I'm not against DBTs. They can co-exist with meditation, aren't mutually exclusive. So let's turn the question around - why not try meditation as well - too hard?
Nothing arbitrary about that claim. Argument from authority, no question.
Do you have any objectively proof that meditation is a way to reduce perceptual biases or is this just another of your beliefs?
You might want to re-read this: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ke-difference-any-input-1352.html#post2171468
I have nothing to add.
Okay, so if its reality then why isnt there admission that other subconcious things at work here in all these subjective listening conclusions?
Instead I read posts all the time saying "I Heard it", no one is admiting that knowing the brand, price tag, etc is clouding their judgement.
I would like that admission if we are going to simply say "preception is reality"
There just seems to be no common ground.
RIght now we are still stuck on the following....
The subjectivists refuse to accept DBTs.
The subjectivists refuse to acknowledge Placebo effects.
The Objectivists refuse to accept "I just use my Ears" as any sort of proof.
So where do we go from there?
I would accept just reading that all these subjective conclusions are not proof and judgement is clouded. Anyone want to be bold enough to post that?
Its a hypothesis, not a belief. Soongsc raised it as a possibility, I think its interesting enough to run with. So no, of course no proof because that belongs in mathematics, not physical reality. Do you object to any tests being devised to test the hypothesis?
If it's nothing more than a hypothesis then I'd like to stick to DBTs not because they are easier but because they are known to remove conscious or unconscious bias. Exactly what we need for evaluating "cable sound".
Just let me know when you and soongsc are ready with your meditation technique.
Because, contrary to popular belief, people aren't basically rational. They're emotional and use invented reasons to rationalise their actions which are always based on emotion, not thinking.
Right, because its subconscious influence, they're not aware of that so they deny it. Or at least won't openly admit it.
Bob Carver freely admitted it (many days ago in an excellent quoted post). I freely admit it. Any other takers? Of course, if they admit it, the game changes and then it becomes conscious, which means it won't have an effect. So they'll not be such subjectivists any longer, differences between brands won't influence them so much.
There most definitely is, but unconscious effects are preventing people recognising this reality.
Yep, they don't like them because they hear no difference. They'd like to understand why. I'd also like to know if its just perceptual biases being removed or there are other factors too.
By definition, because they're unconscious. An acknowledged placebo effect is a considerably reduced one.
Yep, because for some obscure reason they think this word 'proof' applies to science, not merely to mathematics. That's such a basic error in methodology I'm at a loss to account for it.
Just enjoy the 'debate'. If the dilemma is resolved the thread closes and we'll need to find something else to argue about.
Let's face it, the discussion is fun.
At the risk of introducing more of the dreaded epistemology, how do you know they remove unconscious bias? I'd like to see evidence for that claim
Edit: Here's another hypothesis, how can we test it? - "The reason you prefer to stick with DBTs and not explore alternatives is because the results from DBTs confirm your unconscious bias - a bias towards there being no sound difference".
Last edited:
markus and doug, are you guys ever going to provide any proof of your own to back up the things you say? Only seems logical since you two seem to want everyone to provide scientific evidence for everything. Hell, you guys even want evidence when people don't claim to have any. DBT's remove bias? Based on what? Urban legend or common belief? Will you guys ever produce scientific papers to back your testing methods or will you just continue to parrot procedures you read in another cable thread somewhere? Is copying what some other anti-cable guys did really a scientific method or just mimicking some procedures thrown together by a bunch Hawaiian shirt wearing basement scientists who really are no more objective than you two?
Last edited:
Just because someone builds and sells loudspeakers or designed a brilliant amp 20 years ago doesn't equate to them having all the answers. If you guys want to use science to make a point then I would recommend you take everything you read with a grain of salt and ditch all the bastard logic that seems to infest every thread like this one. When you just parrot that stuff it destroys your credibility, especially when so much of what you read is taken out of context and twisted to suit your "argument". Try and support a "theory" with science since you seem to put so much trust and faith in science. I personally don't see the point to all of this since your collected information (regardless of what that is) will never change the way I hear when I relax and listen to music. Think maybe that is why there isn't more interest in that measurement crap among audiophiles? 
Last edited:
thanks richard, may respond later if I have time.
do your own search brooke. dunno what you should type in, dbt's and scientific method, who cares.
remember what I said about you always seeming to accuse others of your own actions? done it again mate. What have you contributed to the discussion other than 'I hear it, I have nothing to offer in how to improve tests, you guys prove everything'.
Why don't you have a look and see what you are parroting?
Now that's an quick interesting exercise, won't take me a minute. Let's p0ull out of your very most recent post the things you exhibit in basically every post, that you now accuse others of.
A quick copy and paste and see what we get eh??
are you guys ever going to provide any proof of your own to back up the things you say?
(actually, just thought I'd throw this one in, as it is an interesting 'complete reversal', you want others to believe you when you admit you have no evidence?) Hell, you guys even want evidence when people don't claim to have any.
Urban legend or common belief?
(just alter the direction of flow here brooke) Will you guys ever produce scientific papers to back your testing methods or will you just continue to parrot procedures you read in another cable thread somewhere?
How shall they produce scientific papers brooke? Where would they publish them? Admittedly you are more likely to get your report published, for all i know it already is, some testimonial on a cable site somewhere.
Really, what have you brought to the table other than the same old tired arguments? It is at least getting a bit fun atm with all this metaphysical quasimystical stuff (as we all know, just killing time till Tom does his thang), but you really do sound like the kid who has nothing to offer but just yells every now and then.
Why don't you at least try to contribute?? I know for example actually doing a dbt is not on your agenda, but given the recent tenor of the conversation how do you reckon you could (or could not) go about showing to others what you experience is real?? (does not have to be dbt). Is it possible?, or one of those things that can never be done?
What is your response to some of the more exotic comments recently, do you accept (or not) that what you feel you perceive could be completely internally generated?? Or is it truly a internal response to an external source?
How do you know (if you have decided on one) that it is true?, how would/could you show that it is true to an external sentient being?
If none of it actually interests you (hint, hearing something is in itself a measurement, and is often done when comparisons are made to determine which cable to purchase) the why are you even here?? With you evidently banging your head against a wall?
do your own search brooke. dunno what you should type in, dbt's and scientific method, who cares.
remember what I said about you always seeming to accuse others of your own actions? done it again mate. What have you contributed to the discussion other than 'I hear it, I have nothing to offer in how to improve tests, you guys prove everything'.
Why don't you have a look and see what you are parroting?
Now that's an quick interesting exercise, won't take me a minute. Let's p0ull out of your very most recent post the things you exhibit in basically every post, that you now accuse others of.
A quick copy and paste and see what we get eh??
are you guys ever going to provide any proof of your own to back up the things you say?
(actually, just thought I'd throw this one in, as it is an interesting 'complete reversal', you want others to believe you when you admit you have no evidence?) Hell, you guys even want evidence when people don't claim to have any.
Urban legend or common belief?
(just alter the direction of flow here brooke) Will you guys ever produce scientific papers to back your testing methods or will you just continue to parrot procedures you read in another cable thread somewhere?
How shall they produce scientific papers brooke? Where would they publish them? Admittedly you are more likely to get your report published, for all i know it already is, some testimonial on a cable site somewhere.
Really, what have you brought to the table other than the same old tired arguments? It is at least getting a bit fun atm with all this metaphysical quasimystical stuff (as we all know, just killing time till Tom does his thang), but you really do sound like the kid who has nothing to offer but just yells every now and then.
Why don't you at least try to contribute?? I know for example actually doing a dbt is not on your agenda, but given the recent tenor of the conversation how do you reckon you could (or could not) go about showing to others what you experience is real?? (does not have to be dbt). Is it possible?, or one of those things that can never be done?
What is your response to some of the more exotic comments recently, do you accept (or not) that what you feel you perceive could be completely internally generated?? Or is it truly a internal response to an external source?
How do you know (if you have decided on one) that it is true?, how would/could you show that it is true to an external sentient being?
If none of it actually interests you (hint, hearing something is in itself a measurement, and is often done when comparisons are made to determine which cable to purchase) the why are you even here?? With you evidently banging your head against a wall?
Many people spend so much time listing to their gear for the smallest nuances that they begin to realize many of the differences take a lot of time under the proper circumstances (part of that is using their own gear because they know it soooooooooo well) to find, and then realize a DBT can only be inaccurate as it applies to them and their hobby at best. This has been explained many times. Its not rejection, its common sense for someone who spent years building a rig and addressed every possible aspect of that system using their ears. They don't give a rats azz about money, its not about money and never will be. People who quote theories and evidence as "Proof" for the sake of saying "I did for 10 dollars what you did for 500 dollars" are called bargain hunters and are not the same kind of people. Two different kinds of people completely.
You haven't even proven cables are inaudible and you want the aforementioned people to admit to something that no one can prove is true or false??? I think its you my friend who refuses to acknowledge something.
I don't remember anyone saying that hearing equates to proof. If someone hears something and they say "I heard something" then how is it that you guys get "That is proof of audibility in cables"? Its completely apples to oranges. I would recommend that if you do see someone has written something like that to just ignore them as they are obviously speaking of things they know nothing about. Maybe if they can explain why that is proof but I have never seen it. But its like I said, even if I did see it, it would not change the way the kick drum hits in the beginning of (What did I Do To Be So) Black & Blue by Lou Rawls
I don't give a rats patoot about double blind testing Terry. Never have and never will. I have decided to highlight some of the weird stuff being tossed around in here. Thats the great part. Its my choice mate.
But since you bring it up:
The Blind (Mis-) Leading the Blind
Every few years, the results of some blind listening test are announced that purportedly “prove” an absurd conclusion. These tests, ironically, say more about the flaws inherent in blind listening tests than about the phenomena in question.
The latest in this long history is a double-blind test that, the authors conclude, demonstrates that 44.1kHz/16-bit digital audio is indistinguishable from high-resolution digital. Note the word “indistinguishable.” The authors aren’t saying that high-res digital might sound a little different from Red Book CD but is no better. Or that high-res digital is only slightly better and not worth the additional cost. Rather, they reached the rather startling conclusion that CD-quality audio sounds exactly the same as 96kHz/24-bit PCM and DSD, the encoding scheme used in SACD. That is, under double-blind test conditions, 60 expert listeners over 554 trials couldn’t hear any differences between CD, SACD, and 96/24. The study was published in the September, 2007 Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.
I contend that such tests are an indictment of blind listening tests in general because of the patently absurd conclusions to which they lead. A notable example is the blind listening test conducted by Stereo Review that concluded that a pair of Mark Levinson monoblocks, an output-transformerless tubed amplifier, and a $220 Pioneer receiver were all sonically identical. (“Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?” published in the January, 1987 issue.)
Most such tests, including this new CD vs. high-res comparison, are performed not by disinterested experimenters on a quest for the truth but by partisan hacks on a mission to discredit audiophiles. But blind listening tests lead to the wrong conclusions even when the experimenters’ motives are pure. A good example is the listening tests conducted by Swedish Radio (analogous to the BBC) to decide whether one of the low-bit-rate codecs under consideration by the European Broadcast Union was good enough to replace FM broadcasting in Europe.
Swedish Radio developed an elaborate listening methodology called “double-blind, triple-stimulus, hidden-reference.” A “subject” (listener) would hear three “objects” (musical presentations); presentation A was always the unprocessed signal, with the listener required to identify if presentation B or C had been processed through the codec.
The test involved 60 “expert” listeners spanning 20,000 evaluations over a period of two years. Swedish Radio announced in 1991 that it had narrowed the field to two codecs, and that “both codecs have now reached a level of performance where they fulfill the EBU requirements for a distribution codec.” In other words, Swedish Radio said the codec was good enough to replace analog FM broadcasts in Europe. This decision was based on data gathered during the 20,000 “double-blind, triple-stimulus, hidden-reference” listening trials. (The listening-test methodology and statistical analysis are documented in detail in “Subjective Assessments on Low Bit-Rate Audio Codecs,” by C. Grewin and T. Rydén, published in the proceedings of the 10th International Audio Engineering Society Conference, “Images of Audio.”)
After announcing its decision, Swedish Radio sent a tape of music processed by the selected codec to the late Bart Locanthi, an acknowledged expert in digital audio and chairman of an ad hoc committee formed to independently evaluate low-bit rate codecs. Using the same non-blind observational-listening techniques that audiophiles routinely use to evaluate sound quality, Locanthi instantly identified an artifact of the codec. After Locanthi informed Swedish Radio of the artifact (an idle tone at 1.5kHz), listeners at Swedish Radio also instantly heard the distortion. (Locanthi’s account of the episode is documented in an audio recording played at workshop on low-bit-rate codecs at the 91st AES convention.)
How is it possible that a single listener, using non-blind observational listening techniques, was able to discover—in less than ten minutes—a distortion that escaped the scrutiny of 60 expert listeners, 20,000 trials conducted over a two-year period, and elaborate “double-blind, triple-stimulus, hidden-reference” methodology, and sophisticated statistical analysis?
The answer is that blind listening tests fundamentally distort the listening process and are worthless in determining the audibility of a certain phenomenon.
As exemplified by yet another reader letter published in this issue, many people naively assume that blind listening tests are somehow more rigorous and honest than the “single-presentation” observational listening protocols practiced in product reviewing. There’s a common misperception that the undeniable value of blind studies of new drugs, for example, automatically confers utility on blind listening tests.
I’ve thought quite a bit about this subject, and written what I hope is a fairly reasoned and in-depth analysis of why blind listening tests are flawed. This analysis is part of a larger statement on critical listening and the conflict between audio “subjectivists” and “objectivists,” which I presented in a paper to the Audio Engineering Society entitled “The Role of Critical Listening in Evaluating Audio Equipment Quality.” You can read the entire paper here News | AVguide. I invite readers to comment on the paper, and discuss blind listening tests, on a special new Forum on AVguide.com. The Forum, called “Evaluation, Testing, Measurement, and Perception,” will explore how to evaluate products, how to report on that evaluation, and link that evaluation to real experience/value. I look forward to hearing your opinions and ideas.
Robert Harley
Last edited:
I decided to stay out of this to concentrate on my mod position
But its an interesting perspective you briing up here
Meditation could be many different things
For one, my friend says that when I adjust his motor, he says the ride gets so smooth its purely meditative
Only to say, it takes many forms
Running or biking can be mediatative, if you have trained enough to not feel the strain of hard work
But what it will do when listening is to remove the intellectual aspect
Thus listening will not be biased
In my experience, intellect will always get in the way of a pure listening experience, if not controlled
It took me half a life to learn that
Intellectual listening turns into technical listening, instead of the much more enjoyable emotional listening
It will be "audiophile" and too much "hifi"
And thats the root of the problem
One needs to switch off the brain, so to speak
And thats meditative
I dont think thats realisticly possible in a test situation
That will always remain an intellectual process, and thus restricted
But ofcourse you can always remain unbiased in test situation
I dont see why that would be a problem
Unless you have a really severe and sick avertion against blue, and the test cables are blue
But ofcourse a good test person should be able to switch off such "thoughts"
Yeah, ofcourse its possible to be 100% unbiased and objective
But I suppose it takes practice, and will
But its beyond doubt that if say the speakers have any kind of problems which a test person would notice, that such would be distracting and irritating, and influence the result
I don't give a rats patoot about double blind testing Terry. Never have and never will. I have decided to highlight some of the weird stuff being tossed around in here. Thats the great part. Its my choice mate.
Rats have patoots?? no-one ever told me that!
Yep cool brooke. I get it that you never have and never will have anything to do with dbt.
Guess that only leaves you with being able to parrot points about it from another cable thread you have read somewhere.
I'd like to highlight some weird points too, you tell us you have no proof yet want us to accept you hear it?
That is pretty weird.
Edit..another weird thing is when someone pretends they have no interest yet then go on to show interest by adding to their post.
Last edited:
I was trying to add this to my last post but I cannot any longer. It address some of the things you brought up.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/15600-i-dont-believe-cables-make-difference-any-input-289.html#post2185014
So yeah Terry, Kool Brother!
Last edited:
DIY is not warfare, its a hobby 
Soongsc's perspective originally, to give credit where its due.
That has been my experience too, glad to hear I'm not alone here
I've only begun to learn it since I left the industry.
That's my hypothesis for the root of the difficulty with ABXs. They require a series of decisions. Decisions. A or B? Making a decision requires the intellectual mind, the one that can't really tell the difference.
I think unconscious influence is still very much operative in the test situation - after all its a test. We've all done tests before haven't we? Tests are not for our benefit, they're for the teacher's benefit. The whole context says there will be unconscious bias. So I'm eagerly waiting for Markus to put up his evidence that unconscious bias is absent in DBT/ABX.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.