This is just a case of when one is simply not worth replying to 33 (for such statements surely evidence a disconnect with reason/reality); no reason to get upset or offended, just feel sorry for the poster if anything. That's how I took it, I know my (and your and many others') posts in here were far from dribble, nor do I (or you) lack any substance (and nor do any other posters itt as far as I can discern :scratch2:
). And that's all that matters. :thmbsp:
Yes, that probably would have been the proper thing to do, I shouldn't have replied at all, I do kind of regret it, and I could delete it, but I won't. I don't know, it's not so much I was upset or offended, as I was annoyed that such claims existed, and were uttered in honest. I can't very well change someones personality through a forum, I know that much, but it just irks me to see a blatant untruth such as that, and dismissal of another persons thoughts and ideas, which I believe have inherent value.
Yes me too. I just wrote a long post on another thread here about some of the differences between 16bit/44.1kHz and 24bit/192kHz digital formats. Some of it applies to just analog audio and might even apply to headphone amplifiers in terms of extended frequency response and phase and timing accuracy. Funny how the human ear works and how it reacts to different audio gear.
And by the way it is all psycho acoustic and the ever present placebo effect is always lurking in the dark corners just waiting to pounce on unsuspecting audio hobbyists and professionals alike
:yes:
That is very true, it's almost, if not entirely, impossible to completely negate the placebo effect. Heck, I read not long ago that in trials, the "more expensive" medicine (placebo) gave better results, which could be connected to the topic at hand, but I think that is not a valid link(totally different fields, and not exactly cause-and-effect).
I do enjoy the first thing you pointed out, the human ear is really something, can you completely trust it?, of course not
. I was reading a chapter in Psychology the other day, about one of the first schools of thought in psychology, Structuralism (started by Edward Titchener), which was effectively "experiance something, and write about it", which was called "Introspection", where you would describe the attributes of something, without naming the object, to retrieve raw data about the way the brain organizes and relates things.
What i'm getting at is, we really haven't come that far in these forms of discussion, with something like the human ear, we can only relate a personal experiance and suggest relative quality of the data presented. Since we are a widely different bunch, one's reactions are not the same as anothers. Also, I'd like to think I read that chapter for something, were else to post boring information on a forum
Needless to say, there are many measurable things that can stengthen observations as well as reveal pychoacoustic effects, but that won't necessarily change how one experiances it.
@Jbl_guy, I now doubt you are still glad i'm posting
, sorry all for the dissertation, it all boils down to liking what you like, and not letting some yahoo(myself included) convince you differently:thmbsp: