Hm, afair there are good examples where magicians were able to steal people watches from their wrists, or take the perception experiments to be found at the viscog labs.
Obviously what we percept depends on the confounders.
So, if it not shown that participants in those tests would be able to detect something at all, a negative result doesn´t mean a lot.
If one does train with participants and uses some controls to look for their perception abilities under test conditions, he usually notices a learning curve.
BTW, this sensitivity problem goes back to the often mentioned Tiefenbrunn/Lipshitz/Vanderkooy test.
Wishes
That is exactly the point, but routinely (for whatever reason) the experimentators believe that the "blinding" (means being not able to "peek") would remove _all_ influencing factors.
In most cases the positiv controls were simply not existent.
Wishes
I think you should look at it from another angle. This was not to test IQ, it was to test for test manager influence on test results.
This is one of many similar tests that have been done to investigate how the person executing or managing the tests influences how the persons doing the test (the subjects) perform.
In this case, one 'manager' gives the test papers and when doing so 'radiates' either by words or body language the idea that the subjects probably won't do very well because they are not selected from a group of highly trained bla bla whatever, you get the idea.
The other 'manager' 'radiates' the expectation that he thinks the group will do very well because to him it is obvious that the subjects are quite intelligent bla bla.
Result: the second group performs significantly better than the first group. So the test is not on IQ, the test is on influence by the manager, and shows that the influence is there. So, I don't know what you mean by 'invalidates the test'.
Edit: not sure this is your point, but the 'managers' didn't give wrong answwers or so. No, the idea is that the group who is being told that they will do quite well are simply doing better because they have been told to. Hard to believe but it is something that is part and parcel of life. Think about the sportsman who's cheered on 'you can do it, go for it'! So your 'objective' performance is *always* influenced by external factors. These kind of things are abundantly documented and once you realize them you can never go back and accept anecdotal tests because you *know* how totally unreliable they are.
jd
Last edited:
Jan, that's exactly it. Test and meta-test if you prefer. The meta-test tested for weaknesses in the DBT protocol. The meta-test was to demonstrate how administrator expectation influenced a (presumably) DBT test protocol. The meta-test successfully demonstrated a DBT IQ test protocol could be influenced - or caused to fail, become invalidated - by administrator expectation.
What I have difficulty understanding is the resistance to possibility this also applies to DBT audio testing. That influence is why I've always considered the 'T' in most tests I've read to stand for 'Theatre'.
Again, I simply can't understand the hurdle. This is exactly what I'm telling you. Meyer makes an audio reputation from telling people audible differences in cables are illusory (and some his fans extend that much, much further), essentially communicating to subjects in advance the 'right' answer is null, or failure to differentiate.
What I have difficulty understanding is the resistance to possibility this also applies to DBT audio testing. That influence is why I've always considered the 'T' in most tests I've read to stand for 'Theatre'.
Again, I simply can't understand the hurdle. This is exactly what I'm telling you. Meyer makes an audio reputation from telling people audible differences in cables are illusory (and some his fans extend that much, much further), essentially communicating to subjects in advance the 'right' answer is null, or failure to differentiate.
Think about this in a Lipshitz listening environment. You know, nobody has beat the test yet (that we acknowledge) but we will prove it to you anyway. Don't do anything that would allow us to accuse you of cheating, no pencils, extra clothing, nothing. ;-) Ever heard? 'Is it live or Memorex?' Ella couldn't hear the difference.
Andre,
You do of course realise that what you just listed immediately invalidates all reports of listening results by unknown people listening to unknown music on unknown equipment in unknown situations 😉
jd
Either is fine, its up to the person who owns the equipment.
AFAIK, bi-wiring is running separate cables to the say the woofer and tweeter but still going through a passive crossover. It doesn't help with dbt so I wouldn't go down that path.
Its important to keep everthing in the room as unaltered as possible. I have serious reservations about putting screens in a room where they could change the way sound is reflected around the room. So I don't think that is a good idea.
Yes.
You may actually want to read the papers by Lipshitz, Vanderkooy, Olive, et al before making any more uninformed comments. If you have criticisms after actually reading the papers, that's perfectly valid and worthy of discussion.
Why? As long as the test is conducted in the same environment, why would it matter? It could even improve the acoustics 😉
jd
Why? That's exactly what's done in every organoleptic test that I've ever participated in. You (and rdf) miss the point that in many of the informal tests (e.g., Tiefenbrun, Zipser, Nousaine...) of cables, amps, what-have-you, what's being tested is the claim of the listener that he hears a difference between A and B.
In any case, this is the equivalent of the Creationists- they have never bothered to actually produce evidence, limiting their work to trying to kick up dust around actual experimental work of others, making no verifiable predictions, conducting no actual experiments. Same goes here. The wire peddlers have had 30 years to put up or shut up, and they've done neither, just stamped their feet louder and louder. How can they be taken seriously? I can't even get an answer to my hundred-times asked question, "What sonic insight do you get from peeking?"
Jan, do you enjoy turning my words around?
I did not say unknown people, people with unknown listening experience.
The system and environment is unknown to the listeners.
But you are right it may very well invalidate all reports of listening results.
Last edited:
Sorry Andre, that was not my purpose. I cut a few too many corners....
Anyway, we understand what we mean.
jd
I can't get one from any of the "if you cover it up, I can't hear the difference" types, you included.
Aren't you covering it up?Have you told us what you think about the extra cables,switches,connectors,box wiring etc?Have you told us when,during the test,"my"cd-amp interconnect will touch either the cd player or the amp?Have you told us if a wine tester can tell which is which if he draws a mixture of three wines plus "switching" to another mixture of three wines?
No,we are not scientists and are not worthy of a reply?I can tell that you yourself is saying the same things for 30 years too.Do you find the comment that "since both cables are screwed up it doesn't matter" a scientific one?
It might help to actually read what I've written rather than make stuff up. Start with my suggested test protocol for interconnects.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.