Amir at ASR claims Uptone won't sell the ISO regen to him...

[sdolezalek]

One of the things I find quite amusing about this whole thread is that, if my memory serves me correctly, a lot of the folks who are taking the "there is no difference unless I can measure it -- science is absolute" stance here are the same ones who have expressed strong dopubts about Climate Change in prior posts on CA.  I guess "opinions" are ok in other areas of science, but audio is such a settled science that there can't possibly be an improvement we can't readily measure...

[sdolezalek]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

 

I am not certain your memory serves you correctly.  On the other hand, it's quite possible I'm the one with the faulty memory.

It isn't a 100% alignement, but you for example, if I remember correctly, are willing to accept the consensus of climate science and stepped up here to say that you clearly hear a difference that the "measurement" addicts seem to suggest cannot exist.  But the folks I was referring to were those on the other side of the equation; skeptics on climate but absolutists here about the science/measurement telling all.

 

My own view is that unless we pay attention to both (personal observation and science) either one alone can lead us astray. 

[sdolezalek]

2 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

Don't know if I am included in this, but if so, your memory couldn't have served you more incorrectly.

 

No professor, you are one of the ones that consistently seems to put science in the proper perspective.    That was why I included the caveat.  Doesn't mean you can't throw the cat among the pigeons once in a while, but seemingly just for fun. 

[sdolezalek]

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

What baffles me to no end is how so many folks get convinced that measurement couldn't possibly be useful in predicting audio performance....objective, repeatable measurement is key to testing the performance of any electronic device. 

 

If the device 'cannot be measured' or 'the measurements don't demonstrate what it does' then how do you know that it does anything positive to the signal? 

 

Being able to pick the device out in a blind test is a good start, but that only proves there is a difference. Whether the difference is for the better or worse will often depend on the preferences of the listener.

 

I think the real questions are understanding what to measure, and what to hear in a blind test.  We can measure differences that have no audible impact on sound and we can hear differences in blind tests that don't show up in a measurement because we aren't measuring the right thing.  We can also hear clear differences and may choose the less accurate sound as preferable.  Similarly, without listening, it is really hard to tell which among a whole series of measurements is most important in identifying more accurate sound.  

 

I fully agree with your notion of research because it tends to at least identify both what measurements and what hearing opinions exist.