Likewise how could the IQ administrators guide individuals in a group test to incorrect answers? How could the administrator even know what questions were being answered at any particular time?
Andre, that possibility is exactly what Meyer's saying. Everyone gets that the real subjects of his scenario are the IQ administrators, and that the test is for sensitivity of administrator expectation on results?
I honestly hate to rag on this and dissuade anyone from continuing on, the results will have value to some level of sensitivity.
One reason the whole anecdote (unsourced) seems dubious. Nonetheless, with "foreknowledge" and "non-double-blind," expectation bias is a strong possibility. If the anecdote is true, it illustrates Meyers' point very well.
That's why (he says yet again) we do double-blind.Though maybe that won't help because I've already released my mind-control rays.
Well, I didn't say pro amp, its a preamp and loudspeaker processor used in pro audio and a tripath amp. I do have a QSC3500 pro amp as well, not currently in the system. The parts quality of the the Lexicon pre and DBX processor are similar to what would be found in the QSC. Exactly what would cause "skepticism" with my signal chain?
Huh? Did you catch the part where I posted my scores on an actual "hear differences" listening test? Why would I need to ask those who only claim to be able to hear differences, when I can demonstrate so myself?
I not only know "how to listen", I can demonstrate it. Can you or other believers?
All types, including live classical performers at USF, jazz at local clubs, etc.
Really? What do soundwaves care about price? How does price affect them?
Is this too cheap Mogami IC, 25 cents (yes, cents)/ft and Mogami speaker wire, $1/ft ?
Are you suggesting that these type wires would in any way degrade or color the playback signal, as to mask "details" and "focus", etc? Especially compared to your cables?
Comment? I was hoping you would take the tests
. Lord knows we've had enough "comments" in this 11000+ post thread, with nearly zero data or evidence. Vuki has provided the link. I'm sure if you do well, we'll see your scoring. If not, we'll know what happened .cheers,
AJ
Last edited:
The IQ administrators were to all purposes operating double blind. Again, not only could they not prompt answers, if it was anything other than some bizarrely pathological IQ testing protocol they couldn't even know the questions being answered. What are you suggesting SY? That they ran around the room harrumphing and tsk-tsking over shoulders? By Meyer's account even what they said was scripted.
The only distorting mechanism at work was a subconsciously communicated deliberately created expectation of results. The IQ test was arguably stronger double-blind than what's been proposed here because the questions are many and the cables two. Plus you won't be limited to a script, and have exerted no small effort strenuously defending null expectations.
You have a much stronger point about it being anecdotal, but that doesn't put Meyer in the best light either.
I'm suggesting that this is an illustration of why double blind is needed. But you seem to have a blind spot there.
Please rethink it SY; while the mentioned scene (is it really only an anecdote? I seem to recall to some similar serious experiments) is an example why double blind is essential, rdf is right because in this case it was only the expectations of the experimenters of the probable result that forced the participants to produce a poorer result.
So rdf argues that the experimenters expectation of the result was enough, and in your case it would just your strong expectation that nothing will be audible that could force (in whatever way) the participant to produce a poorer result.
So it is a comparable situation; it may seem unlikely but is in no way impossible.
Wishes
Whatever your expectations are, you should consider them; if you for example would be convinced that no differences could be audible, than you should take a "triple blind" which means, that you will not know what effect will be under test.
Of course that causes another sort of expectation bias (it´s hard for humans to not expect something), but that will more affect your listening ability overall, but will not affect the outcome of a specific test due to your expectation what that result should be.
Wishes
That appears to be a "positive control."
No appears not to be a positive control, but could serve as a positive control for example in your tests, the results would be interesting as the test design is quite different.
BTW, what i always appreciated in klippels work was their scientific approach; as you might have noticed they did rely for their listening test on studies from people who do routinely test with humans, and this approach is unfortunately quite uncommon in the audio business.
Wishes
Jakob2
In the tubeguy's proposed test, if he never saw / heard Sy or any helpers whilst doing the test, would that change the situation? I mean SY could actually send someone else and TG wouldn't know, or are you suggesting that the fact that TG knows that SY is behind the test and is expecting failure that this would be enough to alter the outcome? If so it is the expectations of TG not SY that is altering the outcome. I think this is contrary to what rdf is suggesting.
In the tubeguy's proposed test, if he never saw / heard Sy or any helpers whilst doing the test, would that change the situation? I mean SY could actually send someone else and TG wouldn't know, or are you suggesting that the fact that TG knows that SY is behind the test and is expecting failure that this would be enough to alter the outcome? If so it is the expectations of TG not SY that is altering the outcome. I think this is contrary to what rdf is suggesting.
I participated in a few blind tests ("audiophile") and it usually went like this:
Participants first listened sighted to the DsUT and (usually) claimed that the difference was very easy to spot (sometimes "night and day"). Then, under blind test conditions, those differences suddenly vanished. Usually there were all kind of excuses afterwords. But most of the times those guys were extremely confident in their hearing abilities.
Participants first listened sighted to the DsUT and (usually) claimed that the difference was very easy to spot (sometimes "night and day"). Then, under blind test conditions, those differences suddenly vanished. Usually there were all kind of excuses afterwords. But most of the times those guys were extremely confident in their hearing abilities.
"Night and day"differences that are clearly audible exist only when "night and day"differences are clearly measurable.These are the cases where at least one cable has peculiar engineered specs.Such differences will be audible to all under any type of test.If such "night and day"differences are not audible,then the problem lies elsewhere for audiophiles or not audiophiles
If such "night and day"differences are not audible,then the problem lies elsewhere for audiophiles or not audiophiles
True
Then how do you explain that you, in the blind test, cannot hear difference between two cables? Or can you?
I think it is equally important to know why many cannot hear differences even in sighted comparisons when differences are not big.We all must know of a few such listeners.Human hearing ability is not either 100% or zero.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.