|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.46.240.196
In Reply to: Re: Ya got that a little confused posted by geoffkait on April 9, 2007 at 09:54:15:
Geoff, I am intending to do just such a test. On course it will not be rigorous enough to please anyone other than those involved.Now if the test is double blind BUT the listeners know the mechanism (or methodology) involved for the "improvement" do you think that invalidates the results? I'd rather not say what product is but I am willing to report my results when I can manage to conduct the test.
Follow Ups:
It can affect a bias of no difference. A bias that is not filtered by most DBTs.
.
nt
If you can get away with not explaining the mechanism for the improvement proposed by the DUT, then you shouldn't. Otherwise, you may leave yourself open to criticism by the people you are trying to impress with your DBT (not that naysayers wont always find a way to criticize that which they "naysay"....).Don't think it might make a difference? Consider this. I've done DBT's on people using Belt (PWB) products - say, silver rainbow foil on the label side of a CD. The CD copies were in a changer, and never left it, so no one could know what they looked like. Once differences were -positively- identified, I showed people what the mechanism for the differences was (a sliver of silvery foil about 2mm wide adhered to the disc ). Only after seeing what the test was all about, I found I was more likely to get responses like "Well... I'm not sure if there was a difference... I could be wrong..."
The usual human prejudices kick in, and they start to doubt what it is that they heard. Happens all the time.
When?
Which products?
Who was there? Any witnesses?
How did you ensure it was double blind?
How many trials did you do?
How many were right and how many wrong.Earlier, you expressed the following opinion on DBTs:
"Audio DBTs being a worthless waste of time, they will always come up with worthless results."
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/30937.html
Have you changed your mind?
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Say the DBT was being done with friends, ones that share a common interest in improving their enjoyment of hearing music on their system. Do you a large % would refuse to acknowledge an improvment in sound (when they heard one) simply because they don't wish to "think" something like a "sliver of sivery foil" could have an impact.Strikes me as.....cutting off your nose to spite your face.
**Say the DBT was being done with friends, ones that share a common interest in improving their enjoyment of hearing music on their system. Do you a large % would refuse to acknowledge an improvment in sound (when they heard one) simply because they don't wish to "think" something like a "sliver of sivery foil" could have an impact.Strikes me as.....cutting off your nose to spite your face.**
Geez man, look around you! People are doing this here on Prop Head and
AA every single day. Just now, Jim Austin posted a link to PWB's newest product, and Presto posted a link to their Free Techniques. Now why did they do that? Because they have displayed such an open mind on these forums or because they want to show how they are no less foolish than their peers by attempting to ridicule things they don't understand and have never evaluated? Now I say that those techniques and the one drop product can improve their sound, in remarkable ways even. But those backward attitudes that Jim Austin & Presto display are ingrained in.... well my experience puts it about 98% of the general population. And I may be being generous here.I dont know what youre planning on testing, but if its anything as unorthodox as the One Drop liquid or the techniques Presto linked to, then yes, the strait-jacketed mindset of AAers is a demonstration of what you will find in the rest of the community. Audiophiles are absolutely the worst for this, because their attitudes the most ingrained. When I test non-audiophiles, surprisingly, they dont give me a lot of flack over how these things work or why they do or dont work. And oddly enough, their listening skills often seem no worse than the avg. audiophile.
So again, if you dont need to tell them what it is you're testing, you're better not to, so you can elmininate that as an influence. Its more consistent with the DBT protocol anyway. Now after the results are in and you are sure there was no "reverse placebo" taking place, THEN you can tell them what they listened to! If they don't believe it, too bad for them. By ignoring the tweak, they will cut off their nose to spite their face. But at least they are joined by many "noseless" others (ie. 98% of AA).
"But those backward attitudes that Jim Austin & Presto display are ingrained in...."Backward attitude? I have a very progressive and open minded attitude. I study acoustics, speaker design, digital signal processing and psychology in my free time. I guess you could call me a learning junkie.
My mind is also open to the very real possibility that there are people out there who will claim that just about anything can affect their sound. The trick is to ensure that what you are claiming indeed does not do a DAMN thing. This way you have ENSURED that the ONLY mechanism at work is the HUMAN IMAGINATION. (And this of course, still remains absolutely free of charge - except for those entrepenurial greats among us who have figured out how to bottle and sell someone their own imagination back to them! )
"Okay - now phone your mom and tell her to close her fridge door..."
"WOW - you're right! I heard a difference!"
Audiophiles always hear differences. That's what audiophiles do.
> > Backward attitude? I have a very progressive and open minded attitude. < <
I guess you could say that's another example of your backward attitude. That's where you say the opposite of what is true. I think we can see an example of your "open minded attitude" right in your character attack title: "Please - and keep running after you've hit the door." Strange, because I wasn't even responding to you in the first place.
> > I study acoustics, speaker design, digital signal processing and psychology in my free time. I guess you could call me a learning junkie. < <
No, I think its' more appropriate to call you a skeptical junkie. You're addicted to 'debunking', and have little to no real interest in the progress of sound reproduction.
You're one of the most closed-minded individuals I have come across on these forums. And when i say "these forums", I mean the world. You're all smoke, ego and no substance. Plus, you're really rude, and post endless stupid character attacks that reveals your lack of maturity and intelligence. That's also a typical MO of the many I see on these forums that share your backward attitudes. In a thread calling for the cessation of personal attacks, this was your response:"Those wearing "Bulls-Eye" Shirts often make similar complaints... "
Talk about killing the messenger. In a post you made about an audio enhancement idea you never tried, "I definately like that tweak where you align your screw heads...", you wrote this dumb mockery of it:
"God forbid.
Wouldn't want to be appraising audio equipment with a SCREW LOOSE..."
Oh, how witty and clever of you, "Presto". And how open-minded an attitude it represents.
(That's sarcasm, in case I have to spell it out for you). See, if you were a "learning junkie" (how cute), then you would have attempted to actually -try- the idea, to learn what it may or may not be about. But you didn't because you're not.Here's what you said about the same idea in another post:
"It's information that can be neatly disregarded, especially since no technical or scientific reasoning is offered."
Then after going into some nutty explanation of how you risk harming life and limb by aligning your screws, but before actually trying it, you made this brilliant conclusion:
"I will not be using this free tweak. I think it does nothing to improve sonics and only risks damaging things."
CONCLUSIONS ABOUT PRESTO'S ATTITUDE:
===========================So. What have we got in this tiny example of how your ego supercedes proper scientific protocol? Well, you've told us that "if you can not find any technical or scientific reasoning available", then we are to "neatly disregard the information". But you never tried finding any reasoning for the idea, did you? Not like it's all that hard to find, it's on PWB's site.
Of course, with your type, it's not hard to predict that it wouldn't matter what the reasoning is, you'd find some argument to make against it. What matters more with those of your mindset, is whether you -believe- the idea can work. If you don't believe the idea, you simply won't accept ANY explanation of the idea, and will spend the rest of your days if necessary, looking for more excuses to argue against it.Next. You conclude the idea does "nothing to improve sonics". Do you conclude the idea does nothing to improve sonics because you tested it? Because you blind tested it? Because you double blind tested it? No. Simply because the reasoning behind it didn't jump out from the idea itself, and latch itself on to your face. So in other words, you're telling us that you're a magician who can magically "know" whether an audio idea improves sonics or not, by the powers of his mind alone, and doesn't have to try it. Must be why they call you "Presto". Well no, "Presto", you're not open-minded. You're a canonist upholding the religion of bad science, you may be a lot of things, but you're not by any stretch a progressive, open-minded individual. Sorry.
> > My mind is also open to the very real possibility that there are people out there who will claim that just about anything can affect their sound. The trick is to ensure that what you are claiming indeed does not do a DAMN thing. < <
Isn't that -your- job, and not the task of the claimant? It's certainly what you scramble to do here all the time, every time someone posts of an idea that you don't approve of. It's not about "claiming"; claims don't count for much. It's about "learning". Since you say you're a "learning junkie" (even though you're not), then LEARN. The only real way you can learn in audio, is to experiment.
> > This way you have ENSURED that the ONLY mechanism at work is the HUMAN IMAGINATION. < <
Well, your IMAGINATION sure seems to be the only mechanism at work in these messages of yours. The IMAGINATION is by far not the only mechanism at work during listening. Maybe if you did less "debunking" and more listening, you might understand that, and perhaps learn something new about audio.
> > (And this of course, still remains absolutely free of charge - except for those entrepenurial greats among us who have figured out how to bottle and sell someone their own imagination back to them!) < <
I don't know anyone who does that, and I don't imagine they'd get far in this business selling anyone "imagination". See above re: my comments about your over active imagination. Frankly speaking, if someone managed somehow to suck all the BS out of your posts, about the only thing remaining would be your name. Or on second thought, not even that.
> > Audiophiles always hear differences. That's what audiophiles do. < <
How would you know? You're not an audiophile. I know plenty of audiophiles who say they don't hear a difference.
nt
Even though "my friends" do frequent the asylum mostly they don't post and are tweakers to various degrees. Perhaps because we DIYer's and kit builders we learned long ago that not all parts are equal and that things like vibration/isolation measures and power condtioning all help.I will give May credit for at least claiming a reason. That is more than we get in many areas, even ones the general public has trust in. For example, one has only to look at any number of important drugs to see that how/why they work isn't clear cut. But yet people trust in them to keep them alive.
Regardless you make valid points, ones I am afraid I must agree with. Still I will hope "my friends" are more open to exploring any and all avenues that increase their listening enjoyment.
My personal opinion is that some folks might find specific knowledge of the item a distraction, especially if the explanation is "far out." Probably depends on the person, but some folks might find it more difficult to acknowledge what they are hearing - i.e., might conclude it's their imagination. Ideally, if the person is objective the explanation of the item under test shouldn't color his observations.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: