How else would we test the statement that:
"For example, RFI/EMI riding on the AC power has a noticeable signature, which is instantly recognizable when you have experienced it. " If it is instantly recognizable, what percentage of time would it be revealing in a controlled test when that was the only variable?
Good one
. But there is a difference. I won't say that the small differences that I was testing were instantly recognizable. I would tell you that these are very small differences and vast majority of people cannot hear them. That I could, was a testament to my training to listen critically. It is that training whose value is being questioned. Seeing how hardly anyone could duplicate my result of testing high resolution audio against CD, it reasons then that what I say about training in loudspeaker and room distortions is also valuable just the same.
How much of the subjectivists arguments should the other camp tolerate before they get sad? Or is only one camp allowed to have such negative feelings?
The topic is one that is scientific in nature. Through literally decades of testing and research, Harman has arrived at a methodology to train people to hear colorations and controlled listening tests to find out which loudspeaker creates a more real, enjoyable experience. You can't take the position that the counter to validity of both of these should be treated in a non-objective manner. If you are going to say these tests don't have value then you have to make an objective argument. The answer is not, well, my feelings are hurt because you are talking like an objectivists. That is the nature of this discussion.
You are opposing published, well accepted research which your speaker designer may very well be using just the same without telling you. How would you like me to argue back? Throw out everything I know about audio science and just tell you my opinion is that you are wrong? Well, I can do that too but I don't think we learn anything
.
By the way, I have had this very argument in exactly the same nature with extreme objectivists. They don't understand the nature of these tests and research any more than subjectivists. To wit, they don't think we need blind tests for speaker testing even though they demand it in other audio testing. They are wrong there and get sad when I tell them that they are a part-time vegetarian when it comes to objectivity.
What advice do you have for me in this conversation? To accept at face value that when I show 30 db differences in colorations that the speaker+room bring, that somehow power cords are just as critical in nature and create similar timbral changes? I can't do that if you can't put forward any evidence that is independent of your opinion and views. Or else this is a free for all as everyone puts forward a different opinion of the same thing.
If I swap two premium power cords, you all hold the position that the sound changes, right? Can you tell me if it changes the same way for you and another person? If the answer is yes, how come you all don't have the same power cords? If it changes one way for you, and another way for someone else, then that is not a scientific basis to analyze. It is a random effect that can't be quantified and therefore I should ignore everything you all say about such things. My mind works in logical manner and if you want to have an argument with me, then I expect that bring forth this kind of logic.
I get that you have had X, Y and Z experiences leading you to certain opinions. I have no dispute about that whatsoever. That separates me from objectivists that sadden you because I don't jump in the middle of a conversation about cables and say you are out of your mind. I comment however, as gently as I can
, when you try to tell me that changing said cables makes instantly recognizable changes and simply ask for some verification, as mildly as I can, that takes out your prior beliefs. If you have a better solution in how we can close this gap between us, I am all ears, pun intended
.