We have no idea if they are picking up on an effect. Neither do they, since they have failed to set up their listening test with the sort of basic protocols that would ensure they had excluded confounding factors.
Everything in the claims points to a change that exists only in the listener's mind. This doesn't exclude the possibility of a real effect happening in the reproduction chain, but it seems unlikely.
The strongest indications of this are the tests and reports of those who carried out sighted and then unsighted tests. They (without exception as far as I know) show that knowledge of the existence of the device in the audio chain is required for a difference to be heard.
So, we are, it seems, not dealing here with the golden-eared in search of audio nirvana, but a somewhat less able group whose belief in their own senses is denying them the opportunity to effect actual changes and improvements.
Good thing there's lots of them, or the Bentley would be out of gas a long time ago.
Unfortunately, we do have all types in the game, including the ones that can always hear "money",
. For a variety of reasons I've kept well away from that area, which brings in another lot, who scream abuse at me for daring to use "rubbish" gear to try out ideas, .These unsighted tests have to be carried out so rigorously, under exactly the right, 'perfect', conditions, for the results to be meaningful - and it's pretty obvious that most times this is not the case - unless I understood every last detail on how they were carried out I wouldn't take any notice of a particular instance.
Perhaps. Interesting that unsighted tests have to be rigorous, but others can be as lax as you want and are still "evidence of life" somehow.
Care to explain?
Empirical, anecdotal evidence is the starting point; this is what normally convinces a serious researcher that there is "something in it". These are typically lax, but the pattern of the occurrences are everything; in a relaxed mode he observes that there is a recurring behaviour, so he decides to put serious effort into "proving" something significant is happening.
And now it gets dramatically harder - every confounder has to be considered, taken into account - especially human behaviour! Listening can be done while experiencing a huge variety of mental attitudes and interest, which can change the outcomes dramatically - the ear/brain can feel stress, be bored with it, be fatigued, or be tremendously excited, or totally uninterested, etc, etc.
Unless all the latter is taken into account, thoroughly, then what one comes up with will only be a vague glimpse of what the 'reality' is.
What about placebo? I see nothing in your list that allows for the observations being the result of our imagination and innate desire to match patterns or behaviour to an outcome.
However, I was more interested in how you seem to accept anecdotal evidence of heard differences, but dismiss anecdotes that indicates placebo as lacking rigour.
Why the different levels of rigour?
I'm separating anecdotes, from testing, very strongly. Anecdotes will never have rigour, by virtue of their nature - whether of a positive, or a negative outcome. If you wish to prove that people can believe that an apparent, but in fact not carried out, change will make an audible difference that's an entirely different test. And I would say it could be proved easily, simply by acknowledging that the mind "plays tricks" on us, changing the focus of what we're listening for - especially when that innate, human desire to 'please' other people by coming up with a significant "result" comes into play.
My interest is in what makes a difference, not in proving that something can't make a difference, nor that people can be fooled into hearing a difference when there most likely isn't one.
I "accept" anecdotes because I'm 'reading between the lines' - taking into account exactly the language used to describe the effect, the sort of comments those people have made before about sound qualities of components, and what they notice in the hearing of sound in a general sense. If they just say it was "better" or something equivalent, I wouldn't take much notice, it's precisely how it was "better" that matters.
Edit: as a balancing example, consider a real electrical part which you say alters the FR very significantly. If in fact it truly does, but you sustitute a placebo version of it for testing, and people declare they can hear a difference - have you proven anything about the genuine article?
Last edited:
aardvarkash10, load up on Ferrol , PCFrank is tuff ....
Most Aussies are. Can't play rugby for sh%t, and their beer is like water, but generally not bad blokes
I agree, my favorite beers are Danish.That's why I drink Danish lager
Carlsberg is made under licence here in Oz.......unfortunately it's not the same as the real thing.....different water.
Take A Sip Of A 3300-Year-Old Danish Beer | Gizmodo Australia
Dan.
I'm partial to Hollandia myself, the non-famous ones are much better value ... .
BTW, Dan, I used to enjoy, and I think it was, Fosters Original, or something like that - came out quite some years ago, with an old fashioned label, only in full size bottles - and then it disappeared, probably too tasty a beer for the modern crowd. Ring any bells to you?
.BTW, Dan, I used to enjoy, and I think it was, Fosters Original, or something like that - came out quite some years ago, with an old fashioned label, only in full size bottles - and then it disappeared, probably too tasty a beer for the modern crowd. Ring any bells to you?
Nope....I didn't like Fosters 30 years ago....haven't tried it since.
Spraying it everywhere Barry McKenzie style is the best use for it......second thoughts, the Poms deserve it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PfDro1UGUo
Dan.
Spraying it everywhere Barry McKenzie style is the best use for it......second thoughts, the Poms deserve it
.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PfDro1UGUo
Dan.
Last edited:
Nope, this has nothing to do with standard Foster's, was a completely different brew, lots of depth of flavour, very old fashioned style - but it worked for me. It could be that I have got the brand wrong, but I don't think so - they had an ad campaign where a bloke goes into a pub, and the people inside are as of a 100 years or so, etc ...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.