Search results

linked in the article in the OP - https://www.youtube.com/live/QGhk-AG-ixY?feature=share

An intriguing AI application comes to mind. But you'd have to train it to avoid closed epistemic loops.

I'm a firm believer that a bet is a "tax on bullshit". I have offered before, but I would still be willing to put up $5k to the (501c3) charity of their choice against their results being replicated in a blind test, with conditions agreed upon by someone like @amirm or Archimago and the crew...

Well, that's more or less what I'm saying, but politely. Clean up the blind test or no sale. But I think my approach is more likely to change minds or get a different result. I dunno, I see why you all call it a waste of time, but this is kind of part of our version of the hobby, isn't it?

Very likely.

I don't know anything about these people beyond the godawfulness of their video. But I'm in favor of people, particularly those who still think 'burn-in' is a thing, performing blind tests and seeking replication. Even if I have a strong idea of the likely outcome.

Well they tried. They should send the cables to Archimago or one of the members here to set up a proper file-based blind trial. I'm sure they would like to see it replicated ASAP. btw, did they say what guage the zipline is? I couldn't tell anything from the Youtube sound, but there's some...

Not my experience, I have a whole thread on blind tests, and there are many others. @BDWoody what say you? The measurements aren't very interesting. What's interesting is whether those measured differences are *audble*. And that video is horrendous.

Is there a written summary of the blind test methodology? I'd like to see this replicated as I'm more skeptical than you (given your comment on the site that this is dispositive). Because this video so far is painfully badly done. Several minutes discussing break-in, incoherently. And...

Could be absolutely true.

Just quoting here because I wish I could like this twice. My friend who’s a musician came over and I played it for him. He went completely slack-jawed and said it was the most profound lack of difference he’d ever (not) heard.

If that’s the strongest, I’d hate to see the weakest.

That’s the crux of it. For some the hobby is fiddling around with new gear. But everyone *says* it is listening to music because the former sounds sort of empty/low status and the latter has become imbued with all sorts of quasi-spiritual ideas. We don’t mind the musical experience being all in...

My guess is if he didn't use his eyes, he wouldn't, and that sort of confusing nonsense isn't uncommon at all.

True, not a great phrase. "here we follow a scientific process" is better. In my case it might be better to say I follow a Bayesian process to decide what pieces of information deserve consideration in revising my beliefs. Probably true for many other ASR denizens.

Forget uncontrolled and subjective anecdotes. Try a controlled, blind test first. Then after closing up your jawdrop..... Sorry dude, burden of proof is on you, not us. Science is a process of attempted falsification.

FUD=fear, uncertainty, and doubt. This is what one spreads when one waves their hands about a scientific irrelevance to imply there is some magic in electronic audio signals that we don’t understand, or waxes dogmatic about a simple test that was not controlled for contact quality, level, or...

Right, my question was about cardioid. Isn't that beneficial directivity control?

That doesn't mean the new cardioid models are pointless, does it?

There are probably cooler, more efficient ARM chips for which we could expect Linux/ROPIEE builds. I would hope.