Jakob2 said:
Why? Is your hearing acuity depending on whether there is a nicely shaded lamp nearby or not?
Jan Didden
janneman said:
No, just because it is far easier to hear differences on a well known system. It is like having a still picture on a screen where the eye is drawn to even small movements against a moving picture, trying to find the small changes.
André
@ Janneman,
In fact, mine seems not to be, but as an experimentator i´ll not know for another listener, unless i´ll test it.
It seems very reasonable to me, to exclude all external factors that might influence the test results.
External factors can cause false positive results and false negative results as well.
It is beyond my understanding why experimentators so often only care for the first category.
But to avoid any speculation about this point, one has to include controls in the test protocol..... 🙂
In fact, mine seems not to be, but as an experimentator i´ll not know for another listener, unless i´ll test it.
It seems very reasonable to me, to exclude all external factors that might influence the test results.
External factors can cause false positive results and false negative results as well.
It is beyond my understanding why experimentators so often only care for the first category.
But to avoid any speculation about this point, one has to include controls in the test protocol..... 🙂
R-Carpenter said:I don't think Andy has any idea as how and why speakers are measured. And if he does, it's just another impossible setting requirement.
DOH, you are right about one thing... you don't think !!!!!
Until you figure it out yourself, its pointless even discussing with you.
janneman said:
doh, because that's when most "differences" are reports, when someone is listening in their normal environment on their own system
as soon as you get away from that normal listening environment, and a system the person is used to, you immediately decrease the repeatablility.
which is of course exactly what the non-listening objectivist is aiming to do.
The same experience that tells some that cables sound different?
Experience is not proof. Anybody can claim any amount of any experience. That is how some religions work - or most.
I was abducted by a UFO last night....
audio-kraut said:
I'm glad you are back again. 😀
I would say that if someone is really interested in doing worthwhile DBT's they should at least listen to what those that imagine they hear differences have to say about it. I'm only stating what I've experienced in tests of my own, not trying to prove anything.
Thanks, if it wasn't just for all those probes....
I am pretty sure that those doing DBT are listening, I actually know that some of those setting up those tests were convinced before the test that it would be a cakewalk to prove a difference.
Until they saw the results.
audio-kraut said:
😀 😀 😀
audio-kraut said:
I have no problem with DBT's as long as they are done correctly.
When it come to cable evaluations, I don't think it is realistic to get "random" listeners, the entire system and roomsetup must be good, the music chosen is also important.
And these group ABX just make me laugh !! lets all 30 of us sit down and do a totally unrealistic test, on gear we don't know, oh and lets put a switch box in the way too (tested by ABX to make sure it makes no difference)
gees, no wonder they keep getting null results.. even then they interpret that as actually meaning something.
tnargs said:
tnargs it's too bad that you cannot disagree with someone without having to restort to berating, disparaging & mocking them! The man never claimed to be "golden-eared" or the "one person" who can identify wires in controlled tests. I've made the same claim myself because I've done so in the past. My ONLY requirements to allowing myself to be subject to such a test are as follows:
#1) the wires be switched manuelly because I do not believe & it's never been proven to me personally that ABX boxes are completely sonically transparent.
#2) either the test be done on my system in my home ---{not because my system or home is special but, rather because I'm intimately familair with how it sounds}--- or I be allowed at least 30 days to become intimately familiar with the system in the room where the test will be held.
#3) after it's been determined by whomever that the ICs are "normal" and not fancy "deliberately broken" ---{as you call them}--- cables with high impedance that will tailor the frequency response, I be allowed to listen to them to see if I can hear differences sighted ---{afterall NOT all ICs sound different}--- in fact some sound extremely similar or so close that I cannot determine the differences between them ---{it's an objectivist fallacy that subjectivists believe ALL wires sound vastly different!
So in all fairness to the both sides, objectivist and subjectivist, we need to know that first as objectivists you find the ICs to be "normal" and second as a subjectivist I find can hear differences sighted! Then and only then would it be a fair and unrigged DBT to determine whether or not the differences I heard were imagined or not!
Andy Graddon said:
That's another one, stereo has only one correct listening position.
Andy Graddon said:
Isn't that the preferred objectivist result? 😀
Andre Visser said:
The cables compared to a speaker dont make any difference unless the cable is made of string !
nigelwright7557 said:
Then I don't know what to call my electrical to vibration converters because I hear very noticeable differences between cables. All of the string cables sound the same though.
Tnargs you stated that most so-called objectivists are only trying to help. They know they'll get no thanks.
To which I have to respond when people are honestly & sincerely trying to help someone, they don't do it by berating, disparaging & mocking the person they're trying to help!That type of behavior only serves to create walls not bridges. When a person truly wants to help another person understand something they don't know like teachers, priests, counselors or therapists for example, they never, ever berate, disparage or mock the person they're trying to help.
The way you addressed Andre Visser as the golden eared god and the one person on the planet who can identify {{{wires differences}}} in controlled tests is a perfect example of this, inappropriate behavior 'if" and when someone is honestly & sincerely trying to help someone, as is almost everything & anything AJinFLA posts to subjectivists. Personally I think it's sad when a person replies by attacking the poster instead of attempting to prove why their post is in error. Yet that seems to be exactly how many ---{if not most}--- objectivists choose to respond to subjectivist posts.
To which I have to respond when people are honestly & sincerely trying to help someone, they don't do it by berating, disparaging & mocking the person they're trying to help!That type of behavior only serves to create walls not bridges. When a person truly wants to help another person understand something they don't know like teachers, priests, counselors or therapists for example, they never, ever berate, disparage or mock the person they're trying to help.
The way you addressed Andre Visser as the golden eared god and the one person on the planet who can identify {{{wires differences}}} in controlled tests is a perfect example of this, inappropriate behavior 'if" and when someone is honestly & sincerely trying to help someone, as is almost everything & anything AJinFLA posts to subjectivists. Personally I think it's sad when a person replies by attacking the poster instead of attempting to prove why their post is in error. Yet that seems to be exactly how many ---{if not most}--- objectivists choose to respond to subjectivist posts.
"I can give you an answer, but I cannot give you an understanding." That Doc Johnson, he was a real character before getting into the adult toy business.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.