or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music. - Page 152  

post #2266 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmerrill99 View Post

Right & there you have an example of expectation bias being nullified or changed. You are now listening sighted without this bias affecting what you hear. So why can't you do this prior to doing a blind test?

 

Err, because we're human beings, constantly subjected to biases. OK, I realise this argument won't sway some audiophiles who appear to believe they are in fact not human beings but the next evolutionary step, with super-powers which allow them to hear things normal human beings can't and dismiss biases to perceive the world as it really is. Maybe I'm being unfair, maybe those audiophiles don't believe in evolution, it's only a scientific theory after all!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmerrill99 View Post

i.e that you are now convinced & expect that you won't hear any difference between A & B in sighted listening - guess what, you won't.

 

I am not convinced of anything! Did you actually read what I wrote or are you just taking quotes out of context to deliberately misrepresent, in order to support your agenda?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmerrill99 View Post

Again, I'll say it home based ABX testing is fraught with so many flaws that it is risible anybody would categorise it as scientific or of any worth.

 

Yes they are but AGAIN, you are deliberately missing the point. However many flaws home based ABX testing has, it has considerably fewer than the equivalent sighted test and is therefore of considerably more "worth" than an equivalent sighted test. Come on, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmerrill99 View Post

Well you can call me a fool & a troll & my arguments non-sensical ...

 

OK then ... You are a fool and a troll and your arguments are nonsensical!

 

G

post #2267 of 2273

.

post #2268 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorio View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmerrill99 View Post

Right

Err, because we're human beings, constantly subjected to biases. OK, I realise this argument won't sway some audiophiles who appear to believe they are in fact not human beings but the next evolutionary step, with super-powers which allow them to hear things normal human beings can't and dismiss biases to perceive the world as it really is. Maybe I'm being unfair, maybe those audiophiles don't believe in evolution, it's only a scientific theory after all!
So let me get it straight what you are saying - prior to a blind test you are racked with biases affecting what you hear - after a blind test you aren't! How does that work?
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmerrill99 View Post

i.e that you are now convinced

I am not convinced of anything! Did you actually read what I wrote or are you just taking quotes out of context to deliberately misrepresent, in order to support your agenda?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmerrill99 View Post

Again, I'll say it home based ABX testing is fraught with so many flaws that it is risible anybody would categorise it as scientific or of any worth.

Yes they are but AGAIN, you are deliberately missing the point. However many flaws home based ABX testing has, it has considerably fewer than the equivalent sighted test and is therefore of considerably more "worth" than an equivalent sighted test. Come on, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp!
It's your claim based on only one factor - that removing knowledge/sight of what you are listening to is less flawed. But I've already showed you that you are introducing a gaggle of other factors in an ABX test that simply don't exist when listening sighted. All these factors influence the outcome of the test so it's not less flawed - it's more flawed
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmerrill99 View Post

Well you can call me a fool

OK then ... You are a fool and a troll and your arguments are nonsensical!

G
Thank you for showing that you have resorted to insults to try winning the argument - in other words, you have no argument
post #2269 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmerrill99 View Post


Right & there you have an example of expectation bias being nullified or changed. You are now listening sighted without this bias affecting what you hear. So why can't you do this prior to doing a blind test? Why do you have to do a blind test in order to achieve this - is there something magical about a blind test? No? It's just a case of being aware of your expectations. They are not the overriding, constant & ubiquitous influence that many here try to make them out to be.
 

 

If you don't do the blind test then you simply don't know whether any difference heard in sighted listening is a result of bias.

 

If I buy a shiny new gadget then I really want to think it's better than the old one and that I didn't waste my money. I can't just wish that bias away. The only way to do that would be to perform a blind test. Even then, let's be honest, there are countless examples of people claiming they can still hear a difference when sighted even after they fail a blind test. This sort of bias is perfectly strong enough to make them reject the rational conclusion. People just don't like to think they've been duped, and are quite willing to co-operate in maintaining the delusion in order to assuage their pride. Being objective about this is not easy.

 

All this talk of negative bias is just a rather desperate red herring. I've already pointed to a recent test of 24bit audio in which plenty of the participants had positive bias and fully expected to be able to discriminate properly, but failed to do so.

post #2270 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchnerd View Post
 

 

I'm confused. Stop what?

 

If someone does an ABX, and is able to mostly identify Hi-Res, others jump on said person.

post #2271 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWolf View Post

 

If someone does an ABX, and is able to mostly identify Hi-Res, others jump on said person.

 

See my earlier comment (quoted below for convenience)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by OddE View Post
 

 

-Guess why?

 

A result favoring hi-res flies in the face of established science. Hence, one would be more inclined to ask questions as to methodology, source material and any biases which may have influenced the result than if the result was 'Wasn't able to tell any difference.'

 

The flip side being that if questions were answered satisfactorily and results proved reproduceable, it would be a significant discovery.

 

Sounds like a fair tradeoff to me.

post #2272 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmerrill99 View Post

Thank you for showing that you have resorted to insults to try winning the argument - in other words, you have no argument

Step 1. Produce a non-stop barrage of pseudoscientific arguments, all the while being impervious to logic and actual scientific arguments. Ignore all well constructed arguments against your position and twist every seeming contradiction or unknown in the science to mean that the science doesn't have a leg to stand on. Always post in a smug know-it-all tone that irritates the hell out of anybody who really knows anything on the topic while appearing superior to an unsuspecting audience.
Step 2. Invite well-deserved insults from frustrated opponents who have nothing else to throw at a target that has made itself immune to all sensible arguments.
Step 3. Profit?

Shall I call this the "Head-Fi puddinghead school of argumentation" --a result of exploiting the Head-Fi legal loophole where you can forever politely go about being insultingly, deliberately dense in a scientific argument that should really call for SCIENCE--and never get called on it?
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 2/18/16 at 4:11am
post #2273 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmerrill99 View Post

So let me get it straight what you are saying ...

 

Translation: "Let me misrepresent what you are saying to better serve my agenda"!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmerrill99 View Post

I've already showed you that ...

 

Yes, an absolute perfect proof. What a truly great scientist you are.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmerrill99 View Post

Thank you for showing that you have resorted to insults to try winning the argument - in other words, you have no argument

 

No, thank YOU for inviting me to insult you, much appreciated. BTW; pot, kettle, black.

 

G

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music.