www.audiosciencereview.com
Except...
It seems this post and its first sentence has been quoted back at you already. By now, surely even you must realise that you posted it? It was only 36 hours or so ago, you must have some idea...
My quote: "I listen to some reviews based on listening impressions and personal opinions instead of purely science based facts."How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent?
That's their problem. If your green pen buddy's experience is ruined by what he reads here, that is also just his problem.
... first sentence.
Jim
Sorry for the confusion. The accusation that I only listen to opinion and disregard science is completely false. Some REVIEWS I sometimes listen to are based on subjective opinions rather than science. Yes. that's true BUT this does NOT mean that's all I listen to and that I am disregarding science. Did you miss a few sentences later I said science is #1 evaluation to consider?
Yes, I did see that. However, if you also report things in the same post like
... then you don't seem to be putting science (as explained to you by others) at number 1. Now, that's fine for your personal preferences. But you do not seem to be getting the message that the "ears" thing is as likely to be about your perception as the actual sound waves in the room. As for a speaker measuring "perfectly flat", not only do I doubt "perfectly", but there are more aspects to the speaker than FR, as you can see from any reviews here, or the associated video on how to understand the measurements.
www.stereophile.com
"allegedly revolutionary D/A processing"Well hmm. Amir has done a lot of ear training (in the audio, if not music theory, sense). If he, for instance, said he walked in to an exhibition room at an audio show and thought the sound was inaccurate in some way, I would take that into account. The issue isn't whether people hear something so much as *why*. There are a million reasons one can like or dislike or take issue with sound. It could have been the room, the recording, something in the chain, some background noise.....or entirely in one's head. So I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it was the equipment being advertised in that room.
The problem with the vast majority of subjective audio commentary in this industry is that it describes all sorts of sensations, but attributes them to specific equipment. Even when this is incredibly unlikely.
Here's one of the first things I googled:
dCS Vivaldi Apex D/A processor
"Roberta Flack has Lou Gehrig's disease and can no longer sing," Béla, my visiting friend, yelled from the guest bedroom. The news rekindled in me the same mixture of sadness and foreboding I get every time I read about the decline or death of an iconic musician who rose to fame during my...
In this article we go from highly subjective perceptions, very likely just the result of paying attention in a different way, straight to the allegedly revolutionary D/A processing. What I really object to is the reviewer making that trip without even a nod to other possible causes. But the industry demands it (with its advertising dollars). Such a mess.
Also say whether it is ........... revolutionary..."allegedly revolutionary D/A processing"
Well it should be if you paid $90.000 for a DAC (system) don't you think
No, everything else was kept the same...only the dac changed.
You know, this may be why many speaker designers prefer to put a slight recess in the lower kHz response, to aid what I can best describe as 'listening comfort.' I mean, our ears are hardly flat in receptivity and they change with perceived loudness as well, so a ruler-flat response speaker, wide directivity and played in a lively domestic environment may cause intense discomfort when reproducing a dynamic piece of music.
Man, that's some high-level word/phrase craziness there.Well hmm. Amir has done a lot of ear training (in the audio, if not music theory, sense). If he, for instance, said he walked in to an exhibition room at an audio show and thought the sound was inaccurate in some way, I would take that into account. The issue isn't whether people hear something so much as *why*. There are a million reasons one can like or dislike or take issue with sound. It could have been the room, the recording, something in the chain, some background noise.....or entirely in one's head. So I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it was the equipment being advertised in that room.
The problem with the vast majority of subjective audio commentary in this industry is that it describes all sorts of sensations, but attributes them to specific equipment. Even when this is incredibly unlikely.
Here's one of the first things I googled:
dCS Vivaldi Apex D/A processor
"Roberta Flack has Lou Gehrig's disease and can no longer sing," Béla, my visiting friend, yelled from the guest bedroom. The news rekindled in me the same mixture of sadness and foreboding I get every time I read about the decline or death of an iconic musician who rose to fame during my...
In this article we go from highly subjective perceptions, very likely just the result of paying attention in a different way, straight to the allegedly revolutionary D/A processing. What I really object to is the reviewer making that trip without even a nod to other possible causes. But the industry demands it (with its advertising dollars). Such a mess.
Using music that is not too surprising.
Do you mean that the hospital staff are demonstrating confirmation bias because 'pseudopatients' pretended to have mental health symptoms and the hospitals admitted them? It's an interesting study, ethically as much as anything else, but I don't think its useful for us. Far too much to get lost in.For anyone who thinks they are immune to confirmation bias, consider this:
Rosenhan experiment - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
You may have missed when they reversed the experiment and *said* they were sending in fake patients but didn’t…and the institutions confidently identified the fakes.
Not 'policing' the relevance or anything else about the experiment. It's interesting and well documented.
