 
|
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 |
64.231.119.247
In Reply to: Re: John Atkinson's Rebuttal of Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" posted by andy19191 on April 27, 2006 at 15:06:55:
"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."
Follow Ups:
> "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 ]
