Isn't that a good example why the term and the self-assessment "being an objectivist" can be quite misleading?
If one believes that the "usually cited methods are very good already ..." then it is fine, but as usual it depends on what is/was done in real experiments. If you analyze well documented listening experiments (experiments with humans in general) you'll quite often observe that the risk of incorrect results was surprisingly high.
In this regard it is not so much about refinement but about getting a good (means correct) result in the first place.
Part of the problem as members of the (self-reported as objectivists) group often demand (subjective) testing under controlled conditions, without (often/mainly) being able to specify what kind of evidence they are wiling to accept if contrary to their own beliefs on the audibility of "......".
Could be, but arguing with thresholds can be quite misleading, because the thresholds are usually the result of onedimensional experiments with test-tones, in an experiment designed to assess this unique threshold of _one_ parameter. Listening to music is a multidimensional experience and humans are non-linear systems, therefore mainly no thresholds exist for this case.
That's great!
At that point we're back at the beliefs. It is not meant offensive, but I hope it is obviouse why in a recent post the phrase "objectivistic religion" (word to that effect) was used.
Regardless of our self descriptions we often don't realize the uncertainties in our world views.
Again,not meant offensive,but that is a classical example of circular logic.
Which all is fine, provided if the premises are true.
True objectivism includes to constantly question ones own belief system, the inherent or obvious premises -that must be correct to lead to correct conclusions - and at that point there exists often a barrier, it is much easier to belief being an objectivist than acting as a true one (always or at least most of the time).
I thought it was purple cheese? It's just the way the light goes through our atmosphere that makes it other colours?
Let's argue about that, makes just as much sense as all these other posts.
Let's argue about that, makes just as much sense as all these other posts.
Erm... that made me smile. A point entirely missed. @Naaling if you would like to found out why a Nobel Prize winning physicist said this I have this to offer:
What is Science? – Richard Feynman
If philosophy's your thing @simon dart then this looks to be an excellent read. I have it on order : https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Reality-Evolution-Truth/dp/0393254690/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1583205360&sr=1-1
@abraxalito
Philosophy is not my thing, everything is my thing 🙂 especially understanding my limitations...
It looks like an interesting read. Thanks! I wonder if it has anything useful on the AK4499 in it...?
Philosophy is not my thing, everything is my thing 🙂 especially understanding my limitations...
It looks like an interesting read. Thanks! I wonder if it has anything useful on the AK4499 in it...?
This kind of comment is totally uncalled-for.....
"Expectation bias" is often used as a wrong descriptor, and I'm also not aware of research explicitely related to participants expectations, but based on the results from other fields the conclusion led to the concept (for example at the "audio division" of the university in Aachen the "RWTH" ) not to disclose to the test subjects. what the specific EUT is (will be) in a listening experiment.
In related sensory tests in the food industrie, done to find out about the astonishing false response rate (in controlled double blind taste experiments) if the same stimulus was presented twice in a row. Being questioned about their answers, participants often answered that they expected a difference must be present, or that they thought it would be expected from the experimenters to answer with "different". Shows that testing is always a dynamic process in which a lot of variables have an impact and even expectations from experiments and expectations from participants blend together.
If everyone is done, then it would be nice if we could go back to post 299 to 308 and just continue the discussion from there.
Please add just a small amount of mutual respect and humility per Simons suggestion, and I'm sure everything will be good.
90 posts (in row!) bickering over petty details... Let's try and avoid that, pretty please with cream, strawberries, raspberries, blueberries and cherries on top.
Please add just a small amount of mutual respect and humility per Simons suggestion, and I'm sure everything will be good.
90 posts (in row!) bickering over petty details... Let's try and avoid that, pretty please with cream, strawberries, raspberries, blueberries and cherries on top.
This is red herring though. Objectivists bring up testing methodology as a rebuttal against subjectivists to shut them up. The fact most objectivists don't know the absolute specific details, about what methodology should be used, to ensure accurate subjective testing is moot and it doesn't alter the fact that subjective testing/impressions gained, without controlled conditions, is essentially meaningless.
I don't have a problem with any of the single, one dimensional, tests/experiments that we use to characterise our equipment. This is always brought up by subjectivists to try and discredit measurements except that the single tone stuff is mathematically related to the multi-tone stuff. It's all connected.
No we're not. If the differences we're big then they would be obvious to anyone and you wouldn't require stringent testing in order to try and prove whether or not they are audible.
These differences are, by definition, extremely tiny.
There's nothing circular going on here at all. Because the differences are extremely tiny they only represent the last few hundredths of a percent of a piece of equipments performance.
Yet to the subjectivist those extremely tiny differences would represent the difference between one piece of equipment sounding good and the other one sounding 'significantly better'.
So that extremely tiny difference represents a difference that's night and day to the subjectivit.
I have no reason to believe that the premise would be false. Afterall the same science that's used for the analysis and quantification of audio equipment is essentially the same science that put a man on the moon, landed probes on comets, rovers on Mars, landed satellites in orbit of distance planets, gave us GPS, the internet, ultrasound, gravitational wave detectors etc. If it can do all that with an incredible level of accuracy and precision why would audio be the exception?
Remember we're not talking about perception, which involves the brain, but accurately recreating the signal that's stored on the storage medium. Science might lack in terms of representing what our brain does, but it certainly does not lack in terms of examining how well something can recreate the signal input to it.
Have you read Thomas Khun? Are you even aware of the historical nature of this debate?
You know one big name and that makes you an expert.
If "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts", then please explain why science works so well?
If it wasn't for the ignorance of those experts, you wouldn't have anything to perform your subjective listening tests on!
Last edited:
I can see why You say that but... when someone posts the same thing in every single thread that has something to do with D/A conversion it is something strange going on. There is an agenda. In this case it seem to be commercial - there is no other explanation. In a balanced participation I would think one interacts in a couple of threads of interest and has a helpin attitude. Not an "uber" attitude. Mark4 never proclaimed anything himself of course - but he acts like it. So, not totally uncalled for - IMO (or I wouldn't have posted it).
//
I have just read the above article by Richard Feynman.
I cannot find the quote "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" anywhere in it.
Not only is the quote not there, it isn't even consistent with the point that the author making.
Have you actually read the article yourself, or are you just quoting someone else's miss quote?
+1
Whilst your percentages are debatable, it's fair to say "we heard the combination verses there highest end device and I can attest that they sound VERY much better!! Which makes them VERY VERY good indeed!!!" could be considered quite high. 😉
I apologise and retract my statement. I missed it in my reading.
However you are using the quote out of context. When the author uses the word "science" in the quote he is not refering to science as he sees it, which is perfectly clear from his earlier comments. He is describing science as it is presented to elementary school teachers, who are not science trained, following a curriculum devised by people who are also not science trained.
This paragraph makes his intention clear
"Another of the qualities of science is that it teaches the value of rational thought as well as the importance of freedom of thought; the positive results that come from doubting that the lessons are all true. You must here distinguish–especially in teaching–the science from the forms or procedures that are sometimes used in developing science. It is easy to say, “We write, experiment, and observe, and do this or that.” You can copy that form exactly. But great religions are dissipated by following form without remembering the direct content of the teaching of the great leaders. In the same way, it is possible to follow form and call it science, but that is pseudo-science. In this way, we all suffer from the kind of tyranny we have today in the many institutions that have come under the influence of pseudoscientific advisers."
Since this context is not relevant to the discussion in this thread, the quote isn't relevant either.
😱
Tell me, do you think science works without any cultural implications?
Judging by your diatribes here, neither have you, or did not bother to understand him.
He had some good points, but I would not generally take Feynman's philosophical excursions seriously. Don't take this as defense of Naaling's philosophical excursions.