Originally Posted by jim19611961
Originally Posted by Wayne Highwood
In lieu of evidence-based framework, what do you propose? The marketing based approach? That's what we've got now, and one of the reasons this particular forum is so helpful.
It's boring as ****, but you really need to subject yourself to a properly controlled comparison. Since you view your experience as infallible, maybe try to have an experience that challenges your assumptions. You seem impervious to reason, maybe a real life demonstration could help.
The assumption that you know about all relevant changes and can separate and rank their effects.
I sit in front of another amp, and I can tell the difference?
Do you think that any and all differences that you hear are due to the fact that a different component is being used?
Is it possible that the difference that you hear is due to the fact that:
(1) You are listening to a different piece of music?
(2) You are listening to a different part of the same musical selection?
(3) Inadvertent changes in equipment volume controls?
(4) Equipment has different amounts of gain even though the volume control setting is the same?
(5) Hidden tone control settings?
(6) You know that you are listening to different pieces of equipment, so you auto-suggest to yourself that the sound quality is different?
I simply trust what my senses are telling me.
I see that you use the word senses
, so you admit that several senses may be affecting your perceptions, but isn't this about audio sound quality so only your sense of hearing is relevant?
Not infallible, but trustworthy enough.
Not according to what you just seem to have said.
Do I get it right and gauge every nuance completely every time? Probably not.
How do you know what percentage of the time you are right?
I am starting to tire of having to repeat myself.
As are some of the rest of us.
If I say I can hear the difference in a sighted test, cant you guys just agree to disagree?
If you want blind affirmation regardless of other facts, of course we can provide that. I guess I was wrong when I thought that you wanted us to tell you what we actually believed.
Must you resort time and time again to basically telling me my perceptions are not trustworthy?
Do you want our best understanding, or do you want us to pat you on your back and tell you are correct regardless of what we may know by other, more reliable means?
Do you think the 12th time will suddenly change my mind?
I am wondering if you ever change your opinion regardless of what new evidence is presented.
Again, those of you wanting to use the method you are describing, fine with me. If you feel your AVR receiver cant bettered, thats fine with me also.
I know for sure that most good AVRs, when adjusted for the same gain and frequency response and operated within their ratings sound the same. Why should they sound any different?
Whats not fine with me is the endless assuming going on that someone elses claims cant be right because they dont agree with yours.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it possible that some of us possibly examined this situation more thoroughly than you?
None of you can make the claim that in every single blinded test without exception, differences couldnt be discerned in some cases.
Single blind tests are just defective double blind tests. Why should I ignore the results of the more reliable double blind test?
Or that sighted tests fail in every case.
Sighted tests are just even more defective double blind tests. Why should I ignore the results of the more reliable double blind test?
Without air tight cases on both counts, you cant make exclusive claim to a single truth.
I just cut to the chase and do the double blind test. What's wrong with that?