Hi,
Guess you don't mind then if we view you as a closed mind self proclaimed scientist ?
Prejudice, one way or the other, is a psychological state of mind not befitting the true scientist IMHO.
Cheers,😉
Guess you don't mind then if we view you as a closed mind self proclaimed scientist ?
Prejudice, one way or the other, is a psychological state of mind not befitting the true scientist IMHO.
Cheers,😉
Clarification
Schematic, are you saying a subjective DBT test is "factual" and is "proof"? If not, how would you rate a subjective DBT test?
Must one get a DBT test to be truthful?
Wanting to get some clarification.
Thanks.
Schematic, are you saying a subjective DBT test is "factual" and is "proof"? If not, how would you rate a subjective DBT test?
Must one get a DBT test to be truthful?
Wanting to get some clarification.
Thanks.
Hi,
Nah...That alone won't do it.
What may not help you hearing differences other than your attitude is a system that lack sufficient resolution to throw these up.
Rest assured, I know of a lot of people that can't tell a Tuborg from a Carlsberg beer either.
Cheers, 😉
Nah...That alone won't do it.
What may not help you hearing differences other than your attitude is a system that lack sufficient resolution to throw these up.
Rest assured, I know of a lot of people that can't tell a Tuborg from a Carlsberg beer either.
Cheers, 😉
fdegrove said:
I am not self-proclaimed. Ask anyone. On the other hand, I suppose I should ask you what you consider a scientist; I don't have any official papers if that's what you mean. But I have the brain, and with any luck, the paperwork will come a few years down the road.
A double-blind test is necessary because if the listener knew which cable was being used at the time, his preconcieved impressions of them will color the results.
Tim
Kindergarten Level Lesson...........
With experience one can learn to not care in the slightest about cable colour, form etc, and concentrate on the listening only.
When there is no financial or otherwise attachment to the equipment under test, this is easy and elementary and becomes habit.
Eric.
No not by definition, and this is listener dependant.Sch3mat1c said:
With experience one can learn to not care in the slightest about cable colour, form etc, and concentrate on the listening only.
When there is no financial or otherwise attachment to the equipment under test, this is easy and elementary and becomes habit.
Eric.
Are you addressing me?
"A double-blind test is necessary because if the listener knew which cable was being used at the time, his preconcieved impressions of them will color the results."
Are you addressing me? If so you didn't read and answer my questions, below.
"Schematic, are you saying a subjective DBT test is "factual" and is "proof"? If not, how would you rate a subjective DBT test?
Must one get a DBT test to be truthful?
Wanting to get some clarification."
If you were addressing someone else, my apologies Schematic.
Thanks.
"A double-blind test is necessary because if the listener knew which cable was being used at the time, his preconcieved impressions of them will color the results."
Are you addressing me? If so you didn't read and answer my questions, below.
"Schematic, are you saying a subjective DBT test is "factual" and is "proof"? If not, how would you rate a subjective DBT test?
Must one get a DBT test to be truthful?
Wanting to get some clarification."
If you were addressing someone else, my apologies Schematic.
Thanks.
Yes, I was, and I'm not sure what you meant by subjective, so I ignored that part.
Lesse.. I think I know what you're talking about... well why wouldn't it be factual?
Tim
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Lesse.. I think I know what you're talking about... well why wouldn't it be factual?
Tim
More info.
I have heard it called subjective because, from what I have heard and read at other sites, one doesn't actually physically measure anything.
It is responses by the subjects, to either hearing a difference or not hearing a difference. As such there isn't any concrete measurements, just answers from the subjects.
Secondly, do the scientists actually call their results from these particular audio tests "facts", or "proof"?
My initial question was if the results were not 100% reliable, how reliable would be the info be?
Thanks.
I have heard it called subjective because, from what I have heard and read at other sites, one doesn't actually physically measure anything.
It is responses by the subjects, to either hearing a difference or not hearing a difference. As such there isn't any concrete measurements, just answers from the subjects.
Secondly, do the scientists actually call their results from these particular audio tests "facts", or "proof"?
My initial question was if the results were not 100% reliable, how reliable would be the info be?
Thanks.
Sch3mat1c said:
The brain is involved during a DBT. By your own logic, why does this fact fail to invalidate the results of the DBT?
Have you considered that it may be impossible to devise a test (sighted or blind) in which the brain does not influence the results? Nature is under no obligation to cooperate with our desire to understand it.
jeff mai said:
The brain only knows what it's been told (or can deduce).. by not knowing which is connected during the testing, it cannot come to such conclusions. This is the basis of a DBT, and should've been implicit when I mentioned it.
Tim
Sch3mat1c said:
Listening to discern differences during a test and listening to music are two entirely different sorts of activities.
With different parts of the brain "switched on" for these activities, how can you be sure that the DBT isn't less sensitive in absolute terms?
If what the brain has been told *always* accounts for sonic preference in cases where science dictates we can't hear a true difference, why is it that in many cases this preference runs counter to very strong prior expectation?
No sweeping these concerns under the rug, now. I want to hear the scientific explanation.
My experience has caused me to come up with a formula:
The more passionate of a position a person takes the “All that audiophile speaker cables, capacitors, tubes and stuff is a bunch of nonsense and snake oil” is inversely proportional to the likelihood that they have ever even tried to experience these ideas first hand.
They are happy to sit on their college text books or some other trusted authority that agrees with their prejudice. Remember prejudice means to PRE-JUDGE.
My suggestion: Go to the local hi-fi store that sells your suspected snake oil. Tell the guy you are skeptical and ask if they could demonstrate the product. Do not argue with the guy, just sit down and say to the guy, “OK. You show me.” Most people who work in high end stores are passionate about their job and love the opportunity to make a convert. Do be a nice guy and do not expect a proper demonstration on a busy Saturday afternoon.
Sch3mat1c, just what have you tried with respect to first hand (ear) testing?
Some people love to clutch onto the Double Blind type of testing. They feel that it is the most pure and accurate way of testing. The trouble is the extra effort of adding the second blind is not always useful. In other words: The second blind complicates the test more than needed. Unless you take the position that the second blind is “always better to have.” I do not.
The 2 reasons you may wish to double blind.
a) They person who is evaluating may be required to add some opinion or non-objective evaluation of results.
b) The person adminstering the test may some how influence the test.
Example: A test to determine if subject A can tell if he is listening to a system that is wired with Radio Shack 16G Zip cord or $100.00/foot exotic audiophile speaker cable. (I know more detail could be added to this example, please go with it)
Either he identifies which cable is used in significant number of trials or he does not. There is no objective evaluation of results (x number correct, y number incorrect) A test could be devised to keep out any rational possibility test amdinistator influence.
Aud_Mot
The more passionate of a position a person takes the “All that audiophile speaker cables, capacitors, tubes and stuff is a bunch of nonsense and snake oil” is inversely proportional to the likelihood that they have ever even tried to experience these ideas first hand.
They are happy to sit on their college text books or some other trusted authority that agrees with their prejudice. Remember prejudice means to PRE-JUDGE.
My suggestion: Go to the local hi-fi store that sells your suspected snake oil. Tell the guy you are skeptical and ask if they could demonstrate the product. Do not argue with the guy, just sit down and say to the guy, “OK. You show me.” Most people who work in high end stores are passionate about their job and love the opportunity to make a convert. Do be a nice guy and do not expect a proper demonstration on a busy Saturday afternoon.
Sch3mat1c, just what have you tried with respect to first hand (ear) testing?
Some people love to clutch onto the Double Blind type of testing. They feel that it is the most pure and accurate way of testing. The trouble is the extra effort of adding the second blind is not always useful. In other words: The second blind complicates the test more than needed. Unless you take the position that the second blind is “always better to have.” I do not.
The 2 reasons you may wish to double blind.
a) They person who is evaluating may be required to add some opinion or non-objective evaluation of results.
b) The person adminstering the test may some how influence the test.
Example: A test to determine if subject A can tell if he is listening to a system that is wired with Radio Shack 16G Zip cord or $100.00/foot exotic audiophile speaker cable. (I know more detail could be added to this example, please go with it)
Either he identifies which cable is used in significant number of trials or he does not. There is no objective evaluation of results (x number correct, y number incorrect) A test could be devised to keep out any rational possibility test amdinistator influence.
Aud_Mot
- Status
- Not open for further replies.