Please Markus76, i only addressed one of your assertions, that does not mean that i am a DBT opponent. 🙂
@ Markus76 & kareface,
yes those bias mechanism can influence the results of DBTs.
Just as an example what should be avoided, remember the Meyer/Moran that Markus76 again cited some time ago; one of the experimenter expressed explicitely earlier, that confirmation of the null hypothesis will be the result of any controlled test as there were no logical reasons for the opposite result.
In all DBTs i´m aware of, the number of wrong answers was surprisingly high, if the participants were asked ´same or different´and where ´same´would have been the correct answer. That is a typical bias mechanism at work.
Wishes
Last edited:
Right.
So the "objective, reliable and valid" test results for (non-LCR) wire "sound", by yourself Jakob2 the experimenter is...where? Where can they be found?
RDF's ??
John Risch's ???
Believer X's ????
We have the beliefs, we have the imaginations and we have the grousing, but after 13,000+ posts, where are these tests?
Hmmm.....I wonder 😉
I wouldn't describe that as confirmation or expectation bias, as they deal with how the results are presented or which results you present. Let's imagine for a moment that speaker cable actually does audibly influence the signal. I would ask you for a situation with a speaker wire DBT where the phrase asked would prevent the positive outcome of the result?
Yes, but that wouldn't prevent the positive outcome. If you could hear the difference no matter how it's worded it wouldn't change the outcome. Even if you preferred the sound of the low end cable each time, the results would be consistent. The problem is the results are always sporadic, regardless of the wording.
You clearly demonstrate your bias and the pointless endevour of debating anything with you. You know a priori what my reaction will be to a peer reviewed suite of null results? Therefore no peer reviewed tests are necessary for scientific validation? Congratulations on your omniscience, condolences on believing it. That abuse of 'reasoning' is a perfect example of why science's reputation unfairly continues to degrade. Please just stop.
Thnks so?? Who's to say what someone likes. Let's say all can hear a difference. If it's get split 50% for A and 50% for B. If that happens it's no better than chance and not conclusive as a test for audibility.
Rob🙂
Last edited:
There's no such thing as scientific invalidation. It's not my job to invalidate your claims, it's your job to validate them. There isn't a limit to the results required to falsify something that doesn't exist. Bigfoot could exist, and we might not of found him yet. Leprechauns might exist but we haven't found them yet. There very well could be a teapot orbiting the sun that we don't know about. It isn't necessary for the Socratic method to invalidate every possibility, this would be a futile effort. It's the default position to assume any hypothesis that fails to meet it's burden of proof is false. You can pretend that somehow this is a perversion of the Socratic method but it would just go to show once again your lack of understanding of it.
That would require that all of the double blind tests happen to have an even number of people who preferred the sound of cheaper cables or that none of the people responsible for publishing the data and a bias in favor of cabling to point out the results, and considering there have been tests with only one listener and there have been tests where people who favored the other result were the responsible party. However if you truly feel that this is the case you can establish your own DBT that take those factors into account.
RDF could partake in his own "objective, reliable and valid" DBT's to avoid the pitfalls of the ones done by non-believers.
Share with us those positive results of non-LCR wire "sound" for peer review.
So could Jakob2. Or John Risch. Or Believer(s) X.
But they haven't....
....or they can't.
Predictable.
Hmmm, I wonder why? 🙂
Nice question begs. The tests have been discussed ad nauseum. Odd you don't discuss why wildly improbable accounts of 'surreptitiously' swapping out speaker cables for 'soldered' coat hangers with subjects still in the room is accepted as viable, or the questionable approach of coaching test subjects on the answer.
And honestly, if placing cable interfacing, which has been repeatedly shown measurable at some level, up to blowing up amplifiers, is the same to you as teapots in space, what are we discussing?
I assume such chicanery was also undertaken by the people hosting the test which didn't agree with the results? You've proved my point, it doesn't matter what the results might be the goal post can always be adjusted. What excuse will you use if the next set of DTBs comes back to disappoint you?
It doesn't matter if it sounds more convincing, it's just as unlikely. Ones that are more convincing are easier to propagate, but it doesn't lend anything to its credibility.
You've yet to respond to your perversion of the Socratic method, I'd love to hear more about how you think science works.
What does that have to do with your original question?? To paraphase if the question could screw up the results.
It's the number of trials not the number of people. All it would take was a very possible 50/50 preference splt. The outcome has to be statistically significant. All you have to do is ask the wrong question and you can blow the test so yes it's possible to use the wrong wording. If you just asked if they could hear a difference it removes any preference bias.
Rob🙂
Last edited:
Of course not but I guess if you listen to a good recording of acoustical instruments you would expect to realistically hear a piano in both size and sound, the same for all the other instruments.
Oh now you get subjective measurements also? 😕
Do you take your spectrum analyser with when you go and buy new equipment or do you also believe that everything sound the same?
Quite the contrary, you've proven mine with your assumptions. I don't recall every commenting on positive 'tests', finding them generally poorly structured. Both positive and null are consigned to the suggestive and interesting bin.
Any more logical fallacies bereft of evidence you care to throw my way in the name of science?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.