What were you trying to say that negates the need for you to publish your results for peer review?Just to be clear, if that is your response, perhaps you did not understand what I was really trying to say - think of it as a test......
What were you trying to say that negates the need for you to publish your results for peer review?Just to be clear, if that is your response, perhaps you did not understand what I was really trying to say - think of it as a test......
That dCS Vivaldi DAC in Canada is $55,650.00 and in the USA $35,999.00I was going to get:
- dCS Vivaldi DAC
- Dan D'Agostino Progression Pre-Amp
- Dan D'Agostino Progression Stereo Amp
- Focal Sopra No. 2 Speakers
Is spending that much on a DAC a waste? And on pre-amps and amps? Is Amir and this forum basically saying I can get the same experience spending 10K total instead of like 70K (minus speakers?)
Not trolling. Genuinely curious where the line is according to this model of undertanding.
That dCS Vivaldi DAC in Canada is $55,650.00 and in the USA $35,999.00
The Focal Sopra No.2 speakers are $18,990.00 USD.
My suggestion is reducing the DAC budget by ~$34K and spending more on the speakers.
What were you trying to say that negates the need for you to publish your results for peer review?
I liked your point, and it has been made by others on the forum often - measurementsdocan not explain or measure everything that exists. If you believe that they do (that measurements describe everything that is needed) then you do not understand science, or history, or engineering, or physics, or etc etc etc.
I was after some evidence of your findings. If you'd like to share this then great. I'm sceptical but interested. Do you have any evidence? Testing methodology? Conditions? I'm not really interested in your analysis of my motivations, just your conclusions and whether or not they stand up to external analysis.https://www.nature.com/news/publishing-the-peer-review-scam-1.16400
Do you think everything peer reviewed is scientifically supported by measurements or findings? Or just mostly? How do you spot the junk science? Do you have professionally recognised qualifications in a relevant field that can determine when information is being manipulated? Do you understand how much of our modern scientific endeavours are funded?
Another test: the Bill Gates foundation actually funded research which ""showed"" that forcing students to show their working and assessing their answers as correct or wrong was a kind of racial oppression by whites......
Now before you look it up - what was your first thought (true or false)? Notice how hard it is to let go of that first thought even once you find the answer? Bet you experienced an immediate thought when I described my example of amp testing - were you aware of it or did you just type out the standard response and hit reply?
Try thinking harder about what I said.
It's not without flaws, but it is part of the evaluation of evidence.Does anyone really believe that peer review is without flaws?
It's not without flaws, but it is part of the evaluation of evidence.
In theory, it helps support common practices for experiment design, and making research transparently reproducible. In practice, it often does not live up to those aspirations. And it certainly does nothing to prevent other people from drawing incorrect or exaggerated conclusions from the same research (see the internet and journalism, every day).It's not without flaws, but it is part of the evaluation of evidence.
Sorry, do you genuinely think that peer review has no place in what we're discussing?Lol, indeed
I agree. As I've stated, it's only part of the process.In theory, it helps support common practices for experiment design, and making research transparently reproducible. In practice, it often does not live up to those aspirations. And it certainly does nothing to prevent other people from drawing incorrect or exaggerated conclusions from the same research (see the internet and journalism, every day).
Sorry, do you genuinely think that peer review has no place in what we're discussing?
Just because something is flawed doesn't mean that it lacks value. In the absence of peer review, how do we evaluate presented scientific research?I genuinelythinkam sure that it's flawed.
So how do we evaluate presented scientific research?
I don't think anybody denies the following things:Is there really no such thing as high-quality tube sound in an amp, for example? Like warmness? In a way that's desirable—at least to some?
I'm just trying to figure out what the primary thesis is for the forum.
If measurement were all that mattered there would be no reason for double-blind testing, because that's subjective.
Other members will have some interesting discussion points in response, but before this train leaves the station it will be helpful to understand why you selected these devices in the first place.