Sure it can. If he can't hear it ears-only after claiming he can hear it while peeking, he can't hear it. This is a very different question than, "Can anyone hear it?" and those should not be conflated.
No, he can't hear it under the conditions of a double blind test,
which unfortunately proves nothing.
(Don´t get me wrong, I´m sure that there are no differences to be heard because
it´s technically not possible but a DBT is not the way to "proove" that.)
which unfortunately proves nothing.
(Don´t get me wrong, I´m sure that there are no differences to be heard because
it´s technically not possible but a DBT is not the way to "proove" that.)
Last edited:
gk7, you may be confusing two things.
He says that he CAN hear the difference between two cables.
The only thing that we can agree on, unless someone thinks he's lying, is that he CAN hear a DIFFERENCE.
If the Double-Blind Test turns out negative, then we can rule out the cables. McGurk does not equal a difference in cables.
He says that he CAN hear the difference between two cables.
The only thing that we can agree on, unless someone thinks he's lying, is that he CAN hear a DIFFERENCE.
If the Double-Blind Test turns out negative, then we can rule out the cables. McGurk does not equal a difference in cables.
IMO gk7 is right. The other outcome of the "he can hear it" DBT is not "he cannot hear it". E.g. he can hear it but deliberately decides to fail the test. He cannot deliberately pick the right answers, but he can pick up the wrong ones.
In DBT I cannot prove I do not hear something.
In DBT I cannot prove I do not hear something.
Yes, he can (and may) make a creative excuse, but it's an excuse. If he can't hear it with his ears, he can't hear it, and there's no escaping that.
Doesn't that depend on what is meant by 'hear'?JaeK said:
Perceiving a difference which we attribute to the stimulus received by our ears may be called hearing a difference. But what if there is no difference, because nothing at all has been changed? What if the perception of difference disappears when peeking is not allowed?
Lying is not the issue. It is conceivable that it might happen in some tests, but as a general rule we can discount it. No, if someone says he can hear a difference then we should assume that he genuinely believes that he can hear a difference. This is not proof that he actually is hearing a difference.
Isn't it easy?
Person: "I can hear a difference between these two things."
Done.
Obviously, this implies what is perceived and says nothing about whether or not the sound-waves actually differ (and in this case, they don't).
This is where the point is. If he passes the DBT and we agree that passing e.g. 98% confidence interval is enough for us to discard the "by-chance" option, he has proven that he can hear it. If he fails, he did not prove anything. The McGurk works the other way too. I know all the technical reasons why I cannot hear it. How could I be objective enough to really try hard to hear it? I know I will fail the test and I really will. No objective outcome at all. The only objective outcome is if I pick correct options as no prior state of mind, knowledge, attitude, feelings can help in succeeding, only my ears do. Unlike in failing the test.
If 'hearing' a difference which is not present (because there is no difference) is accepted as a valid form of hearing then we cannot object to people claiming that they can 'hear' a difference when there is a tiny difference which any sensible person woud regard as inaudible. This then opens to door to snake oil merchants.
No, we must insist that hearing can be done with ears alone (plus, perhaps, other bodily functions which sense air movement).
No, we must insist that hearing can be done with ears alone (plus, perhaps, other bodily functions which sense air movement).
The more common situation is the converse of this. People trying so hard to hear what they believe they can hear, that when they can't hear it they blame 'test stress' for their inability to do so.phofman said:
It might be possible to come up with a test procedure which is difficult for a doubter to fake. It is quite hard to fake random results, unless the person being tested knows some statistics and is good at mental arithmetic.
Of course it is. What you hear is what you hear. Regardless of if you like it or not.
Don't confuse things. Hearing a difference and claiming that the difference is in what is in a specific detail can be objected.
No it doesn't.
What? Why would we want to lie?
McGurk. McGurk. McGurk. Has nothing to do with ears.
It doesn't matter what they blame. The only thing that matters is whether or not the person could hear a difference during the test or not.
I don't know what this means. It's very easy to make a test that the subject cannot cheat on. And, that is the only kind of test that is relevant.
Educated from a 10 page pamphlet maybe 🙂
The issues of wrong bits in audio have been resolved 10-20 years ago. Today's frontiers of digital deal with other effects and phenomena. Time to re-educate yourself perhaps?
http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-john-swenson-part-1-what-digital
http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-john-swenson-part-2-are-bits-just-bits
Last edited:
OK, so hearing has nothing to do with ears.
Hearing a difference when there is no difference is a valid form of hearing.
Tests which cannot be faked are easy to do.
Have I fallen through the hole into Alice in Wonderland land?
Hearing a difference when there is no difference is a valid form of hearing.
Tests which cannot be faked are easy to do.
Have I fallen through the hole into Alice in Wonderland land?
Sure, that being a typical outcome of DBT for a hard-core audiophile 🙂
OK, that would be an extension of the DBT. I am just afraid such statistics test would require so many runs that nobody would be willing to take it 🙂 A regular DBT test requires only 10 runs for 95% (9/10). I am afraid reliable statistical detection of non-random answers would require quite a few more runs.
"Today's frontiers of digital"
That's a joke, right? The frontiers of digital are in SOTA numerical processing, computing etc, not Audio!
There was a jitter problem with CD audio initially when the data was read directly without processing off the spinning disc. That has long been eliminated, once buffering became the norm.
That's a joke, right? The frontiers of digital are in SOTA numerical processing, computing etc, not Audio!
There was a jitter problem with CD audio initially when the data was read directly without processing off the spinning disc. That has long been eliminated, once buffering became the norm.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.