They are both pretty doubtfull
Doing continious changing results in everything sounding pretty much awful
If you want to do serious listening, which is needed for this, you need to be completely alone, and relaxed
You need to know the sound of the setup, in all its details, flaws and all
You may think what you want about testers, but the serious ones never do any test evaluation with gear they dont know
They know its worthless
Its been said before
Blindtests were "invented" to prove that they could "fool" people
And for that purpos its good
Its really not good for anything else
A DBT test may show that peole dont hear too good, or cant hear any difference between test units
But you could just as well conclude its a proof that blindtests are no good
Doing continious changing results in everything sounding pretty much awful
If you want to do serious listening, which is needed for this, you need to be completely alone, and relaxed
You need to know the sound of the setup, in all its details, flaws and all
You may think what you want about testers, but the serious ones never do any test evaluation with gear they dont know
They know its worthless
Its been said before
Blindtests were "invented" to prove that they could "fool" people
And for that purpos its good
Its really not good for anything else
A DBT test may show that peole dont hear too good, or cant hear any difference between test units
But you could just as well conclude its a proof that blindtests are no good
Re: Faith-Based Cables. . .
Thank you. I think some people think this thread is about hearing what cables do, it isn't.
DCPreamp said:
Thank you. I think some people think this thread is about hearing what cables do, it isn't.
tinitus said:
"They" don't fool people, the people fool themselves, that is the point, and that is enough.
If you didn't make any assumptions you would conclude that blindtests are good as they prove that "people don't hear too good".
tinitus said:
You mean get prepared to hear what you expect to hear - positive or negative.
tinitus said:
They were devised because scientists quickly realized that whenever a human was in the testing loop, results were always biased. Once tests were blinded by eliminating the bias (the human doing the test didn't know what to expect and couldn't influence the outcome) testing became accurate and science progressed enormously and accurately.
tinitus said:
Which could save a lot of people a lot of money when they realize a $500 amp sounds just like a $10,000 amp. But, everybody likes a big, shiny toy to brag about.
fredex said:
I sure hope you don't mean powered speakers have disappeared. They are alive and well and growing by leaps and bounds in the pro world.
I bought a bunch of the 1st I ever saw, circa 1996. The JBL EON series and the Meyer Sound UPA powered stuff. Would never go back to amp racks for pro use.
What is wrong with those advocating they have to know the piece under test?
The only, and absolutely only thing a blinded test does is removing bias by not identifying the equipment tested.
Some who advocate non blinded testing seem to either not understand what the procedure is, i.e. they expect to wear blinds - don't laugh, I've heard that argument before - or are simply unsure of their abilities to differentiate.
Anybody can hear a differences when they know what equipment is under test.
I guess they fear - or know - their "magic" disappears when they don't know what is being assessed.
The only, and absolutely only thing a blinded test does is removing bias by not identifying the equipment tested.
Some who advocate non blinded testing seem to either not understand what the procedure is, i.e. they expect to wear blinds - don't laugh, I've heard that argument before - or are simply unsure of their abilities to differentiate.
Anybody can hear a differences when they know what equipment is under test.
I guess they fear - or know - their "magic" disappears when they don't know what is being assessed.
I admit my post is a bit muddled but was it about domestic stuff which has fallen off. I think the active approach does have real substance, but getting rid of spk cables "because they sound bad" is not really a factor here.panomaniac said:
Andre Visser said:
Think. They don't buy the cable because they like the color. They buy the cable because to them it sounds better. What we are discussing here is how they reaach the conclusion that it sounds better. And the color plays a role in that.
jd
Panicos K said:
Panicos,
I know that the only thing he cares about is the sound. We ALL care about the sound, primarily. I am NOT questioning anybodies honesty or intelligence. Read my posts, I really go to lengths NOT to do it. Because is isn't a matter of honesty or intelligence. It's a matter of understanding how you tick internally.
The reason that some people associate this with honesty or intelligence is a misunderstanding. As if, when you know that your conciousness doesn't present a 100% accurate picture of reality, you are dishonest or not intelligent. You'r not. It has nothing to do with that.
jd
fdegrove said:
Possibly. Or rather, hopefully not; I hope to do better yet 😀
But seriously, what's wrong with my reasoning?
jd
fredex said:
That's a good question, never tried it but it could be interesting to try. I'm experimenting with a set of 400mm homemade IC's at the moment and if I tell you what I'm doing you will perhaps never talk to me again. 😀
Yes you can connect the amps directly to the speaker terminals but maybe the vibrations will cause more problems than you try to solve.
I do try to use the shortest possible cables, I'm using monoblocks next to the speakers, that of course need longer IC's but then at least we are working with low currents.
Key said:
Not that difficult, just play a good recording of unamplified instruments and decide if it sound similar to the real instrument.
janneman said:
I don't claim that my or anyone's conciousness presents a 100%accurate picture of reality.I am saying that different people's conciousness can present different levels of accuracy.
Think for a minute the possibility that someone has repeatedly 100% score in a series of DBT's.(surely this won't be me
🙂 )Will the science building collapse?No.But it will perhaps reveal that even science does not have a 100% accurate picture of reality YET.
EDIT😛lease don't tell me that what I'm saying is that I am one of the "chosen few",I'm not🙂
tinitus said:I saw a programme about two very respected and very good producers working
They were listening to some music
Their speakers were quite scaring
Two 3 or 4ways with all alu cone
Well, the scary part was that they had TWO sets of those in EACH channel
That is really scary, it also explains a lot.
Panicos K said:
Absolutely. You are born with a brain that is quite malleable. It's up to you what you make of it, within the physical constraints of the 'hardware'.
Panicos K said:
No science has not a 100% accurate picture. We think we know a lot, but they also thought that 200 years ago. Another 200 years from now and they will look with pity to those poor early-21 century scientists missing the obvious 😉
But TWISI science is by far the best tool we have to validate our ideas, to build on each other's ideas and theories and slowly make way to understanding the world. Scientific theories are continuously expanded and adjusted, but it is very rare that a scientific theory is found to be totally wrong.
jd
audio-kraut said:
Nothing wrong with DBT's if done correctly but I believe it is unfair to expect from anybody to hear small differences on an unknown system using unknown recordings, not even talking about system quality.
janneman said:
Funny thing.I agree with everything you've just said.It seems though,that for many it is of vital importance who's saying what.I am glad that it is you who wrote all the above.🙂
janneman said:
OK Jan, I understand what you are getting at and I agree with you in general, I do however believe it is possible to learn to at least minimise other factors when doing evaluations. What if blind tests continiously confirm what you've heard sighted?
Then (assuming those blind tests are actually controlled and truly blind), the hypothesis is supported and can be accepted as true.
Problem is, when the faith-based claims their tests are "blind," it's often back to the Inigo Montoya quote: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
From your descriptions, you have never done an actual blind test. I gave you a protocol once, but it doesn't appear that you actually tried it.
SY said:
SY, to do a test, with all the measurements you suggested in my listening area is a bit difficult, I will do it sometime though.
I'm happy with the tests that I've done with the help of friends. In the conditions it were done, I'm convinced that there were no external influences even though it might not be to your standards.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.