And often times they just end up being nothing more than just that, correlations. And as you should know, correlation is not equal to causation. So let's say you find some correlation. Then what? How do you get to actual causation without properly controlling for bias? Seems we just end up right back where we are now and that any correlations would simply serve to reinforce peoples' religious beliefs.
se
From what research seems to indicate, the brain actually throws out a lot of data and relies more on interpretation/interpolation.
se
When my wife is in the kitchen, it's compelling evidence she is whipping up a nice Peruvian dish.
But no, not that the Bybees have moved the band into the house.
And as some know first-hand, screw with the serotonin and you may get an idea of how much perceptual information is being routinely discarded. And for the most part, this is A Good Thing.
In the meantime, has anyone considered a spouse in the kitchen as an audiophile accessory? Perhaps an idea whose time has come.
Total sensory input is estimated as equivalent between 100kb/s and 800kb/s, depending on who you ask, and how you measure.
By the time it gets down to your conciousness, it is estimated equivalent to between 50b/s and 500b/s, again depending on who you ask and how you measure.
There's even a word for it: 'exformation' -throwing away sensory information until the remainder becomes manageable for your 'I'.
jan
What? You mean neither of you two have had your personal memchip installed yet?!? tsk tsk
yes, I agree that correlation does not explain cause. it does point a finger for deeper understanding on what might be the cause.
Lets not include audio for the moment---- DBT are used in say pharma research and bio research with as many test subjects as can be reasonably done within time and budget -- If all looks promising, it goes thru FDA et al and gets on the street and doctors list of go-to solutions/cures.
It does not matter how large the priliminary test numbers are for the DBT.... often, later the results are found to continue to be valid or often they are not... When millions of people over years are evaluated, often the drug has to be discontinued. Even though it originally passed the DBT. [Not discussing the weird off the wall exceptions but the fact that it doesnt work as they thought it did.]
Now lets not take this short email apart... but note that DBLT are Always too limited in numbers compared to the total population doing actual listening for over a period of decades. So, I would lean to At-Least having an open mind to contrary views or experiences via a DBLT.
Thx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
You could not do this kind of test without strict controls as well, though.
The problem is, people have preconceived notions of what the result should be due to many different sources of bias. Product reviews and discussion forums will profoundly influence the results to the point of making them worthless.
Imagine you are trying to do a survey of everyone who bought BQPs. You have already failed because they purchased them with their own money and are incapable of being impartial, despite their best intentions. If people spend $2k on a tweak they will hear a difference, even if there is none.
The problem is, people have preconceived notions of what the result should be due to many different sources of bias. Product reviews and discussion forums will profoundly influence the results to the point of making them worthless.
Imagine you are trying to do a survey of everyone who bought BQPs. You have already failed because they purchased them with their own money and are incapable of being impartial, despite their best intentions. If people spend $2k on a tweak they will hear a difference, even if there is none.
The fact that he posted regularly on usenet in a forum full of some serious wackos says something. My impression was that he was a consumate objectivist.
The DBT tests done by the best minds in thier fields with the best methods known to mankind does not mean the test wont fail when larger numbers over time are used. This has been born out many times and should be common knowledge by now.
Thx-RNMarsh
Note: I am not defending any particular test or product and there surely are some duds out there. Just kept to the narrow issue of DBT and meta-data and results that change after a carefully controlled DBT said it was OK. The big picture.
Last edited:
Cut us a break
yeah... that's certainly a well vetted documentation
Actually I was thinking more of a Schrödinger's cat analogy...
yeah... that's certainly a well vetted documentation
Actually I was thinking more of a Schrödinger's cat analogy...
I can understand 'cueing', but I'd love to hear a full technical dissertation about how Dan, purely by body language, etc, managed to convey the message that the listeners were meant to hear a sound that was worse, rather than better, than previously ...You have a funny and convoluted way to say 'I don't understand cueing'
jan
Or, there is a very, very faint chance of C : an enthusiastic amateur, who has chanced upon an interesting behaviour of sound reproduction, and is rather keen about investigating it ...
... ... naaaagh .... not a hope of that one !!
Yes, the brain is a powerful 'reality machine', but it still doesn't like irritating, conflicting noise amongst the the strong signal. What would happen if after a sugar pill was taken twenty people affirmed that they had taken strong medicine, at the same time mixing in twenty who said it was a dud - what if only 10 people interjected negativity, or 5 ... or 1 ...?
This is where things really get interesting ...
This is where things really get interesting ...
+1.
This raised a chuckle -
Part of the problem was that response to placebo was considered a psychological trait related to neurosis and gullibility...
Oh and this reminded me of the fabled 'foot tapping' audiophile marketing approach :
One of the most powerful placebogenic triggers is watching someone else experience the benefits of an alleged drug.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.