[gregorio]

Right & there you have an example of expectation bias being nullified or changed. You are now listening sighted without this bias affecting what you hear. So why can't you do this prior to doing a blind test?

 
Err, because we're human beings, constantly subjected to biases. OK, I realise this argument won't sway some audiophiles who appear to believe they are in fact not human beings but the next evolutionary step, with super-powers which allow them to hear things normal human beings can't and dismiss biases to perceive the world as it really is. Maybe I'm being unfair, maybe those audiophiles don't believe in evolution, it's only a scientific theory after all!
 

i.e that you are now convinced & expect that you won't hear any difference between A & B in sighted listening - guess what, you won't.

 
I am not convinced of anything! Did you actually read what I wrote or are you just taking quotes out of context to deliberately misrepresent, in order to support your agenda?
 

Again, I'll say it home based ABX testing is fraught with so many flaws that it is risible anybody would categorise it as scientific or of any worth.

 
Yes they are but AGAIN, you are deliberately missing the point. However many flaws home based ABX testing has, it has considerably fewer than the equivalent sighted test and is therefore of considerably more "worth" than an equivalent sighted test. Come on, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp!
 

Well you can call me a fool & a troll & my arguments non-sensical ...

 
OK then ... You are a fool and a troll and your arguments are nonsensical!
 
G

 

[gregorio]

.

 

[mmerrill99]

Right

Err, because we're human beings, constantly subjected to biases. OK, I realise this argument won't sway some audiophiles who appear to believe they are in fact not human beings but the next evolutionary step, with super-powers which allow them to hear things normal human beings can't and dismiss biases to perceive the world as it really is. Maybe I'm being unfair, maybe those audiophiles don't believe in evolution, it's only a scientific theory after all!

So let me get it straight what you are saying - prior to a blind test you are racked with biases affecting what you hear - after a blind test you aren't! How does that work?

i.e that you are now convinced

I am not convinced of anything! Did you actually read what I wrote or are you just taking quotes out of context to deliberately misrepresent, in order to support your agenda?

Again, I'll say it home based ABX testing is fraught with so many flaws that it is risible anybody would categorise it as scientific or of any worth.

Yes they are but AGAIN, you are deliberately missing the point. However many flaws home based ABX testing has, it has considerably fewer than the equivalent sighted test and is therefore of considerably more "worth" than an equivalent sighted test. Come on, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp!

It's your claim based on only one factor - that removing knowledge/sight of what you are listening to is less flawed. But I've already showed you that you are introducing a gaggle of other factors in an ABX test that simply don't exist when listening sighted. All these factors influence the outcome of the test so it's not less flawed - it's more flawed

Well you can call me a fool

OK then ... You are a fool and a troll and your arguments are nonsensical!

G

Thank you for showing that you have resorted to insults to try winning the argument - in other words, you have no argument

 

[charleski]

Right & there you have an example of expectation bias being nullified or changed. You are now listening sighted without this bias affecting what you hear. So why can't you do this prior to doing a blind test? Why do you have to do a blind test in order to achieve this - is there something magical about a blind test? No? It's just a case of being aware of your expectations. They are not the overriding, constant & ubiquitous influence that many here try to make them out to be.
 

 
If you don't do the blind test then you simply don't know whether any difference heard in sighted listening is a result of bias.
 
If I buy a shiny new gadget then I really want to think it's better than the old one and that I didn't waste my money. I can't just wish that bias away. The only way to do that would be to perform a blind test. Even then, let's be honest, there are countless examples of people claiming they can still hear a difference when sighted even after they fail a blind test. This sort of bias is perfectly strong enough to make them reject the rational conclusion. People just don't like to think they've been duped, and are quite willing to co-operate in maintaining the delusion in order to assuage their pride. Being objective about this is not easy.
 
All this talk of negative bias is just a rather desperate red herring. I've already pointed to a recent test of 24bit audio in which plenty of the participants had positive bias and fully expected to be able to discriminate properly, but failed to do so.

 

[JWolf]

   
I'm confused. Stop what?

 
If someone does an ABX, and is able to mostly identify Hi-Res, others jump on said person.

 

[OddE]

 
If someone does an ABX, and is able to mostly identify Hi-Res, others jump on said person.

 
See my earlier comment (quoted below for convenience)
 

   
-Guess why?
 
A result favoring hi-res flies in the face of established science. Hence, one would be more inclined to ask questions as to methodology, source material and any biases which may have influenced the result than if the result was 'Wasn't able to tell any difference.'
 
The flip side being that if questions were answered satisfactorily and results proved reproduceable, it would be a significant discovery.
 
Sounds like a fair tradeoff to me.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Thank you for showing that you have resorted to insults to try winning the argument - in other words, you have no argument

Step 1. Produce a non-stop barrage of pseudoscientific arguments, all the while being impervious to logic and actual scientific arguments. Ignore all well constructed arguments against your position and twist every seeming contradiction or unknown in the science to mean that the science doesn't have a leg to stand on. Always post in a smug know-it-all tone that irritates the hell out of anybody who really knows anything on the topic while appearing superior to an unsuspecting audience.
Step 2. Invite well-deserved insults from frustrated opponents who have nothing else to throw at a target that has made itself immune to all sensible arguments.
Step 3. Profit?

Shall I call this the "Head-Fi puddinghead school of argumentation" --a result of exploiting the Head-Fi legal loophole where you can forever politely go about being insultingly, deliberately dense in a scientific argument that should really call for SCIENCE--and never get called on it?

 

[gregorio]

So let me get it straight what you are saying ...

 
Translation: "Let me misrepresent what you are saying to better serve my agenda"!
 

I've already showed you that ...

 
Yes, an absolute perfect proof. What a truly great scientist you are.
 

Thank you for showing that you have resorted to insults to try winning the argument - in other words, you have no argument

 
No, thank YOU for inviting me to insult you, much appreciated. BTW; pot, kettle, black.
 
G

 

[Quadfather]

The hdtracks.com versions of Rush catalog is superior to the recent, lifeless CD remasters, but they may have had more care in the mastering.

 

[bigshot]

On the internet there is always one other option... that someone is outright lying to make their point.

I had that happen with a lossy listening test I gave out to a hardcore audiophile who claimed that lossy always sounded bad. I gave him the ground rules- listening test only. He agreed. He took the test and came back the next day knowing exactly which one was the lossless track. But the way he identified the track showed me that he hadn't listened. He had the order of the tracks wrong and could only give me a time code reading. So I asked him to rank the other tracks from best to worst so he could tell me which ones sounded better than the others. I took advantage of the time it took him to reply to do a little quick googling of his username and found him on that same day talking in another forum about how to identify lossy tracks by looking at the waveform.

The next day he came back and haughtily refused to rank the lossy tracks, saying that it "wasn't worth his time" because the difference was "night and day". I asked if he had listened to all of them and not just opened them up in a sound editor per the rules, and he got huffy and swore that he didn't even own a sound app, and that could hear the differences clear as day. He finished up suggesting that I must be deaf. That's when I PM'ed him the cut and paste from the other forum. I pointed out that the date of his comments was the same day he posted the answers to his listening test and he was admitting that he did actually have a sound app. No reply. He never came back to that forum again.

It's OK to take people at their word if they are really looking for an answer. But if someone wants to prove a point regardless if it's true or not, you have a right to be a little suspicious of their claims.

 

[RRod]

Step 1. Produce a non-stop barrage of pseudoscientific arguments, all the while being impervious to logic and actual scientific arguments. Ignore all well constructed arguments against your position and twist every seeming contradiction or unknown in the science to mean that the science doesn't have a leg to stand on. Always post in a smug know-it-all tone that irritates the hell out of anybody who really knows anything on the topic while appearing superior to an unsuspecting audience.
Step 2. Invite well-deserved insults from frustrated opponents who have nothing else to throw at a target that has made itself immune to all sensible arguments.
Step 3. Profit?

Shall I call this the "Head-Fi puddinghead school of argumentation" --a result of exploiting the Head-Fi legal loophole where you can forever politely go about being insultingly, deliberately dense in a scientific argument that should really call for SCIENCE--and never get called on it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

 

[frodeni]

Wow! Hey guys, calm down!

There are a lot of people in this very forum, that stick to a very strict form of positivism. That is, that they believe that the world can be quantified and described, and reject the notion of subjectivity. Others, like me, belong in the tradition of the interpretive paradigm, in which knowledge is made by the intersubjectivity of subjects.

Sure, it is fine to disagree. But when people claim that people with different believes, assumptions, understanding, and knowledge, are stupid and dumb for having a different background, then go get some ice-cream, cool down. That is not cool.

To stay in the conversation in here, I would need a lot of ice cream. The level of insults are insane. Which is a pity. This is a hobby of mine, both listening and philosophy, so I would love a friendly and civil conversation about this topic.

 

[Quadfather]

Wow! Hey guys, calm down!

There are a lot of people in this very forum, that stick to a very strict form of positivism. That is, that they believe that the world can be quantified and described, and reject the notion of subjectivity. Others, like me, belong in the tradition of the interpretive paradigm, in which knowledge is made by the intersubjectivity of subjects.

Sure, it is fine to disagree. But when people claim that people with different believes, assumptions, understanding, and knowledge, are stupid and dumb for having a different background, then go get some ice-cream, cool down. That is not cool.

To stay in the conversation in here, I would need a lot of ice cream. The level of insults are insane. Which is a pity. This is a hobby of mine, both listening and philosophy, so I would love a friendly and civil conversation about this topic.

I am in the "I don't give a damn what others or God himself thinks of me or my opinions" camp. LOL P.S. Full Terror Assault 3 was awesome this September.

 

[castleofargh]

Wow! Hey guys, calm down!

There are a lot of people in this very forum, that stick to a very strict form of positivism. That is, that they believe that the world can be quantified and described, and reject the notion of subjectivity. Others, like me, belong in the tradition of the interpretive paradigm, in which knowledge is made by the intersubjectivity of subjects.

Sure, it is fine to disagree. But when people claim that people with different believes, assumptions, understanding, and knowledge, are stupid and dumb for having a different background, then go get some ice-cream, cool down. That is not cool.

To stay in the conversation in here, I would need a lot of ice cream. The level of insults are insane. Which is a pity. This is a hobby of mine, both listening and philosophy, so I would love a friendly and civil conversation about this topic.

AFAIK the only people to ever reject subjectivity are some of the self proclaimed subjectivists. when we decide to take an objective approach to a problem, it is because we understand the difference between reality and our perception of it. so when we question feelings we answer subjectively, and when we question objective reality, we try to answer with an objective approach. it's not so much philosophy or positivism, and more about using the right tool for the right job.
and if we seem to insist on the objective aspect of sound so much, maybe it is because it is the purpose of that subsection of the forum...

as for your claim of claim about people being stupid and dumb, maybe you need a double dose of ice cream. when somebody goes overboard, any forum member can report the post and obviously moderation would deal with it. when nothing is done, you can conclude that at the very least, that nobody got offended enough to press a button. I feel that we can survive just fine under such anticlimactic circumstances.

 

[bigshot]

To stay in the conversation in here, I would need a lot of ice cream. The level of insults are insane. Which is a pity. This is a hobby of mine, both listening and philosophy, so I would love a friendly and civil conversation about this topic.

One thing to keep in mind is that if someone attacks the argument, they aren't attacking the person saying it. Challenging opinions is fine. Ad hominem attacks against the person with the opinions aren't. Some of us understand that, some folks have a weaker grip on that concept. With those folks, you have two options- give them a shot across the bow reminding them what they're doing isn't right, or just ignore them entirely and let them earn their way back into your attention.