04-Aug-2020, 07:24
@David A To apply the scientific method, we have to agree on what is the scope of the system being investigated.
If the aim is to prove whether there or not there is an objective difference in sound, one has to exclude the listener from the system and use measurements, for example by recording the "before" and "after" sound and looking for differences. In that case listening reports are simply not relevant because they introduce a dependency on the listener who is by definition not part of the system being investigated.
On the other hand if the object of the exercise is to determine whether there is a perceived difference in sound quality, then the system being investigated includes the listener. In that case the sciences involved include physiology, psychology, possibly neurochemistry, and so on - things that affect people. There are many effects in those sciences that are likely to be significant, in fact much more significant than the difference in the audio hardware, but are completely ignored in the anecdotal reports we normally hear on forums like this. Such reports might serve to prompt the question of whether there is something to investigate, but are not themselves part of an investigation.
Designing a scientific study to determine whether a difference in audio hardware reliably does or does not cause a difference in perceived sound for some set of listeners is a non-trivial effort. One has to ask, if the engineering says there is negligible chance of an objective difference existing, why bother? What would anyone do with the result? These discussions would still continue because the results of a scientific investigation matter not a jot to one's personal, subjective experience when listening to music.
Incidentally, to your point about the circuit diagram: it would be identical in both wiring configurations.
If the aim is to prove whether there or not there is an objective difference in sound, one has to exclude the listener from the system and use measurements, for example by recording the "before" and "after" sound and looking for differences. In that case listening reports are simply not relevant because they introduce a dependency on the listener who is by definition not part of the system being investigated.
On the other hand if the object of the exercise is to determine whether there is a perceived difference in sound quality, then the system being investigated includes the listener. In that case the sciences involved include physiology, psychology, possibly neurochemistry, and so on - things that affect people. There are many effects in those sciences that are likely to be significant, in fact much more significant than the difference in the audio hardware, but are completely ignored in the anecdotal reports we normally hear on forums like this. Such reports might serve to prompt the question of whether there is something to investigate, but are not themselves part of an investigation.
Designing a scientific study to determine whether a difference in audio hardware reliably does or does not cause a difference in perceived sound for some set of listeners is a non-trivial effort. One has to ask, if the engineering says there is negligible chance of an objective difference existing, why bother? What would anyone do with the result? These discussions would still continue because the results of a scientific investigation matter not a jot to one's personal, subjective experience when listening to music.
Incidentally, to your point about the circuit diagram: it would be identical in both wiring configurations.
Roon (Mac Mini), Wilson Benesch Full Circle, Expert 1000 Pro CI, Kaiser Chiara
Warwickshire, UK
