All transports are NOT the same

[E-Stat]

You asked about JNDs. I gave them to you. Now you don't like it.

I "like" what I can read. You simply posted a reference with no access. Presumably, you have read the article. If so, what test gear was used? If you wish to present your "evidence", then do so in its entirety. An empty bibliography is - well an empty bibliography.

If there are aubily better components in the chain, excluding speakers, There is nothing published that is reliable to any degree, but you know that, nothing is reliable for you exept your ears.

Quite a bit is "aubily" better. Indeed, I don't share your insecurity as to require a study before accepting what my senses tell me.

rw

[RobotCzar]

The responses of e-stat clarify the position of the high-end club:

1) They want to talk about what they hear and what they own. This is key, understand that the need comes from pride of ownership and snobbery. Also, listening is easy, anybody who is not totally deaf can do it. Why stain one's brain with unpleasant facts when we can "just listen" and stroke our egos? Of course, anybody can just listen and make all kinds of claims.

2) They do make up technobabble to make their opinions sound impressive, but they really don't believe in scientific and technical stuff--they prefer just listening. Science and technical measurement can NEVER surpass the abilities of the human ear (or brain). Fluff or misconceptions are taken as fact as this lends an air of authority and even technical prowess to the opinions of club members.

3) They cannot demonstrate that they hear what they are claiming to hear, so they reject any test of their perceptions. They try to make out that the testing is somehow flawed, but the bottom line is that there is no evidence that they are really hearing (as opposed to percieving) all the "detail" and "quality" they claim.

4) No amount of technical explaination of basic scientific facts can shake their beliefs. In this they are similar to religious fundamentalists. "I know what I know and I know what I hear", they say. The scientific facts and the evidence cannot demonstrate they are wrong because they cannot BE wrong.


So, the choice clear to those becoming interested in home audio: join the high-end club and compete for snob appeal based on money spent. Indulge your sonic fantasy all you want, simply listen (as any child can) and dream up your own reaction to what you hear (a long list of made-up meaningless terms used by the club is available for your use).

Or, you can chose the rational approach. You can learn that the differences among electronic audio gear are very tiny and way below audible thesholds (which is confirmed by real tests of what humans can distinguish). You can then focus your attention on the things that really matter (like speakers and the acoustic environment) and get better (i.e., realistic) audio while saving a ton of money. Believe that DBTs show that many factors ARE audible and DO make a difference. (It's funny how the "flaws" of blind testing only crop up when they show that expensive electronics don't matter.)

I for one couldn't care less what e-stat thinks he hears. What he claims to hear could very well be what he perceives, but since that is all "in his head" then can't I get illusion (or delusion) for a lot less money? All the evdience says you can, the choice is yours

[E-Stat]

... but they really don't believe in scientific and technical stuff--they prefer just listening.

Science is fine when practiced properly. Maybe some day we'll see the kinds of evaluation studies performed with audio equipment better than has previously been tested. I know - prove such is better. Well, you will never know for sure (or truly be able to make a valid judgement until your conclusion is not based upon theory).

No amount of technical explaination of basic scientific facts can shake their beliefs.

That is true for when theory collides with practice.

You can learn that the differences among electronic audio gear are very tiny and way below audible thesholds (which is confirmed by real tests of what humans can distinguish).

And never question but accept with blind faith that such tests are inclusive of all equipment that is available. They aren't.

It's funny how the "flaws" of blind testing only crop up when they show that expensive electronics don't matter.

I have a standing question for anyone to present any such information. All Mtry could find was one audio dealer in Florida who couldn't tell the difference between his Krell (?) and a Yamaha receiver. Fine. Does you camp have any more references than one?

What he claims to hear could very well be what he perceives, but since that is all "in his head" then can't I get illusion (or delusion) for a lot less money?

The really sad part is that you totally miss the point. All products, be they consumer electronics, automobiles, clothing, appliances, or whatever - never improve when their capabilties are deemed "good enough". Good enough for whom? The great part is that all benefit from the ongoing evolution of these products. You constantly harp on price, prestige, and one-upmanship. While you will find such folks in any hobby, that position is not representative of all of us. Yes, price-no-object, I would love to have Harry Pearson's evaluation system. I have heard it in several incarnations over the past couple of years and it is quite simply staggering in its ability to create a holographic presentation of the best musical recordings. Is then anything less than that somehow worthless? Of course not. It is those hideously expensive prototype anythings that ultimately better products for all of us. Twenty years ago, the "perfect sound forever" CD format emerged. The objective camp went straight to the graphs and declared it so. After all, they had written proof ! It wasn't long before those of us who are enthusiastic music lovers quickly realized that the Emperor was wearing no clothes. The sound was far from "perfect" (whatever that is). Eventually, the engineers translated the necessary "audiophile" lingo to figure out what was wrong on several fronts. Now anyone can buy a $69 Toshiba player that is a killer unit for the money. That would not have been the case if everyone just blindly accepted the initial claims.

As for your reference to "discussing equipment", it is entirely relevant when anyone makes a claim, especially you absolutists, to ask on what you have performed your tests. Test are valid for that which is tested. Let me say that again. TESTS ARE VALID FOR THAT WHICH IS TESTED. I have yet to see a DBT test on anything that remotely approaches an evaluation system like Pearson's. I say his in a loose sense of the word - it is all under loan by the manufacturers. It is not owned by him and thus not a subject for "pride of ownership". What I find quite compelling about hearing that system is that it makes me so much more aware of shortcomings in other systems, most assuredly including my own. How else would you characterize hearing for the first time new levels of detail, rhythmic lines, etc. on recordings that you have previously heard hundreds of times? BTW, does that then make me any less happy with that of my own? Am I going to beg, borrow, and steal to buy $20k worth of Nordost Valhalla cable? Of course not. My system is not a status symbol (or would be a very poor one since most of the populace has no idea what it is) - it is a means of enjoying music to the fullest. Speaking of music, I rarely hear you objectivists discuss music. Is it all about the specs like for WmAx? My "camp" would love nothing more than for everyone to be able to experience the supersystems. Dumbing down the discussion benefits no one, IMHO.

rw