 
|
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 |
66.51.147.97
In Reply to: RE: "Clearly where a DBT is useful is when someone claims HUGE differences " = WrOnG ... wRoNg ... WrOnG posted by Analog Scott on June 06, 2008 at 09:11:33
DBT's are designed to find differences among components.
For slow audiophiles like you, that means real differences, not imagined differences or different A-B volumes.
If no difference can be heard, when comparing a borrowed component with your own, for one example, it would most likely be a waste of money to buy that borrowed component if your goal was improving the sound quality of your stereo.
You might want to buy the component for other reasons, such as pride of ownership, appearance, or to impress golden ear audiophiles who "believe in" the brand. That would be your preference/bias.
Blind tests are lie detectors for golden ears like yourself who think every component sounds different, can never prove that belief to witnesses.
People like you who like to argue with anyone who has discovered "everything sounds different" is a myth for their ears and all other ears that have ever been put to a test.
People like you who prefer to attack the characters of anyone who questions the "everything sounds different myth" ... simply because your ego is all tied up in expensive audio equipment that may, or may not, make a real audible difference compared with the component it replaced.
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
"The Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
Follow Ups:
> > DBT's are designed to find differences among components.> >
One has to be truly ignorant of double blind testing and the scope of it's application to say something this amazingly stupid. You might want to tell your hero Floyd toole that all those DBTs to determine preferences were all bogus.
> > For slow audiophiles like you, that means real differences, not imagined differences or different A-B volumes. > >
Dude now you are just spewing random objectivist sound bites. at this point I have to ask if you even know what the topic is at this point?
> > If no difference can be heard, when comparing a borrowed component with your own, for one example, it would most likely be a waste of money to buy that borrowed component if your goal was improving the sound quality of your stereo.> >
Dude this is just another one of your objectivist sound bites that has no relevance.
> > Blind tests are lie detectors for golden ears like yourself who think every component sounds different, can never prove that belief to witnesses.> >
Dude, seriously, how many straw men did you just burn there? Where did I ever say I think every component sounds different? Do you get the fact that I unlike you actually use bias controls via blind comparisons to help me with my audtions? and lastly, what the hell does any of this nonsense have to do with the question I asked you?
> > People like you who like to argue with anyone who has discovered "everything sounds different" is a myth for their ears and all other ears that have ever been put to a test.> >
My god dude, you are stuck in a tape loop. do you even understand the question that was asked?
> > People like you who prefer to attack the characters of anyone who questions the "everything sounds different myth" ... simply because your ego is all tied up in expensive audio equipment that may, or may not, make a real audible difference compared with the component it replaced.> >
Seriously dude get a clue. you are one to talk about attacking other peoples' character. I ask you a simple question about audio and you made no less than three character attacks on myself in you post. You have made numerous misrepresntations of my beliefs. You burn about a dozen straw men. but you never actually answer the question. So I will ask it again.
"How is it (DBTs) useful if, as *you* claim, the sighted bias returns as soon as one listens under sighted conditions? What has been gained? How is the DBT in any way useful to the consumer who reverts to their bias affected beliefs?"
I learned a long time ago to buy speakers with successive serial numbers as there can be slight sonic variations between production models of the same make and model of speakers.
There is no sound component, cable, speaker, headphone, or any other audio devise that sounds the same as another. Some can get close but none sound the same.
If the listener cannot hear the difference, there is either a problem with the listener or the test as there is no other outcome possible.
All this sound the same BS started with Stereo Reviews lies about all power amps sounding the same and a few years later the same BS about all CD players sounding the same. BS is BS and you are repeating the BS. Tomorrow visit some high end stores and see if you can find any two components that sound the same, any two I don't care what they are I would just curious if one manufacturer was able to counterfeit another's product. I have not heard any two of anything that even sound close to the same, ever in the last 40 years, not one single time!
BTW a lot of us are not caught up in brand names and are thrilled when an unknown inexpensive component blows away an expensive one, I love giant killers.
Music is love,
Mono is not music to my ears.
Give me stereo or give me silence!
Teresa
Why don't you set up a test with witnesses and prove to them you can always hear differences among components?
I've been waiting patiently for over three decades to find one person, who could prove he was even in the same ballpark, as the "everything sounds different" crowd you arbitrarily put yourself in.
I have never said all components sound the same.
I have merely reported three decades of testing that strongly suggest that "all products sound different' is an audiophile myth.
BS is your beliefs, unsupported by any demonstration of your self-proclaimed hearing skills to witnesses. Self-proclaimed hearing skills allegedly far better than any audiophile who has ever compared components with their brand names hidden and A-B SPL's matched.
Pardon me if I don't believe everything sounds different to your ears, or anyone else's ears, based ONLY on a self-serving claim with no proof.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
"The Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
I could listen for another 1,000 years I still doubt I will find two of anything that sounds the same, but the longer I live increases the possibly as somewhere out there just by chance there has to be somewhere two of something that sounds the same, somewhere.
Why don't you set up a test with witnesses and prove to them you can always hear differences among components?
This has been done many times, are you wanting an invite next time?
Music is love,
Mono is not music to my ears.
Give me stereo or give me silence!
Teresa
Could you be female Shrillary fan really upset that she will not even get a nomination?
The audiophile myth works both ways: Have an audiophile compare a component with itself, and 50% to 75% of the time he will say he prefers one over the other -- implying he hears differences when none are possible.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
"The Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
Even the same components are not going to sound the same all the time. Have you even noticed that your equipment sounds better after it's warmed up for 30 minutes. And even better after the sun goes down and better still if you are up at 3 am.
I have noticed small changes in the sound of equipment as it plays. Plus there are parts of songs/selections when everything just jells.
So yes I can believe that anyone could say equipment that is the same sounds different depending on what part of a song/selection they are listening too. That is just another reason that fast A/B/X doesn't work. The only way is to listen to one complete song/selection with one component and then one with the other and back and forth but only complete song/selections so that the part of the music you are in is removed from the equation.
You said: "The audiophile myth works both ways: Have an audiophile compare a component with itself, and 50% to 75% of the time he will say he prefers one over the other -- implying he hears differences when none are possible."
As explained the music is now the variable unless one is playing an endless loop.
Music is love,
Mono is not music to my ears.
Give me stereo or give me silence!
Teresa
You only seek that which suits your dogma and reject everything that contradicts it.
I seek objective evidence of what audiophiles really hear, and what they believe they hear.
Scientific objective proof is impossible without very large samples of audiophiles and multiple tests of a variety of stereo systems/rooms.
Even then any audiophile could claim his ears are better, and his stereo is better, so he can hear what others don't. Probably just idle boasting, but who knows?
Scott if my "not everything sounds different" posts upset you so much, then why do you read and respond to them? You must like to suffer?
I don't want to make you suffer.
And by the way, "You only seek that which suits your dogma and reject everything that contradicts it." sounds like something you stole from Bartlett's Quotations, maybe something Churchill said, or perhaps Moe Howard?
For your information, my dogma does not wear suits.
.
.
.
,
Richard BassNut Greene
"The Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
> > I seek objective evidence of what audiophiles really hear, and what they believe they hear.> >
OK prove it. show us an example of you finding some genuine objective evidence. better yet show us an example of you rejecting any test that wrought the results you like. Show us that you aren't doing exactly as I claim, picking and choosing the "evidence" no matter how weak that supports your beliefs and rejecting anything that runs contrary to your beliefs simply because it goes against your beliefs.
> > Scientific objective proof is impossible without very large samples of audiophiles and multiple tests of a variety of stereo systems/rooms.
Even then any audiophile could claim his ears are better, and his stereo is better, so he can hear what others don't. Probably just idle boasting, but who knows?> >
Clearly you don't know. Clearly you have none of the sort of evidence you demand of others to support your beliefs.
> > Scott if my "not everything sounds different" posts upset you so much, then why do you read and respond to them? You must like to suffer?
I don't want to make you suffer.> >
Suffer? No Bass Nut, you entertain me.
> > And by the way, "You only seek that which suits your dogma and reject everything that contradicts it." sounds like something you stole from Bartlett's Quotations, maybe something Churchill said, or perhaps Moe Howard?> >
Nope. Them there is my own words. I don't recall Moe Howard ever saying anything like that.
You continue to throw around that straw man like it is factually based, but YOU MADE IT UP! When you earn the intellectual thrashing you get so often after posting your fabrications, you resort to claiming that you've been the victim of a character attack. And yet, aren't you the one who suggested that those who don't agree with you belong on the "short bus??"
I find it hysterically funny that you spout off about level matching, but your own "debate" tactics demonstrate at the least a similar double standard.
Some equipment sounds the same, and some equipment sounds different. These conditions are not always consistent. My own system sounds different to me quite often, with no hardware changes having ccurred. Could be changes in the quality of the power coming in from the mains, but more likely, it could be something I ate, could be my body temperature, could be all sorts of things. The "device" with which the "testing" is done is not a finely tuned piece of lab equipment, but an organic and constantly changing being. There is no point in "testing" one person once: the result is ultimately meaningless. The only time the tests have any relevance is for clinical trials involving many subjects over a lengthy trial period, and that's not what you have been constantly bringing up, is it?
"Differences" are almost always "heard" in sighted auditions."I can't hear a difference" is rarely, if ever, claimed ... even when a component is compared with itself!
Sighted auditions encourage audible differences by comparing two components playing at different SPL's.
Blimd tests of your ears are only relevant to your ears ...
but over THREE DECADES one finds a very common scene where some audiophiles
"hear" differences in sighted "warm-up" auditions ... that seem to disappear minutes later when the double-blind methodology is used,
providing good evidence of an "imagined difference bias" among audiophiles.Show me the written post or video of any high-end audiophile who even admits in public to the possibility of imagined A-B differences.
.
.
.Richard BassNut Greene
"The Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
Not getting out much any more? I hear this all the time. I say it myself, more often than not. You really must be hanging out with some extremists, or, more likely, you've just made up all sorts of "facts" to support a position that is otherwise indefensible.
"but over THREE DECADES one finds a very common scene where some audiophiles
"hear" differences in sighted "warm-up" ... that seem to disappear minutes later when the double-blind methodology is used,
providing good evidence of an "imagined difference bias" among audiophiles."
Now come on, RBGN. Put your science cap on, and try to think of another possible explanation for the results you just made up. There's no "good evidence" anywhere in your post, other than this: "Blimd tests of your ears are only relevant to your ears ..." Says something about that 30 year BS, doesn't it?
Thankfully the nonsense you keep claiming is very entertaining. Though I have to admit, the game is no longer, "What's he going to post?" but "In what order is he going to post the same empty statements?" Its just not as fascinating anymore. Still funny, though.
The "golden ears" whom you claim keep insisting on "everything sounding different" must be those ghosts that AJinFLA is so obsessed about on Propheads. You two ought to get together and post as a team.
But why not answer the question?
If the subject hears a difference sighted, fails the DBT, they should have had it "click" that their bias is what was causing the difference.
Unfortunately, if they continue to hear a difference sighted then from a PRACTICAL standpoint they have not been helped in any way shape or form from said test.
I can know all about a subject - freeze on a test and fail it - and then five minutes later recall all of the correct answers. the fact that I failed the test does not indicate my knowledge of the subject matter. Test stress is a real issue in education, in psychology and certainly in blind trials. Why can't some people understand that basic reality?
If the alleged A-B difference disappears when brand names are hidden, and SPL's are matched, then it was only a fig newton of an overactive audiophile imagination, or a small A-B SPL difference mistaken for something else.
Hiding the brand names has no effect on the sound.
SPL matching can only help a comparison unless you think an SPL difference is worth something!
Imagined differences are not real.
They don't go away during blind tests and come back later in sighted auditions, except for A-B SPL differences.
Imagined differences were never there in the first place!
In blind comparisons of a component with itself, audiophiles will typically claim to hear differences 50% to 75% of the time.
Those are all imagined differences.
Imagined differences are apparently part of human nature.
That's why blind SPL-matched A-B comparisons can be so useful.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
"The Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
you still don't get it. The test A versus A where people claim to hear difference shows up a fault with the test and does not support your notion - but then if you knew one thing about psychology you'd know that.
You don't address the test aspect so I now know without reservation you don't really understand the subject.
"If the alleged A-B difference disappears when brand names are hidden, and SPL's are matched, then it was only a fig newton of an overactive audiophile imagination, or a small A-B SPL difference mistaken for something else."
Wrong conclusion - want to try door number two?
"That's why blind SPL-matched A-B comparisons can be so useful."
Hi-Fi Choice magazine does that - funny that they get differences - even with, shock horror, cables.
and it was uphill in both directions.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
"The Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
... that HI-Fi Choice's tests are statistically significant or at all scientifically rigorous? For someone who has frequently held forth on the subject of DBT science, I dare say you aren't .
___
Feanor's list of 250 Core Classical Compositions
I never said they were - I said they got rid of the T which is a scientific failing. The fact that the AES doesn't understand that should illustrate that they are not a scientific organization - well they aren't they're engineers who have self claimed some sort of expertise in the field of psychology. Interesting that once you have an engineering degree you suddenly become expert on all things everywhere? How do you suppose that happened?
Hi-Fi Choice assumes there is a difference. They then level match the gear and make it blind listening to remove bias. That does not meet AES standards but the AES is simply put outright WRONG so Hi-Fi Choice doesn't meet the WRONG standards put in place by unqualified psychologists - so umm who cares? The AES doesn't even do the statistical testing trial numbers properly - so even in their invalid tests their reliability is suspect as well (ie they don't even conduct their own created tests properly). Shocking really. I have given some of the papers to several university instructors and all of them have a chuckle. One PHD student just rolled her eyes at the incompetence and then went on a general rant about Double Blind Testing on sense brain stimulus.
Unfortunately the engineers took the medical drug test DBT and piggy backed it onto this. WRONG. I have conducted DBT on psychic claims of people who believed they had some psychic ability and those who didn't and even the conclusions that I would be allowed to draw based on that are less than these so called "objective" engineers. Or I should say engineering wannabes.
nt
Richard BassNut Greene
"The Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
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 ]
