In Reply to: "everything that is audible is measurable but not everything that is measurable is audible" posted by 1973shovel on September 25, 2021 at 06:23:08:
EEs are not scientists working in the field of psyhcoacoustics. They are just as suceptable to bias effects since they are human beings and have just as much of a capacity to be unaware of the science behind bias effects on aural perception.
And lets be clear. I don't reject either the subjective or objective. That is a gross mischaracterization of my position. Subjective opinions formed under sighted conditions are unreliable due to the infusion of bias effects. They are far more reliable when formed under blind protocols. They are no less *subjective* because of blind protocols. And I clearly do not reject objective data either. I just insist that it be put in objective context. It is a fact that we can measure things that measure differently and make no audible difference so the context that is always needed is where those measurable differences fit in context of human hearing threasholds. It's not "my narrative." It's science. You can accept science or reject it. That's on you. But it ain't "my narrative."
I find that comment rather ironic given how many audiophiles will reject science because it does not fit their "narrative." Accpeting science means accepting it even when you don't like what it tells you.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- "[it] shouldn't make a difference, but it does". - Analog Scott 09/25/2110:19:25 09/25/21 (4)
- "many audiophiles will reject science" - 1973shovel 04:27:43 09/26/21 (3)
- Just one question - Analog Scott 09:35:09 09/26/21 (2)
- Music brings me pleasure - 1973shovel 09:43:11 09/27/21 (1)
- RE: Music brings me pleasure - Analog Scott 09:58:17 09/27/21 (0)