|
Digital Drive Upsamplers, DACs, jitter, shakes and analogue withdrawals, this is it. |
|
|
|
Digital Drive Upsamplers, DACs, jitter, shakes and analogue withdrawals, this is it. |
|
In Reply to: Continued emptiness posted by E-Stat on July 23, 2023 at 12:24:51:
> > If you really thought you could identify power cords in an ABX DBT you would have no problem coming up with an agreed upon ABX DBT and taking my $20K.> >
> Based upon exactly what test conditions? You've never answered that question! Never will.>
Name your own conditions. I tried to get you to answer some basic questions about your system so I could design a test but you refused to answer them. You were clearly posturing and dodging so you could reject any test I would design. So just tell us. What would you accept as an ABX DBT for your claim about the effects power cables have on sound? YOU WILL NOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION
> > Have you done a google search to figure out what steered focus actually is yet?> >
> As observed and linked to earlier (do you know how to follow a hyperlink?), there are no fewer than four references in the BAACH marketing page.>
Yikes, maybe this is senility taking over? Nope. No hyper links to the BACCH webpage. No mention of steered focus in any of their promotional material. Cross talk cancelation DSP is no about steered focus.
You really have no clue what steered focus is as it pertains to aural perception. I'll give you a link to some scientific literature on the subject. I don't expect you to read it but what the hell. At least anyone else reading this can learn something if they don't know about steered focus in aural perception.
> At the expense of continuing to observe the obvious, you have never referenced any "scholarly" use of this with high end audio. You never will.>
Of course not. Actual researchers in psychoacoustics are not wasting there time testing power cords. I know you really hate science so it's probably hard for you to grasp the idea of inferred evidence. Here is the definition. :"Specifically, inference is a rule of logic that is normally used for evidence during a trial. Inference is used, or rather functions, when a fact is elucidated, or "proved" by examining other "facts" then then allow one lead to another fact, or reasonable conclusion."
It's how science works. Again this is like talking to a creationist about evolution. "We ain't never seen no animal turn into another animal! Evilution is BULLSHIT!" (said with the most ridiculous hick accent) And for the most part that is true. we never saw wolves evolve in whales. (they did) We know evolution happened through inferred evidence. In audio that happens when we take the mountain of evidence we have for human thresholds of hearing and applying it to "high end audio" claims of audibility. We can test the signals of the devices in question and measure how much the measurements are affected by the device and we can compare that to known human thresholds of audibility.
Scientific researchers have real work to do. They are not going to waste time and money catering to ignorant audiophiles and only to dispel their religious beliefs about what they can and can not hear. The true believers won't accept it anyway. What would be the point? If you don't understand how the inferred evidence does the trick that's your failure to understand it. Just like it is the creationists' failure to understand how the fossil record, genetic sequencing, and radiometric dating are all inferred bodies of evidence that support the fact that life on earth evolved. But clearly this is all way over your head. You won't get it. And even if you did you would find some excuse to reject it because of your life long emotional investment in audiophile snake oil.
What would it take to convince you that you are wrong about the sound of power cords, cables, optical disc transports etc etc? What would convince you that you are wrong and your non bias controlled comparisons were so flawed as to lead you to believe you can hear differences that never were actually there? YOU WILL NOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION
> I think it's time to leave your circus as well because all you do is deflect questions and posture angrily. Do you think anyone believes you?>
So says the clown who rejects science. Clowns are good for a laugh. I look forward to your refusal to answer the two simple questions I have posed to you. It will pretty much prove my points. The rest will be more blah blah blah blah.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- starting to feel bad for you. But I am going to ask two questions you will refuse to answer. It makes my point - Analog Scott 07/23/2313:00:10 07/23/23 (1)
- That's enough! - Rod M 13:24:42 07/23/23 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
