Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Proposal to ban posts that question validity of DBT from Science Forum
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Proposal to ban posts that question validity of DBT from Science Forum - Page 3

post #31 of 89
The problem with DBT or ABX is that it can only be used to demonstrate the existence of a difference.

If under a DBT, a piece of equipment is recognizable, it shows that under those conditions, that piece of equipment introduces an audible difference.

However, the arguments of the people against DBT are true, it's stressing, people have difficulty in identifying even real differences (eg. with different files), and sound memory is bad in humans... The absence shows difference merely shows the public was not able to differentiate equipment under those circumstances.

Reaching what audiophiles call "the relaxed listening environment and time" needed to really appreciate a component requires more money and time than anyone would want to spare. A DBT over several months? no way.

Until then, the only objective data we have is measurements, if people like it and it measures well, there is every chance that it's really good.
post #32 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG POPPA View Post
I can care less about DBX. But if it floats someones boat. Good for them. Don't care enough to want to ban it. I will just go back to listening to music.
^ Like it or not, it's added at least 20 years to your expected lifespan. Would you really live by this belief? And for example never accept a perscription from a doctor again for a molecule that was discovered, characterized, tested, approved after some 10-500 DBT and statistical tests at every step of the process (no joke).

In the case of audio equipment, consider it sound medicine for your wallet. Since we all have limited $$ it really does help us enjoy music, by helping us put it towards things that improve its sound, and not giving it to people who might be engaging in demonstrable falsehoods.
post #33 of 89
Banning is too extreme. Banning speech should be reserved for the most extreme examples such as Holocaust denial, not DBT denial.
post #34 of 89
Thread Starter 
DBT is banned from the cables forum.
post #35 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shark_Jump View Post
DBT is banned from the cables forum.
To clarify, there is a time and a place, I am all up for that, but not a total ban.
post #36 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shark_Jump View Post
As from a science perspective a properly conducted DBT is a trivial and proven analysis, I would like to propose a ban on posts that do not believe in DBT from the science forum.
Yes, that is fine and 100% correct. That problem is however that 99% of people don't do it properly from a scientific 'eliminate every variable' point of view thus makes their self conducted tests flawed and invalid from a scientific methodology point of view.
post #37 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinesekiwi View Post
Yes, that is fine and 100% correct. That problem is however that 99% of people don't do it properly from a scientific 'eliminate every variable' point of view thus makes their self conducted tests flawed and invalid from a scientific methodology point of view.
It depends what you are DBT'ing. Some tests are easier than others. For instance testing 128Kbps mp3 vs 320Kbps mp3 is pretty easy, they are the same codec just variations and you can load two tracks up in FooBar and ABX without worrying about transcoding or changing formats in runtime etc.

DBt'ing cables is harder as you either need a human intermediary to set things up or some acceptable proxy and the proxy is the tough part, you can record samples using different cables but then you have an intervening variable.

Also from what we know DBTs are best done when the delay between stimuli is as short as possible and things like manual cable swaps take a long time (relatively) speaking which could affect results two ways, either obscuring real differences or creating imagined differences.
post #38 of 89
Not a bad idea, imho.

Anyway, to prevent circular discussions just don't reply.. even if it's provoking, or just reply with a link to this thread and be done with it.
post #39 of 89
I see a very clear resemblance between all this cable stuff and religion. Arguments of the believers in both camps are strikingly similar. And, what is most funny, you CANNOT CRITICIZE BOTH, while you are free to criticize, make fun of, and demand evidence for almost everything else in the world Cause feelings get hurt..oh..
post #40 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by dexter3d View Post
I see a very clear resemblance between all this cable stuff and religion.
You're right. For both cable-difference believers and religion, science is not an adequate tool for disproving. These aren't the kind of wicked hard problems that demand an optimization or a working solution. People aren't going to live or die here. Lives aren't going to be extended. Markets won't get optimized.

For those hard problems of complex systems (lacking a complete model due to their sheer complexity) that DO demand a solution/optimization, empirical analysis is certainly a good tool to derive useful starting points and insights.

Here, we're arguing about using science to prove/disprove peoples' personal PREFERENCES and/or beliefs. Here, this crap all boils down to "I'm right you're wrong. See, I'll prove it here...(not really)". Nothing to optimize. No useful working solutions to be gained. Nothing can actually be proven for sure. Just needless squabbling.

So I say - REALLY? You're going to spend the time to do that? Trying to use science in such a horribly awkward and inappropriate manner (when all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail)? Spend your time on cancer research instead (though IMO the science zealots would be piss poor at real science in the right applications)...adopt a highway mile...do SOMETHING else of useful value
post #41 of 89
Quote:
Am I saying I think that people can hear a difference between say power cord sheathing? NO, but on the other hand ABX testing is an incredibly weak tool for proving that they can't. If all the tests for hearing a difference come out negative, then absolutely it is much more LIKELY that nobody can hear a difference. That is not PROOF.
The point isn't to prove it doesn't exist, they point is to prove it DOES. If you can't prove that it does, why are you spending 1000s (or 100s, whatever) of dollars on it?

That you accuse us of wasting time and money is laughable. Maybe to you it seems trivial to spend money and time learning about hearing and sound reproduction (isn't that the whole reason your spending money on equipment in the first place?), but it's not like this information isn't applicable anywhere else. There will always be uses for well documented studies beyond what the experimenters were considering. You're basically arguing against progress. "SPEND MORE MONEY AND TIME ON CANCER RESEARCH!" as if throwing money at a problem suddenly makes it disappear. Cancer research is getting plenty of funding, and there are only so many people qualified to do it. It's not a waste of time to get people who work in audio to do tests for their own field, especially if down the road it'll save people from wasting tonnes of money on audio equipment... MONEY THAT COULD HAVE BEEN SPENT ADOPTING HIGHWAYS AND FUNDING CANCER RESEARCH DURRRRR.
post #42 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mulveling View Post
Here, we're arguing about using science to prove/disprove peoples' personal PREFERENCES and/or beliefs. Here, this crap all boils down to "I'm right you're wrong. See, I'll prove it here...(not really)". Nothing to optimize. No useful working solutions to be gained. Nothing can actually be proven for sure. Just needless squabbling.
With regard to 'proven for sure', it is the same as if I said that there is a huge teapot which revolves somewhere in Alpha Centauri, but unfortunately you cannot see it as it is invisible. Of course you can't disprove such stuff. So what? There is nothing magical about sound reproduction. Magic ends with the performance, and sound reproduction is pure technology, targeting one strictly defined and very limited area of human perception.

The problem is placebo, that's why we have such things as 10k cables, homeopathy and the contemporary latin Jesus living in somewhere South America with quite many followers.
post #43 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mulveling View Post
[word salad]
I think xnor is right. The best response to confused and angry posts (if they're even serious) is none at all.
post #44 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by khaos974 View Post
The
However, the arguments of the people against DBT are true, it's stressing, people have difficulty in identifying even real differences (eg. with different files), and sound memory is bad in humans...
I do DBTs on myself lots and I personally love it, it is fun, sometimes I can detect differences, sometimes not, so far the difference is that when the differences are very very small I miss them , when they are a bit bigger I can sometimes detect them, I was able to correctly DBT a VBR 0 MP3 and the source wav file even though the difference in distortion was small. Low pass filters are easy up to about 9K/10K at 13K they get harder. I find the instant switch to be much more sensitive than longer term listening and other "research" has backed this up, YMMV of course
post #45 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by eucariote View Post
^ Like it or not, it's added at least 20 years to your expected lifespan. Would you really live by this belief? And for example never accept a perscription from a doctor again for a molecule that was discovered, characterized, tested, approved after some 10-500 DBT and statistical tests at every step of the process (no joke).

In the case of audio equipment, consider it sound medicine for your wallet. Since we all have limited $$ it really does help us enjoy music, by helping us put it towards things that improve its sound, and not giving it to people who might be engaging in demonstrable falsehoods.
We are talking about cables right? Never brought medicine in this discussion? Two totally different things. To me The ABX / DBX or a waste of time because it gets the way of listening to music. It creates a disbelief that you can't improve something without this to make sure. How many people use this method to purchase a piece of audio equipment really?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Proposal to ban posts that question validity of DBT from Science Forum