-
Content Count
863 -
Joined
-
Last visited
About Albrecht
-
Rank
Sophomore Member
Recent Profile Visitors
The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.
-
Hi, @TheComputerAudiophile You are understood, and you are correct. I will stick to his work. Thanks
-
Since when are criticisms of someone's (poor) published scientific investigations constitute a baseless attack? Especially when you do the same to published reviews and reviewers in say Audiostream for example. Pot meet Kettle. If reading a well reasoned opposing viewpoint offends you so much, - you can block my posts. And, - likely, - (as a self proclaimed troll), - that sounds like a wise course, - since my content is just so much for you to "endure."
-
Sorry, What I wrote was poorly said. What I should've wrote was even his objective evaluations are cursory and poor in the context of a lack of a number of testing samples. "Blind listening fails to show an ability to tell the devices apart in playback." Yes, - they are out of context by design.
-
Did not claim a scientific foundation, - a reasoned critique of bad science does not make it a scientific investigation of (an alleged) scientific investigation.... And... it is possible to conduct a good scientific investigation into subjective phenomenon by engaging in good and thorough scientific methodologies. To conduct NO thorough comparative (subjective) tests while drawing subjective conclusions, -- will lead any investigator to point out that the investigations are indeed poor and conclusions will be drawn on the basis of insufficient evidence.
-
TFW: there's no cogent argument against your position and your critic resorts to bad, sarcastic memes....
-
Not a scientific one.
-
I am not conducting any testing when I am criticizing Archimago's poor testing methodologies. I know that I am not "refuting" anything. ""trot out as making a significant difference appear to do nothing of the sort when objectively evaluated."" (I also dispute that Archimago does any objective evaluations). That is not true, - actually patently false. It is ABJECTLY impossible to predict how an objectively evaluated component will sound with 6 others, in a room, without actually being there. For example, A Meitner DAC would make a significant difference to a $350 Sony in a system with commensurate components and make NO DIFFERENCE whatsoever when plugged into the auxillary input of a Sharp boombox. Archimago's tests are equivalent to plugging Meitner's into boomboxes.... the essence of bad science.
-
Whenever he concludes through bad tests that different digital file players do not sound different, - he's making a statement about the performance of ALL digital file players.....
-
I don't think so, - if you do not believe that you can have good tests and bad tests, - then you cannot have a scientific investigation.
-
1. Archimago would never do so, - because his intention is to deceive and rig the tests to his desired outcome/conclusions. 2. It isn't only about the test equipment, - but 1. above, - and the choice of what is being measured. 3. The performance (accurate or pleasing sound) of a system, and even individual components cannot be determined by any series of measurements. When we judge performance, - it is a SUBJECTIVE judgement. I am not making any claims. And, - what we hear through our SUBJECTIVE experiences and the SUBJECTIVE goal of those experiences occur throughout an entire system in a room. No MEASUREMENT or series of measurements on ANY one piece of audio gear will reflect the sum total of the experience of a system in a room. When you conduct a cursory jitter measurement of a DAC's chips, - it has no bearing on the quality of the speaker in a system, - or that speaker's performance. It's possible to use a great DAC in a boombox. How the violin ends up sounding in a system, isn't due entirely to the DAC.
-
Yeah, - there are several unreasonable anti-science/anti-reason naysayers here.... who will not be swayed, and/or refuse to listen.
-
Hi, Yes, - and this is why any "objective" testing is going to not be representative. It's why the review magazines always have as the main part of their review subjective testing, - (Not enough comparisons though), - as there are no adequate objective tests, (or body of tests), that in any way represent what one is hearing...
-
And that refutation comes quite frequently from folks who are conducting better tests. The fact that Archimago uses cheap software tools and conducts no tests on high performance "high-end" equipment; then draws conclusions about that equipment is contradiction enough. There doesn't need to be ANY counter evidence produced, when criticizing the testing METHODOLOGY, - which is of course, - conducting tests on low-fi equipment, - and making the false conclusion that those tests apply to ALL equipment.
-
Me too, - Archimagos tests are so blatantly unrepresentative, - & such bad science, - that they are "faith based tests."
-
Many trues above: Archimago's work is best summed up as "psuedo science" through straw man tests that are always designed to produce a pre-determined outcome.