|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
99.251.236.4
In Reply to: RE: a tale of bias. The irony of the common held beliefs of many objectivists posted by Analog Scott on July 19, 2010 at 13:30:55
Because that's what your post amounts to. Some inmates have made quite a career of attacking things they attribute to a group of people they call objectivists.
One big problem is that you simply present assertions you have alleged are made repeatedly, but provide no data, no criteria. You have your opinion, of course, but that's all it is. Where's your meta-analysis?
You then give a couple of URLs to discussions you seem to think of as examples. You show no sign of understanding the discussions very well and expect the rest of us to come to the same conclusions about them that you have, which is rather silly of you. Where's your own meta-analysis?
I read the HO thread down to where Arnie Krueger makes what seem to me to some perfectly technical objections to the procedure. Whatever his biases are, the objections he made about different sampling rates seem rational, and he knows much more about the subject than I do and I dare say than you do. He offered a rational explanation of why the results came out positive. Either refute his objections and show the test is valid, or, failing that, the only thing to do is run a better test.
If you don't like null results in some test, the only thing to do is either show the difference is in fact audible (JA did this recently here. JA sometimes whines about what ABX advocates say but he can also attempt some rational arguments.) or do a blind test that should be more sensitive. Whining about his alleged biases doesn't make the test any better.
As for the skeptics site, Tony Lauck has quite properly pointed out that if one doesn't know the field, one may not know what advance criteria should be set for a meta-analysis of the literature.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Follow Ups:
Am I psychic? Nah, you are just that predictable.I would argue your points.... if you had made any.
What points are you *trying* to make?
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Just the one I made in my OP
Something you posted to me in Critics really hit home. I've known it but it's significance never really registered. The two sides have been arguing the same issues since before 1985 (as evidenced by your link to a Brad Meyer letter to Stereophile concerning blind tests). Let's say it's been since 1980. That's 30 years. What has been accomplished?
Is there any argument I could make that would convince you of my position? Is there any argument you could make to convince me? Very unlikely, particularly since it's been going on 30 years with neither side budging.
My question - not just to you but to everyone on both sides - is, what's the point? Why not just be secure in one's own position?
It's been fun and occasionally funny, but spinning wheels is a pretty unproductive use of our time.
believe it or not I have become an advocate of blind auditioning. It was "objectivists" that lead me to read the scientific literature on bias effects. I think of all people JJ has learned a lot from subjectivists and has come to understand the merits of euphonic colorations through rigorous testing rather than just dismissing such preferences so often held by subjectivists out of hand.
Sure we can just throw our hands up and say we disagree. But we learn nothing from one another that way. I actually think these things are worth investigating and debating.
The conflict between my perceptions and what always seemed like a very reasonable perspective of objectivism never really sat well with me when I got into high end audio. In all other fields I would probably be considered an objectivist and skeptic. I think I have actually learned a lot in trying to sort out these conflicts.
This post was just one of many observations I have made in sorting out where each side tends to go wrong generally speaking. The only way you have a standing fued for 30 years is if both sides are making gross errors and both sides are refusing to consider the other side's points. Some say just walk away. I say jump in and learn.
Obviously such critical examination of one's personal beliefs is scary at times. look how much Pat gets shaken up by posts like this one. He will probably make 20 or more posts on this thread before it is done all in an attempt to obfuscate because the idea that his guys might actually be doing something wrong scares the crap out of him. I feel sorry for Pat actually. He's going to be in the mud arguing for god knows how much of his life time and never learn a thing from all of it.
I have learned a lot from objectivists in trying to resolve (at least in my own mind) the conflicts between the two camps. But I have also learned a lot *about* them as a group along the way including the major flaws in their belief systems.Oh and the same for subjectivists. Lots flaws found there as well. Lots.
Of course the biggest lesson was and still is 90% of the debate is ego based. No one can learn anything from the other side until they clear that hurdle.
Now I'll sit back and watch Pat obfuscate for another 10 or 15 more posts.
nt
One could say the same about all sorts of things. Controversies over astrology go back many centuries. Creationism has been argued for one and a half centuries, at least.
Meanwhile, people spend all sorts of money on them, just as many others spend lots of money on expensive interconnects, speaker cables, power cords, brilliant pebbles, intelligent chips, and so on. Some just want to see what the evidence actually supports.
Meanwhile, the advances in audio have been made by people who care about sound, who measure, develop and test hypotheses, and who look into psychoacoustics.
"Is there any argument I could make that would convince you of my position? Is there any argument you could make to convince me? Very unlikely, particularly since it's been going on 30 years with neither side budging."
30 years isn't all that long in history. It's not so much a matter of arguments but evidence. For example, you show me products whose performance differs by the amounts shown in the ABX matching criteria, and I'll accept some can detect the differences.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Wow Pat, really? On this thread of all threads?
"For example, you show me products whose performance differs by the amounts shown in the ABX matching criteria, and I'll accept some can detect the differences."
I showed you two of them in my OP.
Let the flawed meta-analysis begin again on the thread about flawed meta-analysis of many objectivists. I am enjoying the irony of it. call it a guilty pleasure. Please Pat, entertain me some more. tell us what you don't like about cited ABX DBTs that wrought undesired results. Please, unwittingly engage in cherry picking right before our eyes on a thread about cherry picking.
Pat D
"For example, you show me products whose performance differs by the amounts shown in the ABX matching criteria, and I'll accept some can detect the differences."AS
"I showed you two of them in my OP."Really? What were the differences in the frequency responses?
The point of my remark was that if the FR differences were large enough, blind testing would not be needed to convince me they sounded different. We would already know the differences are audible based on previous blind tests.
What are undesired results in DBTs? DBTs results are data. They are what they are. Data needs to be interpreted and sometimes interpretations are made that are too strong. In one respect, I agree with Tony Lauck, in that I don't primarily look for null results, I look for positive ones that can stand scrutiny.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Edits: 07/23/10
"The point of my remark was that if the FR differences were large enough, blind testing would not be needed to convince me they sounded different. We would already know the differences are audible based on previous blind tests."
Did you write that?
You are so funny.
Translation: if others tell me that the differences are large enough, then I'll say they are large enough. :)
rw
before you guys look at it! I already linked it, too.
If the frequency response differences are greater than shown on the curves, then the differences should be audible for someone.
If the frequency response differences are under amounts indicated on those curves, then they may or may not be audible, so I would want a blind test to confirm any claims they are. Of course, there may be other things which would indicate an audible difference, noise, for instance, but then I would want to see that shown, too, before I accept the claim.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Here's a hint: it isn't the "substance" of your point....
rw
... I'm sure you know that. You don't want the process to stop - you're just pretending to. Otherwise, what would you post about in Prop Head - that... what's that called... "technical" stuff???
.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
I mean, we all know what passes for your logic, your hearing, and your ability to learn - but that's a new low.
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: