Pietro Cozzi Tinin
Headphoneus Supremus
There you go:Do you have a link to the content? I'm very interested. Thank you -
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/sch...bable-start-up.701900/page-1548#post-13641089
There you go:Do you have a link to the content? I'm very interested. Thank you -
In my experience, it's usually Sales that pushes short-cuts of the validation process. Sometimes it leads to quicker profits, if you're lucky. Sometimes it leads to product failure and customer/financial loss. Be careful.It seems like the 'skill' (methodology applied and employed) of observing, is overlooked as the essential requirement for gathering results from which to evaluate the DUT (device under test).
So the short one time experience and subsequent summation of the nature of a piece of gear is ofttimes rather misleading, and is usually rather shallow.
And as has been noted, the only real way to tell the true nature of a new piece of gear is over the long term and under differing conditions.
There are of course exceptions, especially when the 'new' gear is crap, broken, or operates intermittently.
And of course observing the operation and behavior, over time, is required in order to make comprehensive qualitative judgements based upon the subjective value of the observed traits.
IOW it takes time, experience and exposure to become familiar 'enough', with a new piece of gear in order to fully assess its nature, which in turn means it takes repeated observation(s).
Pseudo-science is the result of taking short cuts, in any number of a variety of ways of the empirical method, and making poor or incomplete observations is a quick and dirty short cut in and of itself.
It is also one of, if not the, 'easiest' way to 'contaminate' an experiment.
JJ
Do you have a link to the content? I'm very interested. Thank you -
Double blind tests are not Scientific Observational Skills.In the program I went through in college (a science based, not engineering based program) we had a required course specifically for "Scientific Observational Skills". a full semester 4 credit course to learn and understand trained, scientific, objective observational skills. Surprisingly, no "double blind tests" were used. One of the most valuable courses I took, and I used , developed and honed those skills in my profession over the next 30+ years.
When used correctly, yes. Done many over the years. Usually to test the observers and to weed out those who couldn't detect the types of differences we needed to detect.Double blind tests are not Scientific Observational Skills.
They are Scientific Statistic Correlation Exercises.
An engineer doesn't need that bad.No, that was back in the mid 1970s. I'd like to think other schools must have courses similar to that, though from how few younger people with technical backgrounds seem to understand the nature of experience and education in developing proper observational skills, maybe schools these days don't.
That's odd. If the observers already knew what to detect (seeing them or not) you already closed the door on dubble blind testingWhen used correctly, yes. Done many over the years. Usually to test the observers and to weed out those who couldn't detect the types of differences we needed to detect.
Maybe Mike was observing the posting on these threads. In case you didn't catch it he said yesterday that he is going to make a version of the tone arm and lifter that can be mounted on other tables. Somewhere around Bifrost price if I recall, don't quote me, it's something like that.When used correctly, yes. Done many over the years. Usually to test the observers and to weed out those who couldn't detect the types of differences we needed to detect.
There you go, you would have failed the test right there. Making assumptions without understanding the conditions. The observers didn't know what to detect, I did, since I generated the samples. Each round had diminishing differences so only the most keen observers would be able to detect if a difference even existed. We expected close to a 90 % failure rate, with the result being that we found the 10% who could be trained to do the job.That's odd. If the observers already knew what to detect (seeing them or not) you already closed the door on dubble blind testing
OK my premisse was too fast. But still. In a double blind testing environment even you had to be "blind".There you go, you would have failed the test right there. Making assumptions without understanding the conditions. The observers didn't know what to detect, I did, since I generated the samples. Each round had diminishing differences so only the most keen observers would be able to detect if a difference even existed. We expected close to a 90 % failure rate, with the result being that we found the 10% who could be trained to do the job.
Hadn't seen that. I don't follow many threads on Head-fi. It is good news.Maybe Mike was observing the posting on these threads. In case you didn't catch it he said yesterday that he is going to make a version of the tone arm and lifter that can be mounted on other tables. Somewhere around Bifrost price if I recall, don't quote me, it's something like that.
That's nonsense. Can't run a proper test without setting it up properly.OK my premisse was too fast. But still. In a double blind testing environment even you had to be "blind".
That's true. But the people who set it up are not a part of the scientific group.That's nonsense. Can't run a proper test without setting it up properly.
What's not silly is that the designer of Yggdrasil says that DAC needs time (~24 hours) powered on to sound its best for the reasons landroni mentioned a few posts above. This is why Schiit recommends leaving Yggdrasil on all the time. So, it's not silly to call out a point of view that says leaving Yggdrasil on all the time is "Foo foo. Silly". As has been pointed out, OldRoadToad is free to do whatever he wants. But his point of view is on thin ice....