I was not 'playing the language card' so my apologies if that was the impression I gave. I have a tendency myself to interpret statements quite literally, which sometimes leads to misunderstandings with my wife.Jakob2 said:
If hundreds of tests fail to find distinguishability then I, as a physicist, would conclude that the results almost certainly demonstrate indistinguishability. This may seem like heresy to a statistician, but physicists have a long and proud history of annoying mathematicians (e.g. Dirac delta function, which was used for some years while mathematicians said no such object could exist).
The obvious conclusion from this is that what you describe as a 'mid range suckout' is nothing to do with attenuation of a particular band of frequencies i.e. it is not mid-range and it is not a suckout. One possible exception: a very narrow band notch which Pavel's plot was too fast to spot. Unlikely, in my view.morinix said:
Ah! You need particular brands to add the right magic sauce?
'No audible difference' simply means 'nobody heard a difference in this particular test'; what is the problem with that? There are clearly those who prefer to believe there is a difference, even when the more careful the test the more often it shows no difference.mmerrill99 said:
Dave, I wish you the best of luck in trying to have a rational discussion with mmerrill about anything remotely close to DBTs or experimentals procedures at all. To summarize, he's on a personal crusade to convince the world they're "devious and misleading" and doesn't understand that a null test is not a "true negative", although it points towards an effect being smaller than the test's ability to discern (and the accumulation of such tests does point one way vs the other).
But in short, might as well find your nearest windmill and grab a horse and a lance.
Yes, agree with this as long as you are sure that the test is actually adequate to uncover the aspects you are examining - hence why the goal of the test should be stated beforehand. Are you sure & what is the goal? Is Foobar ABX & the test procedures adequate or does it not matter as long as the results are supporting a pre-established belief - in which case, it's fine by me to state "I chose to believe that there is no audible difference" rather than the assertion "there is no audible difference"
See the above answer. Both Jakob & I are asserting that home administered 'fun' Foobar ABX testing is nothing more than 'fun' & no assertions should be made from it - calling it a "test" is misleading in the extreme unless you state that it is a test of how people can fool themselves or be fooled by using the word "test"?
If by 'experimental procedure' you mean a home-run Foobar ABX test then yes, it is contrary to all known definitions that would be used in science to qualify as 'experimental procedure'. We have been over this ground so many times now & seemed to have ironed it out in a previous thread, yet all that was said & seemed to be agreed then is now shown to have been ignored & it's "beliefs as usual"
As I said, I'm fine with people stating "I chose to believe that there is no audible difference" rather than the assertion "there is no audible difference"
Calling something a "test" & talking about "experimental procedure" when it's patently obvious that neither exist in home run Foobar ABX testing is just foolishly trying to elevate inadequate tools & 'a bit of fun' to suit your beliefs
So you are suggesting a "home sighted test" instead"? This would be very scientific, indeed. People will be able to hear -200dB distortion and distinguish between 2 identical files. Harry Houdini somewhere?
Yes, John, I laugh when I hear people use the phrase "ears only" listening - demonstrates their complete lack of understanding of auditory perception & the needed care for DBT perceptual testing to have the necessary quality to be called a "test". The nocebo effect is just one such issue as you point out but hey-ho if people just stuck to saying they chose to believe there is no audible difference rather than trying to insinuate an inadequate & laughable 'bit of fun' as a valid test, then we would all be a lot happier, I suggest
Here we go again - binary thinking & falling into the trap that any perceptual "testing" is going on in either case or indeed anything scientific. It's a disservice to science & scientific thinking to assert otherwise.
I'm happy for people to report their sighted listening & agree with the original statement that such listening is simply reportage of what they perceive, no claims made - as long as the opposite is also adhered to - people who listen through Foobar ABX simple report what they perceive, no claims made.
We can then both ignore what we consider to be irrelevant reportage & continue happily with out own listening - sometimes finding we concur with the sighted listening reportage & sometimes not. I suggest that we will almost always concur with the null result from the bit-of-fun called Foobar ABX listening - it is a trap to catch those who know nothing (or care nothing) about how perception works.
I prefer to pay attention to reports of listening perceptions where I may discover something new for myself rather than pay attention to listening impressions where I know the listening is designed to not hear (or discover) anything new for myself (the ultimate echo chamber of only hearing from those with the same belief as yours)
Last edited:
Yea, pity it all has to be repeated over & over even after just a short 4 month? gap, not a 40 year gap?
Bill,
There is a difference between PA systems, sound reinforcement, lift systems and enhancement systems. They put in what most would call a PA system. Designed t o project sound, not maintain the source illusion.
There is a difference between PA systems, sound reinforcement, lift systems and enhancement systems. They put in what most would call a PA system. Designed t o project sound, not maintain the source illusion.
Didn't I just say that. Take a nice distorting tube line stage and add a $40 teflon capacitor and WOW you would have to be deaf not to hear the difference. 🙄
- Status
- Not open for further replies.