Quote:
Originally Posted by elrod-tom /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If I'm understanding this right, the author of the study is put by the OP into the company of the author of "The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio"...that says as much as I need to hear about the agenda.
|
There are two separate things being discussed in this thread. There is a set of double-blind studies. And there is the separate discussion of Peter Aczel and The Audio Critic. The people who conducted these double-blind tests had no affiliation at all with Peter Aczel, as far as I can see. The only reason they are being discussed in the same thread is because the OP happened to discuss them together. I don't doubt that the people who conducted those studies would agree with at least some of Aczel's conclusions, but there is absolutely
nothing in their studies that suggests that they have the same type of (to use your word) zealotry that you're so concerned about.
Honestly, did you even read the studies?
Quote:
| It's not "Ten Things to Consider When Making Your Audio Purchases" or "Ten Ways to Get Good Sound for Less Money"...it's LIES. It's emotional, implies intent, and suggests that those who believe otherwise are either complicit in a scam or dupes. |
Are you suggesting that there are
no "scams and dupes" in this hobby? Or that
every suggestion regarding how to get good sound for less money is invalid? Or that
every list of ten things to consider when purchasing audio equipment is a "lie"?
In this hobby there are going to be good products and there are going to be bad products. And within each of those categories there are going to be components that make a very big difference, and components that make a very small difference, or no difference at all. And, of course, there are going to be products that are nothing but snake oil.
Quote:
| It has correlaries in other areas of life...hence the comment about an athiest trying to convert the bible study group. Similar to, oh, I don't know, an objectivist trying to convince a group of posters at a headphone audio site that the only reason they hear a difference is because they haven't compared the right way? I mean, why would such a person pick such an audience? Looking for a fight maybe?? |
This comment is just silly. It is loaded with so many bad assumptions that it is not worth even attempting to address them individually.
I find discussions of controlled listening experiments to be of value
to me in deciding what equipment to purchase and what to listen to on that equipment. Of course, I find my own listening to be of even greater value to me, which is why I have organized several Head-Fi meets, but it is not always possible to listen to all of the gear one wants to listen to, and it is certainly not always possible to do so in a controlled manner, so, to me, studies of the type described in this thread have value.
If you don't find value in those studies, that's fine; I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in converting you to my point of view. But those of us who find value in the studies that are the subject of this thread--or just enjoy discussing those studies--should be able to participate in a civil, meaningful discussion of them here at Head-Fi without being accused religious zealotry.
Really, it's no different than threads comparing cables. You have said on a number of occasions that you want to be able to have such discussions without cable skeptics coming in a crapping on the threads by arguing that you can't hear a difference in the first place. Fine. Then please have same respect for those of us who want to have a meaningful discussion of a topic that
you disagree with.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I think that we would all welcome meaningful criticism of the studies that are the subject of this thread. Of course, you will actually have to
read the studies to do that but if you do read the studies and want to discuss your disagreement with the methodology or the conclusions, then that would be great. But if you just attack the authors of the study
ad hominem without reading the studies and at least making an effort to understand what they did and how they did it, then I respectfully suggest that it is
you who is just "looking for a fight."
Quote:
| Do you suppose that most of these folks (e.g. the author of "The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio") would design a blind test seeking to prove that there ARE differences? |
Yes. As a matter of fact, if you were to take the time to understand what a double-blind study is, you would understand that the only thing that a properly designed double-blind test
can prove is that there
is a difference. It cannot prove that there is no difference.
