Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer  What does that have to do with the price of tea? If wood and concrete sound different in the way they reflect, then the difference is easily measured. In fact, we can measure to a fraction of a dB, where most people would be hard pressed to hear differences much larger. Measuring always beats subjective opinion. Always.
If you think wood and concrete sound completely different you'll have to prove it. You have REW, yes? Would you like to run the test or shall I? I have a concrete floor in my garage, and a nice piece of 3/8 plywood I can lay on top. Or you do it. Your choice. Let me know which you prefer. Or maybe we should both test it and compare results? |
Ethan, you are completely missing the point and the experiment you're suggesting is silly. How then would you reasonably dismiss the opinions of 10
skilled listeners who report hearing a difference? To be even more centrist, let's say that 82 out of 100
skilled listeners report hearing the difference. How do you dismiss that? Purely opinion? They're all wrong? That's what I'm saying: there is enough subjective opinion by
skilled listeners (including my own) to lead me to the conclusion that there is a difference. And I'm asserting (right along with you) that the measurement data would bear that out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer Before either of us runs a surface test we should both agree on how much difference is meaningful. Originally I said the difference is "not enough to worry about." So would you agree that reflectivity differences versus frequency of less than, say, 3 dB are not enough to worry about? |
I'm working from the other direction because it is relevant to the point I'm making. Start with the
skilled listener, THEN move to the measurements in a double-blind test. Again, the data describes something real or it doesn't mean anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer Subjective opinion and empirical data are totally different. Yes, you can trust listening, but only when 1) the change is blatantly obvious to all, or 2) you use a blind test. I assume you're aware of audiophooles and their beliefs? I can point you to dozens of people who all swear they hear an improvement when replacing one competent AC power cord with another. Or swear they hear better imaging after smearing magic cream on their CDs. Or after demagnetizing their LP records. Ad nauseum. I hope you're not saying those 'phooles are correct just because they believe they hear an improvement! |
Please enlighten me as to the practical difference between empirical evidence and subjective opinion assuming that both utilize a consistent testing methodology and a qualified subject pool. The examples you cite are extreme and silly; they are straw men, easy to shoot down to make your point, but not germane to the context of this argument. As a matter of fact, they are more anecdotal than anything; I think most
skilled listeners would not report hearing a difference between one cable and another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer It is if the surfaces aren't really completely different. And concrete is not "completely different" from wood. |
They're not? At the atomic level they most certainly are. I'm certain they'll share some reflective properties, but one is an "apple" and the other is an "orange".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer You're taking a mighty big risk there bud.  |
Risk is fun. 10 years in the military taught me that.
Frank