[Ghoostknight]

If you argue against those controls, it’s more than just not knowing. You don’t want to know. I think you know you’re wrong and just don’t want to admit it. You’re arguing too hard in the wrong direction to be genuine.

i mean, its the only tool science got so far that works to some degree, does it make it the perfect "absolute treshhold telling" method? i dont think so, you guys are free to believe so and also that all audiophiles are imagine things imo there are more logical conclusions that can be drawn here

 

[bigshot]

No one has said that any tool is perfect. It’s just a lot better than the alternative.

Blind test, or your impression doesn’t count.

 

[gregorio]

i mean, its the only tool science got so far that works to some degree,

You mean apart from digital and analogue audio?

does it make it the perfect "absolute treshhold telling" method? i dont think so, you guys are free to believe so and also that all audiophiles are imagine things

Firstly, that’s a strawman argument as you’ve already been told twice that DBT is not necessarily perfect. Secondly, of course we believe all audiophiles are imagining things; aren’t they listening to music, aren’t they perceiving the stereo effect?

imo there are more logical conclusions that can be drawn here

How is believing nonsense you just made up a “more logical conclusion” than the actual well established, proven and demonstrated facts? Don’t you know what “logical” means?

G

 

[Ghoostknight]

No one has said that any tool is perfect. It’s just a lot better than the alternative.

Blind test, or your impression doesn’t count.

well apparently not or we wouldnt have this discussion here

 

[Ryokan]

It's like a movie clip where a girl says to a guy he's got 1 chance in a million at a date and he replies - 'so there is a chance!'.

 

[bigshot]

We’re having this discussion because you keep grasping at straws in a vain attempt at validating your misconceptions. If you were a little less Dunning Kruger, there wouldn’t be a discussion at all.

 

[castleofargh]

i mean, its the only tool science got so far that works to some degree, does it make it the perfect "absolute treshhold telling" method? i dont think so, you guys are free to believe so and also that all audiophiles are imagine things imo there are more logical conclusions that can be drawn here

Instead of that false logic/excuse, let’s look at the facts:
Humans can get to feel sound differences when there is none. It happens, it has been and can be demonstrated.
Knowing that, it becomes self evident that when dealing with what we can hear, we need a way to confirm if we made it up or if we actually heard something. Those are the only 2 options that can lead to us feeling a change in sound.
Your solution to check if you perhaps fooled yourself, is a very popular one, you tell yourself you didn’t and conclude you're right.

Cool.

 

[Ghoostknight]

Humans can get to feel sound differences when there is none. It happens

Yea and this fact get nicely thrown around by all objectivists to invalidate everything that doesnt fit in their worldview... indeed nice one

 

[bigshot]

It gets thrown around when people make claims when they’ve made absolutely no effort to avoid bias and perceptual error.

 

[castleofargh]

Yea and this fact get nicely thrown around by all objectivists to invalidate everything that doesnt fit in their worldview... indeed nice one

It is one possibility. As such, it should remain among the probable answers so long as we have not run a test strongly suggesting otherwise. You and most people don't do that, instead you cherry-pick the answer that you wish to be true, out of an experience full of known flaws.
If someone doesn't consider the possibility of an audible difference and says you imagined it, that person is doing exactly what you do! You just happened to have cherry-picked a different answer.

Maybe it's not obvious, but I don't endorse everything everybody else is saying in the forum, I talk for myself and that's enough responsibility for me.

 

[bfreedma]

well apparently not or we wouldnt have this discussion here

Other than the reality that blind testing doesn’t support crackpot ideas, what reasons do you have to make this statement? Please be specific.

 

[Ryokan]

 

[gregorio]

well apparently not or we wouldnt have this discussion here

You have that backwards, it should read “well apparently so or we wouldn’t have this discussion here”. It’s precisely because DBT is “a lot better than the alternative” that’s it’s not allowed to be mentioned in the other forums and this is the ONLY forum where it can be discussed!

Yea and this fact get nicely thrown around by all objectivists to invalidate everything that doesnt fit in their worldview...

What “worldview” do objectivists have and what has that got to do with this subforum? This subforum is the Sound Science subforum, not a subforum for whatever “worldview” you have.

G

 

[BS5711]

I inserted a screenshot so both the quote and reply are together.

To casually reply in that way indicates that you are so far down the rabbit hole with your ideas about alternative things that you believe affect audio that you can no longer think rationally about it or perhaps never could.

It makes no rational sense whatsoever to casually ignore the psychological aspects of audio and describe them in the manner you did above like they are a convenient little argument thrown out by objectivists in opposition to other people’s opinions. The psychological aspect are real and to ignore them is to intentionally leave yourself open to fooling yourself about the reality of what you believe you hear.

In the ground box cable thread you talk about little piles of crystals changing the high frequencies in different ways depending on the specifics of the crystals. You talk about theories and ideas about what crystals and compounds that might change the audio in some way then your “test” is to set up the crystals then listen for changes.

If you know how easily the psychological aspects of the human audio experience can make us believe we hear differences in sound that don’t exist how do you consider normal sighted listening to be any kind of test of your theories and the crystals ?

You know you can be fooled but you choose to ignore that. You seem very invested in these ideas yet you completely ignore a basic fundamental that invalidates the results of your “tests”.

Do you actually want to understand the affects of the crystals (in this instance but it could be anything that you are testing) or are you happy to believe that they make a difference and completely ignore the vitally important psychological aspects because to actually properly allow for the psychological aspects in your tests might invalidate everything that you think is true.

If you are so confident that your piles of crystals actually work why not get someone to help blind test them. How hard could that be ? Do you want to understand if they actually work and wouldn’t you want to know if what you perceive is only in your head ?

 

[Ghoostknight]

the thing with this stuff is either you listen for yourself and see whether it makes a meaningful difference longterm or you dont and fool yourself around with blind tests apparently
i agree on that A/B testing is definitely important but to say " oh everything not passing the blind test is bs " and to bs on your longterm expierence is just fooling yourself on another level

after testing 7-8 dacs now.... there is simply no way someone could tell me they all sound the same, its BS and only BS and yet each dac had its own distinct character, you guys are fooling yourself, sorry to say.... and i know you think the same about me but whatever..