0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 556 times.
Marketeers are scared of scientific comparative testing, thus almost none have been published. This gets into the debate regarding the validity of double blind testing, which is brought up routinely: what ancillary gear to be used? what is the ideal room to be used? who will the panel of golden ears consist of and how will they be selected? what music/recordings will be used? what criteria will be used? ...................
The human voice doesn't have enough range to be a good test of audio quality. Need a broader octave range and wider dynamic range. A piano comes to mind.
Marketeers are scared of scientific comparative testing, thus almost none have been published.
I would disagree that this is a factor. Consumers who want objective data scientifically proving that certain audio equipment and tweaks do or do not sound better or make a difference, generally already adhere to those conclusions which are already thought to be true. Its the reason why most cable conversations quickly end up in the intergalactic waste bin.The issue with audio is that sound is highly objective. Can you scientifically prove what is the best tasting beer? The finest wine? The greatest cheeseburger? Soda? Art? Best car? Best picture quality? Impossible. Whenever you add individual human perception into the mix, you create an unscientific variable. Despite what the science might say about audio, there is always going to be people who prefer something else, or hear a difference where there may scientifically not be one.
Page created in 0.037 seconds with 27 queries.