|
|
Post by novisnick on Dec 29, 2016 15:13:57 GMT -5
So, is double-blind testing completely worthless ? No I did not read this thread. You saved yourself hours of time by not reading it. Those that think it was worthless still do and those that find merit still do. MAYBE the most honest and intelligent statement in the whole thread!  |
|
|
|
Post by Percussionista on Dec 29, 2016 15:42:41 GMT -5
[quote author=" Boomzilla " such tests so seldom show any difference at all" Precisely why I consider them invaluable, particularly with regard to dispelling myths about wires. Billl "dispelling myths about wires" I have heard differences in wires!! Gact! And could tell you which ones the were! ! Sorry to pop your bubble 🎈! Respectfully, Im not getting into this pissing match! Thank you. I have never attempted to see if I could discern any differences between wires but there was some discussion on Monoprice's web pages for their bulk speaker cable that gives their impedance per foot and suggestions to stay below a certain amount of added impedance to the full speaker load - i.e., be careful how fine a gauge you pick. I have no idea to what extent such small extra load would change the output but certainly at some point there should be some audible change, even if subtle. My SWAG is that for the most part such extra impedance from anything but the worst skinny long-run cables will have little effect on the sound, but why squeeze those poor electrons more than needed ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Dec 29, 2016 17:43:28 GMT -5
Just be honest with yourself and your abilities and be willing to accept what the test tells you either way. I don't know about you, but... to me, being honest with myself also includes my being willing to reject an unscientific substitute for a scientific test. Just sayin'... |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Dec 29, 2016 17:46:22 GMT -5
So, is double-blind testing completely worthless ? No I did not read this thread. It depends. |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Dec 29, 2016 17:51:31 GMT -5
So, is double-blind testing completely worthless ? No I did not read this thread. It depends. You spend enough time here and almost everything that is discussed here depends. I kinda figured but only had one eye open to this. Press on. |
|
|
|
Post by sahmen on Dec 29, 2016 18:14:32 GMT -5
Just be honest with yourself and your abilities and be willing to accept what the test tells you either way. I don't know about you, but... to me, being honest with myself also includes my being willing to reject an unscientific substitute for a scientific test. Just sayin'... How about being willing to reject a so-called "scientific test" in favor of a non-scientific substitute, when the claims of science become overreaching? (E.G. When the "science" says that the DAC, Amp, speaker, or headphone does not measure "correctly," and therefore, it should not sound pleasing to you, even if it does please your ears, not to mention your heart?... And this is just a hypothetical scenario, but it does occur in this hobby) |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 29, 2016 18:38:49 GMT -5
Science deals in FACTS.... therefore, other than simply being incorrect, science cannot be "wrong".
If the test was done correctly, then it cannot "disagree with reality" - however your interpretation could be flawed - or the test protocol could have failed to test the right things. HOWEVER, facts are facts... and are not feelings or opinions. So, while science can tell you which DAC is more accurate, it cannot tell you which one you LIKE better, nor should it. There can also be situations where science may show that two DACs are equally inaccurate, but in different ways, in which case it's back to deciding which flaws you like the most (or dislike the least). SO that's right back to your opinion and your personal preference. Personally, I listen with my brain, using my ears as sensors. My heart just pumps blood around my body. As I see it, the problems arise when people are unable or unwilling to differentiate feelings and opinions from facts. I have no problem with anyone who says: "I don't care how accurate my DAC is; that isn't my top priority; I just like the way this one sounds." HOWEVER, I DO have a problem when someone loudly declares that THEY DO IN FACT WANT THE MOST ACCURATE DAC.... Then proceeds to argue that the one they like for some other reason, even though it isn't accurate at all, "really is the most accurate - so your tests must be wrong". The problem, as I see it, is that many audiophiles are unwilling to admit that they simply LIKE something, even though it doesn't measure very well. So, instead of just admitting that they LIKE the particular sort of distortion it makes, they argue endlessly trying to convince other people - and probably themselves - that this isn't what's going on. Tube amps make distortion. By every measure they produce more of almost every audible form of distortion than good solid state amps. Yet people still like them. And Rembrandt NEVER painted a picture that is as accurate as one I can take with my Nikon D800 - but people still like them. (However, if you were to argue that they were more technically accurate - then you would be wrong.) There's also the little matter of "scale and perspective". Do different interconnect cables sound different? Well, they most certainly do MEASURE a TINY bit different. Therefore we can't rule out that somebody, under some circumstance, might be able to hear a difference. But the acoustics of my room also change when I wear a cotton shirt or a Dacron one..... And the frequency response changes when it's a few percent more humid (heavy dense air absorbs high frequencies, and the characteristics of the carpet change as well). So the question becomes whether it can possibly be worth $200 to buy an interconnect that, AT MOST, makes less difference than the shirt you're wearing? Or a new power cable that absolutely positively makes less difference than the hawk perched on the power line in front of your neighbor's house. How come I hear plenty of heated discussions about speaker cables, but none about how flannel shirts damp the sound, while cotton t-shirts clarify it? And none at all about keeping the birds off of your power transformer? The reality is that the shirt you're wearing almost certainly makes a BIGGER difference than the speaker cables you're using. Could the answer be simply that nobody's spent a lot of money selling the virtues of "audiophile t-shirts" (yet)? I don't know about you, but... to me, being honest with myself also includes my being willing to reject an unscientific substitute for a scientific test. Just sayin'... How about being willing to reject a so-called "scientific test" in favor of a non-scientific substitute, when the claims of science become overreaching? (E.G. When the "science" says that the DAC, Amp, speaker, or headphone does not measure "correctly," and therefore, it should not sound pleasing to you, even if it does please your ears, not to mention your heart?... And this is just a hypothetical scenario, but it does occur in this hobby) |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 29, 2016 18:44:01 GMT -5
Is it just me, or does that guy look more like Colonel Sanders? .......... To me, it's a little bit like if someone were to start a thread entitled: "Why Santa Claus is absolutely positively real......" .......... you're not going to convince me that there's really a jolly fat fellow riding around on a flying sled. Sorry Keith but I have to set you straight here about Santa Claus. He is in fact absolutely positively real! I can prove it. I'm currently here in Sendai Japan and I'll post a photo below of Santa Craus. When I was young (5-10) I had a friend Russell who lived down the alley and several houses on the other side. His father was a pharmacist/drug store owner and reasonably well off. Our family was quite poor. At Christmas I would get a few presents from family and maybe one or two from Santa. When I was down at his house I would see maybe 25 or more presents for Russell just from Santa. Fortunately I never concluded that Santa didn't like me near as much as Russell, maybe I had just been a bad boy more often. Anyway, when I was about 7 or so Russell and I had a very serious discussion about Santa. Russell said Santa wasn't real. I knew he was in fact real and I explained why. I told Russell that no ones parents could possibly afford all the presents they gave him that were supposedly from Santa, so therefore they had to be from Santa. To this day my logic continues to be unequivocally correct!  |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Dec 29, 2016 18:44:36 GMT -5
You spend enough time here and almost everything that is discussed here depends. I kinda figured but only had one eye open to this. Press on. In real psychoacoustics research it is the gold standard. But a lot of people either cannot understand what it's about or they simply refuse to understand it so the iron pyrite still often prevails because their consistently wiping actual science under the carpet is still something that makes them feel really very comfortable. |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,494
|
Post by DYohn on Dec 29, 2016 18:48:47 GMT -5
I got your double blind test RIGHT HERE!
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Dec 29, 2016 18:58:02 GMT -5
Science deals in FACTS.... therefore, other than simply being incorrect, science cannot be "wrong".
If the test was done correctly, then it cannot "disagree with reality" - however your interpretation could be flawed - or the test protocol could have failed to test the right things. HOWEVER, facts are facts... and are not feelings or opinions. So, while science can tell you which DAC is more accurate, it cannot tell you which one you LIKE better, nor should it. There can also be situations where science may show that two DACs are equally inaccurate, but in different ways, in which case it's back to deciding which flaws you like the most (or dislike the least). SO that's right back to your opinion and your personal preference. Personally, I listen with my brain, using my ears as sensors. My heart just pumps blood around my body. As I see it, the problems arise when people are unable or unwilling to differentiate feelings and opinions from facts. I have no problem with anyone who says: "I don't care how accurate my DAC is; that isn't my top priority; I just like the way this one sounds." HOWEVER, I DO have a problem when someone loudly declares that THEY DO IN FACT WANT THE MOST ACCURATE DAC.... Then proceeds to argue that the one they like for some other reason, even though it isn't accurate at all, "really is the most accurate - so your tests must be wrong". The problem, as I see it, is that many audiophiles are unwilling to admit that they simply LIKE something, even though it doesn't measure very well. So, instead of just admitting that they LIKE the particular sort of distortion it makes, they argue endlessly trying to convince other people - and probably themselves - that this isn't what's going on. Tube amps make distortion. By every measure they produce more of almost every audible form of distortion than good solid state amps. Yet people still like them. And Rembrandt NEVER painted a picture that is as accurate as one I can take with my Nikon D800 - but people still like them. (However, if you were to argue that they were more technically accurate - then you would be wrong.) There's also the little matter of "scale and perspective". Do different interconnect cables sound different? Well, they most certainly do MEASURE a TINY bit different. Therefore we can't rule out that somebody, under some circumstance, might be able to hear a difference. But the acoustics of my room also change when I wear a cotton shirt or a Dacron one..... And the frequency response changes when it's a few percent more humid (heavy dense air absorbs high frequencies, and the characteristics of the carpet change as well). So the question becomes whether it can possibly be worth $200 to buy an interconnect that, AT MOST, makes less difference than the shirt you're wearing? Or a new power cable that absolutely positively makes less difference than the hawk perched on the power line in front of your neighbor's house. How come I hear plenty of heated discussions about speaker cables, but none about how flannel shirts damp the sound, while cotton t-shirts clarify it? And none at all about keeping the birds off of your power transformer? The reality is that the shirt you're wearing almost certainly makes a BIGGER difference than the speaker cables you're using. Could the answer be simply that nobody's spent a lot of money selling the virtues of "audiophile t-shirts" (yet)? How about being willing to reject a so-called "scientific test" in favor of a non-scientific substitute, when the claims of science become overreaching? (E.G. When the "science" says that the DAC, Amp, speaker, or headphone does not measure "correctly," and therefore, it should not sound pleasing to you, even if it does please your ears, not to mention your heart?... And this is just a hypothetical scenario, but it does occur in this hobby) The part of science we call Boolean algebra deals in facts. In the part of science we call psycoacoustics, however, each advancement usually creates more questions than it provides answers. Science is not about black and white. Its goal is to reduce what is unknown or not fully understood, and to get a handle on whether our conclusions are still correct. |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Dec 29, 2016 19:02:45 GMT -5
You spend enough time here and almost everything that is discussed here depends. I kinda figured but only had one eye open to this. Press on. In real psychoacoustics research it is the gold standard. But a lot of people either cannot understand what it's about or they simply refuse to understand it so the iron pyrite still often prevails because their consistently wiping actual science under the carpet is still something that makes them feel really very comfortable. Black magic mumbo jumbo or scary real, don't matter to me. I'm dialed in and jamming to good tunes. Never liked to loose sight of things so the whole blindfold thing is not how I get my groove on. I just turn it on and let my ears listen. If I like it, I like it. I always like it.  |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Dec 29, 2016 19:04:11 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2016 19:27:46 GMT -5
In real psychoacoustics research it is the gold standard. But a lot of people either cannot understand what it's about or they simply refuse to understand it so the iron pyrite still often prevails because their consistently wiping actual science under the carpet is still something that makes them feel really very comfortable. That's why in my younger days I used to spend lots of time watching: Mystery Science Theater 3000
|
|
|
|
Post by Percussionista on Dec 29, 2016 20:04:57 GMT -5
I guess my cotton flannel shirts must be somewhere in the middle; don't have any wool flannels. ... How come I hear plenty of heated discussions about speaker cables, but none about how flannel shirts damp the sound, while cotton t-shirts clarify it... |
|
|
|
Post by sahmen on Dec 29, 2016 20:19:28 GMT -5
Personally, I listen with my brain, using my ears as sensors. My heart just pumps blood around my body. Hey! I meant the other heart, the one that sends and receives Valentines, appreciates excellent wine, romantic music, and fine dining, with great company.  Are you saying this other heart can't hear the difference? |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Dec 29, 2016 20:48:59 GMT -5
So, is double-blind testing completely worthless ? No I did not read this thread. It depends. That's exactly right, that's what we need for this thread - Depends.  |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,098
|
Post by klinemj on Dec 29, 2016 21:09:20 GMT -5
(insert prior discussion of bias here...rinse, repeat,...)
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 29, 2016 21:21:43 GMT -5
Science deals in FACTS.... therefore, other than simply being incorrect, science cannot be "wrong".
If the test was done correctly, then it cannot "disagree with reality" - however your interpretation could be flawed - or the test protocol could have failed to test the right things. HOWEVER, facts are facts... and are not feelings or opinions. So, while science can tell you which DAC is more accurate, it cannot tell you which one you LIKE better, nor should it. There can also be situations where science may show that two DACs are equally inaccurate, but in different ways, in which case it's back to deciding which flaws you like the most (or dislike the least). SO that's right back to your opinion and your personal preference. Personally, I listen with my brain, using my ears as sensors. My heart just pumps blood around my body. As I see it, the problems arise when people are unable or unwilling to differentiate feelings and opinions from facts. I have no problem with anyone who says: "I don't care how accurate my DAC is; that isn't my top priority; I just like the way this one sounds." HOWEVER, I DO have a problem when someone loudly declares that THEY DO IN FACT WANT THE MOST ACCURATE DAC.... Then proceeds to argue that the one they like for some other reason, even though it isn't accurate at all, "really is the most accurate - so your tests must be wrong". The problem, as I see it, is that many audiophiles are unwilling to admit that they simply LIKE something, even though it doesn't measure very well. So, instead of just admitting that they LIKE the particular sort of distortion it makes, they argue endlessly trying to convince other people - and probably themselves - that this isn't what's going on. Tube amps make distortion. By every measure they produce more of almost every audible form of distortion than good solid state amps. Yet people still like them. And Rembrandt NEVER painted a picture that is as accurate as one I can take with my Nikon D800 - but people still like them. (However, if you were to argue that they were more technically accurate - then you would be wrong.) There's also the little matter of "scale and perspective". Do different interconnect cables sound different? Well, they most certainly do MEASURE a TINY bit different. Therefore we can't rule out that somebody, under some circumstance, might be able to hear a difference. But the acoustics of my room also change when I wear a cotton shirt or a Dacron one..... And the frequency response changes when it's a few percent more humid (heavy dense air absorbs high frequencies, and the characteristics of the carpet change as well). So the question becomes whether it can possibly be worth $200 to buy an interconnect that, AT MOST, makes less difference than the shirt you're wearing? Or a new power cable that absolutely positively makes less difference than the hawk perched on the power line in front of your neighbor's house. How come I hear plenty of heated discussions about speaker cables, but none about how flannel shirts damp the sound, while cotton t-shirts clarify it? And none at all about keeping the birds off of your power transformer? The reality is that the shirt you're wearing almost certainly makes a BIGGER difference than the speaker cables you're using. Could the answer be simply that nobody's spent a lot of money selling the virtues of "audiophile t-shirts" (yet)? How about being willing to reject a so-called "scientific test" in favor of a non-scientific substitute, when the claims of science become overreaching? (E.G. When the "science" says that the DAC, Amp, speaker, or headphone does not measure "correctly," and therefore, it should not sound pleasing to you, even if it does please your ears, not to mention your heart?... And this is just a hypothetical scenario, but it does occur in this hobby) I've been wondering a really long time, do you get paid by the word? I do appreciate your explanations, however. ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 29, 2016 21:23:50 GMT -5
(insert prior discussion of bias here...rinse, repeat,...) And here I was, I thought we were about to make a breakthrough! Now, let us talk about 7 breakthrough medications of 2016! /today I learned it's "Depend" and not "DependS". Wow, now I did learn something from this thread! Thanks guys! |
|
