Originally Posted by Red MC
Ugh, didn't I say I was done here? On with it, I guess....
I don't entirely disagree with you, but I also think you've moved the topic to things (speakers and compression) that are readily
audible. And while you're correct that DBT was invaluable to optimize compression algorithms, I disagree that they're useless for anything else. In fact, I'd say that since they often produce the null hypothesis (i.e., testers are statistically no better than guessing) while they don't (can't, actually) prove
no one can hear a difference (can't prove a negative, period!) they do
, with a pretty large statistical confidence, imply it! Even better, all it takes to end this argument is one person, just one
, to partake in a DBT and achieve an acceptable confidence level. To the best of my knowledge, that golden-eared person (despite many self-proclaimed golden-ears) doesn't exist...and, as far as I'm concerned, never will as far as cables go (again, supposing there's no already known measurable difference caused by a defective cable in either design or specification -- i.e., it's not exactly fair to use, say, a hair-strand of wire and a beefy wire because we already know, through science, there will be differences there).
It also appears you're attempting to posit that because our ears can detect, for example, sound-stage and measurements "can't", that they must also be more capable of detecting the differences in, say, cables than measurements. If so, then I believe it's you creating the false dichotomy.
The reason measurements "can't detect" sound-stage is because sound-stage is an illusion built in your head. Perception thereof relies entirely on the listener's ear and its anatomy, their brain, even their bone-structure (how far are your ears apart?). Which is to say, perception of sound-stage is unique to an individual. Fortunately, we have averages because we've studied this. If we didn't, we wouldn't have stereo. However, despite that a person who's, for example, half-deaf in one ear will perceive sound-stage significantly differently than, say, me, the same waves (assuming we're sitting at exactly the same spot in the room) hit our ears. The same waves that would hit a pair of mics in a fake-head to simulate HRTF -- and such a device
exists! It's nothing magic, it's all just waves! Good, 'ole, measurable, capture-able, waves!
Thus, if we can agree that what we hear (physically hear, not perceive
, I've been careful to distinguish) exists entirely in the waves that propagate our rooms, then all we have to debate is how to accurately capture and analyze those waves algorithmically and relate them to what we perceive and prefer. If we can't agree on this, then you'll need to make a very coherent argument why. And if you chose to, please take careful note of my use of the terms hear
Regardless, none of this hooey is required for cables, IMO. We can measure the electrical properties of a cable and, given it's just an extension of the circuit it connects, we can model it (e.g., SPICE) and determine if and to what extent it'll have an impact on the circuit. Surely as an electrical engineer, you know this, right? Or, are you one of those electrical engineers that knows just enough to be dangerous, believing ridiculously overpriced power cables, for example, yield significant (or any) audible improvements?