I already said my bit. I am just lurking now.
It is entertaining to watch the cadre of those trying to push the thread forward with solid arguments & real references vrs those just mentally masterbating (2 of those got SinBin for getting to sticky).
dave
It seems certain opinions are not allowed if one deems it not solid or valid....but that is just my opinion.😉
Yea, it should be fun & entertaining (so the personal attacks could be reduced) but no reason why it can't be educational as well - to-with have a read of this discussion paper (it's not an academic technical paper although it is based on something I linked to before) which touches on how we separate background from foreground sound - for instance how we 'hear through the room' or hear through the noise of tape/vinyl
"Auditory Perception: Hearing the Texture of Sounds"
The last paragraph: "Thus, at that cocktail party that seems to go on all night, the barman has to drown out your colleagues’ endless, superimposed banter to hear your request for something stronger. In doing so, he must capture the statistics of the complex background signal, collapse it into a texture, and subtract the resultant model’s predictions from the ongoing babble. Barmen are pretty good at that"
@Markw4,
Then there is no dissens. 🙂
I try, for known reasons, to avoid the term "proof" but the topic wasn´t just meant in terms of "absoluteness" but more generally about what people consider as sufficient to accept that there might be something to it (wrt audibility of an effect but of course could be the opposite means inaudibility also).
Although the discussion is meandering as usual, we had several answers to the original thread topic; in the traditional camp the normal scientific approach seems to be sufficient but there were some additional demands like "no fincancial interests involved" or "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and ; unfortunately asking for some more details wasn´t a success so far, but that might change.
It is still not clear why and when a claim should be placed in the "extraordinary" compartment.
I think i don´t understand the suggestion, because what opinion i/we should start to change if we don´t know it?
Then there is no dissens. 🙂
I try, for known reasons, to avoid the term "proof" but the topic wasn´t just meant in terms of "absoluteness" but more generally about what people consider as sufficient to accept that there might be something to it (wrt audibility of an effect but of course could be the opposite means inaudibility also).
Although the discussion is meandering as usual, we had several answers to the original thread topic; in the traditional camp the normal scientific approach seems to be sufficient but there were some additional demands like "no fincancial interests involved" or "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and ; unfortunately asking for some more details wasn´t a success so far, but that might change.
It is still not clear why and when a claim should be placed in the "extraordinary" compartment.
I think i don´t understand the suggestion, because what opinion i/we should start to change if we don´t know it?
I always wonder why some utterly subjective comparison reviews with zero evidence such as Humble Homemade Hifi is so trusted by many audiophiles. I tested some capacitors in his review, and I'm surprised to find how well my blind test impression matches his. It is much more trustful for me than any reviews with some kind of evidence in this forum.
Humble Homemade Hifi - Cap Test
Humble Homemade Hifi - Cap Test
Sometimes it's more interesting/educational to not just give stark opinion but to show the logic/evidence/research behind that opinion - gives people something to chew on & possibly expand their knowledge rather than just argue one opinion vs another
Sorry, i don´t know why you should be "assimilated" but i´d be interested to know where i have used circular logic. Be specific and i can correct it, throwing a catchphrase in does not help.
It´s a matter of logic, if you like to call it "lip service" , well it´s up to you.
A positive control is a difference that must give a positive result in a test.
This was your original sentence:
Please be more specific; when is a reference sufficiently authoritative so that you will change your prior belief? That´s not a rhetorical question.
What do you mean by "supporting this method of defining positive controls"?
I suggested to use a _sound_ _difference_ as a positive control in test for _sound_ _differences_
It´s more a certain type of lazyness; shortly after the ITU made their recommendations available for free, i began promoting the links to the various publications(means for several years now); MUSHRA and ABC/HR (the latter denotes the test protocol used described in ITU-R BS.1116) are well known methods but you even refused to invest a little effort to use a search engine and preferred to post about word dropping. That does not help either.
The thread question is asking for personal criteria, so might be kind of an opinion.
Stating something about "DBTs" or "science" as fact requires evidence.
I did miss this distinction, so my apologies. And no, it was toast after the first 100 posts (and I'm being generous).
At this point this is a highly speculative assessment, because at least my knowledge of the literature (meager as it is, let's be honest), hasn't shown anything that would give much weight to this. In an open mind, if you have some body of work that you know about (or even good search terms to look it up myself), I'll give it due respect in reading.
I do think long-term emotional response tests would be very hard to control well (or that the variance across time per individual would be quite high).
But I'd love to know what "groove and vibe" mean in specific. I took them as a very vague generic ensemble term, which means something wildly different to each individual. Not exactly the kind of stuff that makes for actional information. That's why I called them "meaningless".
Oh goodness, the "audio DBT" gambit: what exactly do you mean by that? (as if we haven't had that before where you couldn't actually produce procedures, end points/etc, as "audio DBT" is about as useful as me saying "I do science")
Anyways...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.