GaryB;180422 Wrote: > > I often feel that I'm being told what I'm allowed to hear. And ideas > are thrown out as obviously correct that don't agree at all with my own > perceptions.
Gary, I believe this is the crux of the issue as I said in another posting. Side A perceives something is true with their own ears. They perceive it, and it is real to them. Thus, it must be real and true. It is also generalizable - others will hear it. And, the direct causitive agent is what immediately changed. The other side, side B does not trust their ears solely, due to a) known perception artifacts b) known psychological studies c) the impact of "confirmation bias" studies d) the power of suggestion e) impact of not controlling the comparison (e.g. impact of memory, impact of volume, impact of distortion, impact of room, etc etc etc) f) impact of controlling variables (too many things changing at once) g) association is not causation, other factors could be at play Side B thus wants (in order of credibility): - direct measurement with known correlation to audibility - DBT - blind personal ABX - other testing with accepted engineering & scientific basis This is requested specifically to ward off the impacts of the issues above. The intensity of the request goes up in direct proportion to claims that violate: - common sense - engineering principles - communications theory - known laws of physics Personal A/B is usually not definitative, but can form the basis of the discussion depending on how people try. The arguement goes like this: A: "I installed an X, and it sounds better" No offense is intended, its real to them. B: thinks of all the issues listed, and asks if there any measurements or tests to confirm. No offense is intended because thats standard engineering/scientific principle. A: gets offended at being asked to confirm perception because, after all, they heard it so it is real. B: can't understand why basic engineering, let alone scientific processes are not shared and not followed. Being relatively new to all this, I have become convinced seperate groups are appropriate, but perhaps not for the reason you state. In my opinion, its not DBT vs everything else, its proof by testing (where DBT is a test methodology) vs proof by assertion. If people don't want to test their claims, but simply wish to assert them, I have minimal interest in them, personally speaking. And if someone believes deeply that measurement and testing is irrelevant, no amount of convincing is going to change that, since by definition, that is religion. By the way, tonight on Discovery Canada, a great little segment. A test was run. People brought in for a taste test, had yogurt put in front of them (two vendors). The subjects were told they were to test the strawberryness of the two vendors. A blindfold was put on. In front of the camera, the tester switches the strawberry yogurt with two exactly the same plain yogurts, with chocolate added. No strawberry anywhere. Three people shown on camera, all reported strawberry taste, and compared in detail the two vendors strawberry flavour, even ranking them. The testers were shocked to discover the switch had taken place before the taste test and that it was chocolate not strawberry. The professor running this study used this to demonstrate confirmation bias (you report what you thing you should report) and had run the test thousands of times. If illusions and confirmation bias exists in the taste and visual worlds, why is it so hard to believe the auditory equivalent? Why *not* measure? -- Eric Carroll Transporter-Bryston 3B SST-Paradigm Reference Studio 60 v.4 SB3-Rotel RB890-B&W Matrix 805 SB3-Pioneer VSX-49TXi-Mirage OM7+C2+R2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Carroll's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9293 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32352 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
