The overall point is that if anyone can see what they are listening to or have any information as to who made it and its circuitry then these are all variables that are added to the issue.
A lot of people seem to think that in supporting double blind testing you are doubting their word.
I have no doubt that people do have the subjective experiences they say they do, but to say that it was entirely their hearing is not true and every scientifically valid test shows this. What people say they hear has as much to do with what they see, knowledge of the source and circuitry of a piece of equipment etc. and not just what they hear.
A scientifically valid test is one that reduces all variables to insignificant levels and keeps one prominent, and when you do this for audio reproduction equipment, the results are that you cannot hear what the bulk of audio subjectivist's claim they can.
You of course then get the assertion that because it doesn't validate my preconceptions then a test must be wrong, there is indeed an entire industry based upon this, and it is a wide spread phenomenon not just in audio, climate change for instance.
rcw
A lot of people seem to think that in supporting double blind testing you are doubting their word.
I have no doubt that people do have the subjective experiences they say they do, but to say that it was entirely their hearing is not true and every scientifically valid test shows this. What people say they hear has as much to do with what they see, knowledge of the source and circuitry of a piece of equipment etc. and not just what they hear.
A scientifically valid test is one that reduces all variables to insignificant levels and keeps one prominent, and when you do this for audio reproduction equipment, the results are that you cannot hear what the bulk of audio subjectivist's claim they can.
You of course then get the assertion that because it doesn't validate my preconceptions then a test must be wrong, there is indeed an entire industry based upon this, and it is a wide spread phenomenon not just in audio, climate change for instance.
rcw
Last edited:
Black swan.
Presumably, the owner of a Blowtorch will have a reasonably good system. I assumed the starting point to be someone (and his system) who claims that he's hearing a difference between two competent preamps. Again, I speak philosophically- I have no desire to run such tests, that's up to the people claiming the differences who want to actually demonstrate them or (I hope) are interested enough to find out if their perceptions are based on their ears or not. My time is spent elsewhere.
Sometimes, when no dog barks, there is still a point heard. null can be just as valid as any other aspect -figuring out the value/meaning of the null can become the core point, before moving on. Jus' sayin'
For null results to be valid in a given test, first the test should be verified to be able to produce positive results. A test that produces only null results, will give null results in each and every test conducted, thus, it's results are both predictable and meaningless.
Since what I care about most is the 'musicality' of my sound setup, I don't care at all what is it that makes that 'musicality'. I don’t care which part of it is 'real' and which part is 'imagined', if at all.
1. I don't care if it's entirely my hearing, or what.
2. You are wrong by assuming that all scientifically valid tests 'showed it'.
A valid test is one that can give both positive and negative results. For any test to be valid, it's validity should be verified first.
You assume erroneously about what I get and what I don't get.
An example of 'scientific methodology'.
I, for one, have no desire to demonstrate anything to anyone.
Since different people consider differently the degree of 'musicality' of a sound setup – it is impossible to be demonstrated.
It looks like some of your time is spent in trying to prove that others are wrong. Actually you wrote it plainly.
Part of the DB story is, as early said, that the mind fills in the gaps. I've had this experience with an unknown piece of music, that had been processed, as in DSP manipulation, in 2 different ways. When I first compared the two the differences were obvious, but the more I did the hearing comparisons the less clear the differences became, until I was struggling to work out which was better.
What was going on, I thought? Then the light dawned: while listening a number of times I was "learning" the piece, coming to understand the structure and the musical makeup of the track. So my mind was getting in the groove of knowing precisely what was coming next, it "knew" how the music should sound; and what was lost or corrupted in the lesser version was compensated for in my head. I had effectively lost the ability to discriminate in a rational sense, because my ear/brain was too "clever" to be fooled by poorer reproduction, Pavlov's dog to the rescue! This is of course why musicians can listen to appallingly bad systems, because they most certainly know what's coming next ...!
If you have clear room to listen to only one setup situation then such "cleverness" of the hearing system falls away, it can't sustain the rapid fire compensation as occurs on DB tests, and it's far more likely you can register a true measure of the worth of what you hear ...
Frank
What was going on, I thought? Then the light dawned: while listening a number of times I was "learning" the piece, coming to understand the structure and the musical makeup of the track. So my mind was getting in the groove of knowing precisely what was coming next, it "knew" how the music should sound; and what was lost or corrupted in the lesser version was compensated for in my head. I had effectively lost the ability to discriminate in a rational sense, because my ear/brain was too "clever" to be fooled by poorer reproduction, Pavlov's dog to the rescue! This is of course why musicians can listen to appallingly bad systems, because they most certainly know what's coming next ...!
If you have clear room to listen to only one setup situation then such "cleverness" of the hearing system falls away, it can't sustain the rapid fire compensation as occurs on DB tests, and it's far more likely you can register a true measure of the worth of what you hear ...
Frank
I do not propose to discuss this matter any more with you Joshua because you still keep reiterating stuff that I have already pointed out is nonsense scientifically.
All double blind tests can provide both negative and positive results, but as I have pointed out, and seems to escape you entirely, that in order for a test to be valid scientifically it must be structured in such a way that you can prove a negative result, and a positive result can only be implied by the fact that you can't prove the result is negative.
If not structured in this way any so called scientific test is just an axiomatic statement and the so called scientific tests done by people who claim scientific validity for their preconceived notions are simply this.
People such as Toole for instance have shown that people have quite different preferences for sound quality when they can and can't see the equipment, not surprisingly better looking equipment sounds better when people can see it.
Another thing is of course that people think it does not apply to them, it might not but then a great majority of other people think that as well and yet the tests indicate that it does apply to the overwhelming majority.
rcw
All double blind tests can provide both negative and positive results, but as I have pointed out, and seems to escape you entirely, that in order for a test to be valid scientifically it must be structured in such a way that you can prove a negative result, and a positive result can only be implied by the fact that you can't prove the result is negative.
If not structured in this way any so called scientific test is just an axiomatic statement and the so called scientific tests done by people who claim scientific validity for their preconceived notions are simply this.
People such as Toole for instance have shown that people have quite different preferences for sound quality when they can and can't see the equipment, not surprisingly better looking equipment sounds better when people can see it.
Another thing is of course that people think it does not apply to them, it might not but then a great majority of other people think that as well and yet the tests indicate that it does apply to the overwhelming majority.
rcw
No idea, as I've said before after turntable, cart, and speakers, the electronics is way down the list for me.
DBT tests on turntables, etc. are simply too cumbersome for me to bother.
Yes, I am very creative, SY. I can actually think for myself. '-)
But what interests me is WHY people, convinced that almost all electronics sounds essentially the same, are here in this thread? Aren't there better things to do? Perhaps make the ideal preamp for $100 or so in parts, and a little labor. Save the world in that way.
But what interests me is WHY people, convinced that almost all electronics sounds essentially the same, are here in this thread? Aren't there better things to do? Perhaps make the ideal preamp for $100 or so in parts, and a little labor. Save the world in that way.
It's probably been done. Didn't save the world, it's a solved problem as far as sonics. Fashion is a moving target and I pretend no expertise there- that's your department.
To use this place as "Speaker's Corner" to broadcast THEIR views? Judging by the number of posts and number of hits, this seems to be the place with the largest audience.
Arguing with authority (you, John
) for the argument's sake might be another reason
Last edited:
I've found composers, by and large, to be among the least critical, particularly of orchestral recordings of the "spotlit" variety, the death of a thousand microphones and a proactive recording engineer. As long as she or he can hear what they wrote everything is o.k.
When Keith Johnson recorded the Moscow Phil for Sheffield, the musicians were concerned as they were accustomed to having a microphone per stand, or thereabouts. How in the world were they going to be heard? Concerns turned to smiles when they heard playback in the control room.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.