[joeq]

Originally Posted by MarsBot

.

Ultimately there will be some scientific verification of the sonic differences between DAWs.

Just out of curiosity, why will you believe THAT scientific evidence? Because it conforms to your subjective opinion?

You do seem to be conceding that such verification is, at the present time, non-existent.

As Thomas Kuhn says, there will be a paradigm shift. We just have to be patient.

Paradigm shifts come from people doing research, not from people griping about someone else's research. How sad that Kuhn is so often misappropriated by those wishing to discredit or attack the authority of science- such as creationists.

In any case, you, like the Creationists, have it exactly backwards. The idea that some 'magical algorithms' cause software to sound "different" is, in actuality the OLD paradigm, based as it is on an analog-hardware model, where individual components have only an 'approximate' value that varies with age, heat, materials and so on. The recent surge in null-testing is revealing the NEW paradigm: that numbers is numbers. That each 'component' of a DAW merely performs repeatable arithmetic. That computers are stupefyingly boring and predictable. That the 'magic' must lie elsewhere.

Time after time, every process that can be isolated keeps nulling. Summing, faders, EQs, on and on. Often full nulls and the rest of the time, nulls so deep that to believe the differences involved would make some DAW software sound "better" than another strains credulity.

The difference-hearers have been forced to retreat to their Keep- the "Fortress of The Real World Mixes". That somehow the "magic" - which has been shown to not exist in any individual component - is nevertheless manifesting itself at some later point in the complex interaction of components.

Could be, but how convenient to have this sonic 'character' of DAWs hide in there where nobody can get at it. Still, if the difference is truly audible, surely blind testing could prove that people can hear it.

Then again, why do you even care? If you 'hear it every time', why do you need this scientific validation? If your ears are so much better than any test science can design, who needs science? Is that what you are saying?

If null-testing is "pseudo-science", why is Mark your hero when his desultory experiments fail to find a null? People complain about Mark's methodology because frankly, he is sloppy.


Speaking of patience, we are still waiting for all the difference-hearers to ace the blind listening tests. To the best of my knowledge, we are still waiting for the difference-hearers to even TAKE the blind listening tests.

You want scientific verification? You don't need a lot of gear, or a big lab, or a PhD. Just some A/B/X software and some golden ears.