Originally Posted by Ethan Winer
The real question for me is why you continue to single me out, and try to cast doubt on my expertise and my company's products.
Not that I speak for Amir...methinks he does a good enough job himself:)....and tho I can understand it might feel personal, I think it is a worthwhile question he asks.
It goes back to the 'heart' of 'who we are'...if we proclaim ourselves to be objectivists (and thank god there is a forum where we can be so) well then I'm afraid we have to be, well, objective.
You know, evidence based.
As such, it then becomes a very valid question, 'when tested blind
, how do the chips fall regarding room treatment?'
Just so's it's known, I am for and use room treatment. But surely we have to hold ourselves to the same standard as those we disparage? Why do THEY have to do a blind test to prove (to our satisfaction) they can hear cables, whatever insert your own hobby horse here, when WE can just blithely state that 'if you are audio aware, you need
to treat your room'?
My own personal situation at least gives me a chance to do a direct comparison (obviously not blinded), I have two identical rooms one treated and one without treatment. Only the treated room has music, the other is a tv room. However, I can simply walk across the hallway and compare the acoustics (albeit without music in both). I ofetn have trouble understanding what is said on tv:), yet again these rooms could not in any way be called your 'normal, furnished living rooms' so my case could be an outlier.
Still, you are absolutely fooling yourself if you believe (just because we are talking room treatment, accepted by the wise (us) and often ignored by the 'fools' (those silly audiophiles we larf at) ) you are not subject to the same types of bias inherent in ALL sighted listening tests.
If you feel no need for a blind test in this situation, maybe stop and take a breath before you hit submit the next post you are about to slam a cable believer with.
Human nature see, we ALL carry into a sighted test some sort of baggage and preconceived ideas. The reason we demand blind tests.
If, as is being argued here, the concept is that 'room treatment is always beneficial', how can that not
influence your perception?
kinda a definitional think ya know.
this barmy idea that blind tests are somehow not needed when 'it's obvious a difference in sound exists' is beyond me.
Just remembered, this coming weekend should see, hopefully, a test of the treated room and the untreated room. We *should*, if we have enough time, be able to set up a system easily moved into the treated room and the untreated room. As mentioned, the two are identical in dimensions and layout, a mirror pair. So with a bit of care with placement (ie ensure the same distance from the same walls etc etc) we should be left with the treatment as the only variable. The plan is to record from the LP (someone wants to document it on his audio blog) and post a video of it all.
It would be a good idea to play the two on the video with a pretty picture (salma hayak do?
) so you are only presented with 'sound A' and 'sound B'. After that the identity of which room A or B (treated or untreated) can be revealed.
The hope is that even on you tube the/any differences should be readily heard and preferences can then be found.
We might get too pissed tho..but if it happens and there is any interest here then I can link to it next week (or whenever it gets put up).
Brett, if you're on the wagon for now as you say, maybe you can keep us all in line and oversee the project!!