I'm bored, I suffer from hypervigilance, and someone linked this thread somewhere else where I had no choice but to notice it.
As a person who was once pretty deep into this stuff, and managed to change my mind with new evidence, it hits close to home, and when I see 150 pages on this topic, it boggles my mind that so many people have any respect for a subjective impression of anything at all.
May I ask if you have noticed that this is third time I am saying I agree with you that blind testing is needed?
Understanding and measuring subjective impressions is hugely important to understanding people and how they think. May I ask if you read, "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman?
Thinking, Fast and Slow: Daniel Kahneman: 9780374533557: Amazon.com: Books
Thinking, Fast and Slow — By Daniel Kahneman — Book Review - The New York Times
Okay
I really wasn't trying to single you out, it was more of a "state of the union" type comment.I lobbed a bomb, I wasn't trying to pick on any one person in particular, but rather the whole thing. If we spent half as much time with a blindfold on in front of a system with multiple whatevers that a friend hooked up without us seeing it, these threads would be wayyyyy shorter.
Haha, fair enough, there are a number of fellow sufferers in this thread, you've probably woken a few up. However, I'm not one of them, I'm going back to sleep, have fun
Some, but not all, of the testing probably would show the opposite results if a few small changes were made to ABX test systems, IMHO. (However, probably easier to do with software-based systems. Hardware systems might need some help from software.)
Last edited:
Honestly, when it comes right down to it, if I was charged with conducting a listening test, I wouldn't even go all the way to abx.
I'd just put the two devices out in plain sight. I might bother to cover indicator lights, if they change during playback.
I'd just throw an A/B switch between the two after level matching and say "Ok, here we go, which one is your Krell, A or B?"
If the success rate is less than 100%, we should stop talking about it like it's 100%, it's dishonest, which is why I used the term bloviate. It wouldn't stand up to scrutiny in any other area of science, and I think we do ourselves a disservice by being accommodating to the idea in any way. It's a cloud of silliness that we can all choose to just step out from underneath.
We should be looking for ways to make audibility testing easier and better, rather than spend a whole bunch of time saber rattling at ABX because there's a few twists of language we've found to discredit some aspect of it that's not even part of what it's meant to show. It seems like every time ABX is brought up, it's a matter of seconds before someone is trying to chip away at it, rather than being constructive, which is almost certainly a product of cognitive dissonance rather than observable audio phenomena.
Life is too short for some of this stuff. Loudspeakers and room acoustics are where differences are made, this whole business about arguing over fractions of a tenth of a percent of non-linearity being audible through a loudspeaker with 8, 9, 10% thd, mostly in rooms that are inadequately treated are beyond a waste of time.
I'd just put the two devices out in plain sight. I might bother to cover indicator lights, if they change during playback.
I'd just throw an A/B switch between the two after level matching and say "Ok, here we go, which one is your Krell, A or B?"
If the success rate is less than 100%, we should stop talking about it like it's 100%, it's dishonest, which is why I used the term bloviate. It wouldn't stand up to scrutiny in any other area of science, and I think we do ourselves a disservice by being accommodating to the idea in any way. It's a cloud of silliness that we can all choose to just step out from underneath.
We should be looking for ways to make audibility testing easier and better, rather than spend a whole bunch of time saber rattling at ABX because there's a few twists of language we've found to discredit some aspect of it that's not even part of what it's meant to show. It seems like every time ABX is brought up, it's a matter of seconds before someone is trying to chip away at it, rather than being constructive, which is almost certainly a product of cognitive dissonance rather than observable audio phenomena.
Life is too short for some of this stuff. Loudspeakers and room acoustics are where differences are made, this whole business about arguing over fractions of a tenth of a percent of non-linearity being audible through a loudspeaker with 8, 9, 10% thd, mostly in rooms that are inadequately treated are beyond a waste of time.
I have to disagree with you there. For differences that are pretty easy to hear that method can work okay. For smaller yet still audible differences, a little bit better system is needed.
I would agree that for concrete proof, it's necessary.
I just think people would have enough trouble with that simple test to at least be able to conclude that the types of random subjective stuff you often hear coming out of people is hot air enough, and if the hot air types dedicate themselves to finding problems with it (and only the problems that feed their existing biases), that in and of itself illustrates the problem.
If we can't even get a statistically significant number that says "maybe", why are we devoting so much time to worrying about "definitely", to me it's a failing of logic, and is what caused me to change my mind about this stuff a few years ago...evidence of which is actually present in this forum, if one did some digging.
I just think people would have enough trouble with that simple test to at least be able to conclude that the types of random subjective stuff you often hear coming out of people is hot air enough, and if the hot air types dedicate themselves to finding problems with it (and only the problems that feed their existing biases), that in and of itself illustrates the problem.
If we can't even get a statistically significant number that says "maybe", why are we devoting so much time to worrying about "definitely", to me it's a failing of logic, and is what caused me to change my mind about this stuff a few years ago...evidence of which is actually present in this forum, if one did some digging.
Probably. But, very poor test, IMHO, if the purpose is to find out what people can and can't hear under other blind test conditions.
Why do I say that? I could probably show you how to prove to yourself you can hear things you didn't know you could if you are willing to do a little work. And you could probably also prove to yourself that a common ABX test or your test will often fail to identify what you have already proven by other blind testing you can hear. I will warn you it can take some practice to do your best, and once you learn how you may start getting a lot more picky about sound systems and their faults. It tends to go with the territory, or as the noted Sean Olive half-jokingly said, "Basically, it ruins your life."
You would probably also find out the technically better DAC you have, as determined by both measurements and listening tests, the more details you can hear blind. And, also the more new details you can learn how to hear blind.
Please, let's cool it with the "hot air" talk. Please find a way to say what you want to say without using disrespectful slang, along with it's implications.
As long as we're operating evidence light, there's no other way to describe what happens.
If you're asking me to respect a subjective opinion that can't be replicated under controlled circumstances, that's not going to happen, because that's actually the root problem, too many people are far too willing to entertain an idea that can't pass basic inspection, but we're supposed to let it sit in conversation like it's real, and it deserves attention.
Of course there is. You just said "evidence light" instead of "hot air." You could say, "not credible in my opinion" or "unconvincing" or whatever you feel is accurate at the same time as not expressing how you feel in terms of like or dislike of the other people being discussed.
Okay. So, you are the claimant that you have a good, trustworthy, accurate test to see what people truly can and can't hear. Please do as you say, go ahead and prove it.
And remember, I'm dismissive because I can be. It's up to you to convince me.
How do you like that? Is it fair when you see it from the other side?
No, I am not asking for that at all. I am saying there are better, more reliable blind tests than yours, and they are repeatable. But, your test does not repeat them because it is a poor test that does not give correct answers in many cases.
I haven't made any claims about how accurate ABX is, only that I'm not going to favor subjective nonsense over it, and I'm not going to pretend that said subjective nonsense is due some sort of respect, as if that would further any goals.
I don't have to be fair, I'm in favor of evidence, it's not up to me to doll out fairness.
As far as whatever testing you might have that's better than ABX, that's up to you to discuss, and if I have something to say about it, I will, but I'm not going to sit here and attempt to extract details from you about a test I haven't been tempted to care about yet.
I don't have to be fair, I'm in favor of evidence, it's not up to me to doll out fairness.
As far as whatever testing you might have that's better than ABX, that's up to you to discuss, and if I have something to say about it, I will, but I'm not going to sit here and attempt to extract details from you about a test I haven't been tempted to care about yet.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.