[Kammerat Rebekka]

Lol how can anyone NOT see the brilliance and wisdom of this man’s posts?? This is bordering on the insane!
I for one have indeed seen the light: from now on I will only trust people that judge gear with their eyes fixed on the price and of course use the clever lol for giggles..just like my main man Einstein lol!

 

[gregorio]

[1] I simply stated that the things you all were talking aboiut such as resampling and storage format will make a difference, thats it, dont get exited.
[2] I also im not obligated to come up with a new test just because i dont like bigshot one, [2a] however as I always give helpful posts.
[3] I have stated a possible flaw of his test ... [3a] not to mention what keithemo said about the normalizing process altering the bits,
[3b] now that im thinking about it exporting to flac offers a few extra settings such as method and levels of compression so not a flaw but can interfere in a test depending what player software and decoder is being used.
[3c] So saving his "test" in a wav file would be better.
[4] OK enough with the education, [4a] you guys never say thank you

1. Of course we're going to get "excited", this is the sound SCIENCE forum but you come here, completely ignore the science and make FALSE statements. How is it possible for you not to expect that we'd "get excited"?

2. Can't you read the title of the thread you're posting in, what's the first word? LOL
2a. Can you explain how ignoring the science, ignoring the title of the thread and making false statements is in anyway "helpful"?

3. Again, this is the sound SCIENCE forum, you can't just make-up statements that contradict the science with zero evidence. Don't you even know what science is?
3a. Of course normalising alters the bits, that's the whole point of normalising! However, can you please explain what difference it makes to the output of a DAC?
3b. Now that you're thinking about what, how to make-up FALSE statements?
3c. Nope, it literally wouldn't have made a single "bit" of difference.

4. And there's you're problem: You clearly have little/no education in the subject, yet you think it's "enough" and if that's not bad enough, you actually come to a science forum to display your ignorance and lack of education. How laughable/crazy is that?
4a. Yep, we're funny like that, we never thank people who come here, contradict the name of this forum and can't read the title of the thread they're posting to. Does that make us bad people? LOL

It really was an impressive post though. To get virtually every single sentence in the whole post WRONG is an impressive feat! Did it take you a long time to achieve that feat or are you just naturally gifted that way? LOL
Do you have enough intelligence to answer any of the questions above?

G

 

[Don Hills]

and your nine inch nails logo leads me to believe that the only kind of music you like is metal

You appear to know as little about NIN as you know about audio science.

 

[bfreedma]

Don't feed the trolls.

Interesting who has grabbed onto Keith's whataboutism though...

 

[bigshot]

Don't feed the trolls. Interesting who has grabbed onto Keith's whataboutism though...

This guy talks much more than he knows and it shows. He's been here before doing the same thing around Thanksgiiving in the Convincing Wires Don't Matter thread and got dismissed summarily. I guess he figures we've forgotten. He doesn't post much in the rest of HeadFi any more. Perhaps he's relegated this handle to being his trolling account.

What ifs are a time honored technique for weaseling out of situations where someone is wrong and doesn't want to admit it.

 

[Phronesis]

Seems to me that he's quite sure he hears differences between gear, and trusts his ears, and so is naturally dismissive of people claiming that gear in some classes doesn't sound different. Until such a person experiences the fallibility of their own perception, it will be difficult to convince them that their perception is highly fallible. Nothing new here ...

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Seems to me that he's quite sure he hears differences between gear, and trusts his ears, and so is naturally dismissive of people claiming that gear in some classes doesn't sound different. Until such a person experiences the fallibility of their own perception, it will be difficult to convince them that their perception is highly fallible. Nothing new here ...

Duh



However, this particular part of the forums is dedicated to going deeper than "trusting our own perception" and anyone unwilling to accept that their perception isn't necessarily (or even likely) infallible is probably in the wrong section...

 

[castleofargh]

what pebble are you talking about? I never said any of the points being made here are improving my music at home noticeably and durably. I simply stated that the things you all were talking aboiut such as resampling and storage format will make a difference, thats it, dont get exited. I also im not obligated to come up with a new test just because i dont like bigshot one, however as I always give helpful posts (unlike many others) I have stated a possible flaw of his test and that was just taking a quick look at the test, not to mention what keithemo said about the normalizing process altering the bits, thats also true and now that im thinking about it exporting to flac offers a few extra settings such as method and levels of compression so not a flaw but can interfere in a test depending what player software and decoder is being used. So saving his "test" in a wav file would be better. OK enough with the education, you guys never say thank you

just think about a real life situation with your friends. they all wish to do something(sleep with that super hot girl you all know that won't even give any of you the time of the day, go skydiving, win a million bucks with a lottery ticket, whatever), but they haven't for many reasons. you tell them that you did all that and can do it anytime you want. your friends might be entertained and maybe even impressed for a minute, but at some point they will expect you to prove that you're not full of crap. and if you never bring them supporting evidence instead of "dude trust me", soon enough you'll become known as the mythomaniac of the group.
exact same stuff here. when bigshot says he can't tell between high bitrate AAC and a lossless format, if that's bragging, it sure is a weird way of doing it. the guy shares his failure to notice a change. I'm in the same situation and so are a many people here. so when you come bragging about how easy it is to notice a difference between basically anything and anything else, well, we're the others guys in your group of friends starting to think that you're full of it. to change our mind you could take back what you claimed, or provide strong enough evidence to support the claims and convince us.
and that's about it.

and in case you decide to assume that me posting this is a denial of anything possibly sounding different ever:
I've noticed differences between DACs(volume output, very rarely background noise, on super rare occasions a massive roll off in the treble). I've heard high bitrate mp3 sounding strange, never very obviously so, but enough to be noticeable(massive intersample clipping, or the device messing up the decoding on the first firmware version for the DAP). and I most certainly heard differences between various DAPs or cellphones(I basically just have to pick the right IEM to manifest the most difference in background noise or in impedance output). I also broke my arm, got bitten by a monkey as a kid(not radioactive ). all of those things happened and were supported by controlled testing or many eye witnesses, but it's not like they happen to me all the time. some are extraordinary occurrences. and for most of those situations, it's fairly easy to reduce the chances of it happening even further without resorting to total paranoia and getting rid of everything that remotely looks like a risk.
for example, I don't play mp3 at full scale, and I haven't met a monkey in a decade. thanks to that I didn't feel the need to stop using mp3(and other convenient lossy formats), or to go out only with a chain mail over my entire body in case there's a monkey down the street waiting to jump on me. ^_^

of course if you don't have a clue how to test anything conclusively, you will tend to have an even bigger problem. the problem called "being wrong".

 

[bigshot]

Tell us about getting bit by a monkey as a kid! Are there any photos? Was it like the old lady in Dead Alive?

 

[StandsOnFeet]

just think about a real life situation with your friends. they all wish to do something(sleep with that super hot girl you all know that won't even give any of you the time of the day, go skydiving, win a million bucks with a lottery ticket, whatever), but they haven't for many reasons. you tell them that you did all that and can do it anytime you want. your friends might be entertained and maybe even impressed for a minute, but at some point they will expect you to prove that you're not full of crap. and if you never bring them supporting evidence instead of "dude trust me", soon enough you'll become known as the mythomaniac of the group.

Absolutely brilliant.

 

[colonelkernel8]

You appear to know as little about NIN as you know about audio science.

Preach!

 

[KeithEmo]

You do bring up an interesting point - but I think it relates to how we all, as individuals, think.

While I don't normally make a point of keeping track of who my friends sleep with, or of updating them about who I sleep with, I do expect them not to lie to me, and I don't lie to them.
Therefore, I would never assume that something one of my friends told me was untrue, and I would expect the same courtesy from them.
(I don't lie to impress my friends and I don't expect them to lie to try to impress me. And anyone who "thinks I'm full of crap" just plain isn't my friend.)
And, considering how many of those "super hot girls that everybody wants to sleep with" end up married with kids, I guess some guys in fact DO actually sleep with them.
Therefore, rather than jumping to conclusions, I'm always going to evaluate every claim on its own merits.

I certainly wouldn't call it "bragging".... but it is possible that BigShot may have an expectation bias to NOT to hear differences which may affect his results in some cases...
(Based on the assumption that he's human, we must assume that, in any case where he deosn't expect to hear a difference, he is subject to an "expectation bias" to hear no difference, right?)
An expectation bias can certainly cause us to "imagine hearing things that aren't there"....
However, an opposite bias can cause us to fail to accept or report things we do notice "because we think we're just imagining them"....
And, at another level, we may actually fail to see or hear "things that we aren't looking for because we've already decided they aren't there"....

If you've ever attended a real performance of "sleight of hand".... it is based, not on things you can't see, but on things you don't see.... because, due to expert misdirection, you're looking the wrong way when they happen.
(We already know that our brains discard, or simply never consciously perceive, about 95% of the information that's available. That makes it difficult to know for sure what was in the 95% that we didn't perceive.)

just think about a real life situation with your friends. they all wish to do something(sleep with that super hot girl you all know that won't even give any of you the time of the day, go skydiving, win a million bucks with a lottery ticket, whatever), but they haven't for many reasons. you tell them that you did all that and can do it anytime you want. your friends might be entertained and maybe even impressed for a minute, but at some point they will expect you to prove that you're not full of crap. and if you never bring them supporting evidence instead of "dude trust me", soon enough you'll become known as the mythomaniac of the group.
exact same stuff here. when bigshot says he can't tell between high bitrate AAC and a lossless format, if that's bragging, it sure is a weird way of doing it. the guy shares his failure to notice a change. I'm in the same situation and so are a many people here. so when you come bragging about how easy it is to notice a difference between basically anything and anything else, well, we're the others guys in your group of friends starting to think that you're full of it. to change our mind you could take back what you claimed, or provide strong enough evidence to support the claims and convince us.
and that's about it.

and in case you decide to assume that me posting this is a denial of anything possibly sounding different ever:
I've noticed differences between DACs(volume output, very rarely background noise, on super rare occasions a massive roll off in the treble). I've heard high bitrate mp3 sounding strange, never very obviously so, but enough to be noticeable(massive intersample clipping, or the device messing up the decoding on the first firmware version for the DAP). and I most certainly heard differences between various DAPs or cellphones(I basically just have to pick the right IEM to manifest the most difference in background noise or in impedance output). I also broke my arm, got bitten by a monkey as a kid(not radioactive ). all of those things happened and were supported by controlled testing or many eye witnesses, but it's not like they happen to me all the time. some are extraordinary occurrences. and for most of those situations, it's fairly easy to reduce the chances of it happening even further without resorting to total paranoia and getting rid of everything that remotely looks like a risk.
for example, I don't play mp3 at full scale, and I haven't met a monkey in a decade. thanks to that I didn't feel the need to stop using mp3(and other convenient lossy formats), or to go out only with a chain mail over my entire body in case there's a monkey down the street waiting to jump on me. ^_^

of course if you don't have a clue how to test anything conclusively, you will tend to have an even bigger problem. the problem called "being wrong".

 

[bigshot]

I think you just don't like the results of controlled tests and you have a bias towards trying to think of an excuse to ignore them.

Here's the deal... If I can make an effort to avoid bias and perceptual error by doing blind, direct A/B switched, line level matched comparisons, and I can't hear a difference, what is the likelihood that differences I missed due to whatever bias is left after all that will make a lick of difference when I'm just sitting on the couch listening to music?

No one has to become a machine and do tests that aren't human to know whether something matters or not. It's so blatantly obvious what is going on in this conversation... The people who do controlled tests and operate based on what they learn from them are being criticized for the thoroughness of their testing procedure and accuracy of their results by people who are too lazy to get up off their ass and do a test for themselves. I even make an effort to help them take a blind test and I set one up for them, and even after taking it and admitting that he couldn't hear any difference, he goes right back to the same unfounded excuses and what ifs.

When it comes to bias, it's certainly on display here, but it isn't coming from me. Clean up your own act before you go claiming other people of employing sloppy logic.

I invite someone to prove a significant difference that I missed. I'll even HELP you prove me wrong. But you don't prove jack diddly spewing out semantic arguments and theoretical what ifs month after month in post after post of drivel. You prove things by making a test yourself. I think you know what you'd find out. That's why you don't do it. Your ego can't take being risked to a challenge like that.

 

[Phronesis]

You do bring up an interesting point - but I think it relates to how we all, as individuals, think.

While I don't normally make a point of keeping track of who my friends sleep with, or of updating them about who I sleep with, I do expect them not to lie to me, and I don't lie to them.
Therefore, I would never assume that something one of my friends told me was untrue, and I would expect the same courtesy from them.
(I don't lie to impress my friends and I don't expect them to lie to try to impress me. And anyone who "thinks I'm full of crap" just plain isn't my friend.)
And, considering how many of those "super hot girls that everybody wants to sleep with" end up married with kids, I guess some guys in fact DO actually sleep with them.
Therefore, rather than jumping to conclusions, I'm always going to evaluate every claim on its own merits.

I certainly wouldn't call it "bragging".... but it is possible that BigShot may have an expectation bias to NOT to hear differences which may affect his results in some cases...
(Based on the assumption that he's human, we must assume that, in any case where he deosn't expect to hear a difference, he is subject to an "expectation bias" to hear no difference, right?)
An expectation bias can certainly cause us to "imagine hearing things that aren't there"....
However, an opposite bias can cause us to fail to accept or report things we do notice "because we think we're just imagining them"....
And, at another level, we may actually fail to see or hear "things that we aren't looking for because we've already decided they aren't there"....

If you've ever attended a real performance of "sleight of hand".... it is based, not on things you can't see, but on things you don't see.... because, due to expert misdirection, you're looking the wrong way when they happen.
(We already know that our brains discard, or simply never consciously perceive, about 95% of the information that's available. That makes it difficult to know for sure what was in the 95% that we didn't perceive.)

An interesting aspect of a blind test is that the only expectation bias it can't eliminate is the expectation to not perceive a difference. And it may even foster that bias because the difficulty of doing the test when differences are subtle may lead to frustration and a tendency to give up on finding differences.

Skill in finding differences and motivation to do so are important factors - human perception is very different from any kind of objective 'meter' or an objective physiological response (e.g., blood pressure, heart rate, cholesterol level, etc.). 'Hearing' is very different from microphones connected to a recording device - the latter only transduces and records what was transduced, there's nothing like perception involved.

The psychological aspects are very important in designing, conducting, and interpreting these listening tests, and I routinely see people not paying enough attention to those psychological aspects, instead trying to reduce the tests to a cookbook procedure, maybe with some quantification using stats to give a sense of objectivity.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

An interesting aspect of a blind test is that the only expectation bias it can't eliminate is the expectation to not perceive a difference..

an interesting solution to the (manufactured) issue of any bias caused by an expectation "to not hear a difference" ( ) is for folks who WANT to hear a difference to pass the test and prove they can hear a difference. lol...