Audiophile CD Player? Which One? - Page 13 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #361 of 661 Old 10-19-2013, 11:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
esh516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 607
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Of course the differences are audible to you. Unfortunately, the differences all arise from the flawed way you 'test' the different items. If you tested them properly, you would no longer hear these differences and would be shocked to realise how much money you had wasted on things that don't matter. Instead, of course, of spending it on those things which DO make a big audible difference. 
Wasted money..lol..if I would not of spent it on that..my wife would have spent it on another Coach purse!
esh516 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #362 of 661 Old 10-19-2013, 12:31 PM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 641
You don't want your wife to have a nice purse? You don't save money for retirement?
FMW is offline  
post #363 of 661 Old 10-19-2013, 12:39 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,546
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 1243
Quote:
Originally Posted by esh516 View Post

How can it be flawed?
Scientifically?... Reality?
If I can hear the differences..then its NOT flawed.
Its there..how can I hear notes on music that do not exist?... The decay of cymbals..or on bass..bongo drums..you can actually hear,not just the beat of the drum..but layers and depth to how that drum beat sounds..it gives me goosebumps when I am critically listening to music that draws you in..one with the music...not just sitting there having the music just come at you..with no depth or sense of space around the instrument's.... SOME cables....DAC chips..and the combination of room setup..room treatments..excellent amplification.. And speakers..( the most critical piece of a set-up) provide high quality sound
That far exceeds any Run of the mill system with cheap or free cables.
But it obviously only matters to each of us indiviualy..what we hear..how we hear it.....it really does not matter to anyone else.
My science is my own experiences, reality...what I observe....not what somebody tells me I'm really hearing.
...and no..I do not know molly...ha ha.

 

I've explained why you can hear the differences. I am not saying you cannot hear differences. The difference you hear are caused by the way you are conducting the tests. Not by the equipment you mention.

 

What acoustic treatments have you put in place in your room? (it's not a trick question and I am not trying to 'catch you out').

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #364 of 661 Old 10-19-2013, 12:58 PM
Advanced Member
 
esh516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 607
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

You don't want your wife to have a nice purse? You don't save money for retirement?
Yes...but not one for every season!.. Or one for every pair of shoes!....and I'm not worried about retirement.
esh516 is offline  
post #365 of 661 Old 10-19-2013, 01:07 PM
Advanced Member
 
esh516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 607
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I've explained why you can hear the differences. I am not saying you cannot hear differences. The difference you hear are caused by the way you are conducting the tests. Not by the equipment you mention.

What acoustic treatments have you put in place in your room? (it's not a trick question and I am not trying to 'catch you out').
Proper speaker placement..room acoustic panels,
And my ARC graphs are excellent.
I know the room plays a major role in how you hear what comes out of the speakers.
Tests?...what testing needs to be done?
Testing could show two to be exact...reality in what I hear proves ( to me) just the opposite.
esh516 is offline  
post #366 of 661 Old 10-19-2013, 02:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
beaveav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

If I have a headache and a certain pill makes me feel better, I don't need a 'study' with 1000 people and placebos to prove that I feel better. I don't need to ABX test the pill to verify the result. I KNOW that.
It might not work for you because you are a different person.
Same for audio... You might not hear differences, but that's just you, your brain, your ears. I cannot make you hear something that you are not equipped by nature to hear. That's why 'null hypothesis' used here is just a straw-man logic. Is never the SAME experiment because the measuring tools (individuals listening) are not certified to be metrological identical.

I was hoping you'd post something like this, because it shows a complete lack of understanding of double-blind medication vs. placebo testing, just as you've demonstrated a similar misunderstanding of audio testing.

I have a chronic medical condition that comes and goes with no known reason (an autoimmune disease). There are treatments but no cures. Because it comes and goes with no known reason, the double-blind tests required before a medication gets FDA approval consistently show that about 30% of patients get better - when they're given the placebo! So in order for a drug to have proven efficacy, it must show improvements that beat that 30% baseline.

Now, there is a very closely-related condition for which a medication was tested and approved years ago. But it was never tested or approved for the condition I have. Nevertheless, many docs thought "well, hey, if it works for that condition, then maybe it will work for this condition," so they started prescribing it off label for the condition I have. It has gotten to the point that tens of thousands of patients are taking it despite it never being FDA approved.

Finally, in the last few years, several studies have looked at its efficacy for the condition I have, using thousands of patients. They found it is no better than placebo, ie, people given placebo got better 30% of the time and people given this med got better 30% of the time.

So it's a waste of money for patients.
Did the drug companies (who are making tons off this off-label use) dispute the study? No.
Do the doctors who prescribe it? Sometimes.
Do the patients who take it and swear it helps? Yes, they vehemently dispute the study and argue that the study means nothing because by gawd it's working for them and that's all that matters. They adamantly refuse to acknowledge what is so obvious - that it's working, yeah, because of the placebo effect.
kbarnes701 likes this.

For every new thing I learn, I forget two things I used to know.
beaveav is offline  
post #367 of 661 Old 10-19-2013, 03:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
SoNic67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Since you are an advocate for the existence of an audible difference, you are a far better listener for a blind test providing the results you claim. So, where are your results?
Why is it that people who agree with you are congenitally incapable of doing level matched, time synched, bias controlled tests that back up their claims?

How do YOU prove that they can't? Just because you discard those results that don't match your religion and your test subjects are biased NOT to hear differences, it doesn't make you right.
If it is only ONE result that disproves your theory, than the theory is not right. No need to mask it under a pile of random noise and averaging with a bunch of mediocre biased listeners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

Finally, in the last few years, several studies have looked at its efficacy for the condition I have, using thousands of patients. They found it is no better than placebo, ie, people given placebo got better 30% of the time and people given this med got better 30% of the time.
So in your audio double-blind tests, 30% or subjects will swear that didn't hear a difference when it might be one. Why the biased cannot be in that direction? Or they really don't hear because their brain is not trained, their ears are plugged with wax, or they listened music at 100dB when young...

Blind tests are not needed by science. Are just the law, made to protect the big pharma from liability claims. You don't have blind tests to prove gravity law.
SoNic67 is offline  
post #368 of 661 Old 10-19-2013, 03:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kiwi2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I've explained why you can hear the differences. I am not saying you cannot hear differences. The difference you hear are caused by the way you are conducting the tests. Not by the equipment you mention.

What acoustic treatments have you put in place in your room? (it's not a trick question and I am not trying to 'catch you out').

Given that you don't listen to music in a treated room or have even measured/calibrated your music system in any way... www.avsforum.com/t/1492314/question-on-bi-amping/90#post_23784011 ... I don't see how you could feel qualified discussing the finer merits of someone's music system...??
esh516 likes this.
kiwi2 is offline  
post #369 of 661 Old 10-19-2013, 03:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
beaveav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

...
So in your audio double-blind tests, 30% or subjects will swear that didn't hear a difference when it might be one. Why the biased cannot be in that direction? Or they really don't hear because their brain is not trained, their ears are plugged with wax, or they listened music at 100dB when young...

Blind tests are not needed by science. Are just the law, made to protect the big pharma from liability claims. You don't have blind tests to prove gravity law.

I don't understand the first part. Can you restate it? Multiple grammatical errors are making it hard for me to follow.

As for the second comment about blind tests not being needed by science, you use an example from physics? Are people and their perceptions involved in gravity? Is physics the only science there is in your world? Is medicine not a science to you?
CruelInventions likes this.

For every new thing I learn, I forget two things I used to know.
beaveav is offline  
post #370 of 661 Old 10-19-2013, 04:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
beaveav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

If I have a headache and a certain pill makes me feel better, I don't need a 'study' with 1000 people and placebos to prove that I feel better. I don't need to ABX test the pill to verify the result. I KNOW that.
It might not work for you because you are a different person.
Same for audio... You might not hear differences, but that's just you, your brain, your ears. I cannot make you hear something that you are not equipped by nature to hear. That's why 'null hypothesis' used here is just a straw-man logic. Is never the SAME experiment because the measuring tools (individuals listening) are not certified to be metrological identical.

If you take a pill and your headache goes away, you're making an assumption that your headache went away because you took the pill. But your assumption might be incorrect. Your headache might have gone away on its own, even if you hadn't taken the pill. You'll never know. Your headache may have gone away for any number of other reasons - the humidity or temperature changed, somebody turned a light off, you ate something. But you're assuming it went away becaue you took a pill. You can't know that with certainty. That is why placebo controlled testing is needed.
CruelInventions likes this.

For every new thing I learn, I forget two things I used to know.
beaveav is offline  
post #371 of 661 Old 10-19-2013, 04:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 4,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 166
I have a new signature to commemorate the unintentional hilarity.
kbarnes701 and dmarqueset like this.

Mourning the disappearance of the -ly suffix. Words being cut-off before they've had a chance to fully form, left incomplete, with their shoelaces untied and their zippers undone. If I quote your post (or post in your thread) without comment, please check your zipper.
CruelInventions is offline  
post #372 of 661 Old 10-19-2013, 05:25 PM
Member
 
Section 107's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 67
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

If it is only ONE result that disproves your theory, than the theory is not right.

Then where is that result?

FWIW, I'm the guy who doesn't know much who wanders onto this site for advice.

It didn't take long for me to notice that one side produces tests, facts and other evidence. The other side produces nothing. The most they ever do is question the test (without ever producing contrary evidence), or proclaim that "tests can't tell me what I hear."

Yet when it comes to advice, they are quick to recommend (often expensive) equipment based on their listening experience, i.e., "This is what you should hear when you buy this."
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

You don't have blind tests to prove gravity law.

I don't know, maybe not. But I'll bet there are some objective tests proving gravity. Where are the objective tests proving what you say?
Section 107 is offline  
post #373 of 661 Old 10-19-2013, 06:35 PM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

How do YOU prove that they can't? Just because you discard those results that don't match your religion and your test subjects are biased NOT to hear differences, it doesn't make you right.
If it is only ONE result that disproves your theory, than the theory is not right. No need to mask it under a pile of random noise and averaging with a bunch of mediocre biased listeners.
So in your audio double-blind tests, 30% or subjects will swear that didn't hear a difference when it might be one. Why the biased cannot be in that direction? Or they really don't hear because their brain is not trained, their ears are plugged with wax, or they listened music at 100dB when young...

The 10 audiophiles (people like you) we used in our listening panels would be insulted at being called mediocre. In listening tests we don't ask if they can hear a difference. We ask them to identify what is playing as A or B. Their answer is either A or B and it is either correct or incorrect. You are jousting at test procedures that do not exist.
Quote:
Blind tests are not needed by science. Are just the law, made to protect the big pharma from liability claims. You don't have blind tests to prove gravity law.

You might have them if gravity had anything to do with hearing bias and if there were two forces - gravity and force B. I can't even imagine what pharma has to do with hearing bias.
FMW is offline  
post #374 of 661 Old 10-20-2013, 03:02 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,546
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 1243
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post
 
 
Blind tests are not needed by science. 

 

That pretty much sums up the futility of trying to debate when faced with such monumental ignorance.

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #375 of 661 Old 10-20-2013, 03:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,546
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 1243
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post

I have a new signature to commemorate the unintentional hilarity.

 

"No blind tests to prove gravity". I have to say it is one of the funniest lines I have ever read on AVS. And also, one of the most revealing.

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #376 of 661 Old 10-20-2013, 03:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,546
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 1243
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I've explained why you can hear the differences. I am not saying you cannot hear differences. The difference you hear are caused by the way you are conducting the tests. Not by the equipment you mention.

What acoustic treatments have you put in place in your room? (it's not a trick question and I am not trying to 'catch you out').

Given that you don't listen to music in a treated room or have even measured/calibrated your music system in any way... www.avsforum.com/t/1492314/question-on-bi-amping/90#post_23784011 ... I don't see how you could feel qualified discussing the finer merits of someone's music system...??

 

My stereo system is what it is. The reason I feel 'qualified' as you put it is because I have a very heavily treated room, arrived at after hours of REW measurements, following extensive study of acoustic theory, in which speaker and sub placement has been carefully, and scientifically optimised, and the system calibrated with Audyssey Pro and other tools at my disposal.  Selective and out of context quoting is always the refuge of the intellectually defeated.

 

Next...

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #377 of 661 Old 10-20-2013, 03:14 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,546
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 1243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Section 107 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

If it is only ONE result that disproves your theory, than the theory is not right.

Then where is that result?

FWIW, I'm the guy who doesn't know much who wanders onto this site for advice.

It didn't take long for me to notice that one side produces tests, facts and other evidence. The other side produces nothing. The most they ever do is question the test (without ever producing contrary evidence), or proclaim that "tests can't tell me what I hear."

Yet when it comes to advice, they are quick to recommend (often expensive) equipment based on their listening experience, i.e., "This is what you should hear when you buy this."
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

You don't have blind tests to prove gravity law.

I don't know, maybe not. But I'll bet there are some objective tests proving gravity. Where are the objective tests proving what you say?

 

It's always good to read a post like yours, from someone with no axe to grind, but who is clearly capable of using intellect to sort the sensible from the nonsensical and then to draw a conclusion. You say you currently "don't know much". But you will. Because you have an open mind and the capacity to learn. Sadly, those attributes are lacking in many.

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #378 of 661 Old 10-20-2013, 03:18 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,546
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 1243
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post
 
If it is only ONE result that disproves your theory, than the theory is not right. 

 

That is a fair comment. Section 107 has reminded me I omitted to reply to it. So where is that one result that you mention? You must know where it is or you wouldn't have relied on it in your reply. Yet you provided no link to it nor any other verification of it.  Where is the result of a properly conducted double blind ABX test that disproves the 'theory'?  Note carefully the 7th and 8th words in the preceding sentence. 

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #379 of 661 Old 10-20-2013, 05:24 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,854
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 408 Post(s)
Liked: 1052
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Since you are an advocate for the existence of an audible difference, you are a far better listener for a blind test providing the results you claim. So, where are your results?
Why is it that people who agree with you are congenitally incapable of doing level matched, time synched, bias controlled tests that back up their claims?

How do YOU prove that they can't?

You've missed the point. Advocates can do DBTs just as well as the rest of us, its just that they never seem to do them.
Quote:
Just because you discard those results that don't match your religion

Never happens. Please stop libeling people that you disagree with. No matter what baseless and vile false accusations you make, we aren't dishonest. We don't do DBTs or any kind of proper listening test and then throw out the results that we disagree with.

DBTs were chosen because they are a widely accepted methodology for obtaining reliable results. They weren't chosen so that we could pick on hapless golden ears. In fact, many of use were golden ears when we chose them. We believed that any good test would prove the validity of the golden ear dogma of the day. We expected DBTs to confirm the audible differences that we thought we heard.

Unlike you, I don't sit in a vacuum making up false allegations and calling sincere hard working bright, well-educated, widely respected people liars. Last night I was at a birthday party that included the four early co-developers of ABX testing - we're still good friends after over 40 years. One is a MD, one is a well-known mainstream audio engineer of innovative products that have sold in the 100,000s and an AES Fellow, and one is a mathematician. We all agreed that we were shocked at the time at how large some measured differences were, and that nobody could or has ever heard them. The reason was that masking was not well understood at the time (late 1970s). Masking was not a total mystery, one of my friends went into his archives and found a 1954 copy of Beranek's classic Acoustics and pointed out a chapter about psychoacoustics that mentioned masking. A great deal of what needed to be learned about masking in order to make our results understandable were more widely known after Zwicker and Fastl's Psychoacoustics Facts and Models (ca. 1989). We shared our experiences that if you try to replicate current knowledge about the thresholds of hearing for various artifacts using ABX tests, you get equal or better results as you find in various standard texts and standard documents.
Quote:
and your test subjects are biased NOT to hear differences, it doesn't make you right.

If that is true, then do your homework and confirm it with legitimate tests. The golden ear community has had over 30 years to produce just one credible and reliable result that shows you to be right. Doing ABX tests or any other valid kind of bias-controlled listening test is no mystery. The gross invalidity of the sighted evaluations that golden ears treat as their Holy Grail is abundantly well known the the Scientific Community. It is against the law to use sighted evaluations in many kinds of testing where human health and life is at stake (e.g. drugs and medical procedures).

Why do you abuse honest people by promoting an illegal form or testing over one that is so widely accepted?
Jack D Ripper likes this.
arnyk is offline  
post #380 of 661 Old 10-20-2013, 09:08 AM
Member
 
Brownstone322's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 
So in your audio double-blind tests, 30% or subjects will swear that didn't hear a difference when it might be one. Why the biased cannot be in that direction?

That's not how testing is conducted. You're not asked to "swear" to anything -- you're asked to match "A" or "B" to "X" when "X" is in fact a duplicate of "A" or "B." There is no bias on anyone's part. Either you can make a proper match (above the threshold of blind guessing) or you can't. It's put up or shut up, and it's completely fair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Blind tests are not needed by science.

Are you out of your freaking mind? Do you even understand what you're saying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

If I have a headache and a certain pill makes me feel better, I don't need a 'study' with 1000 people and placebos to prove that I feel better. I don't need to ABX test the pill to verify the result. I KNOW that.

We wouldn't actually be interested in whether you simply "felt better." We'd want to know if your apparent improvement could be directly correlated to the medicinal effects of the drug. We already know that people imagine things, and we already know that people "respond" to sugar pills. But we wouldn't know if the effects of a drug are genuine and safe (and worth their cost) without the application of controlled, double-blind testing and examination of the data. Think whatever you want, but that's fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 
Same for audio... You might not hear differences, but that's just you, your brain, your ears. I cannot make you hear something that you are not equipped by nature to hear. That's why 'null hypothesis' used here is just a straw-man logic. Is never the SAME experiment because the measuring tools (individuals listening) are not certified to be metrological identical.

To the contrary. Properly conducted ABX testing will ascertain whether you (an individual) can hear differences or if you're imagining them. Level-matched ABX testing does not lie and cannot be fooled -- either you can match "A" or "B" to "X" or you can't.

When phonies like Harry Pearson and Robert Harley and John Atkinson and Michael Fremer start taking independently administered, level-matched ABX tests and consistently pass them, then I'll start taking them seriously; they've had a few decades to work on that. But that's not gonna happen, because they are exactly what I recognize them to be.
CruelInventions likes this.
Brownstone322 is offline  
post #381 of 661 Old 10-20-2013, 09:43 AM
Advanced Member
 
SoNic67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brownstone322 View Post

Are you out of your freaking mind? Do you even understand what you're saying?
Maybe if you lay off the grass you could understand it. Nothing that I can do about your impaired mental skills.
There is zero, none, zilch 'blind testing' in science. For your mind clouded by grass: They didn't build a fake LHC accelerator to see if the real one is working of if people 'imagine' things.
If it needs 'blind testing', then is not science.
ABX tests show just the bias (or lack of skills) of the participants in NOT to hear differences. Big whoop!
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

It is against the law to use sighted evaluations in many kinds of testing where human health and life is at stake (e.g. drugs and medical procedures).
Really you don't get it. That law was lobbied and made to protect the companies from lawsuits.
There is no blind testing for example in UL listings - and those are related to life safety too... If you have a fire alarm device or an electrical panel, you don't need placebo panels to know if the equipment is safe or not.
There is no blind testing in car crash testing either - and that is life safety too.
SoNic67 is offline  
post #382 of 661 Old 10-20-2013, 10:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kiwi2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

The reason I feel 'qualified' as you put it is because I have a very heavily treated room, arrived at after hours of REW measurements, following extensive study of acoustic theory, in which speaker and sub placement has been carefully, and scientifically optimised, and the system calibrated with Audyssey Pro and other tools at my disposal.

But you don't listen to music on that system and instead prefer to listen to your music on a different un-calibrated system in an un-treated room.

One would think that music would sound so much better in your careful measured and treated room that you would prefer to listen to music in there instead..?? But you don't..??

Does music not sound any good on that system or something..??
kiwi2 is offline  
post #383 of 661 Old 10-20-2013, 10:50 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,854
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 408 Post(s)
Liked: 1052
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brownstone322 View Post

Are you out of your freaking mind?

For trying to hold a reasonable conversation with some true believers in high end audiophilia lies, probably yes!
Quote:
Do you even understand what you're saying?

Lacking some people's obsession with baseless conspiracy theories, possibly not.
Quote:
Maybe if you lay off the grass you could understand it.

If by grass you mean Cannabis, then it is you who are barking up the wrong tree. If you mean something else, please explain.
Quote:
Nothing that I can do about your impaired mental skills.

That would no doubt be due your lack of ability, as amply demonstrated by virtually every post you have made on AVS. ;-)
Quote:
There is zero, none, zilch 'blind testing' in science.

Really? Ever use Google to search the web for "blind test"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment

"The French Academy of Sciences originated the first recorded blind experiments in 1784: the Academy set up a commission to investigate the claims of animal magnetism proposed by Franz Mesmer. Headed by Benjamin Franklin and Antoine Lavoisier, the commission carried out experiments asking mesmerists to identify objects that had previously been filled with "vital fluid", including trees and flasks of water. The subjects were unable to do so. The commission went on to examine claims involving the curing of "mesmerized" patients. These patients showed signs of improved health, but the commission attributed this to the fact that these patients believed they would get better - the first scientific suggestion of the now well-known placebo effect.[2]"

As they say, the rest is history!

In what alternate universe did you study science?
Quote:
For your mind clouded by grass: They didn't build a fake LHC accelerator to see if the real one is working of if people 'imagine' things.

If you were up on your reading you would know that in particle physics experiments, the object of the experiment is not people but subatomic particles. You would also know that double blind tests are primarily used when the subjects of the experiment are people. Can you put that two and two together to get four? To further clarify things, particle physics is not the only form of science in the universe. So if DBTs aren't used in particle physics experiments, it doesn't mean that they aren't used in other areas of science.
Quote:
If it needs 'blind testing', then is not science.

Wow! Let me guess - you are an ardent believer in that great science teacher Rush Limbaugh?
Quote:
ABX tests show just the bias (or lack of skills) of the participants in NOT to hear differences. Big whoop!

Right, there are no such things as thresholds of hearing so the human lack of ability to do the impossible is never of interest. I bet that on your planet you've got guys who run the mile in one minute!

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

It is against the law to use sighted evaluations in many kinds of testing where human health and life is at stake (e.g. drugs and medical procedures).
Really you don't get it. That law was lobbied and made to protect the companies from lawsuits.

Who'd have thunk, another conspiracy theory pops out from behind the facade of blind audio testing!

I'll bet you have a thousand of 'em! ;-)

Two words: Prove it!

Quote:
There is no blind testing for example in UL listings - and those are related to life safety too... If you have a fire alarm device or an electrical panel, you don't need placebo panels to know if the equipment is safe or not.

I guess you haven't noticed that UL tests apply to non-human objects, and that fire alarm and electrical panels aren't human beings with biases, perceptions, hopes and dreams.
Quote:
There is no blind testing in car crash testing either - and that is life safety too.

Again, you must think that cars are just a different kind of human being.

Oh, I get it, in your universe the movie Cars is factual! LOL!
arnyk is offline  
post #384 of 661 Old 10-20-2013, 01:23 PM
Advanced Member
 
esh516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 607
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Good stink bud and good music goes together like pancakes n syrup...of course its gonna sound better..and you may hear things that may or may not be there..its the senses of the mind at its best...but there's no science involved .
esh516 is offline  
post #385 of 661 Old 10-20-2013, 01:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
esh516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 607
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 43
That's what I have heard...NOT experinced!
esh516 is offline  
post #386 of 661 Old 10-20-2013, 03:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
beaveav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Maybe if you lay off the grass you could understand it. Nothing that I can do about your impaired mental skills.
There is zero, none, zilch 'blind testing' in science. For your mind clouded by grass: They didn't build a fake LHC accelerator to see if the real one is working of if people 'imagine' things.
If it needs 'blind testing', then is not science.
ABX tests show just the bias (or lack of skills) of the participants in NOT to hear differences. Big whoop!
Really you don't get it. That law was lobbied and made to protect the companies from lawsuits.
There is no blind testing for example in UL listings - and those are related to life safety too... If you have a fire alarm device or an electrical panel, you don't need placebo panels to know if the equipment is safe or not.
There is no blind testing in car crash testing either - and that is life safety too.

Why then is the same test methodology used on to assess efficacy of medications that have been around for decades and are not patented by any company?
When aspirin is tested for efficacy in preventing colon cancer, is the methodology there to protect aspirin? Does it have a tender ego or something?

For every new thing I learn, I forget two things I used to know.
beaveav is offline  
post #387 of 661 Old 10-20-2013, 03:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
SoNic67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

When aspirin is tested for efficacy in preventing colon cancer, is the methodology there to protect aspirin? Does it have a tender ego or something?
Did I say that is to protect the drugs? I said manufacturers. They now can manipulate the 'data' and in case that someone sue them that a certain drug didn't work, they say 'we tested per FDA methodology, see the statistical results'. The Pharma Co never ever say that a drug will work. They have it in small prints that even after their testing, it might not work, they might still be wrong.
You, on other hand, say that your statistical ABX tests are POSITIVELY proving the truth and no other tests can be valid. See the difference?
SoNic67 is offline  
post #388 of 661 Old 10-20-2013, 03:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
beaveav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Did I say that is to protect the drugs? I said manufacturers. They now can manipulate the 'data' and in case that someone sue them that a certain drug didn't work, they say 'we tested per FDA methodology, see the statistical results'. The Pharma Co never ever say that a drug will work. They have it in small prints that even after their testing, it might not work, they might still be wrong.
You, on other hand, say that your statistical ABX tests are POSITIVELY proving the truth and no other tests can be valid. See the difference?

You missed the point, as usual. It's aspirin. It's cheap. It's long past its patent days. What manufacturer has any monetary interest in whether or not aspirin can prevent colon cancer? The studies for aspirin are not being done by manufacturers and are not being financially supported by manufacturers. You say that this testing is done to protect manufacturers, yet I just gave you an example of the same test methodology being employed in a situation where no manufacturer has any vested interest whatsoever. "See the difference?"

Pharma companies never ever say that a drug will work because the studies show that the drug doesn't work for 100% of people. That is shown in the placebo-controlled double-blind studies, where even the best meds and the easiest conditions to treat give results less than 100%. "See the difference?"

For every new thing I learn, I forget two things I used to know.
beaveav is offline  
post #389 of 661 Old 10-21-2013, 03:52 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,854
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 408 Post(s)
Liked: 1052
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Did I say that is to protect the drugs? I said manufacturers.

Yes, properly applying DBTs to drug development in a sense protect the manufacturers from probable legal action by the FDA for malpractice of a pretty clear kind. What's wrong with that? Are you a libertarian who wants to remove all laws?
Quote:
They now can manipulate the 'data' and in case that someone sue them that a certain drug didn't work, they say 'we tested per FDA methodology, see the statistical results'.

They could always manipulate whatever data was required to support their claims. A sufficiently dishonest individual who twists the facts can always try to get away with this sort of thing. They often succeed.

However, bias does not require that people be dishonest. It is wired into our perceptions, and it can be very helpful in many circumstances. It's just not helpful when judging performance and quality in many areas of audio, or the effectiveness of drugs. These are similar problems.

You've seemingly missed the point that DBTs, if done in accordance with standards that can be stipulated and enforced remove an obvious form of manipulation of the data, namely the bias of the people running and participating in the tests.

In a similar fashion, audio DBTs remove the kind of manipulation that is practiced by possibly well-meaning but misinformed high end manufacturers, reviewers, dealers, and naive enthusiasts who promote audio snake oil, such as DACs with R-2R converters as if they were something other than obsolete technology with no audible benefits.

I'm wondering what benefit you hope to obtain from making up and telling false and harmful stories about people who are successfully bringing order and reliability to audio? You seem to have a general problem with this as you also seem to be doing it to drug manufacturers, who are generally not crooks. Like many I take some pretty powerful drugs to control my heart's tendency to pump blood too hard. These drugs help overcome clear and present dangers called "Brain Hemorrhage" and "Stroke". Ever have one? Your ranting against reliable drug testing would take us back to the days of medicine shows and magic elixirs.

It is probably no coincidence that I raised two children who obtained PhDs and now work in medical research. They were raised in a home where the best modern science was applied wherever it fit. They watched ABX grow from a vague idea to one of the most powerful concepts in audio - one that has enabled the development of very helpful and useful products for enjoying music everywhere.
Jack D Ripper likes this.
arnyk is offline  
post #390 of 661 Old 10-21-2013, 04:14 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,854
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 408 Post(s)
Liked: 1052
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post


You, on other hand, say that your statistical ABX tests are POSITIVELY proving the truth and no other tests can be valid. See the difference?

The above is a false claim and typical of your hostile misrepresentations of the true facts.

The test has to fit the item being tested and they as fallible as the people conducting them.

In many cases no positive truth is proven. Instead, we gather evidence about a negative truth, such as the ineffectiveness of some hyper-expensive audio gear at improving sound quality.

Your post's typical methodology for distracting people from helpful information appears to be to turn the actual facts into hyperbole, and then try to manipulate the hyperbole to fit your agenda.

The statement that "no other tests can be valid" is another example of the same kind of deceptive statement. There are many audio testing methodologies, some that don't even use formal DBTs, that can and have provide useful results.

The one thing that we do know is that a single common evaluation methodology, the sighted, non-level matched, slow-switched often non-comparison based sighted evaluation can be highly unreliable in those cases where the audible differences are small or non-existent.

That's just one of many possible evaluation strategies, and far from a justification for the claim that "...no other tests can be valid".

Why do you keep posting these distracting and unhelpful false claims?

Do you not know any better?

Are you mentally incapable of accurately recounting the actual facts?
arnyk is offline  
Reply CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports

Tags
Oppo Bdp 95 Blu Ray Player , Samsung Bd D5100 Blu Ray Disc Player
Gear in this thread

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off