[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saint.panda /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think most people would agree with the scientific approach (although I prefer Popper's term "scientific methodology"). It's just that the "test with experiment" and "draw conclusion" parts are a bit tricky, e.g. whether DBT is a meaningful test. At the same time, the scientific approach propagated by certain members simply sounds snobbish and dogmatic, which is what most people dislike so much. Most of all, a hobby like audio should be something fun and relaxing, so there needs to be some balance between scientific vigour and blissful ignorance. So I think it's good that it be kept out of the normal cable forum. If it doesn't become a bashing forum of the ignorance of other members or a place trenched in scientific dogma like Hydrogenaudio, this could be an interesting sub-forum.

This is important. And well said.

Popper is a grand man to bring up and one of my fav's. He was a proponent of explanatory science not instrumentalism or *shudder* positivism. Given this, I'm a big proponent of examining all facets of reality as much as possible and inventing new methods of testing when one discovers additional information once thought to be absent from the equation. DBT (as currently conducted) might be fine for some, but isn't for others.

Anyone seriously considering evaluating the science behind hearing needs to read: Your Brain On Music

It really opens up many new areas of research including biochemistry and biology. The "other" thread had quite a few zealots trolling and flaming, name calling etc. This brings nothing to the table and essentially insinuates that anyone who feels they are hearing something that isn't being tested and recorded is hearing things. No doubt they might be! There is quite a bit of research on this already. However, new research is coming out that is indicative of folks who were in the past deemed insane or fools, may have actually been hearing differences. So...provided people remain civil (as they ought to behave in any forum or subforum at this site) then DBT or rather scientifically based discussions ought to flourish. This is a hobby right? Hobbiest generally are obsessed with the intricacies of every facet of that which they obsess over. The science behind hearing, the science behind music and music reproduction and the science behind the gear should be quite interesting.

 

[Wmcmanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is important. And well said. Popper is a grand man to bring up and one of my fav's. He was a proponent of explanatory science not instrumentalism or *shudder* positivism. Given this, I'm a big proponent of examining all facets of reality as much as possible and inventing new methods of testing when one discovers additional information once thought to be absent from the equation. DBT (as currently conducted) might be fine for some, but isn't for others. Anyone seriously considering evaluating the science behind hearing needs to read: Your Brain On Music It really opens up many new areas of research including biochemistry and biology. The "other" thread had quite a few zealots trolling and flaming, name calling etc. This brings nothing to the table and essentially insinuates that anyone who feels they are hearing something that isn't being tested and recorded is hearing things. No doubt they might be! There is quite a bit of research on this already. However, new research is coming out that is indicative of folks who were in the past deemed insane or fools, may have actually been hearing differences. So...provided people remain civil (as they ought to behave in any forum or subforum at this site) then DBT or rather scientifically based discussions ought to flourish. This is a hobby right? Hobbiest generally are obsessed with the intricacies of every facet of that which they obsess over. The science behind hearing, the science behind music and music reproduction and the science behind the gear should be quite interesting.

Nice post, Jason. I agree that if the new forum keeps in this spirit, it will be interesting, informative, and fun for all.

 

[monolith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif You've gotta love the irony in that statement... were it not for all of the trolls in the cables forum who scream "cables make no difference" every time someone states a subjective preference for one cable over another, there would have been no need for the objectionists forum.

I don't believe there are more of those than there are all the trolls who scream "you have to hear them" whenever someone states a reasoned argument about the potential effects of something.

You act like this is entirely one-sided. The problem is with specific people who don't know how to conduct themselves. "They make no difference" is a valid answer to "what do these cables sound like". It's when people start chiming in with "be quiet, you haven't heard them in your system with your ears blah blah" that it gets to be a problem.

This problem should be dealt with through moderation, not segregation.

 

[Wmcmanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by monolith /img/forum/go_quote.gif This problem should be dealt with through moderation, not segregation.

Try it for a couple of years, then report back. What you'll find may be different than what you've just proposed.

 

[acidbasement]

Nice to see some mods taking part in the discussion again.

Care to comment on the disappearance of the 'objectivist forum coming soon' notification? Can we expect to see a science forum placed outside the cable/tweak area, to reflect our apparent desire to discuss science and even conduct research experiments on a broader range of equipment?

Monolith, I agree with the bulk of what you have posted, but I think we heard you the first five times.

And that was a friendly burn, not a malicious one

 

[monolith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif Try it for a couple of years, then report back. What you'll find may be different than what you've just proposed.

I'd love to, actually.

How much time online is required to be a moderator?

And even if that didn't work out, at least I'd be in a better position to implement the more rational changes I outlined in the original thread on this topic recently. Though with the disappearance of the "coming soon" thing, I don't know what's going on any more there.


Quote:

Originally Posted by acidbasement /img/forum/go_quote.gif Monolith, I agree with the bulk of what you have posted, but I think we heard you the first five times. And that was a friendly burn, not a malicious one

Haha. I know it's getting repetetive, but what I've said has yet to be addressed to my satisfaction, and I'm stubborn.

 

[upstateguy]

Hey guys,

There is no spoon !!!

USG

 

[bigshot]

There's an old saying... The last person you want to pin a policeman's badge on is the guy who volunteers to be one.

See ya
Steve

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif There's an old saying... The last person you want to pin a policeman's badge on is the guy who volunteers to be one.

I couldn't agree more.

All of the forums that I've been a moderator on had the unspoken rule that if you asked for it you were immediately removed from consideration.

 

[gilency]

I would like to know how you could prove or disprove a hypothesis in this environment. How can you be sure that the equipment is exactly the same? even the listening environment (nosy neighborhoods) could afect the results. How can you analyze the individual perception of sound? How can you do a double blinded randomized trial? I am all for it but it sounds pretty difficult.
Perhaps in head-fi meets, you could double blind people to different sound sources....just a thought. I love evidence based science and look forward to your studies.

 

[progo]

Although I'm a cable believer, I seriously hope this forum opens soon. Nothing would be greater than to have some intelligent proof there's no notable difference. There has to be something science can explain, but I'm not sure how it's going to turn.

 

[rwest1389]

I've noticed many people (at least in the other thread) talking about how the differences that some things may make (cables, etc.) are below the threshold of human hearing. If blind testing is done at many meets in a rigorous and fair manner, I would not be too surprised to see that these 'minuscule' differences were heard. I mean, how did they come up with those thresholds? My guess is hearing tests on a lot of people. I would think its very possible that if the brain can hear some things better than others, especially if stimulated (through music). You might hear differences in music better than quiet little beeps...

Oh and people keep saying that double blind testing is necessary. I don't think DBT is even relevant, the examiner just needs to record whether the subject says 'difference' 'no difference' and if one is better than the other. Its not like a doctor examining a patient.




Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi RW, Welcome. I see you're a student, what's your major? USG

I'll be going to Brown to study electrical engineering in a couple of weeks. Obviously I don't have much knowledge past high school classes, and the rest is conjecture and speculation

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest1389 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh and people keep saying that double blind testing is necessary. I don't think DBT is even relevant, the examiner just needs to record whether the subject says 'difference' 'no difference' and if one is better than the other. Its not like a doctor examining a patient.

Oh it is quite important. It is a known fact that preconceived notions will distort the perception of reality. That is, one's bias will have us lying to ourselves. DBT eliminates this. The key though is to ensure that whatever test is set up, the setting is of the sort that reduces any factors that would be counter to someone hearing differences (I guess cables is the hot topic) and then conducting trials with a decent enough selection of people (trained folks, untrained folks, musicians, audiophiles, newbies, music lovers, near deaf folks, hearing impaired - tinnitus, high frequency damage).

Here are some interesting studies that should be read:

Brain activity being monitored when people were submitted to high frequencies:

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/6/3548

Musical instruments which emitt content above 40khz:

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/spe...ctra.htm#note4

The first one is particularly interesting as some don't believe the brain has much to do with how we hear music. Unfortunately the brain is likely 90% of the means. If the brain could find a more efficient way of transforming sounds waves into electrical pulses it would. Thankfully neuroscientists have bipassed the ear and just zap the cortex as they see fit to gain new insights

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gilency /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would like to know how you could prove or disprove a hypothesis in this environment. How can you be sure that the equipment is exactly the same? even the listening environment (nosy neighborhoods) could afect the results. How can you analyze the individual perception of sound? How can you do a double blinded randomized trial? I am all for it but it sounds pretty difficult. Perhaps in head-fi meets, you could double blind people to different sound sources....just a thought. I love evidence based science and look forward to your studies.

Take a look at the high end wire Vs coat hanger test and tell us what you think about it. Full of flaws, don't believe it, full of merde...... but, if the results are reproducible, on any level..... hummmm, could be on to something....

USG

 

[scompton]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh it is quite important. It is a known fact that preconceived notions will distort the perception of reality. That is, one's bias will have us lying to ourselves. DBT eliminates this. The key though is to ensure that whatever test is set up, the setting is of the sort that reduces any factors that would be counter to someone hearing differences (I guess cables is the hot topic) and then conducting trials with a decent enough selection of people (trained folks, untrained folks, musicians, audiophiles, newbies, music lovers, near deaf folks, hearing impaired - tinnitus, high frequency damage).

I fit in the music lovers and untrained folks categories. I believe with training, I might be able to hear differences in bit rates, but right now I can't, at least down to 128kbps. I've even tried know bad tracks and can't hear it. It's mostly my musical memory. I can't remember subtleties even if I listen to very short segments.

My wife is in the near deaf folks category. I forget where her hearing stops, but it's some where around 100Hz. Above that she hears nothing. She can hear things in low frequencies that I can't hear, mainly because other frequencies completely mask them. For example, right now she can hear a rattle in our car that I can't hear. Another example is that she can't hear a hair drier. To her it makes no noise at all so she'll be drying her hair and try to talk to me.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here are some interesting studies that should be read: Brain activity being monitored when people were submitted to high frequencies: Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect -- Oohashi et al. 83 (6): 3548 -- Journal of Neurophysiology Musical instruments which emitt content above 40khz: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/spe...ctra.htm#note4 The first one is particularly interesting as some don't believe the brain has much to do with how we hear music. Unfortunately the brain is likely 90% of the means. If the brain could find a more efficient way of transforming sounds waves into electrical pulses it would. Thankfully neuroscientists have bipassed the ear and just zap the cortex as they see fit to gain new insights

The Cal Tech link doesn't work. The ... messes it up.