 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
84.190.112.238
In Reply to: Re: John Atkinson's Rebuttal of Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" posted by bjh on April 27, 2006 at 12:58:21:
> is there a audible difference? But I would maintain that such is of
> little interest to audiophiles, we're interested in what you call
> "real subjective differences", i.e. we want a description of the
> attributes of the sound.If there is no audible difference between two audio components would you consider a discussion of their "real subjective differences" to be of interest? And would you expect to hear those subjective differences yourself in the same way as reported? If so, to what do you attribute these differences: a property of the audio components or something related to your own perception?
>... the topic of why we're generally less than proficient at ignoring
> them is an interesting one, likewise the field of science that could
> help explain such, but perhaps another day.There is lot more than science interested in the growing phenomena of "truthiness" as exhibited by audiophiles, alternative therapy adherents, neocons, and the like.
> "But Mr. Goldacre appears to be making the naïve assumption that the
> mere fact that a test is blind inherently—his word was
> intrinsically—confers legitimacy on the test and its results. That
> assumption, I suggest, is 'bad science'—even voodoo."John is misrepresenting what was said:
"But the most striking parallel is the widespread notion in the hi-fi community that blinded trials - where you ask listeners to identify a cable without knowing if it's cheap or expensive - are somehow intrinsically flawed."
This states audiophiles consider blind tests to be intrinsically flawed and not that Ben considers all blind tests to be legitimate.
Follow Ups:
I wrote:
> > "But Mr. Goldacre appears to be making the naïve assumption that
> the mere fact that a test is blind inherently—his word was
> intrinsically—confers legitimacy on the test and its results. That
> assumption, I suggest, is 'bad science'—even voodoo."
Any19191 wrote:
> John is misrepresenting what was said:
I don't think so, unless you insist that the only interpretation Mr.
Goldacre intended was the literal meaning of the words he used, and
that no other implication was intended.
Here is what Ben Goldacre wrote, reprinted form your posting:
> "But the most striking parallel is the widespread notion in the hi-
> fi community that blinded trials - where you ask listeners to
> identify a cable without knowing if it's cheap or expensive - are
> somehow intrinsically flawed."
What do you think Mr. Goldacre was intending by this sentence. I
assumed, not unreasonably, that Goldacre found this "notion" flawed
or even invalid. This assumption was reinforced by the following
comments by Mr. Goldacre, which you failed to quote:
I wrote back in 1989: in the article quoted by Goldacre: "... then
perhaps an alternative hypothesis is called for: that the very
procedure of a blind listening test can conceal small but real
subjective differences."
To which Mr. Goldacre responded "Ouch."
What did _you_ think Mr. Goldacre meant by "Ouch," Andy19191? It is
not unreasonable, I feel, to assume that he was intending
disagreement with my statement? Is it not reasonable to assume
from "Ouch" that Mr. Goldacre feels that blind testing does
_not_ "conceal small but real subjective differences"?
Mr. Goldacre goes on to quote me again: "Having taken part in quite a
number of such blind tests, I have become convinced of the truth in
this hypothesis."
To which Goldacre responded, "What voodoo is this?"
Again, I though this wording of Goldacre's a clear indication that he
_disagreed_ with me. How you feel I have misrepresented Mr.
Goldacre's feeling about the efficacy of blind tests escapes me,
Andy191919. Unless in your world, "ouch" and "voodoo" are words that
are intended to express agreement and support. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Disagreeing with this statement (I agree that Ben Goldacre is most certainly disagreeing with you):"But the most striking parallel is the widespread notion in the hi-
fi community that blinded trials - where you ask listeners to
identify a cable without knowing if it's cheap or expensive - are
somehow intrinsically flawed."does not mean this:
"But Mr. Goldacre appears to be making the naïve assumption that
the mere fact that a test is blind inherently—his word was
intrinsically—confers legitimacy on the test and its results. That
assumption, I suggest, is 'bad science'—even voodoo."Disagreeing with an assertion that blind trials are intrinsically floored does not mean agreeing with an assertion that all blind trials and their results are legitimate. As far as I can see, this is not stated, implied or hinted at anywhere else in the article either.
Well OK, but let's be completely fair then shall we? Goldacre says:"But the most striking parallel is the widespread notion in the hi-fi community that blinded trials - where you ask listeners toidentify a cable without knowing if it's cheap or expensive - are somehow intrinsically flawed."
Is that a fair representation of what JA wrote? Let's examine. Here the extract from Goldacre's article where he quotes JA.
---
I give you the editor of Stereophile, a respected hi-fi magazine of 33 years standing. He's talking about blinded tests on amplifiers: "It seems," he says, "that with such blind listening tests, all perceived subjective differences ... fall away ... when you have taken part in a number of these blind tests and experienced how two amplifiers you know from personal experience to sound extremely different can still fail to be identified under blind conditions ..." Now I'm getting worried. Here comes the money shot. "... then perhaps an alternative hypothesis is called for: that the very procedure of a blind listening test can conceal small but real subjective differences." Ouch. "Having taken part in quite a number of such blind tests, I have become convinced of the truth in this hypothesis." What voodoo is this? If there is a difference to be heard, then you will hear it.
---Does JA state that blind tests are "intrinsically flawed"? True he says that " ... perceived subjective differences ... fall away ...", but that's not the same thing.
Moreover it is clear that JA has provided further clarification of his remarks in the original article, clarification that Goldacre conveniently ignored. JA is explicit on this critical point when he says:
"I guess Mr. Goldacre hadn't read the rest of the 1989 essay from which he had quoted. I was writing about the listening tests I had organized at that year's Stereophile Show. I had taken two highly regarded amplifiers that were widely felt to sound different in normal listening, a solid-state Adcom GFA-555 and a pair of tubed VTL 300W monoblocks, and was trying to determine if they also sounded different in a blind test. The results were inconclusive, though a subsequent series of blind listening tests performed under optimum circumstances did result in statistically significant identification of the amplifiers. "
Thus to recap, when Goldacre said:
"But the most striking parallel is the widespread notion in the hi-fi community that blinded trials - where you ask listeners to identify a cable without knowing if it's cheap or expensive - are somehow intrinsically flawed."
he clearly misrepresented what JA said. I suppose you could argue, and little doubt you will, that in not explicitly making reference to JA in the statement that the assertion is unsupported, but to do so would be simple intellectual dishonesty!, after all he has explicitly used JA ("I give you the editor of Stereophile...") to create the "striking parallel" between the "hi-fi community" and other domains (e.g. Goldacre's "alternative therapy fans" for one).
Hence we may now add misrepresentation to go along with sloppiness in describing Goldacre's article.
> "But the most striking parallel is the widespread notion in the hi-fi
> community that blinded trials - where you ask listeners toidentify a
> cable without knowing if it's cheap or expensive - are somehow
> intrinsically flawed."
> Is that a fair representation of what JA wrote?It is not referring to what John wrote. It clearly states it is a widespread notion in the hi-fi community. A brief perusal of this forum would soon establish whether it is representative.
> Does JA state that blind tests are "intrinsically flawed"?
Yes. He states that he believes the hypothesis "that the very procedure of a blind listening test can conceal small but real subjective differences."
> Hence we may now add misrepresentation to go along with sloppiness in
> describing Goldacre's article.Where is the misrepresentation? He provides quotes which John neither disputes nor, apparently, has come to regret with the passing of time.
I must admit to not fully understanding the purpose of your assertions since you are also providing the quotes so that even a casual reader can see they are false. There is much about audiophile thought processes that still baffle me. What enables you to read the sentence at the top of this posting, understand what it says (your last paragraph shows this) and then simply change its meaning to something you would prefer to have been written?
Just another I-Child. Sad! Especially as you are showing signs of actually being slower than the other ... something I would have thought impossible! LOL
No question about it. Just because Mr. Goldacre thinks sighted auditions are unreliable doesn't equate to his believing every blind test is good."If not-P then not-Q" does not imply "If P then Q."
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
my dear poor I-Child, when I said "Well OK, but let's be completely fair then shall we?" that was intended as a nod to andy19191's point, an acknowledgment so as to move on to the substantive issues, namely Mr. Goldacre's intellectual sloppiness and misrepresentation of JA's article (the one Mr. Goldacre quoted from).Clearly andy19191 is attempting to use his little victory, JA's "fairly elementary logical error", one that does little more than demonstration JA's lack of infallibility (OMG, shock! horror!), to detract attention from the substantive issues.
But Pat, the reality is that such a crude maneuver, a transparent attempt at obfuscation, demonstrates little more than that andy19191 is a I-Child ... like you!
What is left of JA's criticism? Not much . . .
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
.
.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
.
Perhaps you'd better think about that again.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
.
So what have you got against children from India and the Subcontinent?
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Nonetheless the only person confused as to the contextual meaning is you, after all the meaning has been make explicit on a number of occasions. Still your confusion hardly comes as a surprise, you *are* an I-Child after all.---
Now Pat go find someone else to play with, I grown tied of pointing out what an I-Child you are.
And just so we're completely clear, if you continue to pester me I may resort to saying something *nasty* to you ... we don't want that, now do we Pat?
ta-ta
You mean you don't like having something you said systematically misinterpreted? Goodness, gracious me, I'd never have guessed from your behaviour.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
your email bounced
> Hence we may now add misrepresentation to go along with sloppiness
> in describing Goldacre's article.
Thanks, bjh, for so clearly expressing what I was trying to do in my
previous posting.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Shame on you.
> Shame on you.
I am not sure what I said that triggered this outbusts from you, Andy19191, but thank you also. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
.
"If there is no audible difference between two audio components would you consider a discussion of their "real subjective differences" to be of interest?"Obvious if there are no audible difference there are none to describe, hence the question is meaningless.
"There is lot more than science interested in the growing phenomena of "truthiness" as exhibited by audiophiles, alternative therapy adherents, neocons, and the like."
A naked assertion that associates audiophiles with scientific quackery. I'm getting tired of wasting energy on such foolishness, hence .... Yaaaaaaaawn!
---
"This states audiophiles consider blind tests to be intrinsically flawed and not that Ben considers all blind tests to be legitimate."
You are now simply perpetuating Mr. Goldacre sloppiness and questionable selective quoting, as illustrated by JA's response to Mr. Goldacre's quoting (of his material):
"I guess Mr. Goldacre hadn't read the rest of the 1989 essay from which he had quoted. I was writing about the listening tests I had organized at that year's Stereophile Show. I had taken two highly regarded amplifiers that were widely felt to sound different in normal listening, a solid-state Adcom GFA-555 and a pair of tubed VTL 300W monoblocks, and was trying to determine if they also sounded different in a blind test. The results were inconclusive, though a subsequent series of blind listening tests performed under optimum circumstances did result in statistically significant identification of the amplifiers."
> "If there is no audible difference between two audio components would
> you consider a discussion of their "real subjective differences" to be
> of interest?"> Obvious if there are no audible difference there are none to describe,
> hence the question is meaningless.I think you may not have picked up the intended question. If an audibility test (blind) shows no difference between components would you still expect "real subjective differences" (John's words) to exist as he hypothesises and as often described in subjective (but without controls) reviews in magazines and websites. If so, where do you think this difference comes from: the audio components or perception in the brain.
> A naked assertion that associates audiophiles with scientific
> quackery.Surely all audiophiles recognise the presence of scientific quackery (extreme current examples being clever clocks, magic pebbles and intelligent chips) and it is more a question of where an audiophile draws the line as more and more extreme examples are progressively released with time starting about 30 years ago at the end of the audio boom.
> You are now simply perpetuating Mr. Goldacre sloppiness and
> questionable selective quotingNo at all. I simply pointed out that John had substantially misrepresented what had been said in the article in order to create something to attack. Where does this involve selective quoting or sloppiness by Ben?
intention, you said it all in equating audiophiles with quacks, and that assumption is present in all your questions and observations. It helps explain why you persist in repeating essentially identical questions ... if you don't get the answer you desired you simply ask the question again.Nothing new ... you're suffering bias funk.
> I believe I did pick up on your intentionand so you disagree with John's hypothesis? If a difference is audible in a sighted test it will be audible in a blind test.
> It helps explain why you persist in repeating essentially identical
> questions ... if you don't get the answer you desired you simply ask
> the question again.I repeated the question with clarifying information because your answer was inconsistent with your original posting where you appeared to support John's hypothesis.
I am still far from sure what, if anything, you believe about the origins of audible differences you perceive between audio equipment.
"I am still far from sure what, if anything, you believe about the origins of audible differences you perceive between audio equipment. "As to your lack of knowledge concerning my beliefs allow me to inform you that such is not a topic of even fleeting interest to me.
That is a pity. I had hoped your initial posting was a sign of wishing to make more of a positive contribution to the discussion on these boards.
...arguing with zealots who have closed their minds to the possibility they may be wrong is not contribution - it is craziness.
For heaven's sake, just look at the measured differences in frequency response between the two amplifiers when measured into the speaker load in the Stereophile test! Compare them to the level matching curves on the ABX site.http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_crit.htm
With such measureme differences, a blind test would not have been necessary to establish an audible difference as data taken from previous blind tests would indicate that the differences were large enough to be audible. It was a useful exercise, perhaps, but established nothing much new.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
JA wrote:"I was writing about the listening tests I had organized at that year's Stereophile Show. I had taken two highly regarded amplifiers that were widely felt to sound different in normal listening, a solid-state Adcom GFA-555 and a pair of tubed VTL 300W monoblocks, and was trying to determine if they also sounded different in a blind test. The results were inconclusive, though a subsequent series of blind listening tests performed under optimum circumstances did result in statistically significant identification of the amplifiers."
Now Pat, why, if the measurements were obviously different as you state ("For heaven's sake, just look at the measured differences in frequency response between the two amplifiers when measured into the speaker load in the Stereophile test!"), again why then were the results of the tests JA arranged for the show "inconclusive"?
Isn't that strange Pat?, that for two amplifiers with such overt differences in measurements that you clearly admit should result in observerable sonic differences, why was it that the blind test results during the show were inconclusive?
Yet, "though a subsequent series of blind listening tests performed under optimum circumstances did result in statistically significant identification of the amplifiers".
But why the need for such careful testing, why the need for "optimum circumstances" to demonstrate differences that even the mesaured performance alone suggest should be fairly obvious?
What does that tell you about the tests Pat? Doesn't it suggest that with such tests it is non-trivial to demonstrate even the obvious? How about using such tests for less obvious cases? Would such tests seem like a good tool to investigate such things?
What do think I-Child?
You are acting strange. I pointed out that the difference in the FR into the speaker load was sufficient to be audible and the results prove it. What is your problem? So they a blind test under poor conditions and another one under good conditions, and achieved a positive result in the latter. So what?There is no question of using measured results "alone." I distinctly pointed out that comparing them to audibility data already established indicated the differences were audible. That is not "alone," that is using measured results with audibility data.
You seem to be manufacturing difficulties--is this an obsession with you?
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
