John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 2753 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11th September 2012, 09:35 AM   #27521
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnloudb View Post
All a double blind test will tell you is that the subjects couldn't identify a difference in a blind test. It doesn't mean the differences don't exist or aren't audible.
Not only do I agree with you 100%, I'll go even further- NO test can show that differences between A and B (whatever the variable is) are inaudible. Now, if people who claim differences fail to show any audibility in test after test after test, one can draw a reasonable working conclusion that the differences are inaudible. BUT... one must be open to the possibility that someone, somewhere might demonstrate that A and B can be distinguished.

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the case of electronic effects beyond level, noise, frequency response, gross distortion, overload characteristics, and gross phase errors, nothing but white swans have been seen. The overwhelming probabilities are that there's just white swans. Anyone who claims that, after forty years of fruitless searching, there are black swans, but that they're just really, really hard to find needs to find one in order to be taken seriously, and if they want to spend their time doing so, great, that's their business. Everyone else has moved on to looking for other birds. But if the black swan enthusiast manages to get solid evidence that they exist, great, we now know something new. But no-one is holding his breath.

Anyone who claims that there are black swans all around you, it's just that they turn white when you try to photograph or capture them should be regarded with either suspicion or pity, depending on whether they're trying to sell something or are just gullible.
__________________
And while they may not be as strong as apes, don't lock eyes with 'em, don't do it. Puts 'em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2012, 09:44 AM   #27522
gk7 is offline gk7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vienna, Austria
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
... Now, if people who claim differences fail to show any audibility in test after test after test, one can draw a reasonable working conclusion that the differences are inaudible. BUT... one must be open to the possibility that someone, somewhere might demonstrate that A and B can be distinguished...
So your "DUT" seems to be the listener actually.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2012, 10:35 AM   #27523
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
That is the point here in Australia we do have black swans so the statement that all swans are white was falsified as soon as somebody discovered it.

A correct scientific statement is, all the swans I have seen are white, this is an inductive statement because it is always up for revision and is falsified if you see a black swan.

If you say however that all white birds are swans, then this is an axiomatic statement that is not falsified by seeing a black swan because you have defined swans as all white birds.

In many areas of science if you go through the experimental design people used, you can show that what they are actually saying is the second sort of statement, which results in an outcome that is pre determined because it is axiomatic. In other words what it does is to attempt to demonstrate that a hypothesis is true rather than to test if it is true.

So in the end science can only say that all swans I have seen so far are white, anybody claiming it can do more than this is in error.
rcw
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2012, 10:40 AM   #27524
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
In a vague sense, yes. The listener is the detector, but also part of the claim. For the listener, the DUT is the box of gain (or whatever is being claimed to have an audible effect). For the experimenter, the DUT encompasses the listener, the system, and the source material.

Again, it is critical to note that there is no one-size-fits-all experimental protocol. The protocol needs to be designed to accommodate the specifics of the claim. For example, in the case of evaluating the claim "John Smith can hear the effects of 128k MP3 data compression" (something with well-established audibility), the setup will be extremely different than evaluating (for example) the claim that "John Smith can hear a difference between silver and copper wire in his interconnects," for which there is no well-established audibility.
__________________
And while they may not be as strong as apes, don't lock eyes with 'em, don't do it. Puts 'em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2012, 10:52 AM   #27525
gk7 is offline gk7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vienna, Austria
Well thatīs ok, but the test is of of very limited use then, for those who donīt know "John Smith", no ?
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2012, 10:59 AM   #27526
gk7 is offline gk7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vienna, Austria
Even worse, if John Smith is convinced that there are no differences between A and B:
"John Smith, who believes there are no differences between A and B, could not detect
any in an ABX test either."
Does this give any information about A and B at all ?
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2012, 11:05 AM   #27527
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
It does allow you to put his claim in context and know where to put the burden of proof.

In aggregate, when John Smith, Bob Jones, Akimi Poontangawi, Hershel Abramowitz, Lee Chen, Fibbo Basizi, Jane Barrington-Smythe, T'keenah Suggs, Biffy Montague, and Jean-Claude Deschamps all fail to demonstrate that, despite their claims, they are unable to distinguish A from B, that one can absolutely say, "No-one has demonstrated an audible difference between A and B," and provisionally operate under the assumption that A and B are audibly indistinguishable (while keeping an open mind that Dieter Gruenhauser might possibly do so, while not holding one's breath that this will ever happen).

But again, burden of proof shifts- scientists don't waste time chasing every claim of perpetual motion, it's up to the claimant to provide evidence. Of course, as in fashion-niche audio, perpetual motion claims are notable mostly for their creative excuse-making and dark conspiracy theories.
__________________
And while they may not be as strong as apes, don't lock eyes with 'em, don't do it. Puts 'em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2012, 11:06 AM   #27528
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by gk7 View Post
Even worse, if John Smith is convinced that there are no differences between A and B:
"John Smith, who believes there are no differences between A and B, could not detect
any in an ABX test either."
Does this give any information about A and B at all ?
No, it would be a stupid idea for an experiment.
__________________
And while they may not be as strong as apes, don't lock eyes with 'em, don't do it. Puts 'em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2012, 11:09 AM   #27529
gk7 is offline gk7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vienna, Austria
Yes exactly. ;-)
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2012, 11:37 AM   #27530
gk7 is offline gk7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vienna, Austria
It seems that ABX tests have never been able to detect "small" differences in sound quality,
only obvoius ones (like the 128k MP3) you mentioned in post #27524.
So this would indicate these "small" differences (e.g. cheap receiver vs. a tube amp etc.)
do not exist at all.
Iīm very sceptical. Time to validate (as Jakub2 already said) that ABX listenenig tests
are capable of detecting such differences (letīs take something that has been proven to
be audible by some other scientific methodology) at all.
I can easily imagine a test where John and Jane canīt distinguish a photograph from a
decent camera vs. a 99,- point and shoot. Time to sell my Hasselblad before anyone finds out ?
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:26 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright Đ1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2