Tenson said:
Someone saying the opposite to me
What I mean't was opposite to:
Tenson said:
The thing I found was different was that while the Chord had more detail and better imaging, heavy music like metal could not be played as loud without being harsh and hurting my ears.
I don't think it was the badge because the £70 Cambridge audio sounded better to me.
The difference I heard (whatever the cause) was obvious enough for me to be happy treating it as 'real' in my little investigation. If you simply do not believe what I heard was 'real' and that because of this you are not willing to continue the discussion then say so.
Let's go back to rain. I asked you to look out the window and tell me whether it was raining, you did, it was, and I concluded that it is
constantly raining in the UK.
The information you gave me was 'real' enough, but it was sufficient to allow me to draw the conclusion I did. I'm suggesting to you that in order to form a "fact" (which would be a useful for reasoning with) that you need to do more experimentation (like I would with rain).
Putting that in a slightly different form, I'm also saying that you formed your opinion (which you are treating as fact) on the Chord vs Cambridge with too little data.
As you were wondering where I was going with that rain question: I was hoping you'd play along with the "rain" experiment, because I figured you could spot a
bad experiment when you saw one. I then planned on getting you to try to design a
good experiment (to determine the % of time it rains in the UK) - you'd probably make some elementary errors and I could show you that it's harder than you think to create a (seemingly)
simple experiment.
Then, I'd ask you whether you could design an experiment in psycho-acoustics which would generate valid results. [BTW: It's pretty clear that you can't - which is OK, so long you'd be willing to learn how.]
If you are willing to accept that there was a difference for the sake of this discussion then, since you have ruled out my main theory on what the cause was (jitter) I would appreciate some ideas from you, about what could have been the cause
The list I gave in this post
#1-#5 isn't something I made up for amusement, but is rather a distillation of the "confounding factors" that need to be eliminated in psycho-acoustic research (if meaningful results are to be generated).
If you want to discuss "jitter" and esoteric bits of EE then you are free to do so, but you are doomed to an eternity of floundering around (1) because you don't really understand jitter or EE and (2) you're looking in the wrong place, because the explanation for your 'real' experience lies elsewhere.
If you want an explanation for your 'real' experiences forget graduate level topics in EE and do Psycho-acoustics 101.