Quote:
Originally Posted by SmellyGas /img/forum/go_quote.gif
True. A 12 year-old could come to the same conclusion without even reading the published evidence. But I'm talking specifically about people who dismiss blind listening tests (including ABX) for some completely invalid reasons. It absolutely DOES take an individual experienced in experimental design/methodology, interpretation of scientific data, and statistical analysis to properly analyze and draw appropriate conclusions. What people don't realize is that blind listening tests are essentially human-subject research experiments designed to test whether a sample population is capable of differentiating between two entities (cables/DAC's/etc.). Critiquing such a study might involve determining the alpha and beta of the experiment to detect a pre-defined difference in the entities should be considered. It might involve examining the acuity of the human subjects or the generalizability of the study apparatus. But there is an alarming number of people who dismiss blind listening tests with reasons like:
"I personally hear differences, therefore the blind listening tests are invalid"
"Listening tests shouldn't be blinded, otherwise people can't hear the differences we all know exist"
"Well of course they didn't hear a difference, you have to listen for hours and hours"
"Oh, the listeners were too stressed out to hear a difference once the identities were covered up"
...the list of misconceptions and illogic goes on and on
I'm interested in what people with extensive experience in research design, interpretation of papers, and statistical analysis think of the validity of blind listening tests to detect LARGE, EASILY-AUDIBLE differences in cables/poweramps/dacs. Are HS students likely to fall in this category? College grads? Masters? (2 years post-college, who are not usually the head of a lab)? Not usually! What about Ph.D. or M.D.? Bingo. So, please, take the accusations about elitism elsewhere.
|
No offense intended.
I appreciate your thoughtful post.
I would have thought you knew based on the date you joined head-fi, but perhaps you didn't know--Sound Science was named as such after rejection of other not so flattering titles for this forum thought up by our kind but not so scientific moderators. Head-fi chased off (my own characterization) a few people expert in audio over the years prior to that time. Head-fi is going to be generally lean on people with legitimate high-octane expertise in the areas of audio and science, because it is has generally been grown (and very well) by subjectivists, for subjectivists. Sound Science was conceived as a little outpost for what was once completely prohibited dissent, such as, for example, using blind listening test results as evidence. I appreciate that folks such as yourself have the potential to help it grow into something much more significant.
In my view, dismissing blind listening test results based on personal experience is not logically invalid. It is ultimately incorrect to do so in my opinion, but it is not illogical.
In my view, the people who say they hear differences when changing cables, amps, or DACs are often more honest and open-minded than those who say they don't hear any difference--because even a small movement of the audio transducers on the ears (with headphones) or change in head position or location of the person (with speakers) will result in a perceptible difference in sound.
And so, this is a field where an honest and good person may be easily misled by an unscrupulous merchant or a group of other misled individuals. These are people to whom your knowledge would be very valuable, if you could convey your knowledge to them. Why are the differences they truly perceive not proof of improvement? Now that is a complicated matter that requires all of the tools to which you allude. However, the good and perfectly intelligent people asking this heartfelt question will not likely be persuaded by your insistence and evidence that others with certain academic and professional qualifications who have read certain studies will very rarely, if ever, agree with their own empirically based conclusions.
To me, at least, your conclusions about cables, DAC's and amps are extremely well-proven, and are in fact are somewhat under-stated. From a scientific point of view, it seems to me to be the equivalent of playing chopsticks on the piano. Yet the state of popular belief and the popular press on the subject is quite alarming. The perspective that I am coming from is that I would rather see minds being pried open to the truth rather than closed shut to it. I realize that your agenda is different, but given your extensive and well-written reply, I thought I should explain myself better.
If you are truly simply interested in whether others with high expertise, knowledge and education would agree with your conclusions about cables, DAC's and amps, I can tell you the answer in advance--of course they will. It is not exactly a well-kept secret. If you want to find out for sure and you want company a little closer to your own knowledge, experience and credentials, try hydrogenaudio.org. It is a great community too. They will likely answer your question efficiently (if it catches their interest and they do not think it too mundane) and most "subjectivist" dissent will be squelched by the rules of posting, just as our general point of view was once squelched by the rules of posting here. They have, among others, members who develop and improve audio codecs for major commercial enterprises. I suspect you have visited there, but if not, it is very much worth the trip, just as head-fi is.
