Really? I don't think so.
Audiophoolery?
- Thread starter MrMark
- Start date
- Status
Really? I don't think so.
Mister Pig
Pigamus Maximus
when I get the time I will do this for you. I believe I can place control and test fuse in a bag and select randomly from them. if i do it behind a screen that also covers the rear of the dAC, then I won't know which one I installed. I can either put it back in the bag and randomize, or put the second fuse in and wait until I listen to both to compare the results. There is no one here to randomly swap fuses for me, neither the dog nor cat have that skill. So that is as close to a DBT as we can get. If its not good enough, then its too bad.
I am curious to know how you prove the component is flawed, since you will not have access to it.
Regards
Mister Pig
robgmn
Super Member
Ahh you DO have a sense of humor about this whole thing!
You stated a DBT is not a valid test, then told me you can prove your ability to tell the difference with a DBT!
This place is fun!
knasty
Active Member
Interesting blog http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/search?...d-max=2013-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=5, especially info about the McGurk effect.
Is anyone actually listening to music in this thread, or are we all staring at oscilloscopes listening to test tones? Jeez!:scratch2:
The horse is dead, you can stop beating it at any time.
I proclaim everyone is right in their own mind, and it is time to spin some tunes
Regards,
Jim
The horse is dead, you can stop beating it at any time.
I proclaim everyone is right in their own mind, and it is time to spin some tunes
Regards,
Jim
Mister Pig
Pigamus Maximus
Apparently I did not get this point across. I never said DBT testing was invalid, or that I disbelieved in it. What I did say is that proponents of DBT testing never seem to use the test to select their own audio components. Which from your own admission is true in your case too.
Actually while we are at it. Can you tell us what DBT tests you have participated in? As a supporter of DBT I would think you would have participated in them. How many of them have you managed to do?
Oh I will do what I can to get an unbiased test of the fuses for you. I have spent long enough listening to them to give it a shot. I just need to free up a couple of hours to do this, think I can get it done at the beginning of next week.
Regards
Mister Pig
It's not a practical way to shop for gear, indeed it's probably an impossible way to shop.
Mister Pig
Pigamus Maximus
Well surely they must do it at home when they get their gear. After all, how can they properly evaluate their purchase? Certainly not by subjective methods.
Regards
Mister Pig
robgmn
Super Member
I just skimmed the first few paragraphs & I'm hooked.
Thanks for the link!
A quote or two from the article:
"Studies show you can play the identical track on identical equipment at an identical level two different times and odds are extremely good people will hear significant differences if they’re expecting a difference. This is called expectation bias and it’s the brain trying to be helpful by filtering your hearing to match your expectations—"
and
"Neurologists, brain experts, hearing experts, and audio experts all agree the human hearing system, by necessity, discards around 99+% of what arrives at our ears. The brain is actively involved in what gets discarded. For example when you’re listening to someone at a noisy restaurant, the brain does its best to deliver just their voice. And, multiple studies show, when you’re listening to audio gear the brain also does its best to filter your hearing in the way it thinks you most want. If you’re expecting Gear A to sound different than Gear B the brain filters each differently so you indeed hear a difference even when there isn’t one.
robgmn
Super Member
Again, you're talking apples vs. oranges. If I like the sound of a piece of equipment, I will listen to it. I don't need to do a DBT to accept the fact that I like the sound (though it would be good to find out if I may like the sound of the el cheapo amp more than the highly touted "Exquisite" line).
However, when someone claims that their magic bullet will make a system sound better (for only $500 of your hard-earned money) but it cannot be proven by DBT or any other means, then I play the B.S. card.
I'm not trying to line my pockets with my choice of equipment, but someone else is trying to line theirs by selling unproven, undocumented magic.
George Carlin said it well: (I paraphrase) "god is all-powerful, all knowing, the master of the universe; but he needs YOUR money!"
See the difference?
blackfly
Fidelius Claritus
I wish this was true. IF so, I would of not sold my Bryston amp bought new with warranty for an amp 25 years its junior. I had NO BIAS in the main amp to power my speakers. I did a simple A/B test and found an older amp to best my Bryston. I know I have said this before but I cannot understate this enough: I had NO idea that an amp 25 years junior could be better than an amp I bought new from a high end shop at full price with EVERY advantage to sound better. But it didn't. IF the addage of "hearing is believing and believing is hearing" is true, the Bryston SHOULD of sounded better than my 25 year junior Luxman amp, but didn't. There was no preconceived bias here. Just "what if". And believe me, what a shock.
And related, there is no "brain filtering" on the fact CDs ripped to my iMac played through my DAC compared to the CD played on the CD player I have with expensive cable is a no brainer: the iMac source is better. I would EXPECT the CDP with expensive digital interconnect to sound better but that is not the case. No expectation bias working here. Simply listening for the best sound possible.
Personally, I think expectation bias is a copp-out for those who don't take the time to listen and actually think about what is going on. Expectation bias, to me, is the easy way out; an excuse that in fact is used for not actually doing the test yourself or not paying attention.
It's as unreasonable to think you can't be bullshitted (including by yourself) as it is to think everything is bullshit.
Here's my answer so far . . .
:yes:
Not only is it a spirited debate but many points made. Have been reading every post in this thread (and several others like it) . . .
So far here's my answer . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKExj1TyP3Q
:yes:
Not only is it a spirited debate but many points made. Have been reading every post in this thread (and several others like it) . . .
So far here's my answer . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKExj1TyP3Q
Rapidan
Well-Known Member
Why not leave the measurers to their measuring, the tweakers to their tweaking, the listeners to their listening, and the believers to their believing?
If I want to buy cable supports, it's because I want to. I don't care if you do.
If I think all gear sounds the same, don't try to convince me to buy a certain component, 'cause I can't hear it.
Right now I'm listening to "Red Hot Momma" by Funkadelic. It sounds awesome.
If I want to buy cable supports, it's because I want to. I don't care if you do.
If I think all gear sounds the same, don't try to convince me to buy a certain component, 'cause I can't hear it.
Right now I'm listening to "Red Hot Momma" by Funkadelic. It sounds awesome.
Bubbamike
Well-Known Member
:yes:
Not only is it a spirited debate but many points made. Have been reading every post in this thread (and several others like it) . . .
So far here's my answer . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKExj1TyP3Q
You're just a rebel without a cause.
robgmn
Super Member
I have absolutely no argument that you could be hearing differences and having preferences (and there's no reason a 25 year old piece of equipment can't sound better than a new one).
I'd be nuts to try to refute it (and would be willing to bet that there are measurable results to back up what you hear).
IF however, you tell me you listened to two IDENTICAL files on your Mac and are sure one sounds much worse because it arrived via the internet but the other was ripped by you (remember - IDENTICAL files, bit-for-bit), then I'd play the B.S. card.
Until you could prove your statement (pick the "bad" one out in valid testing with consistency over MANY tests), the B.S. card would remain firmly in play.
NO magic tweak has ever been proven to be effective (meaning CHANGE the sound, not necessarily IMPROVE it) in a legitimate test.
If they had, they would no longer be a magic tweak, they would be a "repair" (and the price would dramatically drop. Magic is much more expensive than reality).
Don't think of expectation bias as a cop-out.
Think of it as sleight-of-hand (performed on you by your mind).
The sleight-of-hand artist will CONVINCE you that he has thrown the coin up in the air (you may even believe you see it on the way up), only to have it vanish.
The reality is that your brain caused a perception that was entirely false.
The same thing can (and does) happen in the audio world, and it's been PROVEN time and time again.
You just can't refute proof.
However, you CAN create false truths and spread them around a lot in the hopes that people will just blindly believe them (and maybe even give you money for them).
****EDITED BY MODERATOR TO REMOVE POLITICAL CONTENT****
There are plenty of people that will give their money to a leader of an organization because he tells them that HIS big boss will be recalling him soon unless he gets a lot of money. They believe it and hand over their dough.
Many of them live in squalor, but they'll send money to a millionaire because they believe his magic and sorcery.
These are false truths.
Yet people believe it.
Why do these false truths in audio bug me?
Because they are a rip-off. If a rich guy wants to waste his money, fine.
But there are plenty of people who work on a shoestring budget that end up wasting money on magic that could have gone to better primary equipment or to their music collection (a $4,000 tube amp to listen to CDs ripped at 128k on an iPod? Seriously?).
One person being ripped off of their hard-earned money this way is too many.
Last edited:
So you're our audio superhero. Out to save us all from things we've debated a thousand times.
Oh geez.
So here it is in the end. Yet another guy who is out to save us from ourselves. Of course, None of us have the wisdom or intelligence to figure out if the audio choices we make are ok or not. So we have super Rob to the rescue.
To be honest, I find this whole approach to be the most condescending and offensive in all of audio. We are all just a bunch of suckers, waiting to be ripped off by the mean old audio snake oil salesmen. Heaven forbid we just listen to our equipment and make up our own minds. I'm surprised we can even tie our own shoelaces. Nope, we have Rob come swooping in singing "here I come to save the day", saving us from making audio buying decisions that HE disagrees with.
Heaven forbid someone listen to CDs ripped at 128k on an iPod. Rob disagrees with your choice, you suckers. You should have asked him first. He would have steered you straight.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
tchuck
Super Member
terra1
Addicted Member
People go in all kinds of directions with sleight of hand rhetoric when the discourse goes into issues other than the original premise --- can people hear a difference?
Unfortunately, debating is often about winning as the only thing instead of listening.
If one is required to prove their statement, then it should also follow both sides need to provide proof and resolution.
I have yet to see any proof that has satisfied anybody in these type of threads where debating to debate is really the intrinsic motive. In debates, people are known to disguise their motives with altruistic motives to make them seem like they're above pettiness - just as some are subject to suggestion. People are just plain clever that way.
The problem with the Placebo argument in discrediting those who claim to hear a difference with audio is it isn't often applied in a specific scientific or controlled study. Forums don't provide that option.
Placebo: It's just taken as a "gotcha" without consideration of possible credibility or even testing - how scientic is that?
Sure, in controlled studies it is acknowledged some may be affected by suggestion.
But it also recognized not everybody is subject to suggestion.
Not everybody else is as weak as we think. (The everybody-else-is-subject to suggestion-who-disagrees-with-me syndrome - what is that called?)
And the few who respond to placebos do not necessarily invalidate the overall study.
It's a gimmick argument that certainly sounds valid and hard to respond to without detouring into more rhetorical side bars --- because you are getting into abstracts instead of evidence - instead of acknowledging the test result.
A person has experienced a difference. Period.
A person cannot hear a difference. Period.
With forum debates without follow-up or in person evaluation representing both parties, that's as far as one can go.
From there one can find blogs and other "experts" to support their position with little effect. And they will be denounced as biased with an agenda anyway.
Altruism is a noble concept.
But, I've gotten cynical in my old age, I'm not here to change the world or save anyone.
People can spend money the way they want.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Carry on.
Unfortunately, debating is often about winning as the only thing instead of listening.
If one is required to prove their statement, then it should also follow both sides need to provide proof and resolution.
I have yet to see any proof that has satisfied anybody in these type of threads where debating to debate is really the intrinsic motive. In debates, people are known to disguise their motives with altruistic motives to make them seem like they're above pettiness - just as some are subject to suggestion. People are just plain clever that way.
The problem with the Placebo argument in discrediting those who claim to hear a difference with audio is it isn't often applied in a specific scientific or controlled study. Forums don't provide that option.
Placebo: It's just taken as a "gotcha" without consideration of possible credibility or even testing - how scientic is that?
Sure, in controlled studies it is acknowledged some may be affected by suggestion.
But it also recognized not everybody is subject to suggestion.
Not everybody else is as weak as we think. (The everybody-else-is-subject to suggestion-who-disagrees-with-me syndrome - what is that called?)
And the few who respond to placebos do not necessarily invalidate the overall study.
It's a gimmick argument that certainly sounds valid and hard to respond to without detouring into more rhetorical side bars --- because you are getting into abstracts instead of evidence - instead of acknowledging the test result.
A person has experienced a difference. Period.
A person cannot hear a difference. Period.
With forum debates without follow-up or in person evaluation representing both parties, that's as far as one can go.
From there one can find blogs and other "experts" to support their position with little effect. And they will be denounced as biased with an agenda anyway.
Altruism is a noble concept.
But, I've gotten cynical in my old age, I'm not here to change the world or save anyone.
People can spend money the way they want.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Carry on.
- Status
