New vs Vintage
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:41:02 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
Another way to put this, I think, is that while Arny
believes that since there is no evidence of peer-reviewed
support for what he calls "audiophile myths", it means
that no evidence HAS or CAN be found supporting those
propositions, while many of the rest of us takes that
lack of evidence to mean simply that serious science
hasn't "tackled" the issue (nor are they likely to do
so).
Various people including ourselves have done DBTs relating to several
audiophile myths, and found that the promised audible benefits become
elusive when tested with any amount of rigor.
That's fine Arny. It has nothing to do with my comment above, but that you
have this conviction is just fine.
You asked for peer-reviewed evidence of the validity of what you call
"audiophile myths". The insinuation here is that lack of same means that
there aren't any because there cannot BE any, when all it really shows is
that none have been done - that we are aware of. You can guess at the reason,
and your guesses can be used to support your conviction, but the truth is
that you don't know (and neither do I). And that has nothing whatsoever to do
with DBTs that you have performed or anyone else's. The topic was peer-review
of data.
You can't find evidence if you don't look for it.
There are people who have done their homework. We've looked for the
evidence, but its exceedingly hard to find. I freely admit that we're the
wrong people to do this, but science isn't so fragile that only advocates
can make something that wants to work, actually workd.
Now, If Arny wishes to fund a peer-reviewed university
study on Audiophile Mythology, I'm sure he could find
someone to step forward and tackle the issue, but I'm
equally sure that aside from that eventuality, funding
from the usual sources is going to be hard to come by.
There you go - we see once again where people who advocate and have spent
the big bucks on audiophile myths want other people to pay money to show
them the error of their ways. It's called $200 for a magic HDMI cable but
never ever spend $20 for a JAES preprint.
No, you misunderstand me, again. My comment has nothing whatsoever to do with
the studies themselves, or magic HDMI cables or even $20 JAES reprints. You
asked for peer-reviewed studies showing that audiophile myths are true. I'm
merely pointing out that the only way that's going to happen is for someone
to pay to have the studies performed. My invitation to you to step-up to the
plate was done in jest, of course.
|