Originally Posted by jacksonian
This is cracking me up. The chorus of "but theoretically it should be better, so it must be" is overwhelming...But it won't change the minds of any of the "golden eyes" here. People will continue to let the math influence their perception...It doesn't matter how many tests you do to show that the differences are extremely slight to imperceptible
The irony here is how placebo works, and how we as humans justify our "perception" by whatever paradigm best applies. Some posters have brought the issue of golden ears in audio, but the interesting thing is that it is operating in a diametrically opposed manner from the statements in this thread, yet having the same effect.
The arguments against the findings here:
1. The conditions were not scientific enough
2. Too many variables
3. People are letting the math affect their perception
4. If you change the conditions and use more mediocre FP, then it would show
5. The smoothness in the quality of the image would show
6. I know I would see the difference if I were there
7. Most people cannot tell the difference between great & mediocre systems
8. Many people have said they have seen a difference, so it must be factored in
Now lets consider Audio:
1. The conditions are not realistic, too scientific
2. You have to make ALL the changes in cables (even though they claim major differences with only one change)
3. People are letting the math affect their perception (but with an opposite effect, making them think there is no difference)
4. You are not using the very best equipment. The differences would surely show with the absolute best
5. The smoothness of the sound is unmistakeable
6. If I were there, I would have heard the difference
7. Most people cannot tell the difference between two great cables (amps, CD players, etc.), it takes a true golden ear.
8. Many people have said they hear a difference, so the science must consider those experiences as facts when arriving at any conclusions.
Notice how the paradigm used changes according to the justification required:
1. The conditions have to approach lab quality; the conditions must MIMIC my home (virtually impossible tasks to accomplish at both ends, since lab conditions are expensive, and home conditions differ virtually all the time
2. You must change only one variable at time to eliminate confounding variables; you must make all the cable changes at once to create the dramatic change (despite prior claims of easy differentiation with the change of only 1 power cord).
3. (This is one is neat) Math is deluding you into hearing a difference; math is deluding you into not hearing a difference.
4. You are using incredible equipment; obviously the findings will be minimized. You are using mediocre equipment (even though they cost in the tens of thousands and generally well regarded), obviously the differences are being swamped by something in the chain.
Now the subjective realm, the arguments are designed to close dialogue since you cannot deny personal experience.
5. It is smoother with item x
6. I would have heard/seen it (based on? You weren't there, how do you know, because you do of course)
7. Just because you used mediocre testers, it does not mean your findings are valid. Our golden senses would have confounded your conclusions. Lost in this argument is that people are measuring differences, and with a little training golden senses need not apply. In fact, golden senses frequently fail because they are looking for the wrong things (some Paulinian revelation as opposed to minor differences).
NOTE: Just because one can teach an individual to differentiate, it does not mean that they are good arbiters of quality, just that they can differentiate between products. This is not the same argument being proffered by the individuals with golden senses, whose concern seemingly focuses on being able to determine greatness.
8. (And finally, the obvious argument that can disprove all science) Seeing that X number of people have experienced the difference, and spent thousands of dollars to obtain that difference, there must obviously be a difference. So science must take those experiences as facts adjust its scientific conclusions accordingly. Clearly, the best argument of the golden realm since it is able to co-opt science into its realm of perception.
Edit: Forgot this one "I'd like to see this test repeated using resolution test wedges", the converse in audio is, "why use non musical references, I don't listen to pink noise when I sit down to listen to my system"
I wonder where I keep my asbestos these days?