One problem is that most of us perform our own listening tests, instantly making them invalid. If someone else uses you as a listener in their tests, taking all the well published precautions necessary to avoid bias, and you hear something, that's a different story. Y
Last edited:
Actually, it's not that hard anymore. There are a lot of software apps that you can use to randomize choices.
Your basic point is key, though- being aware of one's conscious biases does not help to avoid them nor avoid one's subconscious biases. The hardest core skeptics are just as subject to the vagaries of their brains as anyone else.
Your basic point is key, though- being aware of one's conscious biases does not help to avoid them nor avoid one's subconscious biases. The hardest core skeptics are just as subject to the vagaries of their brains as anyone else.
This all seems like a lot of work, with nothing to gain. Some prefer to argue endlessly about the silliest things rather than ever admit something beyond their preconceived notions is even possible.
To anyone with an open mind, this thread has become a waste of time, which is too bad. I now know that I cannot trust my own ears; I must ask someone else to listen or measure for me. Pity that I'll never really know if something sounds good unless someone tells me so. As usual, another fox has been run down by the relentless hounds of objectivism.
And you should ask yourselves: "Why do I come to this forum? What have I learned from this thread?"
Bye.
To anyone with an open mind, this thread has become a waste of time, which is too bad. I now know that I cannot trust my own ears; I must ask someone else to listen or measure for me. Pity that I'll never really know if something sounds good unless someone tells me so. As usual, another fox has been run down by the relentless hounds of objectivism.
And you should ask yourselves: "Why do I come to this forum? What have I learned from this thread?"
Bye.
One problem is that most of us perform our own listening tests, instantly making them invalid. If someone else uses you as a listener in their tests, taking all the well published precautions necessary to avoid bias, and you hear something, that's a different story. You can't avoid "brain tricks" and biases by being aware of them. You can't run your own tests. (never say can't- I suppose you could set up a blind test with random number based computer controls so you didn't know what was going on, but that seems like a lot of work.)
"I must ask someone else to listen or measure for me." Listen yes, measure, no. And only when trying to evaluate things. Obviously the whole goal here is to listen to music and, like sex, it's best not to turn the job over to someone else!
"I must ask someone else to listen or measure for me." Listen yes, measure, no. And only when trying to evaluate things. Obviously the whole goal here is to listen to music and, like sex, it's best not to turn the job over to someone else!
Last edited:
Have a look at this - see how other senses can affect what you here:
YouTube - The McGurk Effect - Horizon Is Seeing Believing?
YouTube - The McGurk Effect - Horizon Is Seeing Believing?
No
So in other words you pretty much agree. The first time you switch on your amp (or whatever), by the time you've poured yourself a drink and got the needle in the groove, the resistors are "settled".
[ot]Sigh, SY - why didn't one of you guys just close this thread after the first response?[/ot]
I've learned that the mods STILL don't have a large flashing red light and "AWOOGA!!!" alarm that goes off every time someone posts the word "break-in".🙁
Last edited:
Yes, there was a church, that at that time it was the establishment. And also people not directly related to church was part of whom judged Galileo.
Those people was the maximum authority (?!?) at the time, a time where science and religion were improperly mixed.
True, but I know what I've heard so many times and it don't need, to me, further demonstration.
Note that I'm speaking of my personal, subjective experience that could be different for others.
But when someone can't hear any difference I don't attack him and I don't think he's a fool.
Not exactly, IMHO.
Being aware of one's conscious biases is necessary, but not sufficient to avoid fooling themselves.
I don't judge a change with a single listening, so many times a swap back demonstrated that I was fooling myself.
What I do is:
- I listen several times, at different hours and days, to avoid mood judgement
- I close my eyes and I sit in the same position with the same posture, to minimize sense stacking
- I listen to a very short part of a track with fast swapping of the same part, to give me the possibility to have fresh memory
- I repeat the above point with several different tracks, to avoid track related judgement
And I'm pretty sure that I'm not fooling myself since the results was often against my expectation.
I do agree, so why must give different credit to skeptics?
None of us from the two groups can demonstrate that the other is wrong.
I wasn't aware of the name but I do know that interpolation from sense stacking could alter perception.
There IS no "sufficient." ALL human beings can and regularly do fool themselves. It's inherent to how our brains work.
I attack no-one. I attack incorrect statements and claims for which supporting evidence is inversely proportional to the outlandishness.
I didn't want to say you attacked someone... I'm sorry it wasn't clear.
As you noted also skepitcals could fool themselves and deny differences even if they hear them...
If we could find a measuring method than can assess or disprove such difference it would be easier.
I would like to see mutual respect but, at the moment, I can't see it from most of the skepticals.
It doesn't take a measuring method. It takes being able to distinguish "A" from "B" purely by sound, by ear alone. Ears can be trusted. Brains can't be.
Are you ou saying there was/is no difference or you were fooled by your brain into not hearing a difference?
classic naive, Sophomoric criticism - subjective testing should include both positive and negative controls to detect inattention, poor performance for whatever reason
also subject training is a desirable way to improve subjective test resolution
as long as you design a good protocol and follow it without "cherry picking" results you can test for the subject's resolution and just include subjects that pass a certain bar in the results
many reported audio AB/X tests are poorly designed but at least some of them are trying to apply known Psychoacoustic Science
but if you're going to criticize/dismiss the experimental method shouldn't you at least understand the basics as specifically apply to subjective evaluation
STOP!
I never, NEVER, criticized nor dismessed the experimental method.
To the contrary I think that at least some skeptics are betrayng his spirit... because they start biased and refuse even the possibility that something could be true.
IMHO, exactly the same attitude of whom judged Galileo...
Through simple observation and thought it has previously been deduced that the earth was at the center of the universe, that matter consisted of four elemental substances, that more massive objects fall at a faster rate, etc. It was at that time thought sufficient to observe, think, pronounce the truth and leave it at that.
A cult of radicals developed over time who proposed that this method was unreliable in revealing the truths of nature. Instead they proposed that theories regarding nature be tested by objective measurements and analysis capable of either falisfying the theory or not. Objective measurements could consist of systematic observations or could use more technical means to more precisely characterize the phenomena that the theory purported to explain. Where agreed technical measurements either do not exist or are insufficient, it was found that very careful protocols are needed to nullify the effects of observer bias and maintain an objective dataset. If agreed techincal measurements of sufficient objective accuracy exist observer bias is easier to deal with but great care is still needed to obtain a valid dataset for analysis. Most importantly any set of prior observations supporting a theory are subject to falsification if they cannot be replicated by other observers.
There is no one arguing that you do not hear what you think you hear, just that what you hear in unstructured listening does not create an objective dataset capable of testing a theory like do resistors break-in and how fast. You can choose to follow your unstructured listening in pursuit of understanding nature, but you are likely to end up reaching conclusions as unrelated to reality as the notion that the earth is at the center of the universe.
A cult of radicals developed over time who proposed that this method was unreliable in revealing the truths of nature. Instead they proposed that theories regarding nature be tested by objective measurements and analysis capable of either falisfying the theory or not. Objective measurements could consist of systematic observations or could use more technical means to more precisely characterize the phenomena that the theory purported to explain. Where agreed technical measurements either do not exist or are insufficient, it was found that very careful protocols are needed to nullify the effects of observer bias and maintain an objective dataset. If agreed techincal measurements of sufficient objective accuracy exist observer bias is easier to deal with but great care is still needed to obtain a valid dataset for analysis. Most importantly any set of prior observations supporting a theory are subject to falsification if they cannot be replicated by other observers.
There is no one arguing that you do not hear what you think you hear, just that what you hear in unstructured listening does not create an objective dataset capable of testing a theory like do resistors break-in and how fast. You can choose to follow your unstructured listening in pursuit of understanding nature, but you are likely to end up reaching conclusions as unrelated to reality as the notion that the earth is at the center of the universe.
That is difficult to understand given, from what you are saying, that you don't understand what it is!
I am saying that i could not hear a difference. Also not scientific, just anecdotal. Although I really wanted to hear the difference between an amp that I picked up for 50$ and an amp that cost me $2500. Maybe if I had not done the test blinded, i might have heard it....maybe then my brain would have played up to my expectations.
That is why I sold finally all my bryston stuff, build my own media pc, put 2000cds on a hard drive and went for hypex digital amps....
If you re-read what I wrote I clearly said that I consider my results subjectives.
Though when you first hurt yourself with a knife and start bleeding, and in the years it happens again you don't need any scientific investigation to be carefull with knives... 😉
Again, offensive comments and distortion of what I wrote... no respect...
You're right, I'm an incompent fool, I'm not able to understand the simple definition of Scientific Method (which incidentally I've studied but not understood), my Information Science diploma has no value (probably I've stolen it...)...
Overhelmed by my ignorance I'll leave this thread.
Back to topic.
YES resistors do "Burn In." If you take a set of (in particular carbon composition) resistors and measure their distortion and then place them in storage around 125 degrees F for a year after aging they will show less distortion.
The truly unused old stock resistors I have measured usually measured much better than new ones. So there may be some improvement from aging, or it may be newer production has changed and the parts are not as good.
So I left some samples in a warm place and they seemed to improve.
The results are not conclusive and may just be a freak example. The difference was not at a level I could discern using ABX switching as the switch contributed more noise than the devices under test.
As to other components breaking in I still recommend you use silica gel packages inside your gear to keep moisture out and silver tarnish prevention paper from any jewelry supplier. Reducing the moisture and sulfur content can't hurt.
YES resistors do "Burn In." If you take a set of (in particular carbon composition) resistors and measure their distortion and then place them in storage around 125 degrees F for a year after aging they will show less distortion.
The truly unused old stock resistors I have measured usually measured much better than new ones. So there may be some improvement from aging, or it may be newer production has changed and the parts are not as good.
So I left some samples in a warm place and they seemed to improve.
The results are not conclusive and may just be a freak example. The difference was not at a level I could discern using ABX switching as the switch contributed more noise than the devices under test.
As to other components breaking in I still recommend you use silica gel packages inside your gear to keep moisture out and silver tarnish prevention paper from any jewelry supplier. Reducing the moisture and sulfur content can't hurt.
Dario,
I certainly did not mean to appear offensive. I'm sorry if you took it that way.
However I cannot calibrate a statement that "from what you have said you appear not to understand xyz"
Translates into "offensive, ... no respect ... I (must) think you are an incompetent fool!"
and the rest .. !
The scientific method is NOT just a simple statement. It is a whole way of thinking and approaching investigations. You could have pointed this out ...
I certainly did not mean to appear offensive. I'm sorry if you took it that way.
However I cannot calibrate a statement that "from what you have said you appear not to understand xyz"
Translates into "offensive, ... no respect ... I (must) think you are an incompetent fool!"
and the rest .. !
The scientific method is NOT just a simple statement. It is a whole way of thinking and approaching investigations. You could have pointed this out ...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.