Originally Posted by kbarnes701
Arny has answered more eloquently than I could have and his answer is exactly in line with my own thinking.
You are verging on a personal attack on me with your repeated "it's too difficult for you" line. As I, and Arny, have pointed out - it is not that it is difficult for *me* to conduct a sensible blind ABX test of acoustic treatments - it is next to impossible for anyone
to do so.
I agree with you that there "is not too much to talk about" with you. If you cannot see the difference between ABX testing cables and ABX testing acoustic treatments, so be it.
EDIT: incidentally, none of my position on the subject of 'magic cables' has anything to do with 'belief'. The notion that cables can make the differences to sound quality suggested by the cable evangelists is easily debunked by science
. Belief has nothing to do with it.
Have I ever said that what fascinates me about forums is the personal
angle? Audio schmaudio, no longer that interesting. Peoples behaviour tho......
Verging on an attack??? Look at this thread and the constant ridicule of the cable guys, and if I went back I;'d find you gleefully putting the boot in along with the rest of the pack. But when I emphasise a point you made (I would have a lot of difficulty in doing a dbt on room treatment) and show that then in that case you have to rely on the dbt's done by others that HAVE managed to overcome the difficulties you cannot I am then attacking you??
Now I have managed to stop laughing I ask again, in that YOU cannot do a dbt on room treatments why is it then that you ignore the results of those who can? You have already said you trust the results of competently done dbts over sighted anecdotal reports, so why in this case do you ignore these other results.
I can ONLY conclude that it is because (on the face of it) they seem to be contrary to what you believe (or maybe even more importantly) what you have publicly said. It is the PUBLIC face we need to protect on forums ya know.
We are such a self centred and egotistical bunch. We always evaluate the other bloke from our own perspective. To you (and me btw) it is just too difficult to do a dbt on room treatments, yet we could do it on cables. So that means to that other bloke over there he too can do a dbts on cables. You know, the cable guy with his expensive racks and cable elevators all looking like it came out of a showroom, hard to access and what not. In other words, to that other guy it is NOT easy to do a cable test. Mine is an absolute pigsty and I don't give a toss, so I personally do not care.
But HE does. Additionally to him if he moves one of them then it will destroy the synergy. Whatever. Even tho you will reject it out of hand (as would I) the point is that TO HIM it is not the trivial exercise that it is to us.
Why then, using the very same reasons you do when it comes to room treatments would we not accept that it is too hard for him?
You won't accept it, got that. But you have already shown that there are different standards when it comes to *us*.
So, what exactly is science? Something we use to back up our beliefs? Then it is a tool of religion no? If science is the gathering of data from controlled experiments and forming hypotheses (or any such paraphrase) then is science some sort of absolute, something that stands apart from mere human belief? Of so, what formula or reasoning do you apply that allows you to accept science that 'proves' cables have no influence on the sound yet reject science that seems to suggest that room treatments might NOT be the universal improvement continually espoused here.
Note the distinction! The argument here is NOT that cables make no difference and treatments do. It is the conclusions/hypotheses we are talking about. Cable tests how no difference in sound...conclusion one cannot be better than the other (whatever)
Room treatment tests show that they are not universally an improvement...conclusion in most cases under the test room treatments are no improvement or worse (whatever they conclusions were).
NO ONE is trying to say there are not clear measurable differences with treatment or that indeed there is nothing that can be heard. That is trying to throw off the scent.
Do you think that just because there IS an actual difference in sound that we are somehow immune from all the human biases that (in your own minds at least) go a long way in explaining why people ARE cable believers?That was the whole point and the valuable lesson learnt from all the harmon tests we adore.
That even tho there are speakers that do sound different we nonetheless are subject to all of the bvrand name bling biases that (to us) account for why people think the uber amp sounds better than the pioneer.
So bias applies to amps, cables, glowing valves, big names on speakers but not and never room treatments?
"All" were applauding how harmon found that there is an underlying science to what pleases us when it comes to speakers, that speaker E was marked the worst when heard blind. Till it came out they were Martin Logans.
Then all the ML owners got uppity (understandably)..'well what do you expect, they were rigged tests using harmon
trained people in a harmon
facility against harmon
"All'' were applauding when harmon tested various RC systems, and showed what we prefer a RC system to do. We liked that RC system D was judged the worst when heard blind. Till it came out that RC system D was audessy.
Then all the audessy owners gut uppity (understandably)..'well what do you expect, they were rigged tests using harmon
trained people in a harmon
facility against harmon
All loved the research done by the same group of guys when it comes to distributed subs, how many, where and how to get better bass results in our rooms. (Inot exactly harmon research but you get the drift)
Now of course all the room treatment guys are getting uppity. Arny has just told us we can safely ignore these harmon tests for exactly the same reasons
the Ml guys reject them. Because they come from harmon they are unreliable and tainted.
At least the cable guys just simply reject science.
So which is it guys, what parts of harmon research (and seans and todds etc etc) can we ignore and which can we reject?
If one is able to be honest and look into the mirror then at least one the the answers we need to consider is the all too human one. "I accept the ones I agree with and reject the ones I do not agree with, science and testing be damned".
which is the same reason we are snooty and superior when we talk down to the cable guys.