And to you, this is the most plausible explanation?
And your point is? Magic? I mean, if you rule out expectation bias and self-delusion, what else is there?
OK. Then the magic thing was a total non sequitur?
Still, no alternative method? Just something that people won't keep failing?
There are blind alternatives that we use. Just a simple A-B test, where A and B are not known at the time of the test, BUT A is always A and B is always B. You just chose. Then, the results can be revealed later.
It is true that there can be expectation bias (type 1 error) BUT what about type 2 errors. They are just as important to me, if not more-so. The ABX type test is biased to generate type 2 errors, AND even the statistics are stacked to against noting type 2 errors. Type 2 errors are errors where there is a difference, BUT you can't hear it in the test being conducted.
It is true that there can be expectation bias (type 1 error) BUT what about type 2 errors. They are just as important to me, if not more-so. The ABX type test is biased to generate type 2 errors, AND even the statistics are stacked to against noting type 2 errors. Type 2 errors are errors where there is a difference, BUT you can't hear it in the test being conducted.
Yes. But A and B are always the same and known to the listener who can freely switch between A and B, A and X, and B and X. And X can be evaluated with respect to A and B by any means the listener wants to use. Same/different, good/better/worse, etc. The actual identification can be made by simple logic after the fact.
Further, the listener can have full control of the music playing. So they can use the same piece or passage for all of their comparisons if they like. So I don't know what you mean by "while the music is changing."
se
But look at it this way. You have a seemingly unexplained phenomenon. You say you earnestly look for an explanation. I do have an explanation, based for instance on long known, fully documented psychological and other factors. But you don't take my explanation seriously, you reject it without proper consideration (yes, half a day in a library) and balk because you think you are accused of fooling yourself. How can I present a solution so that you are willing to take it seriously?
jd
wow.
I can't believe it has come to this.
we admit we cannot hear the difference unless we know what we are hearing.
somehow that proves it is real, and dbt's are wrong.
how frickin sad.
then 'they' have a go at us.
look at who is doing your championing guys, and look at what he is saying.
I can't believe it has come to this.
we admit we cannot hear the difference unless we know what we are hearing.
somehow that proves it is real, and dbt's are wrong.
how frickin sad.
then 'they' have a go at us.
look at who is doing your championing guys, and look at what he is saying.
Well, that is one of the best posts I read here in a long time, makes a lot of sense. (Read the original if you didn't). The only comment that I'd make is that you can organise a DBT in such a way that the subject can do it any way he wants, fast, slow, in the comfort of his own living room, his own music, naked if he wants, with/without a beer. Wouldn't that give an opportunity to eliminate or at least reduce test stress? Also, if I understood your post correctly, it may well be that test stress makes you perform better rather than worse. How do we know?
jd
For a non-audiophile you know quite a lot about audiophiles.
Great, then why do he have to do another one?
It is quite interesting to note how many "hear nothings" have never even tried for themselves, some also just can't accept the possibility that someone else can do / have anything better than they can / have. Their normal response is insulting and condescending posts, trying to prevent constructive discussion.
**. This is just made up. Most sceptics I know try these kind of things just as uncriticals.
Insulting and condescending, really? Where?
jd
Hi,
Have a cup of coffee and wake up, Jan.🙂
For as much as those that can hear these differences are reluctant to submit themselves to testing there's a proportianate number of people who are keen on seeing them fail this test.
No one likes to see his belief system shaken, right?
I must say I do fully agree with Andre here. It has always puzzled me how many people dwell on forums just for kicks.
Cheers, 😉
Have a cup of coffee and wake up, Jan.🙂
For as much as those that can hear these differences are reluctant to submit themselves to testing there's a proportianate number of people who are keen on seeing them fail this test.
No one likes to see his belief system shaken, right?
I must say I do fully agree with Andre here. It has always puzzled me how many people dwell on forums just for kicks.
Cheers, 😉
The insult lies in the fact that most of you know better psychology than Psychologists,design better equipment than historical designers etc......
Meaning you will never accept anything else than what you know,even if TG passes the test.You said that if TG succeeds you will have to accept it.Why?If I or any other was there in SY's place would you accept it?Have you accepted it when others said that they did the same test as the one SY promotes years before when SY or others where in favour of the switches+two more cables in line with the cable on test?
Google "bandwagon fallacy" and "communal reinforcement." Also "false assumption," while you're at it.
In your case, no. You have no experience in setting up and administering controlled sensory tests.
The test you are now "promoting" is exactly the same as the one TG suggested,the same as we have done here more times than you would believe,same as the one ore more Andre I believe did,and the same as I believe many audiophiles or non audiophiles have done.Your presence there will "ensure" that no one is "peeking" just to use a favorite word of yours.It is(your presence) that makes non believers accept some or total validity of TG's test,and not your experience on a certain type of test that non experienced people have already done.And it is here exactly that the insult lies.That someone else will "cheat"in favor of TG.
I meant that when somebody does a test the way I think it should be done, how can I NOT accept the outcome? I don't know the details of that other test you refer to, so I can say anything about it.
But there is indeed the need for confidence that the test not only is planned in a certain way, but that it is also executed according to the plan. It comes down to having trust that those who do or manage the test are enough aware of the pitfalls and have strong enough discipline to avoid them. So in that sense it does matter to me who does it and manages it.
jd
You're doing it again. Pure made-up. Who says they are a better 'psychology than Psychologists'? And if anybody claims to make better equipment than historical designers, maybe they do? Is that so far fetched, do you think that an amp somebody build 30 years ago cannot be improved upon, ever? Isn't fairness also not making up stuff that is pure hot air to make your point?
jd
The details of the promoted test are written here.Someone will have to swap or not the cables while TG is out of the room,and make sure that TG has no way to "peek" when he is in the room.Where do you see the need of any special ability to do this?I didn't know that swapping a piece of cable is what you are trying to present it to be.What's left is the honesty of the person to do it.It is exactly here that the insult lies.You know it,but just refuse to accept it.
Still better example than falling fruits?
Since you said about an amp designed 30 years ago(strange though,I haven't said anything about such an amp,although I'm glad you thought what you thought🙂),to me there must be better amps,yes.But have they been proven😀 The 30 years old designs you are refering to,have been proven worldwide.
To make it as simple as I can(about insults),only the use of the word "peeking" is an insult in itself.What am I doing again?It is you I'm afraid who doesn't dare to say I'm right,at least on this.Why?Whom are you afraid of?
Last edited:
@ Janneman,
that´s exactly the reason why i think the test Andre will eventually do is not unfair. While the promising original idea was dropped due to "irrational" arguments Andre will have an open reference on hand, is able to take all the time he needs for every decision and can take any prolonged training period under blind test condition (at least if he has someone to help) to avoid the "sameness detection problem" .
Without training and checking of the results you normally don´t have any clue about the listeners detection ability under test condtions.
Due to very basic statistical reasoning you have in this case to increase the number of trials to a very unpractical high number to avoid an unacceptable high risk of type 2 errors. (Unacceptable high of course only if the experimenter is searching the "truth", if he is only trying to confirm his own beliefs he will take any risk)
Unpractical high number of trials means hundreds in this case.
So the only justification for the usual small number of trials is that you already know that the detection ability of the participant _under_ _blind_ _test_ _conditions_ will be _high_ (means p>=0.9).
Wishes
P.S. as posted before, another possible solution would be to put listereners under test without their knowledge; i tried that once and it worked well, but it is not an easy test design.
that´s exactly the reason why i think the test Andre will eventually do is not unfair. While the promising original idea was dropped due to "irrational" arguments Andre will have an open reference on hand, is able to take all the time he needs for every decision and can take any prolonged training period under blind test condition (at least if he has someone to help) to avoid the "sameness detection problem" .
Without training and checking of the results you normally don´t have any clue about the listeners detection ability under test condtions.
Due to very basic statistical reasoning you have in this case to increase the number of trials to a very unpractical high number to avoid an unacceptable high risk of type 2 errors. (Unacceptable high of course only if the experimenter is searching the "truth", if he is only trying to confirm his own beliefs he will take any risk)
Unpractical high number of trials means hundreds in this case.
So the only justification for the usual small number of trials is that you already know that the detection ability of the participant _under_ _blind_ _test_ _conditions_ will be _high_ (means p>=0.9).
Wishes
P.S. as posted before, another possible solution would be to put listereners under test without their knowledge; i tried that once and it worked well, but it is not an easy test design.
Last edited:
I'm trying to keep a conversation going. I'm afraid that as soon as I say "I'm right' several people will fall over me accusing me of a closed mind or worse, instead of telling me why I am wrong (if they think I am).
It's difficult to find the right words if 'peeking' is already considered an insult word. I believe I speak English reasonably well, but it's not easy I tell you.
jd
- Status
- Not open for further replies.