|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.39.16.143
In Reply to: RE: Complete nonsense posted by Analog Scott on November 19, 2016 at 13:31:31
That was my original question.
Or are you saying that Heraclitus' point about the stream of consciousness is nonsense? Or that it's not applicable to DBT? Don't mean to be dense, but I don't understand the wig out.
Follow Ups:
It's too simple of a question for such a complictated subject. I would say that well designed comparisons done under blind conditions are more reliable than the same comparisons under sighted conditions IF all else is equal and the blind protocols are implimented well. When done well blind protocols do remove biases. But eliminating all relevant bias can be a bit more complicated than just putting blinders on. Biases can run both ways and there has to be controls for both positive and negative biases.
I don't buy the "stream of consciousness" argument. Blind protocols do not have to affect that. If the blind protocols are dulling one's perceptions then they are poorly designed and/or poorly implimented.
Now let me explain the "wig out." (and you are right, it was a wig out) It's the utter abuse that science as a dicipline and as a superior means of discovery recieves in the world of audiophilia. IMO both the objectivist and subjectivist camps in their most extreme are anti-science. One side rejects it because they feel that it runs contrary to their experiences and the other misapplies it because they are are uncomfortable with subjectivism in something as technical in nature as audio. At the risk of getting political, I will point out that we just elected a president who is a climate change denier. Denial of science as the best means of discovering the nature of reality is a serious problem. So when either side of the audio debates abuse science and/or misreperesnt it I get pissed off.
As for the use of DBTs or blind protocols in audio for us, the consumer I say do what works for you. Were not curing cancer, were not dealing with serious stuff like climate change. In the end if an audiophile likes what he or she has and is enjoying it that is great. It is the point of audio. I personally like using blind protocols in my audition process. Unlike a lot of these objectivist idiots I don't confuse my blind auditions with real science. I also do sighted comparisons along side the blind comparisons because that is how we listen when we normally listen. I understand that when I do this my opinions may be swayed by biases. But so what? My biases are in full play when I listen to my stereo normally. That's life. I would never tell anyone their opinions on audio are any more or less valid based on whether or not they use blind protocols. That's what ego driven audiophile assholes do. This big question about what is the right way and what is the wrong way and what is and is not valid is so easily answered. If you like it, it's good. I think audiophiles are better served if they look at the different approaches to auditioning and broaden their perspective. Then just find what works for you. The only validation we really need is our own joy of audio.
There is much interesting back-and-forth in this thread. And, given that the same arguments have been made ad nauseam for decades, it's unlikely that the status quo will change any time soon. This is partly due to successful marketing on the part of manufacturers who have a vested interest in selling products which bear little resemblance to accurate sound reproduction, and their willing surrogates in the hi-fi promotion media.Anyway, to your other point, which you may have thought you could slip past some of us, "At the risk of getting political, I will point out that we just elected a president who is a climate change denier. Denial of science as the best means of discovering the nature of reality is a serious problem." No such thing happened. The man acknowledges that the climate is changing, but he simply doesn't believe the pseudo-science and models of the promoters who have a vested stake in being right. Secondly, the often-used and ongoing tactic of labelling a person a "denier" isn't very scientific, but rather goes directly into the political name-calling realm.
Carry on.
And, you might want to look into getting a better spell-checker.
:)
Edits: 01/06/17
Donald J. TrumpVerified account
@realDonaldTrump
"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
His tweet. His words.
> I would say that well designed comparisons done under blind conditions
> are more reliable than the same comparisons under sighted conditions IF
> all else is equal and the blind protocols are implemented well.Blind testing as commonly practiced tends to produce false negatives (ie,
not finding a difference when one exists), whereas sighted testing tends
to produce false positives (identifying a difference when there isn't one).
The choice between these two imperfect scenarios is subjective.> I think audiophiles are better served if they look at the different
> approaches to auditioning and broaden their perspective. Then just find
> what works for you. The only validation we really need is our own joy
> of audio.Amen.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 11/26/16
"Blind testing as commonly practiced tends to produce false negatives (ie,
not finding a difference when one exists), whereas sighted testing tends
to produce false positives (identifying a difference when there isn't one).
The choice between these two imperfect scenarios is subjective."
I suppose this very much depends on what "commonly practiced" is refering to. I wouldn't have the data needed to even guess at what is "commonly practiced." If we are talking about what is commonly practiced by the fundamentalist objectivists in the form of ABX DBTs it would not surprise me at all that this is the case. I have yet to see any of these tests show that they did anything to either control same sound biases or calibrate the sensitivity of the test using known audible differences. But that just shows that these dorks are actually anti-science posers pretending to be all about science when they are really all about their ego driven agenda. OTOH if we are talking about real scientific research in human auditory perception that leads to peer reviewed published studies in actual medical and scientific journals I would suspect that the incidence of false nulls would be fairly low. And of course in the world of real science researchers know that this is a potential pitfall in any given test and treat the results and draw their conclusions with that in mind. Now if we are talking about the sort of blind auditions I personally do I don't think there would be many false nulls but they are a possibility. The thing is I don't bother testing for differences. I go straight to testing for preferences and most of the things I compare are not particularly contraversial as to whether or not they sound the same or different.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: