1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

What is the rationale behind the prohibition of DBT discussion?

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by dexter3d, Jul 26, 2010.
First
 
Back
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
30 31
Next
 
Last
  1. sokolov91


    Quote:

    Past few posts everyone is talking about something different. So everyone is right, just not right in saying the other person is wrong.
     
    The longer you listen to a headphone though the better you should become accustomed to its sound. Which is why break in is psychoacoustic. If you look at graphs of brand new headphones, and then ones that have been used for hundreds of hours, they don't change at all. Or if there is a change, it is so small it could be due to the placement of headphone. (like .1 of a decibel) 
     
     
    To be able to compare two headphones on a purely sensory basis (with as little audiophile banter as possible) it would have to be quick, exactly, so you do not adapt, and are not working with anything other than sensory memory.
     
    The comparison of sensory memory would actually put cable believers at a great advantage biologically, to detect changes if they were actually there. But, most cable believers say such tests are riduculous.
     
  2. p a t r i c k
    There seems to be one forum where DBT discussion is prohibited. That is "Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum)".
     
    I think that it is weird that DBT is not allowed to be discussed there. Surely someone who might have come up with an very cool tweak, for example, might well be interested in discussion about whether the sonic consequences could be heard in a double blind test?
     
  3. aimlink Contributor


    Quote:

    Absolutely, but there's a culture here of subjective opinions being gospel and many poorly tolerate their subjective impressions being questioned.  That's just the reality of these discussion groups.  I think we all allowed this culture to go wayward, I'm afraid.
     
    Then again, there's poor tolerance for subjective impressions that are not backed up by objective testing, as if the objective tests available are perfect and THE final word.  So there are problems on both side.
     
    So for me, it's one of poor tolerance on both sides of the fence.  Poor tolerance nurtured by desire for great sound and envy on one side, with desire for great sound and anger at having ones newly and expensively expanded pleasure zone being threatened.  Soon enough, challenging discussions degenerate.  Hence the restrictions.
     
  4. maverickronin
    I'd say that measurements (however useful) aren't the last word, but double blind listening tests are, or at least as close to last word as we get.  And far past any reasonable doubt as well.
     
    If you can't show you can hear it without also seeing it, than how can you say you can really hear it at all?
     
    Also keep in mind that DBTs can't prove that something is 'better' than something else.  That is a subjective judgment.  They can only prove whether things sound different or identical to the human ear.  That is an objective quality.  Some people seem to think that because a DBT can't make a subjective judgment it means that cables or whatever can't be judged at all by such a protocol.  This is also wrong.  If A and B can be differentiated in a DBT, than someone may prefer A over B or B over A and no one can say they are wrong.  If however X and Y can't be differentiated via DBT than no one can prefer one over the other (based on sound) because they sound identical.  If X = 7 and it is shown that X = Y, than some who says they prefer X over Y has essentially said that prefer 7 over 7.  Such a statement is logically inconsistent as well as physically impossible.  Somehow though, people say prefer the sound of solid wire to the sound of stranded wire.
     
  5. Prog Rock Man
    DBT is particularly banned from the cable/tweek forum as DBT consistently shows such to be based on psudoscience. I am sure if blind testing was mentioned with regards to amps and headphones (that is unlikely due to the fit) such would be welcomed as mainly thye do show a difference. 
     
  6. Soaa-
    I call for a rename of the Cables forum to Sound Pseudoscience then.
     
  7. Prog Rock Man
    I emailed Chord cables and asked if they use blind testing. The answer was yes, but they will not release the results.
     
  8. Soaa-

    Quote:

    Whether they did or not, and whether the results were statistically correct or not, are of no importance to this forum, as DBT discussion isn't allowed in the Cables forum anyway.
     
  9. nick_charles Contributor


    Quote:
     
    That single word yes hides a whole load of questions.
     
    One, do they use DBT or single blind testing ?
     
    Two, Is it same/different or preference testing ?
     
    Three, when they blind test are they testing ?
    (1) multiple samples of a single cable model against each other for consistency or
    (2) samples from their own *different* cable models against each other or
    (3) samples of their own cables against competitors' cables
    (4) samples of their own cables against stock cables

    If they did have consistent preference expressed for their cables vs competitors/stock I would be highly surprised that they would not want to reveal the data as it would be a huge sales puff, for instance " 8/10 audiophiles prefer our cables to..." would be an advertising goldmine !
     
    Of course if they found a definite preference for their cheaper cables vs their expensive ones that would be a problem as there would be no rational reason for anyone to buy the expensive ones and selling the expensive ones when they know that they are less good would be of dubious ethics (you will like it less but it costs you more !)
     
    Of course if they found a definite preference for their more expensive cables vs their cheap cables then would they issue a warning on the cheaper ones (provably not as good as ....) , which might put folks off buying their budget cables, but if they stopped making the buidget ones they risk ,losing custom from the budget sector and some folks who might have bought the budget cables might not spring for the expensive ones ?
     
    Of course if they found no definite preference for any of their lines of cables that would be a problem as there would be no rational reason for anyone to buy the expensive ones and their profit margins would drop
     
    Of course if they found no definite preference for their cables vs stock that would be a problem as there would be no rational reason for anyone to buy their cables at all
     
    It is a puzzlement !
     
    Quote:
     
    We are in the Science forum in this thread so DBT discussion is allowed !

     
     
  10. jcx


     
    Quote:


    actually the policy change to extend the prohibition of DBT "debates" to all forums is what is under discussion in this thread - the prior state of just Cables having a no DBT policy wasn't bothering too many people
     
    but the ban was extended to all forums with Sound Science created to be a ghetto to contain debate of DBT - which is currently banned from all other HeadFi forums
     
    community debate of moderation and forum policy is actively discouraged by thread/post deletion
     
    as an "open" response I propose a campaign of conditional contribution pledges - I will become a headfi contributor Only if the DBT ban is lifted - except for possibly allowing the Cables forum to proceed under DBT rules
     
  11. p a t r i c k


    Quote:

    I guess I should read the rules [​IMG]
     
    Is DBT debate now prohibited in all forums?
     
  12. maverickronin
    Quote:

    The magic power of "Find" tell me that neither "dbt" nor "blind" appear anywhere in the TOS.
     
    Of course there's probably a line in there somewhere that says they can do whatever they want so its all moot anyway, as rules are subject to change at any moment for any reason, without consistency or fairness.  So far IME, the mods seem to be relatively fair and only slightly heavy handed by the standards of some other boards.
     
    I've said before in this thread that because this thread is privately owned, they do have the right to do whatever they want with it.  Since I like this place and want it to last, I would advise them to keep it as free as possible.  Its the best way to promote knowledge, and that's what people come here for.  This site's assets are the users, and they can leave at any time.
     
  13. sokolov91
    I just don't see why everything is so charged. With research and studying both sides only stand to gain, not lose in the end.
     
    And I am with MaverickRonin: DBT is as close as we are going to get in terms proving/disproving humans can detect sonic differences without other triggers. Might not be the final word, but it is substantial proof and should not be brushed aside as so many people like to do here.
     
    DBT is science. Just BT is science. You have a control group and an experimental group and you take measurements and then state your findings... nothing mind blowing or groundbreaking here just a basic experiment.
     
    Why this is viewed as pseudo science, especially by those who, for all intents and purposes, believe in witches and wizards is beyond me, and beyond reasoning.
     
    I really do hope UE conducts his experiments to shed some light with lots of pertinent data.
     
  14. upstateguy
    If someone has already posted this, I apologize.  But it's a very cool tool.   Everyone on the forum should have it.
     
    Audio DiffMaker      <----  Download Me

     
     
    Presented at the 125th AES convention 
    "Detecting Changes in Audio Signals by Digital Differencing"

     
     
    Check out the tests that come with it  Here.
     
    Read the AES paper Here.
     
     
    Edit: Ah,  I see khaos974 posted it already, none the less it is worth checking out.
     
  15. googleborg
    i had overlooked khaos974's posting of the link, cheers, looks very useful!
     
First
 
Back
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
30 31
Next
 
Last

Share This Page