Re: beware the ugly DBTing et al...
This is not true. You don't understand the objectivists stance. Objectivists want some form of controlled, repeatable test that shows that the claimed differences can be reliably, repeatably heard. They have no opinion on whether the claimed differences do exist or not, before such a test is done. Because you really don't know.
Jan Didden
Nanook said:
This is not true. You don't understand the objectivists stance. Objectivists want some form of controlled, repeatable test that shows that the claimed differences can be reliably, repeatably heard. They have no opinion on whether the claimed differences do exist or not, before such a test is done. Because you really don't know.
Jan Didden
You should notice that this argument works just the other way round too. 🙂
If you insist in DBTs because skilled listeners are influenced by other factors, than you can´t assume that they are not affected by the typical circumstances of a test.
Regarding scientific methodology there´s no choice; if a test does not use controls then the methodology is highly questionable, but it is a contradictio in ratio as well.
Listeners are able to adopt to the varying test methods but the experimentator has to control this.
Re: Re: beware the ugly DBTing et al...
We could be glad, if this would be... 🙂
If you are following the great debate since the beginning you got the impression that a lot of members in _both_ camps do have very strong _believes_ in what can be heard.
And by careful analysis of tests done in the past you´ll quite often see that both kinds of experimentator bias have strong influence on the methods choosen and the accepted errors.
Especially the last point is a pity because it contradicts the idea behind objectivism.
janneman said:
We could be glad, if this would be... 🙂
If you are following the great debate since the beginning you got the impression that a lot of members in _both_ camps do have very strong _believes_ in what can be heard.
And by careful analysis of tests done in the past you´ll quite often see that both kinds of experimentator bias have strong influence on the methods choosen and the accepted errors.
Especially the last point is a pity because it contradicts the idea behind objectivism.
Re: Re: beware the ugly DBTing et al...
Again, the problem is with the misuse of language leading to confused and inaccurate thinking. Although the inaccurate terms are too well-entrenched to be discarded, it has to be repeated over and over:
So-called "objective testing" is a measure of SUBJECTIVE phenomena and SUBJECTIVE perception!
The debate is NOT subjective vs objective, it is controlled versus uncontrolled.
janneman said:
Again, the problem is with the misuse of language leading to confused and inaccurate thinking. Although the inaccurate terms are too well-entrenched to be discarded, it has to be repeated over and over:
So-called "objective testing" is a measure of SUBJECTIVE phenomena and SUBJECTIVE perception!
The debate is NOT subjective vs objective, it is controlled versus uncontrolled.
another comment
Well perhaps in a rigorous definition, objectionists may want repeatable tests, but the objectionists view often becomes reduced to "if you can't measure a difference there is no difference".
I am not new to science. I am fully aware of the scientific process, but all hearing is truly subjective, as we are all individuals. We can't directly observe black holes or dark matter, but through the indirect observations of the behaviour of observable objects we can ascertain that they exist.
Indirect observation is the best we can hope for, until such a time that the objectionists can develop a reliable method of measurement of some detectable data that could explain a preference or "sensation" or whatever one might wish to call it.
'cause we all know that there is no difference in amplifiers, no difference in cabling, no difference in...
you get the idea.
Sy you posted at or near the same time , so it seems our posts are quite similar
stew
Well perhaps in a rigorous definition, objectionists may want repeatable tests, but the objectionists view often becomes reduced to "if you can't measure a difference there is no difference".
I am not new to science. I am fully aware of the scientific process, but all hearing is truly subjective, as we are all individuals. We can't directly observe black holes or dark matter, but through the indirect observations of the behaviour of observable objects we can ascertain that they exist.
Indirect observation is the best we can hope for, until such a time that the objectionists can develop a reliable method of measurement of some detectable data that could explain a preference or "sensation" or whatever one might wish to call it.
'cause we all know that there is no difference in amplifiers, no difference in cabling, no difference in...
you get the idea.
Sy you posted at or near the same time , so it seems our posts are quite similar
stew
That is a true objectivist you are describing. However.
There is a section of the objectivists clan who claim that lower distortion (Thd) means better sound. And that good measurements prove that something sounds better or vice versa.
Or that if you can't measure it then it is not there.
For instance that if you can't measure the difference between a cotton insulated wire or a teflon insulated wire there is no audible difference.
This group of people thinks of themselves as being objectivists. And so do others (think this of those type of people). But to me they are not true objectivists.
And a lot of so called subjectivist believe they can hear certain things but can't prove it. So in the end you have people who might be correct in both camps. What is the point in the end of thinking you are in one or the other camp or putting someone in one camp or the other.
Rather we should discuss each statement purely on it's own merit. And both sides should drop the chip on their shoulders.
[edit] Just read Stuart's post. And I guess it puts my whole post into one sentence.
"The debate is NOT subjective vs objective, it is controlled versus uncontrolled."
And since BOTH sides do not do enough controlled. Both sides are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.
Re: Re: Re: beware the ugly DBTing et al...
It is a debate between `objectivism´and ´subjectivism´ .
As Bas pointed out, there is a quite often a general lack of control in these sort of tests.
It really doesn´t make sense to follow the rules of objectivism only halfway. 🙂
SY said:
It is a debate between `objectivism´and ´subjectivism´ .
As Bas pointed out, there is a quite often a general lack of control in these sort of tests.
It really doesn´t make sense to follow the rules of objectivism only halfway. 🙂
If one demands to much from tests, these would become even more rare than they are now.
I would like, if we accept experimental results with their limits and discuss their relevance in 'real world' situations instead.
regards
I would like, if we accept experimental results with their limits and discuss their relevance in 'real world' situations instead.
regards
Juergen Knoop said:
Tests which don't adequately control for impacting variables have little to no relevance. Science is better off if they become rare.
Re: Re: Re: beware the ugly DBTing et al...
Yes indeed. We want an objective measurement of a subjective thing - "can you hear it?" There in lies the difficulty.
As it says in my sig....
SY said:
Yes indeed. We want an objective measurement of a subjective thing - "can you hear it?" There in lies the difficulty.
As it says in my sig....
pulling out demand after demand is a usual trick. It is quite clear that no test condition would satify the critic, if the test result doesn't fit his wishes.rdf said:
Now there is experimental data. You don't like it?
Do better and deliver your own! 😉
regards
Jakob2 said:
Astute reply Jakob2. Yes it does work the other way.....er.... but only if the test conditions are different from the normal. I am more interested in the hearing ability of just one individual and I see no reason why the test can't be carried out in that person's livingroom with their speakers and as much time as they need. Surely a couple of books to hide any visual clues would not degrade their hearing ability.
Also when they are listening normally for audible differences under non DBTing conditions, aren't they likewise under some sort of self imposed stress which could affect their hearing ability.
adx said:
It points out that the sample is too small to be reliably translated to larger groups. [15% margin of error]
It also points out that we may be covering over meaningful data.
Unless the purpose is to obscure meaningful information to prove one's point. [53%]
Juergen Knoop said:
You consider my concerns extravagant; that the authors confirm the signals used were actually what they claimed? Do you have a valid objection about these concerns based on what I've written instead of who wrote it?
janneman said:
OK, my apologies for the miscommunication.
Compared to himself? none.
transferring that data to a larger group? quite a bit.
Correct answers averaged out just below 50%. No one listener got more than 53% correct. This is pretty much what you'd expect from chance.
53% here is attributed to chance, rather than investigated further.
myhrrhleine said:
I don't get that. If I tell you that I can 'mind-toggle' coins, and I proof it by flipping 100 coins and they come up 47 heads, 53 tails, what would you have me investigate?
Jan Didden
My problem with the 'no one over 53%' result is it doesn't seem to jibe with the description of an informal and congenial listening sessions. Flip a coin ten times and record the results. Repeat another forty-four times and tabulate the results. Maybe I'm mistaken but it seems to me the odds of no one group of ten flips out of forty-five coming up, say, 75% heads is minuscule. Did each subject undergo fifty or a hundred trials?
janneman said:
with only 100 tries and 47 heads, 53 tails,
i'm gonna say you've proven nothing
53 tails might be random, but maybe not
- Status
- Not open for further replies.