Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
EFP;181076 Wrote: > solipsism aside.. > what makes you assume I believe in creationism? > is there no third possibility, that humans have been here the whole > time alongside apes, for millions of years? > there is no fossil evidence that supports a monkey was my uncle. > > what really happened is aliens came to earth and settled atlantis and > mixed their dna with apes. the missing link is technology. > > it is obvious that people who consider themselves "Scientists" > can reveal themselves to be just as emotionally invested in an idea as > "Religious" people at the other end of the spectrum > > i did find that funny about Mr. Heston hosting that.. > damn dirty apes > > anyways.. sorry to drive this thread so far off topic > and sorry if the internet filter blurred out my sarcasm.. LOL. So thaaat is what really happened... -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
regalma1;180891 Wrote: > Sorry about getting off but I am so tired of creationists with no > background in Biology, or at least the origin of species, making all > kinds of empty claims just to justify their personal beliefs. At some > point we have to open our eyes and see the world as it is, not how we > would like it to be. solipsism aside.. what makes you assume I believe in creationism? is there no third possibility, that humans have been here the whole time alongside apes, for millions of years? there is no fossil evidence that supports a monkey was my uncle. what really happened is aliens came to earth and settled atlantis and mixed their dna with apes. the missing link is technology. it is obvious that people who consider themselves "Scientists" can reveal themselves to be just as emotionally invested in an idea as "Religious" people at the other end of the spectrum i did find that funny about Mr. Heston hosting that.. damn dirty apes anyways.. sorry to drive this thread so far off topic and sorry if the internet filter blurred out my sarcasm.. -- EFP EFP's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6651 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
You'd think they coulda found a Canadian scientist... -- konut konut's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1596 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
konut;180933 Wrote: > You might find this an interesting read. > http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0 > Then again, you may not. > Oh, the UN. Thats like going to a taxidermist for a headache. > To quote Paul Simon ,"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards > the rest". Just don't forget that Canada is very interested party in the whole global warming thing. Interested to show that nothing we do up here is causing anything bad, so we can keep doing it even more, getting rather rich in the process, while preserving picture perfect about ourselves. And federal conservatives are looking into tough elections, where they have to seek support from both environmentaly concerned easterners and oil rich westerners (their traditional base). It sure would be very convenient thing for them to prove that Kyoto is non-issue. Oh, and BTW, scientist can be bought, just like anybody else. As a reminder, up untill recently there were no strong scientific proof that smoking is bad for you. Makes me wonder what my mother knew 30-ish years ago when she caught me smoking and gave me one hard time, which wasn't clear to all scientists backed by the tabacco loby. -- slimkid slimkid's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8881 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
ezkcdude;180934 Wrote: > So, I want to hear that the human race is doomed? Apparently -- konut konut's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1596 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
konut;180933 Wrote: > > To quote Paul Simon ,"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards > the rest". So, I want to hear that the human race is doomed? -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3->EZDAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier->Speltz anti-cables->DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10" subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
ezkcdude;180840 Wrote: > The basic theory of evolution is not debated, and the "details" of any > theory are not usually debated per se, rather they are filled in where > needed to explain lingering questions. And who should provide these > details, scientists or lay people? Obviously, debate among scientists > can be healthy for advancing science, itself, but how productive is > debate between scientists and lay people? Not very. > > The problem with the global warming or climate change "debate", is that > the vast majority of the scientific community resides on one side, while > conservative pundits and politicians mostly reside on the other. There > are very few qualified scientists "debating" climate change. > > At any rate, the climate change contrarians have already conceded that > climate change is taking place, even though 10 years ago they didn't > even believe that. Now, they've shifted the argument to man-made vs. > natural causes, but day by day they lose ground, because of mounting > scientific evidence, as we witnessed last week with the IPCC report. You might find this an interesting read. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0 Then again, you may not. Oh, the UN. Thats like going to a taxidermist for a headache. To quote Paul Simon ,"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". -- konut konut's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1596 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
regalma1;180891 Wrote: > You're right, there is no hard proof. In fact there is no hard proof of > anything. And I do mean anything - including the fact that I am sitting > here typing this, or that you exist. Just read up on Post-modernism. > > Proof is a vastly overused word. It's like everyone saying "absolutely" > all the time. They are just showing that they have no idea what that > word means. > > As a former Biologist, who studied Evolution intensely, and even went > through a period of doubt about Natural Selection, I can assure you > that if anything in Biology is "proven" it is evolution. It is only the > details that are being filled in. > > If there has been no evolution then the physical world stops making any > sense. We might as well forget about any ideas we have about reality, > and just assume magic is at work. The evidence is that overwhelming. > > By the way, when I had my doubts I plunged in researching it rather > than jumping on the nearest alternative. Though I did study a few of > them. > > Sorry about getting off but I am so tired of creationists with no > background in Biology, or at least the origin of species, making all > kinds of empty claims just to justify their personal beliefs. At some > point we have to open our eyes and see the world as it is, not how we > would like it to be. Ditto. Thanks, for saving me from typing the same response. -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3->EZDAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier->Speltz anti-cables->DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10" subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
You're right, there is no hard proof. In fact there is no hard proof of anything. And I do mean anything - including the fact that I am sitting here typing this, or that you exist. Just read up on Post-modernism. Proof is a vastly overused word. It's like everyone saying "absolutely" all the time. They are just showing that they have no idea what that word means. As a former Biologist, who studied Evolution intensely, and even went through a period of doubt about Natural Selection, I can assure you that if anything in Biology is "proven" it is evolution. It is only the details that are being filled in. If there has been no evolution then the physical world stops making any sense. We might as well forget about any ideas we have about reality, and just assume magic is at work. The evidence is that overwhelming. By the way, when I had my doubts I plunged in researching it rather than jumping on the nearest alternative. Though I did study a few of them. Sorry about getting off but I am so tired of creationists with no background in Biology, or at least the origin of species, making all kinds of empty claims just to justify their personal beliefs. At some point we have to open our eyes and see the world as it is, not how we would like it to be. -- regalma1 regalma1's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6658 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
EFP;180881 Wrote: > I > I found this to be enlightening and enjoyable, hosted by none other > than Charlton Heston > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0323339/ Yes, though it is interesting that it counters some of his earlier work on evolution in http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063442/. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
ezkcdude;180840 Wrote: > The basic theory of evolution is not debated, and the "details" of any > theory are not usually debated per se, rather they are filled in where > needed to explain lingering questions. There is no hard proof to support that man is descended from apes. It is a theory, and usually evidence that contradicts it is "ignored" .. the real debate never even reaches the layperson. I found this to be enlightening and enjoyable, hosted by none other than Charlton Heston http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0323339/ -- EFP EFP's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6651 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
ezkcdude;180840 Wrote: > The basic theory of evolution is not debated, and the "details" of any > theory are not usually debated per se, rather they are filled in where > needed to explain lingering questions. And who should provide these > details, scientists or lay people? Obviously, debate among scientists > can be healthy for advancing science, itself, but how productive is > debate between scientists and lay people? Not very. > > The problem with the global warming or climate change "debate", is that > the vast majority of the scientific community resides on one side, while > conservative pundits and politicians mostly reside on the other. There > are very few qualified scientists "debating" climate change. > > At any rate, the climate change contrarians have already conceded that > climate change is taking place, even though 10 years ago they didn't > even believe that. Now, they've shifted the argument to man-made vs. > natural causes, but day by day they lose ground, because of mounting > scientific evidence, as we witnessed last week with the IPCC report. I have the feeling (I haven't studied this scientifically) that politicians in Europe have pretty much embraced man-made climate change as being real. Now, I also suspect that many politicians really like this idea, as it gives them ample reasons to impose new taxes and tell people in detail how to live their lifes. It's a bit of a european politician's wet dream. -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
Hmm, have we reached a point where we actually basically agree but can't quite phrase it how we want? I suspect it might be the case :) Adam -- adamslim SB3 into Derek Shek d2, Shanling CDT-100, Rotel RT-990BX, Esoteric Audio Research 859, Living Voice Auditorium IIs, Nordost and Anti-cables http://www.last.fm/user/AdamSlim/ adamslim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7355 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
P Floding;180796 Wrote: > The theory of evolution is debated all the time. And I don't mean from a > religious standpoint, but in the details. > > The basic theory of evolution is not debated, and the "details" of any theory are not usually debated per se, rather they are filled in where needed to explain lingering questions. And who should provide these details, scientists or lay people? Obviously, debate among scientists can be healthy for advancing science, itself, but how productive is debate between scientists and lay people? Not very. The problem with the global warming or climate change "debate", is that the vast majority of the scientific community resides on one side, while conservative pundits and politicians mostly reside on the other. There are very few qualified scientists "debating" climate change. At any rate, the climate change contrarians have already conceded that climate change is taking place, even though 10 years ago they didn't even believe that. Now, they've shifted the argument to man-made vs. natural causes, but day by day they lose ground, because of mounting scientific evidence, as we witnessed last week with the IPCC report. -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3->EZDAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier->Speltz anti-cables->DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10" subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
ezkcdude;180761 Wrote: > This complexity argument is pure sophistry. Scientists haven't debated > the basic theory of evolution for over a hundred years. So, this means > they must not have it right? Sure, climatology is a complex science. > But, the idea of man-made CO2 emmissions warming the atmosphere is > pretty basic, and the scientific community has reached a consensus that > it is indeed happening. The only thing that is still debated among > scientists is how much warming will there be, and what are the > potential effects of the warming. These are where the models come in, > and in that respect, I don't think a consensus has been reached. But to > deny that warming exists and is man-made, is just not a tenable > position. The theory of evolution is debated all the time. And I don't mean from a religious standpoint, but in the details. I find it hard to think of anything in science that is not under continous scrutiny, and subject to modified views -even if the main concentration of research move around between subjects, letting some cool off for a while. -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
ezkcdude;180761 Wrote: > Scientists haven't debated the basic theory of evolution for over a > hundred years. So, this means they must not have it right? Bringing this back to something relevant to the discussion, here's a picture of the evolution revolution. ---Gary +---+ |Filename: lancelink.jpg| |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2423| +---+ -- GaryB GaryB's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3169 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
P Floding;180758 Wrote: > > Concensus amongst scientists don't give very good likelihood of > something being true. All it means is that they haven't been able to > get further in their research, as things stand. Scientist SHOULD > bicker, or I would say that they are not doing their job properly. Scientists haven't debated evolution for over a hundred years. So, this means they must not have it right? -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3->EZDAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier->Speltz anti-cables->DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10" subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
ceejay;180751 Wrote: > Nice example. The history of science has several (many?) examples of > how outrageous ideas eventually become mainstream. > > However, let's not forget that there are far, far more examples of > outrageous ideas that remain outrageous because they always were > stupid. > > So, if there is general scientific consensus on something (eg HIV as a > cause for AIDS, or CO2 as a cause for global warming) then the > *likelihood* is that it is correct. Not certainty, of course - nothing > scientific is ever certain. > > But to argue from "here is an example of where outrageous became > mainstream" to "therefore I will disbelieve all scientific consensus" > is, shall we say, a bit dodgy. > > Just an opinion, of course. > > Ceejay How can you even compare a contagious disease, where we are looking for bacteria or virus as the single cause, to global warming where we are trying to identify one factor's contribution among a multitude of factors, using extremely noisy and unreliable data? (Rather than AIDS, perhaps something like the raise of astma would have been a better example.) Concensus amongst scientists don't give very good likelihood of something being true. All it means is that they haven't been able to get further in their research, as things stand. Scientist SHOULD bicker, or I would say that they are not doing their job properly. -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
P Floding;180742 Wrote: > Here is a nice example how one extermely low probability, half crazy, > theory ascends into established truth: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener Nice example. The history of science has several (many?) examples of how outrageous ideas eventually become mainstream. However, let's not forget that there are far, far more examples of outrageous ideas that remain outrageous because they always were stupid. So, if there is general scientific consensus on something (eg HIV as a cause for AIDS, or CO2 as a cause for global warming) then the *likelihood* is that it is correct. Not certainty, of course - nothing scientific is ever certain. But to argue from "here is an example of where outrageous became mainstream" to "therefore I will disbelieve all scientific consensus" is, shall we say, a bit dodgy. Just an opinion, of course. Ceejay -- ceejay ceejay's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=148 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
Here is a nice example how one extermely low probability, half crazy, theory ascends into established truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
occam;180513 Wrote: > Does anyone have any references (academic peer review journal quality) > on the 'persistance' of aural memory? How long a gap between listening > to 'A' and then 'B' can elapse and still have that comparison remain > valid? Obviously, this might depend on the magnitude of those > differences, but I've found myself in the situation where in doing > comparisons, I frankly don't remember with any confidence what the > previous sample sounded like. I think it's likely to be a more complicated can of worms than it would appear. Some kinds of auditory memory appear to have short duration. However, consider the following thought experiment. You receive a phone call at work. The only word said is "hello", yet you recognize the voice of your spouse. This is an auditory cue, and one degraded by the phone service as well, and yet you're perfectly able to recognize it over very long intervals (if not you could be in deep trouble at home). So, there are at least some auditory stimuli that are remembered over very long intervals (how long do you think it would take for you to forget your spouse's voice)? -- hirsch hirsch's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7288 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
jeffmeh;180572 Wrote: > Is it safe for me to assert that it is implausible that the universe was > created by a rabbit wearing a top hat? :) Not if the rabbit wants it kept a secret ;) -- hirsch hirsch's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7288 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
ezkcdude;180622 Wrote: > No, you're missing my point. Who should make the consensus? Scientists > or dabblers? What we are continually being told by climate change > skeptics, almost all of whom are outside the scientific community, is > that there is a robust debate going on. There isn't. One only need go > back to the 80's and follow what happened with AIDS. Sure, there was an > initial hysteria, and some bad science. But long after the disease of > AIDS had been figured out (i.e. symptoms, population, retrovirus), > there were "skeptics" who either a) thought AIDS was created by our > government, as a result of biological weapons reasearch or b) AIDS was > a punishment from God for "deviant" behaviors. I would suggest we are > in this phase with climate change. In 10 years this will look like a > silly debate. But back to audio... I'm afraid your description of AIDS-silliness is not something I recognise at all from over here. Belief in authority is not my strong side. I prefer thinking for myself. I've seen too many "truths" turn out to be false. -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
P Floding;180614 Wrote: > Yeah, there is fighting amongst the researchers, and the big > education-research-stick is being used to try to beat dissenters into > submission. Personally I'm on the fence. My point was that the > concensus can and will change, and it doesn't follow that reality has > actually changed because of that. Ergo: Concensus doesn't imply truth. No, you're missing my point. Who should make the consensus? Scientists or dabblers? What we are continually being told by climate change skeptics, almost all of whom are outside the scientific community, is that there is a robust debate going on. There isn't. One only need go back to the 80's and follow what happened with AIDS. Sure, there was an initial hysteria, and some bad science. But long after the disease of AIDS had been figured out (i.e. symptoms, population, retrovirus), there were "skeptics" who either a) thought AIDS was created by our government, as a result of biological weapons reasearch or b) AIDS was a punishment from God for "deviant" behaviors. I would suggest we are in this phase with climate change. In 10 years this will look like a silly debate. But back to audio... -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3->EZDAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier->Speltz anti-cables->DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10" subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
ezkcdude;180610 Wrote: > You may want to read up on your boy Monckton, whoops, I mean Christopher > Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1947246,00.html Yeah, there is fighting amongst the researchers, and the big education-research-stick is being used to try to beat dissenters into submission. Personally I'm on the fence. My point was that the concensus can and will change, and it doesn't follow that reality has actually changed because of that. Ergo: Concensus don't imply truth. -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
P Floding;180600 Wrote: > Thanks for that example! > That is in fact a very, very good example of someones "high > probablility" being someone else's "low probability": > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml You may want to read up on your boy Monckton, whoops, I mean Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1947246,00.html -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3->EZDAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier->Speltz anti-cables->DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10" subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
totoro;180605 Wrote: > That wasn't quite what I was getting at. You start off with your priors, > do some tests, which will change a bunch of probabilities (since many of > the priors you assigned will be conditional, either directly or > transitively, on the values which were changed by doing the test). > Presto change-o, new probability/plausibility assessments. No appeal to > authority is necessary here. > > The only thing to argue about is the priors: I suppose that is actually > perhaps a big thing :). You make it sound so simple! ;-) -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
P Floding;180603 Wrote: > In order to calculate probabilities you need some kind of measurable > targets. The problem with "plausability" in hifi is that there is > little agreement on what can and cannot be heard. But lets leave it at > that, because I can feel someone will now claim that there exists some > "authority" in audio research... That wasn't quite what I was getting at. You start off with your priors, do some tests, which will change a bunch of probabilities (since many of the priors you assigned will be conditional, either directly or transitively, on the values which were changed by doing the test). Presto change-o, new probability/plausibility assessments. No appeal to authority is necessary here. The only thing to argue about is the priors: I suppose that is actually perhaps a big thing :). -- totoro squeezebox 3 -> mccormack dna .5 -> audio physic tempo 4 totoro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5935 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
totoro;180576 Wrote: > That isn't entirely true, actually. Substitute probability of being true > for plausibility, and you've got something to work with. It's a pretty > hot research topic these days. That's what Bayesian statistics is all > about, and what other "machine learning" stuff is generally about (this > is what I do for a living, so I feel on pretty solid ground on this > one), and is also, AFAIK, the main thrust of "decision theory". > > If you're interested, here are some classic references: > > Judea Pearl: Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems > http://www.amazon.com/Probabilistic-Reasoning-Intelligent-Systems-Plausible/dp/1558604790/sr=8-1/qid=1171477877/ref=sr_1_1/104-5904837-3949567?ie=UTF8&s=books > > Pearl's new book on causation > http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-2K/why.html > > Hastie and Tibshirani: Elements of Statistical Learning > http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Statistical-Learning-T-Hastie/dp/0387952845/sr=1-1/qid=1171477972/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-5904837-3949567?ie=UTF8&s=books > > Haven't read the new one on causality, but the other two are great: you > basically need undergrad level engineering math to get through them. In order to calculate probabilities you need some kind of measurable targets. The problem with "plausability" in hifi is that there is little agreement on what can and cannot be heard. But lets leave it at that, because I can feel someone will now claim that there exists some "authority" in audio research... -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
jeffmeh;180572 Wrote: > Is it safe for me to assert that it is implausible that the universe was > created by a rabbit wearing a top hat? :) Sure. Most people would say it is impossible. -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
P Floding;180545 Wrote: > In fact, you have no safe way of estimating plausability when you have > incomplete knowledge. And if you have complete knowledge you know if it > is POSSIBLE or not. So much for that distinction. Not true, of course. Let me give two very contemporary examples. We have incomplete knowledge of climate change, yet the IPCC recently reported that it is very likely (90%) human activity is causing it, at least, to a large extent. I would say the argument that climate change is caused by man is plausible, wouldn't you? We also have incomplete knowledge of how evolution works, but, to say the very least, it is obviously plausible as a scientific theory. For you to say that we must have complete knowledge of a phenomenon before we can create a plausible operational theory is just plain stubborn, if not ignorant. -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3->EZDAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier->Speltz anti-cables->DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10" subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
P Floding;180545 Wrote: > In fact, you have no safe way of estimating plausability when you have > incomplete knowledge. And if you have complete knowledge you know if it > is POSSIBLE or not. So much for that distinction. That isn't entirely true, actually. Substitute probability of being true for plausibility, and you've got something to work with. It's a pretty hot research topic these days. That's what Bayesian statistics is all about, and what other "machine learning" stuff is generally about (this is what I do for a living, so I feel on pretty solid ground on this one), and is also, AFAIK, the main thrust of "decision theory". If you're interested, here are some classic references: Judea Pearl: Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems http://www.amazon.com/Probabilistic-Reasoning-Intelligent-Systems-Plausible/dp/1558604790/sr=8-1/qid=1171477877/ref=sr_1_1/104-5904837-3949567?ie=UTF8&s=books Pearl's new book on causation http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-2K/why.html Hastie and Tibshirani: Elements of Statistical Learning http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Statistical-Learning-T-Hastie/dp/0387952845/sr=1-1/qid=1171477972/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-5904837-3949567?ie=UTF8&s=books Haven't read the new one on causality, but the other two are great: you basically need undergrad level engineering math to get through them. -- totoro squeezebox 3 -> mccormack dna .5 -> audio physic tempo 4 totoro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5935 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
P Floding;180545 Wrote: > In fact, you have no safe way of estimating plausability when you have > incomplete knowledge. And if you have complete knowledge you know if it > is POSSIBLE or not. So much for that distinction. Is it safe for me to assert that it is implausible that the universe was created by a rabbit wearing a top hat? :) -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
opaqueice;180543 Wrote: > But this isn't about possibility. Anything is possible (trivial formal > statements aside); therefore possibility is totally uninteresting. > What matters in the real world is not possibility, it's plausibility > and the relative likelihood of different explanations. The argument > that something is plausible because it is possible is a logical > fallacy, one which is often committed on this forum. > > At least for my part, the point is simply that there is an extremely > plausible and likely explanation for these observed differences; namely > psychology. Sometimes there is another plausible explanation as well > (measurable harmonic distortion, say) and it isn't easy to choose one > over the other without more data, and sometimes there isn't another (as > in the case of ebony hockey pucks). > > Obviously how plausible something is requires a judgement call - that's > life. One way to judge it is to ask the opinion of experts, meaning > scientific researchers in that field without a financial interest in > the answer, another is to learn something about the physics involved > and draw your own conclusions. In fact, you have no safe way of estimating plausability when you have incomplete knowledge. And if you have complete knowledge you know if it is POSSIBLE or not. So much for that distinction. -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
opaqueice;180543 Wrote: > But this isn't about possibility. Anything is possible (trivial formal > statements aside); therefore possibility is totally uninteresting. > What matters in the real world is not possibility, it's plausibility > and the relative likelihood of different explanations. The argument > that something is plausible because it is possible is a logical > fallacy, one which is often committed on this forum. > > At least for my part, the point is simply that there is an extremely > plausible and likely explanation for these observed differences; namely > psychology. Sometimes there is another plausible explanation as well > (measurable harmonic distortion, say) and it isn't easy to choose one > over the other without more data, and sometimes there isn't another (as > in the case of ebony hockey pucks). > > Obviously how plausible something is requires a judgement call - that's > life. One way to judge it is to ask the opinion of experts, meaning > scientific researchers in that field without a financial interest in > the answer, another is to learn something about the physics involved > and draw your own conclusions. Now you REALLY muddy the whater! Is anything possible? Can you swallow the sun? It is either possible, or it is not. Bringing in the plausible at an early stage is a very safe way to never, ever discover anything new. -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
P Floding;180534 Wrote: > > 3. Side B often asserts what is "possible" when in fact they are merely > stating what is the current set of accepted "truths". (And often limited > to a rather small subset of "common knowledge" at that.) But this isn't about possibility. Anything is possible (trivial formal statements aside); therefore possibility is totally uninteresting. What matters in the real world is not possibility, it's plausibility and the relative likelihood of different explanations. At least for my part, the point is simply that there is an extremely plausible and likely explanation for these observed differences; namely psychology. Sometimes there is another plausible explanation as well (measurable harmonic distortion, say) and it isn't easy to choose one over the other without more data, and sometimes there isn't another (as in the case of ebony hockey pucks). Obviously how plausible something is requires a judgement call - that's life. One way to judge it is to ask the opinion of experts, meaning scientific researchers in that field without a financial interest in the answer, another is to learn something about the physics involved and draw your own conclusions. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
Eric Carroll;180440 Wrote: > > > For example (to make this tangible not to be critical), the claim that > putting vibration isolators under an SB3 improves the sound. We can't > test it; there is no direct measurement. We can't prove out the claim > perceptually, you state its impractical to test. Side B views this also > as proof by assertion. But for side B, the issue is this violates known > rules of engineering and physics - there is no known process by which > large scale vibration could influence electronic processing (analog or > digital). Let me just correct you on two points there: 1. No-one, as far as I know, has clamed "proof" of any influence by vibration modifiers under the SB3. 2. Of course this can be measured, with care and effort and the right equipment. 3. Side B often asserts what is "possible" when in fact they are merely stating what is the current set of accepted "truths". (And often limited to a rather small subset of "common knowledge" at that.) -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
opaqueice;180525 Wrote: > it's amazing how the two sides in this discussion can draw completely > different conclusions from the same piece of evidence! > What's interesting to me is why there *are* two sides so vehemently opposed to each other. What makes one person pro-DBT and the next anti-DBT? I wonder if we could create a survey that would help us understand the "demographics" of this argument. -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3->EZDAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier->Speltz anti-cables->DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10" subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
adamslim;180516 Wrote: > > I realise that it is not scientific, but the chocolate vs strawberry > yoghurt story given earlier indicates some limits to a scientific > method of testing. I struggle to find a solution that satisfies me > rationally, so am happy just to stick with something that just sounds > great and stop worrying about it :) > Hmmm - I think the yoghurt story illustrates precisely the opposite point... as Eric Carroll said earlier, it's amazing how the two sides in this discussion can draw completely different conclusions from the same piece of evidence! To me, what that (along with thousands of other such examples) shows is that human perception is very strongly influenced by expectation, and furthermore that we will go to great lengths to provide elaborate explanations for our incorrect impressions (that last part is even more remarkable, and there's lots of data on it). Therefore, I would say, the only way to use perception reliably is to eliminate the influence of expectation and/or bias in some way - if we don't our perceptions are extremely untrustworthy, almost no matter how confident we are in them. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
opaqueice;180498 Wrote: > In the end we are not scientific researchers - we're just trying to > decide for ourselves what sounds good. "Hey - that sounds good" usually works for me. I reckon that 'test stress' limits the benefits of blind (single, double or polygamous) testing, and you're much better listening in a relaxed environment. This goes even more when you're used to hearing good equipment, as it becomes easy to spot when it really 'clicks'. I realise that it is not scientific, but the chocolate vs strawberry yoghurt story given earlier indicates some limits to a scientific method of testing. I struggle to find a solution that satisfies me rationally, so am happy just to stick with something that just sounds great and stop worrying about it :) Adam -- adamslim SB3 into Derek Shek d2, Shanling CDT-100, Rotel RT-990BX, Esoteric Audio Research 859, Living Voice Auditorium IIs, Nordost and Anti-cables http://www.last.fm/user/AdamSlim/ adamslim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7355 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
Does anyone have any references (academic peer review journal quality) on the 'persistance' of aural memory? How long a gap between listening to 'A' and then 'B' can elapse and still have that comparison remain valid? Obviously, this might depend on the magnitude of those differences, but I've found myself in the situation where in doing comparisons, I frankly don't remember with any confidence what the previous sample sounded like. TIA, Paul -- occam occam's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=949 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
PhilNYC;180473 Wrote: > Actually, almost every time I've posted on an audio forum that I > participated/conducted a single-blind test that resulted in people > hearing obvious differences in things such as interconnects, I've > received responses that the test was invalid because it wasn't a > double-blind test... :-) The world isn't black and white. All else being equal, single blind tests are less reliable than DB, but they are much better than unblind when done carefully and in good faith (that is, both the experimenter and the subjects are genuinely trying to avoid bias, and would report it if they notice some confounding factor). If the effect you're trying to demonstrate exists is particularly unlikely or hard to believe, the standard of proof is higher (this at least is the Bayesian approach to statistics, and I think it's the one everybody uses in practice), and so people will naturally look for possible flaws in the experiment. And it also really depends a lot on the design of the test - some are much more immune to bias effects than others, irrespective of whether or not they are double blind. In the end we are not scientific researchers - we're just trying to decide for ourselves what sounds good. If the difficulty of doing a DBT is prohibitive, it's much better to do a SBT than none at all. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
opaqueice;180442 Wrote: > With the help of one other person it's really not hard to conduct single > blind testing, which, if done with some care and in good faith, is > usually good enough for these purposes. Actually, almost every time I've posted on an audio forum that I participated/conducted a single-blind test that resulted in people hearing obvious differences in things such as interconnects, I've received responses that the test was invalid because it wasn't a double-blind test... :-) -- PhilNYC Sonic Spirits Inc. http://www.sonicspirits.com PhilNYC's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=837 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
One test that would be easy to perform with SlimServer (and I think I will try it this weekend) is to compare different compression ratios starting with lossless going down to 128kbps. Simply take a song and rip it with the different schemes, put the different copies in a folder, each with a unique name, obviously. Then make a playlist with some number of copies, say 5, of each file and hit shuffle. Start with the largest difference in bit rates (for example, FLAC vs 128). Using the first song in the playlist as a reference, listen to each song, and record whether it was the same or different. Notice, I'm not saying to record whether it was better or worse, simply same or different. This is about the easiest test one can think of. If you get it right "significantly" more than 50% of the time, depending on the number of trials of course, then proceed to a closer comparison (FLAC vs 192), and so on, until you find your threshold. -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3->EZDAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier->Speltz anti-cables->DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10" subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
There's a strange fear of trying these tests... it's really not that hard. I've done it several times now, including recently for the linear versus stock PS (which requires a minute or so of downtime). If in the 20 seconds it takes to swap a cable you've already forgotten the sound enough that you can't distinguish, are you going to notice the difference in any real situation - like the next day? And why do you want to compare XLR to XLR? Just try XLR to RCA - you probably won't be able to tell. If you can, you can proceed to try to find out why. Volume matching can be annoying but it's not difficult - the volumes are matched when the two sources are indistinguishable :-). Try an RCA to XLR comparison, with the volumes matched as well as you can, and see if you can hear a difference. As for foobar, I agree results obtained with a standard computer soundcard don't necessarily apply to the SB or transporter. What's really instructive about it is how often you think you can tell the difference and turn out to be wrong. It's very good training, and it helps later in deciding when a difference you think you hear might be illusory. And again, even if for some reason you decide this is all too much trouble, just go and read the results of the many, many tests which others have already done. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
opaqueice wrote: > With the help of one other person it's really not hard to conduct > single blind testing, which, if done with some care and in good faith, > is usually good enough for these purposes. While I do not want to get into what is clearly a theological argument, I can't let this one stand. I believe that in general, blind testing of a lot of things is not easy at all, and saying it does greatly weakens the aguement of DBT or even ABX testing. Even with a fair amount of setup, it is not always "easy" or perhaps even doable. Take my setup. I had a SB connected to a Benchmark DAC-1, optical and coax digital, balanced XLR audio to my Classé integrated amp. It was trivial to do a blind test between toslink and coax, because the Benchmark has a front panel switch that selects input. This is purely a source test, all the DAC and downstream stuff stayed untouched. Then I got a Transporter. If I was to test it, I'd want to use the Transporters XLR output and the Benchmarks' XLR output. But the Classé has only one XLR input, so you can't connect them both at once. No easy switching is possible. Even if the cableing was behind a curtain so you could not see it, the connections will take time, and an important part of testing is to switch quickly between the 'gear under test' because human perception is very time sensitive. You can't compare quality of sound if there is significant time between listening. (how long is long enough to be 'significant' is left as an exercise to the reader). The second major, show stopping problem is that the levels output by the Benchmark and Transporter are different. Matching levels is critical, as others have noted, humans thing "louder" is better. I'm enough of a geek to want to do testing, but I don't see any way to do it. > Furthermore double blind > testing is trivial with a computer - there's at least one free program > (foobar2000 with the ABXY plugin) that does it. It is trivial to write the streams to your computer audio port, using such plugins. But no consumer PC audio port is worthy of being considered in an audiophile context. There are many studio oriented I/O devices that are audiophile quality, I've got 16 channels of 96kHz x 24bit audio in my studio. But very folks have such a setup in an audiophile context. I know I don't, my studio is on a separate floor form my main listening room. Testing ABX with a soundblaster is not worth the waste of electrons in the test. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
GaryB;180422 Wrote: > > It reminds me of the struggles of Galileo and the Catholic church > regarding whether the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa. > Anyone offering anything other than the officially sanctioned views of > the Church of the Objectivists must recant. > Yet it still moves . . . > > > ---Gary Galileo actually did experiments. He didn't just "feel it". -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3->EZDAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier->Speltz anti-cables->DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10" subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
GaryB;180436 Wrote: > > My point is that a request for such testing is beyond the scope of > 99.99% of the participants. Since that is true, calls for these types > of testing really are a way of saying everything Side A is saying is > bunk since they can't provide the proof requested. > It's really proof by assertion that these differences can't exist > since they can't be proven to the satisfaction of Side B. > With the help of one other person it's really not hard to conduct single blind testing, which, if done with some care and in good faith, is usually good enough for these purposes. Furthermore double blind testing is trivial with a computer - there's at least one free program (foobar2000 with the ABXY plugin) that does it. In addition many audiophile organizations have performed blind tests, as well as researchers and audio magazines, and a lot of the data is publically accessible and easy to find. So your assertion that this is too difficult, or that we don't know what the results are, just doesn't hold water. What's remarkable is the near absolute consistency of those results. And no, this is not "proof by assertion" - there are literally hundreds of these tests, and you can easily find the results yourself on the web in a moment. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
Eric Carroll;180440 Wrote: > Would you not also agree that claims of performance and efficacy based > on single users hearing it, given all the issues I listed and which you > did not dispute, are also a form of proof by assertion by side A? Actually I don't agree. When people suggest that they hear an effect they are not asking others to accept it based purely on their say so. They are reporting the effect and suggesting that others try the experiment to see if they can repeat the result. I get the impression that there is an unwillingness to try out these tweaks because of a belief that -it can't work- because there is no good physical explanation. Using your example of vibration isolators under the SB3, I'm asking that you please test it. I only get frustrated when people say it can't make a difference and aren't even willing to try. If you need a plausible explanation of why it might make a difference then I suggest you look into known effects in electronic components. Capacitors can be microphonic. The silicon used to make all transistors and integrated circuits is piezoresistive (resistance changes with mechanical stress). So there are reasons to think that vibrations could affect sound. I'm not saying these are the reasons one hears a difference - just that one can offer up theories if one wants. But I'm not sure we have the tools to prove or disprove these theories so why bother? Just give a listen. ---Gary -- GaryB GaryB's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3169 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
Gary, Thanks for your very well thought out response. I think I understand the A viewpoint better now. I understand how these claims for testing could be frustrating given your posting. You put it quite well: GaryB;180436 Wrote: > My point is that a request for such testing is beyond the scope of > 99.99% of the participants. Since that is true, calls for these types > of testing really are a way of saying everything Side A is saying is > bunk since they can't provide the proof requested. > It's really proof by assertion that these differences can't exist > since they can't be proven to the satisfaction of Side B. > Your point is that direct testing is misleading, and perception testing is impractical, so claims for testing are in effect simply a tactic to shout down side A claims and this is frustrating. I understand. There is a frustration on the B side, too, let me see if I can get to it. Would you not also agree that claims of performance and efficacy based on single users hearing it, given all the issues I listed and which you did not dispute, are also a form of proof by assertion by side A? Also, would you agree that claims that violate known rules of engineering and physics have a higher burden of proof than a simple claim of "I heard it"? For example (to make this tangible not to be critical), the claim that putting vibration isolators under an SB3 improves the sound. We can't test it; there is no direct measurement. We can't prove out the claim perceptually, you state its impractical to test. Side B views this also as proof by assertion. But for side B, the issue is this violates known rules of engineering and physics - there is no known process by which large scale vibration could influence electronic processing (analog or digital). The dampening co-efficient can be calculated and doesn't enter into quantum mechanical domain, etc etc. So the question is if this this a confirmation bias, or placebo effect? How to check this? But by Side A argument, this is impractical to check and we should accept the perception at face value. Thus, side B is asked to accept something that goes against all professional training. So this claim may be true. If it is true, its important. But there appears no way to confirm the truth of the claim. If you can't (or won't) test to confirm its not an effect of something OTHER than the vibration dampeners, then in effect anything goes with no ability to determine the truth. Its sort of a great relativistic morass. It isn't any engineering discipline I understand, and it absolutely is not based on scientific process. Personally, I don't accept your premise that you cannot do these perceptual tests at home. With a little help, I think you can and I think its fun. But that's just me (and yes I have done it). One thing that has impressed me over and over again is that for any claim of change to SB3 or Transporter, Sean goes out and tests it, both with direct measurement and blind or not blind self-AB testing. I know you respect Sean from reading your postings, so perhaps we could find common ground here - how could we follow his example? Are there no common ground principles here? If we can't find any, then its a stalemate and we might as well get seperate groups. I hope this posting is helpful and not provocative. I am trying hard to understand here. -- 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
Eric Carroll;180431 Wrote: > > 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, Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think everyone agrees that the placebo effect is real and must be avoided. The real question is what is the right tool. DBT or ABX testing is extremely difficult and despite the many people clammering for it's use, you'll find that very few if any of the people here actually use these techniques for audio investigation. They're simply too difficult for audio hobbyists. So what's left? Traditional measurements such as total harmonic distortion (THD) are notorious for having poor correlation to sound. Face it, there are not many places in the world with the tools or interest to do quantitative tests on stereo systems. So we're left with our ears. The fact that there are charlatans out there trying to separate audiophiles from their hard earned dollars doesn't mean that *all* tweaks are bunk. The key is sharing experience and separating the wheat from the chaf. We have quite a few experienced audiophiles on this board who try to share their experience so that we can collectively learn from one another. Are these folks perfect? Obviously not. But they are trying to share what they've learned. I have learned a lot from the likes of Occam and Philnyc and my stereo system is much better for it. Eric Carroll;180431 Wrote: > 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 > My point is that a request for such testing is beyond the scope of 99.99% of the participants. Since that is true, calls for these types of testing really are a way of saying everything Side A is saying is bunk since they can't provide the proof requested. It's really proof by assertion that these differences can't exist since they can't be proven to the satisfaction of Side B. Eric Carroll;180432 Wrote: > I sure didn't read Hirsch's comments as criticism of DBT. I read it as > an informed practitioner's discussion of nuances of methodology and > issues to consider. > Regarding Hirsch's comments on DBT- I understand that he wasn't saying DBT is invalid. He was merely pointing out the misuse it seems to have gotten in the hands of Audiophile Objectivists. That's what I was agreeing with. ---Gary -- GaryB GaryB's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3169 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
GaryB;180422 Wrote: > Let me start by welcoming Hirsch to the discussion. I find his comments > to be well reasoned and he articulates the objections to DBT much better > than I ever could. I sure didn't read Hirsch's comments as criticism of DBT. I read it as an informed practitioner's discussion of nuances of methodology and issues to consider. I believe he stated outright > > I have used DBT in pharmacology. I don't trust results without it. He goes on to state how you have to handle the sizing so that it is statistically significant and understand the limits of the testign methdology. I agree. I think we could have a fascinating conversation about the appropriateness of DBT or *other testing methodology*, but I seriously doubt Hirsch is advocating the release of drugs into the consumer world because one person reported they got better. If he is, I misunderstood his posting completely, and do not agree. But I don't think I did... Interesting how we both could read the same posting and come to such different viewpoints. -- 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
Wow - I go away for a few days and this thread explodes. Let me start by welcoming Hirsch to the discussion. I find his comments to be well reasoned and he articulates the objections to DBT much better than I ever could. I also agree with the comments from P. Floding P Floding;180356 Wrote: > Well, here are two things that ticks audiophiles off: > > 1. The notion that they need saving. > 2. The notion that they are idiots. > > And the ABX-crowd usually push both buttons repeatedly. > > That is EXACTLY the problem. 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. For example, in another thread Opaqueice states as a fact that it has been "proven" that one can't distinguish between megabucks CD transports and cheap ones. This is completely at odds with my experience and is not backed with any proof other than proof by assertion. Finally, ezkcdue points to DIY as the saving grace that will allow us to avoid the charlatans of audio. ezkcdude;180391 Wrote: > If more audiophiles actually learned how to DIY, and I don't just mean > rolling tubes and op amps, and swapping in boutique caps, but actually > learned how to build and design amps/DACs/speakers from the ground up, > well, there would be a lot less audiophiles. The problem with > audiophiles is, contrary to the comment made earlier, that they really > *are idiots* when it comes to electronics. Well I consider myself pretty well versed in DIY yet it doesn't save me from being told that I'm delusional when I hear differences in things like transports. I'm afraid to mention that I even hear differences in digital cables. It reminds me of the struggles of Galileo and the Catholic church regarding whether the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa. Anyone offering anything other than the officially sanctioned views of the Church of the Objectivists must recant. Yet it still moves . . . ---Gary -- GaryB GaryB's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3169 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
If more audiophiles actually learned how to DIY, and I don't just mean rolling tubes and op amps, and swapping in boutique caps, but actually learned how to build and design amps/DACs/speakers from the ground up, well, there would be a lot less audiophiles. The problem with audiophiles is, contrary to the comment made earlier, that they really *are idiots* when it comes to electronics. Without having built or designed the components themselves, they are just tilting at windmills, and listening to whoever "appears" to have more knowledge. The best money I have ever spent on audio - well, with the lone exception of my Squeezey - is on figuring out how to build the stuff myself. -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3->EZDAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier->Speltz anti-cables->DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10" subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
Eric Carroll;180342 Wrote: > > I have been personally subjected to salespeople who promolgate unproven > claims of better audio quality in order to extract money. The audio shop > I bought my recent power amp stated that "everything has a colour", > meaning even piece of equipment influences tonality, etc. This is > provably false for certain equipment of a certain class. > I actually believe the statement that "everything has a color", and have told people that not for the purpose of extracting money, but for the purpose of telling people they should not buy a piece of gear without hearing it first. In fact, by making that statement, it makes it harder for me to sell gear, because it makes people want to demo gear in their own homes in their own systems. What class of equipment do you believe that this statement is false? For the record, you would be hard-pressed to convince me that a Halco DM68 and a Vitus Audio SM-101 do not have their own distinct sound/color... -- PhilNYC Sonic Spirits Inc. http://www.sonicspirits.com PhilNYC's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=837 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
snarlydwarf;180370 Wrote: > And that has nothing to do with anything? You said you heard a > difference with those wood things, and I am not disputing that. You > did. The question remains, then, "why?" > > Is it because of the properties of the wood? Is it because of > something else? > > Understanding the effect will lead to replicability and possibly even > greater improvement. That is how Science works. > > Perhaps the difference is that you have very little curiosity about > such things. Whatever. Some of us do. I don't know why the fact that > others have this curiousity pisses you off so much that you demand we > can't talk about it. > > > > You know nothing about me. I deal with uncertainty and Faith all the > time, actually. But I also deal with knowledge and facts. But, then, > this is a discussion of Scientific Method, not "let's try to > psychoanalyze people based on words on the screen" > > Leave the ad hominem attacks out, thanks. > > > > WTF? > > Last sentence: "And when did I demand anything?" > > Two sentences prior: "It is even provable that you can hear a > difference..." > > Why on earth do you think they "sort of contradict?" > > They have nothing do do with each other: that something IS provable > doesn't mean that YOU must prove it. Fermat's last theorem is > provable, but don't expect me to prove it, let alone understand the > proof. Well, since you don't demand anything of me personally I will simply leave these largely rethorical questions hanging. -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
P Floding;180368 Wrote: > I don't believe I have fantastic hearing. > It may be better than average, but that doesn't mean much. Anyway, that > idea was foremost hypothetical to forward a line of reasoning. And that has nothing to do with anything? You said you heard a difference with those wood things, and I am not disputing that. You did. The question remains, then, "why?" Is it because of the properties of the wood? Is it because of something else? Understanding the effect will lead to replicability and possibly even greater improvement. That is how Science works. Perhaps the difference is that you have very little curiosity about such things. Whatever. Some of us do. I don't know why the fact that others have this curiousity pisses you off so much that you demand we can't talk about it. > > Your response is typical of people who have a hard time accepting > uncertainty. Life and the world is full of uncertainty. You will not > find certainty in subjective matters, and anything sensory is > subjective. You know nothing about me. I deal with uncertainty and Faith all the time, actually. But I also deal with knowledge and facts. But, then, this is a discussion of Scientific Method, not "let's try to psychoanalyze people based on words on the screen" Leave the ad hominem attacks out, thanks. > > Oh, and your last sentence sort of contradicts the two sentences before > that one... WTF? Last sentence: "And when did I demand anything?" Two sentences prior: "It is even provable that you can hear a difference..." Why on earth do you think they "sort of contradict?" They have nothing do do with each other: that something IS provable doesn't mean that YOU must prove it. Fermat's last theorem is provable, but don't expect me to prove it, let alone understand the proof. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
snarlydwarf;180366 Wrote: > ... > > But see, that is incredibly anti-scientific. If something makes a > discernable difference, then it should be possible to show that. Even > if it is "wow, P Floding has incredible hearing, he can hear the > difference, and we can -show- he can, though no one else in the world > can" > > It is even provable that you can hear a difference... > > Why do you believe that it is not so? > > And when did I demand anything? I don't believe I have fantastic hearing. It may be better than average, but that doesn't mean much. Anyway, that idea foremost hypothetical to forward a line of reasoning. Your response is typical of people who have a hard time accepting uncertainty. Life and the world is full of uncertainty. You will not find certainty in subjective matters, and anything sensory is subjective. Oh, and your last sentence sort of contradicts the two sentences before that one... -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
P Floding;180365 Wrote: > Look, it is not as if there is, or will be A TRUTH, that we can all just > look up in a nice book and go by. You won't find it, and I won't and it > is pointless demanding it. ... But see, that is incredibly anti-scientific. If something makes a discernable difference, then it should be possible to show that. Even if it is "wow, P Floding has incredible hearing, he can hear the difference, and we can -show- he can, though no one else in the world can" It is even provable that you can hear a difference... Why do you believe that it is not so? And when did I demand anything? -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
snarlydwarf;180363 Wrote: > And it may be a case of getting More For The Buck. > > If using some special disc from a hardwood reduces vibration (which is > counterintuitive... a hard substance wouldn't absorb as much as a soft > wood), then would any hardwood do? Does it have to be ebony? Or would > something else do? Would a softwood be better? If the difference is > demonstratable as discernable, then I can go to the hardware store, > spend $10 and have the same improvement, saving money. Look, it is not as if there is, or will be A TRUTH, that we can all just look up in a nice book and go by. You won't find it, and I won't and it is pointless demanding it. -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
Eric Carroll;180342 Wrote: > > You can always mod something, or sell something on non-performance > features. Claims of performance and efficacy demand a higher standard, > if you want my money. And it may be a case of getting More For The Buck. If using some special disc from a hardwood reduces vibration (which is counterintuitive... a hard substance wouldn't absorb as much as a soft wood), then would any hardwood do? Does it have to be ebony? Or would something else do? Would a softwood be better? If the difference is demonstratable as discernable, then I can go to the hardware store, spend $10 and have the same improvement, saving money. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
Ok, how about a sci.audiophile and alt.audiophile then? Or take the mods to the DIY forum. Personally I want to understand what is superstition and what is reproducible. I think the response on anti-aging creams is self-evident. If it claims efficacy I want to know it really works, not just is claimed to work so as to grab money. People have been buying ineffective medicines, creams and lotions for thousands of years. By the way, did you ever see B.F. Skinner's paper on "superstitious" pigeons? Basically the experiment was to provide operant conditioning without regard to the pigeon behaviour. The pigeons thus became "superstitious" - they learned to repeat whateever behaviour they were doing at the time of the reward (food) even though it had no actual connection to the behaviour. Personally I think there is a lesson for the audiophile community there, in my opinion, of course. -- 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
Eric Carroll;180342 Wrote: > Well, while I try to be respectful of people who can hear a difference, > I have to somewhat disagree with this statement. > > I have been personally subjected to salespeople who promolgate unproven > claims of better audio quality in order to extract money. The audio shop > I bought my recent power amp stated that "everything has a colour", > meaning even piece of equipment influences tonality, etc. This is > provably false for certain equipment of a certain class. > > I watch many people claim improvement and performance enhancements for > significant dollars, many of which contradict known principles of > engineering and physics. > > While I believe someone when they claim they can hear an improvement (I > believe their claim of perception), if it costs money, especially lots > of money, then I think there is an obligation to demonstrate the claim > beyond advertising statements using something that is recognized as > approaching consensus principles of evaluation. That means, to me in > order of credibility: > 1. Direct Measurement with known correlation to audibility > 2. DBT where direct measurement is not (yet) known > 3. Single person multi-trial ABX (as a causual test) > > (so called HABX testing, where a person does the ABX testing works for > me) > > AB testing when you known which is what is not convincing to me. > > You can always mod something, or sell something on non-performance > features. Claims of performance and efficacy demand a higher standard, > if you want my money. Well, OK, anyone must have the right to crusade against stupidity and wasted money. But people must also be able to discuss without crusades going on continously. Hence the need for ABX-free zones. BTW, what do you think is the amount of money spent on woodo audiophile products compared to wrinkel reduction and the like? I haven't seen much crusading to stop people from buying anti-aging cream. -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
P Floding;180332 Wrote: > However, I don't think the hobbyists called "audiophiles" should have to > keep this in mind every time the would like to endulge in their chosen > hobby. Well, while I try to be respectful of people who can hear a difference, I have to somewhat disagree with this statement. I have been personally subjected to salespeople who promolgate unproven claims of better audio quality in order to extract money. The audio shop I bought my recent power amp stated that "everything has a colour", meaning even piece of equipment influences tonality, etc. This is provably false for certain equipment of a certain class. I watch many people claim improvement and performance enhancements for significant dollars, many of which contradict known principles of engineering and physics. While I believe someone when they claim they can hear an improvement (I believe their claim of perception), if it costs money, especially lots of money, then I think there is an obligation to demonstrate the claim beyond advertising statements using something that is recognized as approaching consensus principles of evaluation. That means, to me in order of credibility: 1. Direct Measurement with known correlation to audibility 2. DBT where direct measurement is not (yet) known 3. Single person multi-trial ABX (as a causual test) (so called HABX testing, where a person does the ABX testing works for me) AB testing when you known which is what is not convincing to me. You can always mod something, or sell something on non-performance features. Claims of performance and efficacy demand a higher standard, if you want my money. -- 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
ezkcdude;180340 Wrote: > Actually, anyone who has performed DBT is automatically disqualified > from audiophile status. At least, that's what it says in the small > print on the back of my membership card. No, that would be petty! We audiophiles can forgive and forget! ;-D I have occasionally indulged in ABX myself, but it was too boring and resource demanding. I prefer measuring for confirmation. -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
snarlydwarf;180335 Wrote: > I dunno, I think everyone should at least keep it in mind or it is > (depending on whether you are a half-empty or half-full person I guess) > easy to be suckered into buying the latest-area-51-gadget or risk > missing out on something affordable that makes a real difference. > > Questioning yourself and your own senses is good (well, to some > extent... too much and you will go nuts... wondering if anything at all > is real). Well, in that case I hope the ABX-proponents quickly spread out and spend a lot more time in other subjective hobbyist fora. -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
P Floding;180332 Wrote: > > However, I don't think the hobbyists called "audiophiles" should have > to keep this in mind every time the would like to endulge in their > chosen hobby. Actually, anyone who has performed DBT is automatically disqualified from audiophile status. At least, that's what it says in the small print on the back of my membership card. -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3->EZDAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier->Speltz anti-cables->DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10" subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
P Floding;180332 Wrote: > It's all very interesting, and I hope more research is done in this > area. > > However, I don't think the hobbyists called "audiophiles" should have > to keep this in mind every time the would like to endulge in their > chosen hobby. I dunno, I think everyone should at least keep it in mind or it is (depending on whether you are a half-empty or half-full person I guess) easy to be suckered into buying the latest-area-51-gadget or risk missing out on something affordable that makes a real difference. Questioning yourself and your own senses is good (well, to some extent... too much and you will go nuts... wondering if anything at all is real). -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
opaqueice;180328 Wrote: > We talked about this before on this forum - the hypthesis that the > stress of blind tests reduced people's hearing abilities was termed > "blinditis". It's quite a lot to buy - that people think they can hear > a difference sighted or blind, but when blind they are stressed and > can't actually hear it (even though they think they can), while when > sighted they think they can and are correct. That's far less plausible > and much more complicated than the simple hypothesis of bias, but it's > not impossible. It seems a difficult thing to rule out, but there may > actually be a clever way... > > First use a blind test to determine the sensitivity to, say, a > difference in volume. Now do the same with a sighted test (the > subjects know which is louder - because they can see the volume knobs - > and are asked at what point they cease to be able to hear a difference). > Now there are two possibilities - sensitivity was greater in the blind > test, in which case the blinditis hypothesis is out, or it's greater in > the sighted test. > > In the second case do another sighted test, but secretly reverse the > knobs - so what the subjects think is louder is actually softer. Do > this in the volume range between the two sensitivities, and see what > the results are - do the subjects notice that something is wrong and > the volumes have been swapped? If not, it's pretty clear it was bias > effects that led them to think they could hear a difference when in > fact they couldn't, and therefore the original blind test gave the > correct result (i.e. no blinditis). If on the other hand they do > notice, blinditis exists. I think refinements of this basic idea could > pretty well rule this out or in. > > Of course this is to determine whether it's the blind aspect of the > test that causes the problem; if instead being tested in any way > fundamentally changes our perceptions there's really very little that > can be said. It's all very interesting, and I hope more research is done in this area. However, I don't think the hobbyists called "audiophiles" should have to keep this in mind every time the would like to endulge in their chosen hobby. -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
hirsch;180186 Wrote: > > Placebo's do work...both ways. Expectancy can eliminate a real > difference as easily as it can produce a false positive. > We talked about this before on this forum - the hypthesis that the stress of blind tests reduced people's hearing abilities was termed "blinditis". It's quite a lot to buy - that people think they can hear a difference sighted or blind, but when blind they are stressed and can't actually hear it (even though they think they can), while when sighted they think they can and are correct. Implausible, but not impossible. It seems a difficult thing to rule out, but there may actually be a clever way... For example, first use a blind test to determine the sensitivity to, say, a difference in volume. Now do the same with a sighted test (the subjects know which is louder - because they can see the volume knobs - and are asked at what point they cease to be able to hear a difference). Now there are two possibilities - sensitivity was greater in the blind test, in which case the blinditis hypothesis is out, or it's greater in the sighted test. In the second case do another sighted test, but secretly reverse the knobs - so what the subjects think is louder is actually softer. Do this in the volume range between the two sensitivities, and see what the results are - do the subjects notice that something is wrong and the volumes have been swapped? If not, it's pretty clear it was bias effects that led them to think they could hear a difference, and therefore the blind test gave the correct result (i.e. no blinditis). If so, there is blinditis. I think refinements of this basic idea could pretty well rule this out or in. Of course this is to determine whether it's the blind part that causes the problem; if instead being tested in any way fundamentally changes our perceptions there's really very little that can be said. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
Hirsch makes some great points. So, what do we need then? I would suggest that having some sort of blind test should be part of the solution. But, as Hirsch points out, the DBT, itself, may have some problems. If one of the problems with DBT is the short duration, and hence, "listening pressure", what I would suggest is that one listen blindly for several days (weeks?) to component A and then switch to component B, where these components have been "blindly" switched into the system by someone other than the user. Of course, this is probably not the easiest test to implement, but it seems to me it would go a long way to assuage some of the complaints on both sides of the DBT issue, and perhaps, provide a starting point for achieving a common goal - accurately characterizing subjective differences. -- ezkcdude DIY projects page: http://www.ezdiyaudio.com System: SB3->EZDAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier->Speltz anti-cables->DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10" subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
Very nice post Hirsch! I have been speculating about the possibility that "critical" or concentrated listening modifies the way we hear things, and make many qualitative judgements harder to make than if we listen more relaxed over longer time periods. The brain is amazingly good at filling in missing pieces and ironing out things to enable us to decode what we here despite distortions and environmental influences. The strain of doing a lot of this work probably only starts to affect us after some time. -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
Hirsch, I should have read your posting first. Totally agree, excellent post. Thanks. -- 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
snarlydwarf;180098 Wrote: > Can't we all agree on some basic realities: > 1) Human perception is easily fooled by a variety of influences > (loouder, hints, expectations, etc... some obvious, some subtle) > Good post, I agree with your points. Most people accept the truth of optical illusions. Most people accept that common visual phenomena don't mean what our senses tell us and can factor this conclusion in. Very few people accept the truth of auditory illusions and the possibility of being tricked or confused by auditory setup. For example, people totally discount room acoustics or volume in comparsions. I really don't understand why this is, but it is an observation both here and in my purchasing process. Anyone who has studied (or even read about) how the brain processes sensory data eventually is amazed we form a coherent picture at all of the world. The brain edits sensory input very heavily and there are literal "distortions" all along the path between sensor and perception of awareness (whatever the heck that is anyway, but we all know it cause we all allegedly have it). Yet audiophilia is somehow exempt from this. Puzzling. Maybe complex hearing is just far more rare than complex seeing... (just speculation on my part). -- 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
snarlydwarf;180098 Wrote: > > Can't we all agree on some basic realities: > 1) Human perception is easily fooled by a variety of influences > (loouder, hints, expectations, etc... some obvious, some subtle) > 2) Removing as many external influences as possible is necessary to > do any scientific test (ie, in chemistry you record the room > temperature to make sure "the A/C was broken that day" is accounted > for). > 3) Admkitting that your mind is fallabile isn't an insult: everyone > has the same problem. It doesnt mean your ears arent golden either. > > This is why DBT is used for drug tests: because peoples expectations of > getting better corrupt the data. (It is scary how many placebos for > things like depression work...) It goes way beyond perception being fooled. There is an infinite variety of stimuli in our environment that are acting on sensory receptors all the time. The only way to reduce the information to an amount that can be handled is through filtering the sensory information through pre-attentional and attentional processes before it even gets to the brain. There is a great deal of stimulation that triggers a sensory receptor that is never actually perceived in any meaningful sense. That's simply the nature of the process. It's not necessarily a matter of perception being fooled. Sensory discrimination is a learning process. Without the experience, there are discriminations that you cannot make. A oenophile can tell you in very great detail about wine from a single taste. I don't like wine, and would have a hard time telling a classic wine from a $5 bottle. I haven't had the training, and cannot make the taste discrimination. We are hardwired so that we do NOT experience any sensory stimuli without preprocessing. What gets to the brain in not a veridical representation of what we see, hear, smell, taste or touch. To give you a very common example: <---> >---< We know that both lines are the same length. However, the cues i the lines tell us the bottom line is longer, so that's how we perceive it. (Note, the breaks between the dashes make it easier to see past the illusion). In any event, we have all seen optical illusions. They occur due to "shortcuts" in the perceptual process that simplify perception. This occurs in audition also. In removing external influences, you also need to insure that you are not removing influences that affect the experiment. In a chemistry experiment, you record room temperature. If temperature affects the reaction, you can at least account for a negative result. The open question is whether or not DBT itself influences the ability to make the discrimination at hand. Bear in mind that the senses do not operate independently, particularly once you get to the attentional level. It is absolutely essential in a DBT to have a positive control, where known measurable and audible differences are part of the test. If you don't prove that the test is not reducing the ability to affect a known difference, you cannot even begin to say what a negative result on an unknown difference means. Placebo's do work...both ways. Expectancy can eliminate a real difference as easily as it can produce a false positive. I have used DBT in pharmacology. I don't trust results without it. However, I also take a great deal of care to insure that I've got a reasonable chance to interpret a negative result, or I'd never get a study approved by an IACUC or an IRB. That includes running power analyses to insure that I've got an adequate N to interpret a negative result, as well as running appropriate controls to insure the sensitivity of my test procedures. There are also times when a DBT cannot be run in pharmacology (for example, the test drug produces unique side effects that may not be harmful, but are easily distinguished from a placebo). So, we use alternative methodologies, simply because the circumstances of the experiment indicate that DBT is not the right tool for that particular compound. As Mr. Natural said to Flakey Foont long ago: "Use the right tool for the job!" -- hirsch hirsch's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7288 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
Eric Carroll;180082 Wrote:
> Is perhaps one of the confusing things in this discussion the difference
> between a single person, single trial negative result (i.e. null) vs a
> single person multiple trial negative result/positive results vs
> multiple person multiple trials?
>
Multiple trials add confidence to whatever result is obtained. Either
the result will be consistent with random guessing or with perceiving a
difference, and our confidence in the conclusion will be increased as
the number of trials increases.
If we are interested in concluding something about audibility for
humans in general, rather than for an individual, the more people
involved in the test the better. Here things can get a bit murky - if
there is a difference which is close to the threshhold of audibility,
it's possible there is a small fraction of the population ("golden
ears", or "Keen Eared Individuals" in Stereophile's terminology) who
can hear it while most can't. That could get lost in the noise of a
large listening test if the number of such people is small enough.
However that can be dealt with - for example the most successful
individuals from the large test could be tested individually or as a
group to see if their performance was chance or not.
I agree about people believing they hear something - I'm sure no one is
lying! I've tried to be careful with terminology about that, but I
think our language actually lacks a good term to distinguish these
things. For example do you hear ringing in your ears, or imagine it,
or perceive it, or what? Terminology aside, as you say the point is to
remove as many confounding factors as possible when attempting to
determine if a given component makes an audible difference, and human
psychology is a biggie.
Snarly, I totally agree with your post - it's really not meant to be
demeaning, and it applies to everyone. It's just about getting at the
facts.
--
opaqueice
opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234
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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
Eric Carroll;180082 Wrote: > > Maybe I am not expressing this well enough and you could eloborate or > say it better. The point I am making is that many people feel offended > when someone says "it got better" and "thus it is due to X" and someone > else says "did you ABX it" - they interpret this to mean that the ABX > comment means they did NOT hear an improvement, and that their > conclusion the improvement is from A (which is what they changed) is > wrong. Actually, I don't know why people get offended by it, but that I think is the real root problem and why it has become a sticking point. Can't we all agree on some basic realities: 1) Human perception is easily fooled by a variety of influences (loouder, hints, expectations, etc... some obvious, some subtle) 2) Removing as many external influences as possible is necessary to do any scientific test (ie, in chemistry you record the room temperature to make sure "the A/C was broken that day" is accounted for). 3) Admkitting that your mind is fallabile isn't an insult: everyone has the same problem. It doesnt mean your ears arent golden either. This is why DBT is used for drug tests: because peoples expectations of getting better corrupt the data. (It is scary how many placebos for th -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
Opaqueice, Is perhaps one of the confusing things in this discussion the difference between a single person, single trial negative result (i.e. null) vs a single person multiple trial negative result/positive results vs multiple person multiple trials? When someone says "I heard a difference", I believe totally that they believe they heard a difference. The issue is that there are many ways people can perceive difference that is there, but not they way they think, or they perceive difference that is not there, but they have been suggested into thinking it is there. For example, someone who "got better" in a DBT of a drug *is* better. But the drug is not necessarily causitive. If it does not show efficacy in the statistics (i.e. over many people and trials) then the "got better" result was not due to the drug. Similarly, people think that changing something (e.g. an amp, a source) is the cause of a "got better" result. It could be many other causes, e.g. volume not matched +-0.1 dB (louder is perceived as "better"). So the issue is determining if a given change "caused" the "got better" result, not whether they heard an improvement. Maybe I am not expressing this well enough and you could eloborate or say it better. The point I am making is that many people feel offended when someone says "it got better" and "thus it is due to X" and someone else says "did you ABX it" - they interpret this to mean that the ABX comment means they did NOT hear an improvement, and that their conclusion the improvement is from A (which is what they changed) is wrong. The former may be true: they heard it. The latter may NOT be true, unless the statistics show that A is in fact causitive above the level of random chance. Eric -- 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
hirsch;180007 Wrote: > > Note that blinding is not even mentioned in the above. It's simply a > way of removing a confounding variable so that a significant alpha > becomes more interpretable. That's it. If you think what I'm saying > is in any way false, I strongly recommend reading a book on > statistics/experimental design. What you are saying *is* incorrect. As for reading a book, thanks for the suggestion. I'm a scientist - I do this stuff for a living, and I've read many books on the subject already :-). As far as I can tell, you seem to be thinking that a listening test is supposed to tell you whether or not there is any difference. If that were the case, it's true that a null result wouldn't indicate much - it would merely indicate that there is no difference large enough to be heard in that test, but many other possible differences would remain untested. However, a listening test is not testing whether or not there is a difference in general - it's testing whether or not there is a perceptible difference for that listener. That's it - nothing more or less. A "negative" result implies that there is not; a positive that there is. Clearly either result usually also implies something for other listeners and other circumstances as well, but formally you can ignore that if you want (your impaired hearing example goes here). It might be of some interest to those that think "negative" results don't mean anything to know that there is currently an effort in observational astrophysics to get people to publish them. The problem is that people, after doing analyses, often don't publish the results if they aren't surprising or don't contain a new and previously unobserved effect. This leads to a publication bias - it's like only reporting data which supports a conclusion and never data which doesn't; it leads to a skewed view of the evidence. The truth is the "negative" results (and again that's really not a well-defined concept) are just as meaningful and important as "positive". -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
hirsch;180007 Wrote: > Nope. You're back at the basic error. How do you distinguish the results > obtained in a negative DBT from those obtained in a hearing-impaired > sample? > > Let's take a basic perceptual test. We test for a difference between > two stimuli, and try to figure out whether or not we heard a > difference. We then do statistics, and figure out whether or not the > significance, a statistic called alpha, is less that 0.05. This number > is a probability. It means that if we say the difference is real, the > odds that we're wrong is less than 5% (or 19 to 1 odds). Note that if > the odds that a difference is real are something like 3 to 1 in favor > or the difference being real, we will still determine that the > difference is not significant. That is because the probability of > committing a Type I error (saying a difference is real when in fact it > is not) is higher than we will accept. This is where the problem comes > in, as the failure to obtain a significant alpha says nothing about a > negative result. In science, the failure to obtain significantly > significant differences can still mask real differences, and in fact > sometimes the odds favor the existence of such differences...but not by > enough for us to accept them as "real". The normal scenario is to run > the test, fail to obtain alpha less than 0.05, and then jump to the > conclusion that since we didn't get a significant difference, there > isn't one. Wrong. > > The converse of a Type I error in statistics is a Type II error (saying > that there is no difference when in fact there is a real difference). In > order to make statements about negative results, we need to compute a > statistic called beta (probability of committing a Type II error, or > saying that there is no difference when in fact a difference is real) > which needs to be below 0.05 before we can attribute any meaning to a > negative result. Figuring beta is complicated, and cannot be done > without some sort of a priori power analysis (which determines just how > big an N is needed to make sense of failure to achieve a significant > alpha). If you have not computed beta, a negative result has no > meaning in a statistical sense. To "prove the negative", you need to be > able to calculate the odds that your conclusion is wrong, the same as > for a positive result. It's a lot harder for a negative, however. > > Note that blinding is not even mentioned in the above. It's simply a > way of removing a confounding variable so that a significant alpha > becomes more interpretable. That's it. If you think what I'm saying > is in any way false, I strongly recommend reading a book on > statistics/experimental design. You are correct regarding statistical significance. However, if you take one specific individual who claims to hear a difference, and that specific individual cannot identify the difference in a DBT, then there is an extremely high probability that that specific individual does not really hear a difference. Conversely, if a different specific individual could differentiate in a DBT, there is an extremely high probability that the difference is audible, even though the first specific individual could not hear it. Statistical significance is all well and good, but I would suggest that the former individual should refrain from spending the money to make the change that he cannot hear. Further, I would suggest that finding at least one individual who can differentiate in a properly conducted DBT should satisfy most reasonable objectivists, even though there is a higher probability of a false positive than there would be for a larger sample size. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
opaqueice;179972 Wrote: > Well, we had this debate before. You can find it if you search the > forum - there is no such logical distinction (a statement is equal to > the negation of its negation, so obviously you can't classify > statements as positive or negative). Sometimes the negation of some > statement is much more difficult to prove, such as your example here; > sometimes it's the other way around. > > In any case, for blind testing, what is being tested is whether or not > the subject can actually hear a difference. A "positive" result > provides evidence that s/he can, a "negative" result that s/he can't. > That's it; the "negative" result is just as meaningful and just as > useful. I haven't classified statements as positive or negative. We are talking about the outcome of an experiment. Either the experiment gives the expected result, and we have a positive result, or we have a negative outcome. I.e: What the experiment was designed to prove was not proven in this particular experiment. -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
opaqueice;179972 Wrote: > In any case, for blind testing, what is being tested is whether or not > the subject can actually hear a difference. A "positive" result > provides evidence that s/he can, a "negative" result that s/he can't. > That's it; the "negative" result is just as meaningful and just as > useful. Nope. You're back at the basic error. How do you distinguish the results obtained in a negative DBT from those obtained in a hearing-impaired sample? Let's take a basic perceptual test. We test for a difference between two stimuli, and try to figure out whether or not we heard a difference. We then do statistics, and figure out whether or not the significance, a statistic called alpha, is less that 0.05. This number is a probability. It means that if we say the difference is real, the odds that we're wrong is less than 5% (or 19 to 1 odds). Note that if the odds that a difference is real are something like 3 to 1 in favor or the difference being real, we will still determine that the difference is not significant. That is because the probability of committing a Type I error (saying a difference is real when in fact it is not) is higher than we will accept. This is where the problem comes in, as the failure to obtain a significant alpha says nothing about a negative result. In science, the failure to obtain significantly significant differences can still mask real differences, and in fact sometimes the odds favor the existence of such differences...but not by enough for us to accept them as "real". The normal scenario is to run the test, fail to obtain alpha less than 0.05, and then jump to the conclusion that since we didn't get a significant difference, there isn't one. Wrong. The converse of a Type I error in statistics is a Type II error (saying that there is no difference when in fact there is a real difference). In order to make statements about negative results, we need to compute a statistic called beta (probability of committing a Type II error, or saying that there is no difference when in fact a difference is real) which needs to be below 0.05 before we can attribute any meaning to a negative result. Figuring beta is complicated, and cannot be done without some sort of a priori power analysis (which determines just how big an N is needed to make sense of failure to achieve a significant alpha). If you have not computed beta, a negative result has no meaning in a statistical sense. To "prove the negative", you need to be able to calculate the odds that your conclusion is wrong, the same as for a positive result. It's a lot harder for a negative, however. Note that blinding is not even mentioned in the above. It's simply a way of removing a confounding variable so that a significant alpha becomes more interpretable. That's it. If you think what I'm saying is in any way false, I strongly recommend reading a book on statistics/experimental design. -- hirsch hirsch's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7288 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
Pat Farrell;179980 Wrote: > P Floding wrote: > > Negative results: > > > > 1. We would like to prove that there exists red cars. > > 2. We observe cars. > > 3a. We see red car. We have proven that at least one red car exists. > > or > > 3b. We never see a red car. We didn't prove a single thing. This is > > what's called a "negative result". > > Pretty silly example. All you have to do is find one of anything to > prove that X exists. > > A better hypothesis is that there are so many red cars that you can see > > one if you sit at the Holland tunnel for even one hour, you will see > one, and from that you can extrapolate that there could be as many as Y > > zillion red cars. > > You could start with an analysis that 17 million cars are sold in the > US > every year, and they last about 20 years, so there are about 340 > million > cars on the road. If 2% of cars are red, and you sample ten thousand of > > them (sitting at the front of the Holland Tunnel for Z minutes) then > you can test the hypothesis that red cars make up A percent of the > cars, > and you should see one at the Holland Tunnel. > > If you sat there measuring for a year of rush hours, and never saw a > red > car, then you could claim that the probability of there being any red > cars is low. And you could back that up. > > What you will not know that all the red cars are in California and > Florida > > > > -- > Pat > http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html It was a very simple example of why a negative result means nothing on its own. I don't see any need at all to complicate matters. As someone said above, if the reseacher is colour blind as well, then a negative result will be guaranteed. Although he might not know it. -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
P Floding wrote: > Negative results: > > 1. We would like to prove that there exists red cars. > 2. We observe cars. > 3a. We see red car. We have proven that at least one red car exists. > or > 3b. We never see a red car. We didn't prove a single thing. This is > what's called a "negative result". Pretty silly example. All you have to do is find one of anything to prove that X exists. A better hypothesis is that there are so many red cars that you can see one if you sit at the Holland tunnel for even one hour, you will see one, and from that you can extrapolate that there could be as many as Y zillion red cars. You could start with an analysis that 17 million cars are sold in the US every year, and they last about 20 years, so there are about 340 million cars on the road. If 2% of cars are red, and you sample ten thousand of them (sitting at the front of the Holland Tunnel for Z minutes) then you can test the hypothesis that red cars make up A percent of the cars, and you should see one at the Holland Tunnel. If you sat there measuring for a year of rush hours, and never saw a red car, then you could claim that the probability of there being any red cars is low. And you could back that up. What you will not know that all the red cars are in California and Florida -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
P Floding;179893 Wrote: > > Negative results: > > 1. We would like to prove that there exists red cars. > 2. We observe cars. > 3a. We see red car. We have proven that at least one red car exists. > or > 3b. We never see a red car. We didn't prove a single thing. This is > what's called a "negative result". Well, we had this debate before. You can find it if you search the forum - there is no such logical distinction (a statement is equal to the negation of its negation, so obviously you can't classify statements as positive or negative). Sometimes the negation of some statement is much more difficult to prove, such as your example here; sometimes it's the other way around. In any case, for blind testing, what is being tested is whether or not the subject can actually hear a difference. A "positive" result provides evidence that s/he can, a "negative" result that s/he can't. That's it; the "negative" result is just as meaningful and just as useful. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
P Floding wrote: > opaqueice;179870 Wrote: >> I didn't start this conversation. Someone else came into this thread, >> after it had finally died, and started making false statements about >> BT. >> >> >> >> They obviously do have significance - they provide strong evidence that >> the subject couldn't hear a difference under the test circumstances. >> That's very useful information. And by the way, it's meaningless to >> speak about negative versus positive results: there isn't really any >> such distinction, either in formal logic or the practice of science. >> >> >> >> You're doing exactly the same. > > Yes, but I want such a zone... > > Negative results: > > 1. We would like to prove that there exists red cars. > 2. We observe cars. > 3a. We see red car. We have proven that at least one red car exists. > or > 3b. We never see a red car. We didn't prove a single thing. This is > what's called a "negative result". or 3c. Our observer is colour-blind and only ever sees grey cars. R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
opaqueice;179870 Wrote: > I didn't start this conversation. Someone else came into this thread, > after it had finally died, and started making false statements about > BT. > > > > They obviously do have significance - they provide strong evidence that > the subject couldn't hear a difference under the test circumstances. > That's very useful information. And by the way, it's meaningless to > speak about negative versus positive results: there isn't really any > such distinction, either in formal logic or the practice of science. > > > > You're doing exactly the same. Yes, but I want such a zone... Negative results: 1. We would like to prove that there exists red cars. 2. We observe cars. 3a. We see red car. We have proven that at least one red car exists. or 3b. We never see a red car. We didn't prove a single thing. This is what's called a "negative result". -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
P Floding;179836 Wrote: > 1. You seem to have forgotten the heading for this thread. I didn't start this conversation. Someone else came into this thread, after it had finally died, and started making false statements about BT. > > 2. You seem to think negative results have significance. So you don't > seem to understand what "not insteresting" means in this context. They obviously do have significance - they provide strong evidence that the subject couldn't hear a difference under the test circumstances. That's very useful information. And by the way, it's meaningless to speak about negative versus positive results: there isn't really any such distinction, either in formal logic or the practice of science. > > 3. Thanks for continiously underlining the need for a DBT-nagging free > zone. You're doing exactly the same. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
hirsch;179800 Wrote: > In fact, if an objectively measurable difference was audible in an > unblinded test, and inaudible in a DBT, all it would prove at that > point is that DBT is a relatively less sensitive design. With all due respect, I suggest that if people want to reduce the number of responses citing DBT, then they should refrain from making false statements. If you objectively measure a difference with test equipment, but you cannot identify the difference in a proper DBT (allowing for as many listens for as long a period as you like), then the DBT proves that you cannot identify a difference auditorily. That is exactly what a DBT can prove. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
opaqueice;179825 Wrote: > How do you know if the difference you perceive is due to hearing an > actual difference, such as the one you measured, or to some other > factor, such as psychology? Answer: you do a blind test, because > that's the only way to remove bias. I really don't see what's hard to > understand about that. > > As for your other comment, if you read my post you'll see I was > comparing a measurement made with an instrument to a test involving > hearing, and pointing out that hearing tests are in some ways more > interesting; in particular, they reveal what we are capable of hearing, > not what some instrument is capable of measuring. > > And I don't know why you keep belaboring the point that blind tests are > only useful for interpreting positive results. It's obvious that a > blind test isn't going to be very interesting if the listener doesn't > think they can hear a difference. 1. You seem to have forgotten the heading for this thread. 2. You seem to think negative results have significance. So you don't seem to understand what "not insteresting" means in this context. 3. Thans for continiously underlining the need for a DBT-nagging free zone. -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
hirsch;179800 Wrote: > If I can measure it objectively, it's real. End of story. Whether or > not I can hear it is another question, so I do a test. Maybe blind, > maybe not. Blinding is not all that interesting when the difference in > stimuli can be measured. In fact, if an objectively measurable > difference was audible in an unblinded test, and inaudible in a DBT, > all it would prove at that point is that DBT is a relatively less > sensitive design. How do you know if the difference you perceive is due to hearing an actual difference, such as the one you measured, or to some other factor, such as psychology? Answer: you do a blind test, because that's the only way to remove bias. I really don't see what's hard to understand about that. As for your other comment, if you read my post you'll see I was comparing a measurement made with an instrument to a test involving hearing, and pointing out that hearing tests are in some ways more interesting; in particular, they reveal what we are capable of hearing, not what some instrument is capable of measuring. And I don't know why you keep belaboring the point that blind tests are only useful for interpreting positive results. It's obvious that a blind test isn't going to be very interesting if the listener doesn't think they can hear a difference. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
hirsch;179800 Wrote: > If I can measure it objectively, it's real. End of story. This was mentioned on Nova the other day. 'Cortisone injections were so effective in treating rheumatory arthritis that ABX wasn't needed'. /useless info -- Skunk Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
opaqueice;179151 Wrote: > That's just obviously false. The fact that there is a measurable > difference and that someone claims to hear something clearly does not > mean you are "done". The set of things that are measurable is not the > same as the set of things that are perceptible. Measuring instruments > are far more sensitive than human perception, at least in some ways. > If you want to establish that the difference is audible, which is > presumably what you care about, you have to do a controlled listening > test - there's no other way. > > I won't respond to the rest of your post until that is dealt with, as > it indicates a basic breakdown in logic. If I can measure it objectively, it's real. End of story. Whether or not I can hear it is another question, so I do a test. Maybe blind, maybe not. Blinding is not all that interesting when the difference in stimuli can be measured. In fact, if an objectively measurable difference was audible in an unblinded test, and inaudible in a DBT, all it would prove at that point is that DBT is a relatively less sensitive design. -- hirsch hirsch's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7288 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
jeffmeh;179144 Wrote: > > I fail to see how the quote you reference displays a general > misunderstanding of DBT limitations, as the poster is merely stating > that verifying that someone can hear a difference through DBT proves > that the change is audible, rather than psychological. If I read your > post correctly, you say that that, and only that, is what DBT can do > effectively. Read this section carefully: > But blind testing is actually a lot more useful than a voltmeter, > because it tells us what we really want to know - whether we can hear a > difference. Blind testing does not tell us whether or not we hear a difference. Our ears tell us that. Blind testing helps interpret a difference that we hear. Any yes, I'm saying that the entire point of DBT is to help interpret a positive result. Beyond that, there's no reason at all to do one. This point is very often lost. -- hirsch hirsch's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7288 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
hirsch;179123 Wrote: > > If you hear a difference, and can go back and measure a difference in > the stimuli, why bother with DBT? It's not a necessary control at that > point. You've got a measurable difference, and you can hear it. Done. That's just obviously false. The fact that there is a measurable difference and that someone claims to hear something clearly does not mean you are "done". The set of things that are measurable is not the same as the set of things that are perceptible. Measuring instruments are far more sensitive than human perception, at least in some ways. If you want to establish that the difference is audible, which is presumably what you care about, you have to do a controlled listening test - there's no other way. I won't respond to the rest of your post until that is dealt with, as it indicates a basic breakdown in logic. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
hirsch;179123 Wrote: > You have a difference. You don't know if the difference is due to > physical or psychological influences. DBT can help rule out > psychological influence. You've run DBT. Congratulations! Your > difference is likely not due to psychological influence. > Correct. hirsch;179123 Wrote: > If you hear a difference, and can go back and measure a difference in > the stimuli, why bother with DBT? It's not a necessary control at that > point. You've got a measurable difference, and you can hear it. Done. > You are making a value judgment, and that is fine. However, if you do not do DBT then you have not demonstrated that the difference you hear is really there. I am in no way saying that you should do DBT if you are satisfied that you hear a difference. hirsch;179123 Wrote: > The other main problem with DBT is the misinterpretation of negative > results. The absence of a positive finding with DBT does not imply a > negative result. It simply indicates that no difference was found in > that test situation. So what? People look at random results in a DBT, > and suggest that there is no difference in the stimuli. However, > psychological factors work both ways, and can mask real differences as > well as producing artifical ones. What steps were taken to insure that > the negative result is real? > Good question. Meaningful DBT requires a statistically significant sample size (many repetitions with many different pairs of ears). hirsch;179123 Wrote: > Here's a question that you need to ask in interpreting DBT: Is there > anything in these results that are different than those that would be > produced by a person with hearing loss? Bear in mind that a random > result could be produced by someone with profound hearing loss, even > when a large audible difference is present. So, in any given test, > we've got to ask what steps were taken to insure that small audible > difference are accurately detected as a bare minimum before taking any > negative DBT results seriously. Were positive control groups, with > known audible differences, part of any DBT experiment? Without them, a > negative DBT is meaningless. > Positive controls should not be necessary with a statistically significant sample of listeners, chosen from the general population at random. Where statistically significant sample sizes are impractical (most of the time), then positive controls would add some credence. However, when we take one individual who claims to hear a difference and find that he cannot identify it in a DBT, then we have learned something. hirsch;179123 Wrote: > As long as DBT is used properly, as a control condition to aid the > interpretation of positive results, it's an important and useful test. > However, general misunderstanding of its limitations, by proponents and > opponents of DBT, as evidenced by the quote above, has made it fairly > useless as a tool in audio. The debate is much ado about nothing. DBT > can help interpret an apparent positive difference. That's it. No > application to negative results whatsoever. I fail to see how the quote you reference displays a general misunderstanding of DBT limitations, as the poster is merely stating that verifying that someone can hear a difference through DBT proves that the change is audible, rather than psychological. If I read your post correctly, you say that that, and only that, is what DBT can do effectively. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
opaqueice;177833 Wrote: > But blind testing is actually a lot more useful than a voltmeter, > because it tells us what we really want to know - whether we can hear a > difference. In your rather perfect example, blind testing would be a > very natural thing to discuss - one would want to ask, is that change > in the frequency response audible? Here is the main logic error in DBT. DBT does not prove anything exists. It's simply a control condition to enable the interpretation of positive results when a difference is found. You have a difference. You don't know if the difference is due to physical or psychological influences. DBT can help rule out psychological influence. You've run DBT. Congratulations! Your difference is likely not due to psychological influence. If you hear a difference, and can go back and measure a difference in the stimuli, why bother with DBT? It's not a necessary control at that point. You've got a measurable difference, and you can hear it. Done. The other main problem with DBT is the misinterpretation of negative results. The absence of a positive finding with DBT does not imply a negative result. It simply indicates that no difference was found in that test situation. So what? People look at random results in a DBT, and suggest that there is no difference in the stimuli. However, psychological factors work both ways, and can mask real differences as well as producing artifical ones. What steps were taken to insure that the negative result is real? Here's a question that you need to ask in interpreting DBT: Is there anything in these results that are different than those that would be produced by a person with hearing loss? Bear in mind that a random result could be produced by someone with profound hearing loss, even when a large audible difference is present. So, in any given test, we've got to ask what steps were taken to insure that small audible difference are accurately detected as a bare minimum before taking any negative DBT results seriously. Were positive control groups, with known audible differences, part of any DBT experiment? Without them, a negative DBT is meaningless. As long as DBT is used properly, as a control condition to aid the interpretation of positive results, it's an important and useful test. However, general misunderstanding of its limitations, by proponents and opponents of DBT, as evidenced by the quote above, has made it fairly useless as a tool in audio. The debate is much ado about nothing. DBT can help interpret an apparent positive difference. That's it. No application to negative results whatsoever. -- hirsch hirsch's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7288 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
PhilNYC;177851 Wrote: > If the differences are small enough that a DBT would be necessary to > prove the difference exists, then I wouldn't feel that it was worth the > trouble to do the DBT. That's my position, mostly. It reminds me of an issue I had many years back. The (original) Star Wars trilogy was just out on laserdisk (!), and I was at a place showing it on a big Philips rear projector TV, which had early 100Hz technology. Certain people, myself included, hated the TV. There was a kind of time-delayed trail left behind Darth Vader when he walked across the screen, presumably an artefact from the 100Hz processing. However, many people couldn't see it. When you rewound and pointed, eventually they'd spot it, and they'd hate the TV too. The point of this is (are): - People are much happier to believe there is something there when they see it, rather than when they hear it. - There is a training element to hearing, sight and anything else. Don't expect to be able to spot or hear differences without spending some time training your eyes/ears and getting used to the product. - Recognise that if you buy something without spending a long time testing it out, it may suddenly start manifesting qualities you don't like. There is nothing you can do about this once it happens. - DBT is not perfect, as you may not be sufficiently 'attuned' to the differences, but this does not mean they do not exist. All it means is that you, in your current state of 'training', could not spot/hear them. - Other people may be more attuned than you. They may not have golden ears, just lots of training and experience. - Darth Vader is very scary when he loses coherence in the time dimension. Adam -- adamslim SB3 into Derek Shek d2, Shanling CDT-100, Rotel RT-990BX, Esoteric Audio Research 859, Living Voice Auditorium IIs, Nordost and Anti-cables http://www.last.fm/user/AdamSlim/ adamslim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7355 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
GaryB;177842 Wrote: > > I respectfully request that our thought police leave us alone to our > follies. We're not hurting anyone and it would be a boring place > indeed if everyone thought exactly the same way. > Thought police? Strange - have you forgotten the subject of your own thread? Other than that, you summarize my position reasonably well. So great - we all agree, now maybe we can put this thread out of its misery. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 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
