That often seems more important than actual communication. BTW, the "ignorance" in the context of the argument here is also open to interpretation, and I think it may not have been meant in the way that you think.
You might be right. But I still think his intention is clear. Why use the word, if it is not intended as a label?
Are you trying to say that an "honest answer" is the same as "constant repetition of a falsehood"?
I might be mistaken, but my impression was that he in that context used the word "ignorance" to describe the belief to _know_ that these audible differences can't exist.
Which means, it is not ignorance not to belief him, but to dismiss his experiences due to a different belief.
It could help him to realize the, as you called it, "difficulty of his position" because his subsequent posts show that he still didn't get it. So it might be different if he knows (explicitely expressed) that it is not just the conspiray at work when pointing to the lacking evidence..... 😉
perhaps...
You should go back and actually read what was written. The word "'ignorance" was never used to as a pejorative descriptive of any individual.
The English language can be very precise.
Assuming the intention of another can be fraught with peril, do so at your own risk.
I never suggested that anyone need believe my observations, and neither do I feel a need to "prove" my observations. If I say: "the sun will rise tomorrow", sure enough someone on this site will come along and require proof. Resulting in an enormous waste of everyone's time, and a huge thread derail. Hence, what we have here, a very boring discussion of nothing relevant to the AKM 4499 DAC chip.
You should go back and actually read what was written. The word "'ignorance" was never used to as a pejorative descriptive of any individual.
The English language can be very precise.
Assuming the intention of another can be fraught with peril, do so at your own risk.
I never suggested that anyone need believe my observations, and neither do I feel a need to "prove" my observations. If I say: "the sun will rise tomorrow", sure enough someone on this site will come along and require proof. Resulting in an enormous waste of everyone's time, and a huge thread derail. Hence, what we have here, a very boring discussion of nothing relevant to the AKM 4499 DAC chip.
I've done it btw since I've read the first articles by Dan Shanefield about the need of "blind" listening tests and before even joining the AES in the 80s.
Further I've (others as well) have pointed to various flaws in the usual test regime demanded and done by "objectivists", cited the scientific evidence from the relevant literature and, based on that, made some specific propsosals to improve the situation, which could raise the chances to get better/correct results from controlled listening tests.
One would think, any true objectivist _must_ be very much interested in this kind of information, as it would most likeley help in finding the truth.
But, suprisingly, in none of the forums did any of these objectivists (objectivists according to their own description) ever expressed appreciation for the information.
Is there a good explanation for this kind of behaviour?
Last edited:
The sun rising every morning is a phenomenon that is subject to direct observation and measurement, by anyone. In fact the measurements are so precise and the mechanism so well understood, that sunrise can be accurately predicted for any day at any location on Earth. Why would anyone require more proof?
On the other hand your listening observations are restricted to your personal experience and therefore not open to anyone else. And this is where you have created a "catch 22" situation. To confirm your results they would need to replicate your listening tests, but you refuse to describe your methodolgy.
However, even with that information before performing the tests it would be sensible to make sure that the methodology is sound, and in particular that the issue of "expection bias" has been addressed.
As for wasting time! Its only a waste to you, if you aren't getting what you want from it.
From my position, helping to expose the unreliability of sighted, subjective listening tests and the insidious "snake oil" industry that feeds off them, is always time well spent. In fact its more important that anything else being discussed here.
Last edited:
I think because the usually cited methods are very good at already removing the majority of expectation bias etc or other external factors that could affect the results. A refinement of the process would probably improve it even more but my gut feeling is as follows...
Most objectivists do not concern themselves particularly with subjective testing regardless of how well done it is. Except for at the end of when a product had been developed they'll give it a quick listen to make sure that it does sound good.
I would guess that most objectivists accept that they cannot hear beyond certain thresholds and that those thresholds are relatively easy to accomplish. I readily accept that the AK4499 is going to sound identical to the ES9018 etc but that doesn't stop me from wanting to use it and experiment with it. Half the fun for me is in the process I just happen to enjoy the listening after the process too.
I'm happy with the current status quo. I design things by the numbers and thoroughly enjoy listening to what I design. If it turns out that there is some secret sauce, that we've yet to discover, that the subjectivists have known about all along, but weren't able to effectively quantify, then marvelous. I'll incorporate that into my designs when it is figured out. It doesn't motivate me a single iota to figure out what this might be, however, because whatever it is, it can only account for a tiny fraction of an end piece of equipments performance.
It's like the last 0.0001% of a piece of equipments performance that to even have a hope of reliably hearing, and being able to identify yourself, requires a ridiculously well controlled test, that by its very nature, shows how insignificant that unmeasurable thing actually is.
Yet somehow that 0.0001% thing that equipment A posseses and B does not is apparently worth 99% of said piece of equipments worthyness to be in your system.
Some objectivists might be concerned with pushing the state of the art around quantifying subjective listening impressions, with the hope of figuring out what that last 0.0001% of performance, that actually accounts for 99% to subjectivists, is. But as it is unlikely to actually exist I'd rather put my time and energy into the 99.9999% that we are able to currently define.
Most objectivists do not concern themselves particularly with subjective testing regardless of how well done it is. Except for at the end of when a product had been developed they'll give it a quick listen to make sure that it does sound good.
I would guess that most objectivists accept that they cannot hear beyond certain thresholds and that those thresholds are relatively easy to accomplish. I readily accept that the AK4499 is going to sound identical to the ES9018 etc but that doesn't stop me from wanting to use it and experiment with it. Half the fun for me is in the process I just happen to enjoy the listening after the process too.
I'm happy with the current status quo. I design things by the numbers and thoroughly enjoy listening to what I design. If it turns out that there is some secret sauce, that we've yet to discover, that the subjectivists have known about all along, but weren't able to effectively quantify, then marvelous. I'll incorporate that into my designs when it is figured out. It doesn't motivate me a single iota to figure out what this might be, however, because whatever it is, it can only account for a tiny fraction of an end piece of equipments performance.
It's like the last 0.0001% of a piece of equipments performance that to even have a hope of reliably hearing, and being able to identify yourself, requires a ridiculously well controlled test, that by its very nature, shows how insignificant that unmeasurable thing actually is.
Yet somehow that 0.0001% thing that equipment A posseses and B does not is apparently worth 99% of said piece of equipments worthyness to be in your system.
Some objectivists might be concerned with pushing the state of the art around quantifying subjective listening impressions, with the hope of figuring out what that last 0.0001% of performance, that actually accounts for 99% to subjectivists, is. But as it is unlikely to actually exist I'd rather put my time and energy into the 99.9999% that we are able to currently define.
Good one!
What you don't or won't get is that barrows made a blanket statement and contradicted himself in one sentence twice.
1. "To anyone who has not done such tests, but just "believes" that the difference is inaudible, indeed they are just moving forward in ignorance, as their "belief" is not based on anything at all."
2. "If others perform the same tests, and hear no difference, I have no problem with that, but just suggesting that there will be no difference, with no experiences whatsoever to back that up is nothing more than total speculation based on ignorance."
3. "You can choose not to believe my results, but until you do the same testing yourself you are just choosing ignorance."
A proper scientific definition of 'expectation bias' can be found in the alphabetical list of known biases: List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia
It is a bias of experimenters such as those that study what people can hear. Its not a bias of individuals who listen. Do we agree on that?
Last edited:
Of course. Only problem is that it sounds very different. The resulting question is why do they sound different?
One reason might be shown in the figure below.
Right back at you.
How will that listening setup be done? Quick switching, slow switching, level matched or unmatched, double blind, single blind, sighted, how many trials...etc.?
Which listening experiment was this gathered from?
Can be many. Level mismatch, placebo effect, aural memory fade...etc.
You will notice that I deliberately placed "expectation bias" in quotes. That means something.
Also, your definition is not the one usually used here, and since this in not a Psychology forum that's OK.
Last edited:
I should probably mention that Evenharmonics is on my ignore list. I will usually be happy to respond to serious questions from other members.
It should concern a true objectivist that the term 'expectation bias' as often used in audio forums is completely unscientific: there is no research defining any such effect in listeners. If it doesn't concern you, it would appear that you are not an objectivist.
I'm just a realist. A logical arguement is not defined by the use of appropriate jargon.
Since I'm absolutely convinced that you understand exactly what I mean can we end this diversion?