doctor_big wrote: > I've seen the "tests" you perform where you set up two utterly different > systems - one lo-fi, one upper-mid-fi, and abx them behind a screen. You > trot out a bunch of audiophiles who are utterly wamboozled and unable to > differentiate which one is X.
Not sure what test you are referring to. > So, I am quite convinced by my own experience that ABX is not a valid > test for subtle differences in audio. JH901 or whatever his name is, is > trying to set up an ABX test using cables. Without even knowing the > scenario in detail, I do know that if he sets the test up correctly he's > going to fail miserably. Does that mean there's no difference? I > really don't know. The problem is that we have numerous examples where measurements show there are no differences, but people hear differences - as long as it is a sighted test. As soon as you remove that one component (being able to know which system is which), the differences disappear. At the same time, perceptional research has shown that our preconceived notions of what we should hear actually makes us hear exactly what we expect to hear - even if there is no actual difference. So what is the reasonable conclusion? That there is some magical property in our audio systems that can't be measured, and can't be heard in double-blind (not just ABX) tests? > I hear differences in cables, but I can't say for sure whether it's > expectation bias or a real difference that flies under the ABX radar. I > suspect the latter, but have no way of proving it. It would not be impossible to prove. There are many other ways to do double-blind tests - ABX is not the only method. Have you heard of MUSHRA (MUltiple Stimuli with Hidden Reference and Anchor)? Do you think people like the International Telecommunication Union are wrong in specifying double-blind as their standard test method? > Just because you have a background in science doesn't mean you aren't > agenda driven or biased. Wakefield was a scientist, right? Remember > him? The autism/MMR guy? A background in science doesn't grant you a > free pass. Indeed. No background, degree or reputation gives anyone a free pass. That is one of the great things about science - it's not about who you are or what your motivation is - it is about the factual evidence you present. You are right in that I definitely have an agenda - I passionately hate pseudoscience, and believe audio is based on sound engineering principles, not voodoo. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103950 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
