I should have said black dots. But you get the point.All he said was "the dots" aren't real. When in fact the white dots are real. Just saying.
I should have said black dots. But you get the point.All he said was "the dots" aren't real. When in fact the white dots are real. Just saying.
So they can display their time-out/ban as a badge of honor at their subjective friendly sites they normally post? I do go to some other sites, and now and then someone pops up to say just that: how they came here to tell us how wrong we are, got banned, and that proves how mean, closed-minded, and wrong that we are. We could make money selling "I got banned by ASR!" t-shirts...I’m still lost as to the point of
1)coming to this site and proclaiming, in so many words, “I can hear differences between DACs when I don’t properly control for volume or sighted bias.”
2) being surprised when this assertion is criticized and dismissed.
3) Doubling down with pedantry and rationalization, provoking more testy reactions.
4) Telling everyone they are closed-minded and mean and ruining the hobby for other people.
View attachment 395139
Some sites if you even mention ASR the mods tell you off.
Which ones?Some sites if you even mention ASR the mods tell you off.
I listen to some reviews based on listening impressions and personal opinions instead of purely science based facts.By "subjective," I assume you actually mean "utterly without basic controls?" Just to be clear.
I believe there are three important evaluations to consider. #1. science. #2. how does it sound (subjectively) #3. how does it look. So, no I don't just use science as my only barometer. Guilty as charged.
You still didn't clarify if by "subjective," you actually mean "utterly without basic controls?". But it seems like the distinction flew over your head, so I guess I know what the answer is.#2. how does it sound (subjectively)
I'd argue there's plenty of science behind sighted bias. It's just woefully under-attributed in the trade. I think the typical audiophile (not you) is embarrassed to admit the appeal lies outside of the engineering, or the signal, whereas expensive watch enthusiasts will freely admit their kilobuck timepieces aren't more accurate or convenient.Appearance has NOTHING to do with science, yet people generally do find a beautiful speaker more appealing and better sounding.
Probably hoffman forums.Which ones?
The subject is DACs not speakers. And your answer is apparently, no basic controls at all. So apparently you have no interest in determining the reality of your beliefs.I listen to some reviews based on listening impressions and personal opinions instead of purely science based facts.
Of course science is a very important part but I believe there's more to it. Did it ever happen to you, that a speaker measured perfectly flat but for some reason it didn't sound good to YOUR ears? Maybe a tube amp that didn't measure well but it sounded really good? I have.
Appearance has NOTHING to do with science, yet people generally do find a beautiful speaker more appealing and better sounding. Snake oil in plain view? Yea, maybe. Cheap parts inside and beautiful outside is rather deceptive. Buyer beware.
I believe there are three important evaluations to consider. #1. science. #2. how does it sound (subjectively) #3. how does it look. So, no I don't just use science as my only barometer. Guilty as charged.
I measured one recently and I can tell you its flaws are readily audible.Sorry if I misread what you said, but how often do we find DACs that measure badly enough for that to be audible?
Yup.And you think that anybody here disagrees with this? I’m guided by objective facts to select components that I know will perform. I test them and evaluate them, both, objectively and subjectively, and I’m certainly going to consider look and feel and functionality when making purchase decisions. Doesn’t everybody?
ahofer...."I'd argue there's plenty of science behind sighted bias."
This post is a great example of a disingenuous, derogatory remark with the only intention is to demean and belittle. No intent of understanding anything from my post. Strawman is right here. THIS attitude puts a fine point on the problem here.You still didn't clarify if by "subjective," you actually mean "utterly without basic controls?". But it seems like the distinction flew over your head, so I guess I know what the answer is.
3) Doubling down with pedantry and rationalization, provoking more testy reactions.
This post is a great example of a disingenuous, derogatory remark with the only intention is to demean and belittle. No intent of understanding anything from my post. Strawman is right here. THIS attitude puts a fine point on the problem here.
Yes ahofer, it is very fascinating indeed!!
@ahofer
What's important to you is personal to you, you can like anything you want.I listen to some reviews based on listening impressions and personal opinions instead of purely science based facts.
Of course science is a very important part but I believe there's more to it. Did it ever happen to you, that a speaker measured perfectly flat but for some reason it didn't sound good to YOUR ears? Maybe a tube amp that didn't measure well but it sounded really good? I have.
Appearance has NOTHING to do with science, yet people generally do find a beautiful speaker more appealing and better sounding. Snake oil in plain view? Yea, maybe. Cheap parts inside and beautiful outside is rather deceptive. Buyer beware.
I believe there are three important evaluations to consider. #1. science. #2. how does it sound (subjectively) #3. how does it look. So, no I don't just use science as my only barometer. Guilty as charged.
Read more like an attempt at clarification to me. With perhaps a soupçon of collective frustration adding a certain something to this murky broth you're cooking up .This post is a great example of a disingenuous, derogatory remark with the only intention is to demean and belittle. No intent of understanding anything from my post.