[mike1127]

Quote:

Originally Posted by royalcrown /img/forum/go_quote.gif GoodSound! Monthly Editorial - The Misinformed Misleading the Uninformed -- A Bit About Blind Listening Tests (5/2009) It's mainly that people ignore it or give it little credence because it conflicts with mainstream audiophile opinion. The same thing happens to, say, third party politicians whose views conflict heavily with the bipartisan mainstream.

This guy is confusing blind evaluation with comparison-based DBTs. He states that Robert Harley is opposed to "blind listening", implying Harley thinks components need to be evaluated sighted. But Harley is talking about comparison-based DBTs.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Tom Noisaine has done this. Over the past 20+ years, he's set up ABX comparators in the homes of a number of "believers" which has allowed them to do the testing using their own systems, in their own homes, and at their leisure, over periods of days, weeks, months, and even years in a few cases. So far, nada. k

I'm not too impressed with the test Noisaine describes on his website. He ran a test with only 10 trials! In this case, Type II error is very high. There is no way to calculate it without having a model of the listener's probability of picking the right answer, but assuming that probability is somewhere around 0.75, I think that Type II error is probably near 1.0. And he thought that was a good enough test to mean something.

And I said in my post that for p=0.6 you need A LOT of trials to minimize Type II error... on the order of 50 to 100. You tell me that Noisaine "has done this." Seems unlikely.

You say he's come up with "nada." Because we would expect some tests to reject the null hypothesis through pure guessing, saying he's come up with "nada" is equivalent to saying he hasn't run very many tests.

 

[spartan777]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif And measurements may not capture everything and scientific knowledge is not perfect or complete.

Sure, scientists still haven't figured out how to unify Quantum Dynamics with General Relativity, we still don't exactly know gravity works on a Quantum level, and we don't know everything about the big bang. But we sure as heck know pretty much everything we need to know that could possibly concern the basics of how people perceive acoustics. There hasn't been a significant discovery concerning magnetics since (probably) 1873 with the publishing of "A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism."

If a scientific instrument that is more accurate than the human ear cannot pick up something-and human ears really aren't that advanced by evolutionary and technological standards- then nobody's ear ever will. The ear is not a mystical black hole (does that count as a pun?).

It is I who feels insulted, so incredibly insulted, when someone suggests that I spend hundreds of dollars on cables, or stones, or whatever. I am not an idiot. Those who suggest cables, or cd-players, or amps do something have the burden of on themselves. The burden of proof isn't on me to disprove anything.

You could say a $5000 cd player sounds so much better, and you can suggest that there is a pink teapot in orbit around Pluto. In both instances, *you* are the one that must prove something. It isn't my place to disprove the $5000 cd player or the pink teapot. This is a basic concept popularized by the enlightenment- induction. If it makes you insecure (likely fueled by the possibility that you've spent hundreds or thousands one cables/stones/etc.), then that is your own problem. The underlying assumption I make here, perhaps wrongly, is that we are interested in the truth, i.e. 'does xyz truly improve sound?'

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spartan777 It is I who feels insulted, so incredibly insulted, when someone suggests that I spend hundreds of dollars on cables, or stones, or whatever. I am not an idiot. Those who suggest cables, or cd-players, or amps do something have the burden of on themselves. The burden of proof isn't on me to disprove anything. You could say a $5000 cd player sounds so much better, and you can suggest that there is a pink teapot in orbit around Pluto. In both instances, *you* are the one that must prove something. It isn't my place to disprove the $5000 cd player or the pink teapot. This is a basic concept popularized by the enlightenment- induction. If it makes you insecure (likely fueled by the possibility that you've spent hundreds or thousands one cables/stones/etc.), then that is your own problem. The underlying assumption I make here, perhaps wrongly, is that we are interested in the truth, i.e. 'does xyz truly improve sound?'

Nobody inherently has a "burden of proof"---you're saying that you've decided that a $5000 cd player doesn't sound better and you are content to go with that decision until someone offers you proof that convinces you otherwise. That doesn't mean anyone else feels a burden to prove anything to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spartan777 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sure, scientists still haven't figured out how to unify Quantum Dynamics with General Relativity, we still don't exactly know gravity works on a Quantum level, and we don't know everything about the big bang. But we sure as heck know pretty much everything we need to know that could possibly concern the basics of how people perceive acoustics. There hasn't been a significant discovery concerning magnetics since (probably) 1873 with the publishing of "A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism."

If you are talking about how we perceive sound, we barely know anything about that.

Quote:

If a scientific instrument that is more accurate than the human ear cannot pick up something-and human ears really aren't that advanced by evolutionary and technological standards- then nobody's ear ever will. The ear is not a mystical black hole (does that count as a pun?).

I believe that most equipment measures slightly differently. It leaves two questions: (1) Can you hear the differences? (2) Have you measured the right thing (the thing that reveals the significant musical difference between those components)?

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike1127 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You say he's come up with "nada." Because we would expect some tests to reject the null hypothesis through pure guessing, saying he's come up with "nada" is equivalent to saying he hasn't run very many tests.

As I said previously, get in touch with him and ask him for more information regarding what he's done.

k

 

[spartan777]

"Yeah, science, including physics, doesn't care about observations in the physical world. Just ask Newton."

actually, there are many aspects of science that make no sense given our observations. And observations- through the human senses or through instruments-alone do not make science. The inverse is true also, humans will often make observations that seem not to jive with science. However, we don't go "aha! this person really can do ESP!" We probably first assume that the person received sensory input that the brain couldn't make good sense of.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spartan777 /img/forum/go_quote.gif actually, there are many aspects of science that make no sense given our observations. And observations- through the human senses or through instruments-alone do not make science. The inverse is true also, humans will often make observations that seem not to jive with science.

Your point is not worthy of introduction by an "actually," since it does not refute my earlier point. You've added some additional information generally relating to science and observations, with which I don't disagree. But thanks for playing anyway.

 

[spartan777]

If I care about using my money to improve the sound of my music setup, then yes. People who suggest I purchase something do have the burden of proof on them to at least give a coherent explanation of why something will improve my sound. I listened to somebody's amp and understand a little bit about electronics and headphones. It makes sense that an amp would improve how my headphones sound, and I have experienced that. Because of this, I bought my own amp.

If someone can't explain why a $5000 cd player is better, then I won't be buying it, fair enough. I do, however, still have the freedom to say that $5000 CD players are shenanigans.

If your priority is to burn through cash, then feel free to forget about the 'burden of proof.'

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spartan777 /img/forum/go_quote.gif If I care about using my money to improve the sound of my music setup, then yes. People who suggest I purchase something do have the burden of proof on them to at least give a coherent explanation of why something will improve my sound. I listened to somebody's amp and understand a little bit about electronics and headphones. It makes sense that an amp would improve how my headphones sound, and I have experienced that. Because of this, I bought my own amp.

People who suggest something to you are not responsible for you buying it or not. That is your own responsibility. They don't have to prove anything, you have to verify if their suggestion is worth buying for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spartan777 /img/forum/go_quote.gif If someone can't explain why a $5000 cd player is better, then I won't be buying it, fair enough. I do, however, still have the freedom to say that $5000 CD players are shenanigans. If your priority is to burn through cash, then feel free to forget about the 'burden of proof.'

If you want to call $5000 CD players shenanigans you have to prove that they are, not the other way around.