Examination of the extant body of controlled listening tests available
contain
enough information to aid any enthusiast in making good decisions. Even IF
the
existing evidence shows that wire is wire (and it does) how does that
preclude
any person from making any purchase decision? In my way of thinking it just
might be useful for a given individual to know what has gone before (and
what
hasn't.)
Well, so far I don't see it the way you do. I must at this point thanl you
for
the articles on this subject you sent me when I asked for the alleged body of
empirical evidence that prooved your position on the audible differences of
amplifiers.
I said that a body existed. I offered to send you Some of the existing evidence
because you said that you hadn't seen "any."
The "body of evidence" you sent me that constituted actual
evidence, raw data, was not much of a body. Only two articles out of the six
you sent had raw data ( "Can you trust your ears" by Tom Nousiane and "Do all
amplifiers sound the same" by David Clark) and only the test you conducted
had
it in a usful table which could allow for the examination of trends such as
learning curves or fatigue curves.
Let's be clear here. I did not offer to send you "the" body of evidence. You'll
see "The Great Debate; Is Anybody Winning" a list of over twenty controlled
listening tests on amplifiers conducted prior to 1990.
As to raw data "The Great Chicago Cable Caper" and "To Tweak or Not To Tweak"
both contained raw data.
First, this is not much of a body of
evidence. Second, if we are to draw conclusions from the results we would
have
to conclude that some people can hear differences between amps and some amps
sound idfferent than some other amps.
None of the raw data suggests that.
Of course it would be a mistake to draw
conclusions from those tests by themselves because they simply are not that
conclusive. If what you sent me is the best evidence out there and if what
you
sent me is any significant portion of the much talked about "extant body of
controled listening tests available" then I don't see how anyone can draw any
strong conclusions one way or another.
What is so funny is that I offered to send you copies of some data because you
claimed to have not seen ANY of the approximately 3 dozen controlled listening
tests that had been published in popular journals over the years. I didn't
offer to send you all data that exists.
If you were truly interested you should do some of your own homework. But it
certainly doesn't seem that you do have a true interest.
And you're missing an important point; no one has produced a single repeatable
experiment in normal listening conditions where nominally amps, wires or parts
have been shown to have an audible effect.
The ONLY existing evidence on your side for amplifiers is pcabx which uses a
overly sensitive microscope-like technique that doesn't represent the typical
sighted conditions where 'amp differences' are often made.
Tom said
So IMO, a person truly interested in maximizing the sonic-quality throughput
of
his system simply MUST examine the results of bias controlled listening
tests
OR fall prey to non-sonic biasing factors, even if they are inadvertent.
I examined the results of contained in the articles you sent me and do not
find them conclusive. Unfortunately four of the six articles you sent me had
no
raw data to examine and only offered conclusions.
Again, all of them contained raw data except for the summary piece which listed
over twenty reports that you can track down if you have interest.
Given the fact that the two
articles that did offer raw data drew conclusions that I find questionable i
have trouble feeling condifent about the conclusions drawn in the other
articles missing the raw data. So I find the evidence to date that I have
seen
less than helpful in purchase decisions.
So you will reject any data that doesn't support your prior held conclusions. I
figured that would be your position. Why not try to find ANY credible data that
does? Happy hunting.
|