EFP;181076 Wrote:
solipsism aside..
what makes you assume I believe in creationism?
is there no third possibility, that humans have been here the whole
time alongside apes, for millions of years?
there is no fossil evidence that supports a monkey was my uncle.
what really happened is
regalma1;180891 Wrote:
Sorry about getting off but I am so tired of creationists with no
background in Biology, or at least the origin of species, making all
kinds of empty claims just to justify their personal beliefs. At some
point we have to open our eyes and see the world as it is, not
Here is a nice example how one extermely low probability, half crazy,
theory ascends into established truth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener
--
P Floding
No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if
you ask me.)
P Floding;180742 Wrote:
Here is a nice example how one extermely low probability, half crazy,
theory ascends into established truth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener
Nice example. The history of science has several (many?) examples of
how outrageous ideas eventually become
ceejay;180751 Wrote:
Nice example. The history of science has several (many?) examples of
how outrageous ideas eventually become mainstream.
However, let's not forget that there are far, far more examples of
outrageous ideas that remain outrageous because they always were
stupid.
So,
P Floding;180758 Wrote:
Concensus amongst scientists don't give very good likelihood of
something being true. All it means is that they haven't been able to
get further in their research, as things stand. Scientist SHOULD
bicker, or I would say that they are not doing their job properly.
ezkcdude;180761 Wrote:
Scientists haven't debated the basic theory of evolution for over a
hundred years. So, this means they must not have it right?
Bringing this back to something relevant to the discussion, here's a
picture of the evolution revolution.
---Gary
ezkcdude;180761 Wrote:
This complexity argument is pure sophistry. Scientists haven't debated
the basic theory of evolution for over a hundred years. So, this means
they must not have it right? Sure, climatology is a complex science.
But, the idea of man-made CO2 emmissions warming the
P Floding;180796 Wrote:
The theory of evolution is debated all the time. And I don't mean from a
religious standpoint, but in the details.
The basic theory of evolution is not debated, and the details of any
theory are not usually debated per se, rather they are filled in where
needed to
Hmm, have we reached a point where we actually basically agree but can't
quite phrase it how we want? I suspect it might be the case :)
Adam
--
adamslim
SB3 into Derek Shek d2, Shanling CDT-100, Rotel RT-990BX, Esoteric Audio
Research 859, Living Voice Auditorium IIs, Nordost and
ezkcdude;180840 Wrote:
The basic theory of evolution is not debated, and the details of any
theory are not usually debated per se, rather they are filled in where
needed to explain lingering questions. And who should provide these
details, scientists or lay people? Obviously, debate among
ezkcdude;180840 Wrote:
The basic theory of evolution is not debated, and the details of any
theory are not usually debated per se, rather they are filled in where
needed to explain lingering questions.
There is no hard proof to support that man is descended from apes.
It is a theory, and
EFP;180881 Wrote:
I
I found this to be enlightening and enjoyable, hosted by none other
than Charlton Heston
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0323339/
Yes, though it is interesting that it counters some of his earlier work
on evolution in
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063442/.
--
snarlydwarf
ezkcdude;180840 Wrote:
The basic theory of evolution is not debated, and the details of any
theory are not usually debated per se, rather they are filled in where
needed to explain lingering questions. And who should provide these
details, scientists or lay people? Obviously, debate among
konut;180933 Wrote:
To quote Paul Simon ,A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards
the rest.
So, I want to hear that the human race is doomed?
--
ezkcdude
DIY projects page:
http://www.ezdiyaudio.com
System:
SB3-EZDAC-MIT Terminator 2 interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step
ezkcdude;180934 Wrote:
So, I want to hear that the human race is doomed?
Apparently
--
konut
konut's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1596
View this thread:
konut;180933 Wrote:
You might find this an interesting read.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6k=0
Then again, you may not.
Oh, the UN. Thats like going to a taxidermist for a headache.
To quote Paul Simon ,A man hears what he wants to
You'd think they coulda found a Canadian scientist...
--
konut
konut's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1596
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32352
opaqueice;180442 Wrote:
With the help of one other person it's really not hard to conduct single
blind testing, which, if done with some care and in good faith, is
usually good enough for these purposes.
Actually, almost every time I've posted on an audio forum that I
participated/conducted
PhilNYC;180473 Wrote:
Actually, almost every time I've posted on an audio forum that I
participated/conducted a single-blind test that resulted in people
hearing obvious differences in things such as interconnects, I've
received responses that the test was invalid because it wasn't a
Does anyone have any references (academic peer review journal quality)
on the 'persistance' of aural memory? How long a gap between listening
to 'A' and then 'B' can elapse and still have that comparison remain
valid? Obviously, this might depend on the magnitude of those
differences, but I've
opaqueice;180498 Wrote:
In the end we are not scientific researchers - we're just trying to
decide for ourselves what sounds good.
Hey - that sounds good usually works for me. I reckon that 'test
stress' limits the benefits of blind (single, double or polygamous)
testing, and you're much
adamslim;180516 Wrote:
I realise that it is not scientific, but the chocolate vs strawberry
yoghurt story given earlier indicates some limits to a scientific
method of testing. I struggle to find a solution that satisfies me
rationally, so am happy just to stick with something that just
opaqueice;180525 Wrote:
it's amazing how the two sides in this discussion can draw completely
different conclusions from the same piece of evidence!
What's interesting to me is why there *are* two sides so vehemently
opposed to each other. What makes one person pro-DBT and the next
Eric Carroll;180440 Wrote:
For example (to make this tangible not to be critical), the claim that
putting vibration isolators under an SB3 improves the sound. We can't
test it; there is no direct measurement. We can't prove out the claim
perceptually, you state its impractical to test.
P Floding;180534 Wrote:
3. Side B often asserts what is possible when in fact they are merely
stating what is the current set of accepted truths. (And often limited
to a rather small subset of common knowledge at that.)
But this isn't about possibility. Anything is possible (trivial
opaqueice;180543 Wrote:
But this isn't about possibility. Anything is possible (trivial formal
statements aside); therefore possibility is totally uninteresting.
What matters in the real world is not possibility, it's plausibility
and the relative likelihood of different explanations. The
opaqueice;180543 Wrote:
But this isn't about possibility. Anything is possible (trivial formal
statements aside); therefore possibility is totally uninteresting.
What matters in the real world is not possibility, it's plausibility
and the relative likelihood of different explanations. The
P Floding;180545 Wrote:
In fact, you have no safe way of estimating plausability when you have
incomplete knowledge. And if you have complete knowledge you know if it
is POSSIBLE or not. So much for that distinction.
Is it safe for me to assert that it is implausible that the universe
was
P Floding;180545 Wrote:
In fact, you have no safe way of estimating plausability when you have
incomplete knowledge. And if you have complete knowledge you know if it
is POSSIBLE or not. So much for that distinction.
That isn't entirely true, actually. Substitute probability of being
true
P Floding;180545 Wrote:
In fact, you have no safe way of estimating plausability when you have
incomplete knowledge. And if you have complete knowledge you know if it
is POSSIBLE or not. So much for that distinction.
Not true, of course. Let me give two very contemporary examples. We
have
jeffmeh;180572 Wrote:
Is it safe for me to assert that it is implausible that the universe was
created by a rabbit wearing a top hat? :)
Sure. Most people would say it is impossible.
--
P Floding
No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if
you ask me.)
totoro;180576 Wrote:
That isn't entirely true, actually. Substitute probability of being true
for plausibility, and you've got something to work with. It's a pretty
hot research topic these days. That's what Bayesian statistics is all
about, and what other machine learning stuff is generally
P Floding;180603 Wrote:
In order to calculate probabilities you need some kind of measurable
targets. The problem with plausability in hifi is that there is
little agreement on what can and cannot be heard. But lets leave it at
that, because I can feel someone will now claim that there
P Floding;180600 Wrote:
Thanks for that example!
That is in fact a very, very good example of someones high
probablility being someone else's low probability:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
You may want to read up on your boy Monckton,
ezkcdude;180610 Wrote:
You may want to read up on your boy Monckton, whoops, I mean Christopher
Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1947246,00.html
Yeah, there is fighting amongst the researchers, and the big
education-research-stick
P Floding;180614 Wrote:
Yeah, there is fighting amongst the researchers, and the big
education-research-stick is being used to try to beat dissenters into
submission. Personally I'm on the fence. My point was that the
concensus can and will change, and it doesn't follow that reality has
ezkcdude;180622 Wrote:
No, you're missing my point. Who should make the consensus? Scientists
or dabblers? What we are continually being told by climate change
skeptics, almost all of whom are outside the scientific community, is
that there is a robust debate going on. There isn't. One only
jeffmeh;180572 Wrote:
Is it safe for me to assert that it is implausible that the universe was
created by a rabbit wearing a top hat? :)
Not if the rabbit wants it kept a secret ;)
--
hirsch
hirsch's Profile:
occam;180513 Wrote:
Does anyone have any references (academic peer review journal quality)
on the 'persistance' of aural memory? How long a gap between listening
to 'A' and then 'B' can elapse and still have that comparison remain
valid? Obviously, this might depend on the magnitude of those
Eric Carroll;180082 Wrote:
Is perhaps one of the confusing things in this discussion the difference
between a single person, single trial negative result (i.e. null) vs a
single person multiple trial negative result/positive results vs
multiple person multiple trials?
Multiple trials add
snarlydwarf;180098 Wrote:
Can't we all agree on some basic realities:
1) Human perception is easily fooled by a variety of influences
(loouder, hints, expectations, etc... some obvious, some subtle)
2) Removing as many external influences as possible is necessary to
do any scientific test
snarlydwarf;180098 Wrote:
Can't we all agree on some basic realities:
1) Human perception is easily fooled by a variety of influences
(loouder, hints, expectations, etc... some obvious, some subtle)
Good post, I agree with your points.
Most people accept the truth of optical illusions.
Hirsch,
I should have read your posting first.
Totally agree, excellent post. Thanks.
--
Eric Carroll
Transporter-Bryston 3B SST-Paradigm Reference Studio 60 v.4
SB3-Rotel RB890-BW Matrix 805
SB3-Pioneer VSX-49TXi-Mirage OM7+C2+R2
Very nice post Hirsch!
I have been speculating about the possibility that critical or
concentrated listening modifies the way we hear things, and make many
qualitative judgements harder to make than if we listen more relaxed
over longer time periods.
The brain is amazingly good at filling in
Hirsch makes some great points. So, what do we need then? I would
suggest that having some sort of blind test should be part of the
solution. But, as Hirsch points out, the DBT, itself, may have some
problems. If one of the problems with DBT is the short duration, and
hence, listening pressure,
hirsch;180186 Wrote:
Placebo's do work...both ways. Expectancy can eliminate a real
difference as easily as it can produce a false positive.
We talked about this before on this forum - the hypthesis that the
stress of blind tests reduced people's hearing abilities was termed
blinditis.
opaqueice;180328 Wrote:
We talked about this before on this forum - the hypthesis that the
stress of blind tests reduced people's hearing abilities was termed
blinditis. It's quite a lot to buy - that people think they can hear
a difference sighted or blind, but when blind they are stressed
P Floding;180332 Wrote:
It's all very interesting, and I hope more research is done in this
area.
However, I don't think the hobbyists called audiophiles should have
to keep this in mind every time the would like to endulge in their
chosen hobby.
I dunno, I think everyone should at least
P Floding;180332 Wrote:
However, I don't think the hobbyists called audiophiles should have
to keep this in mind every time the would like to endulge in their
chosen hobby.
Actually, anyone who has performed DBT is automatically disqualified
from audiophile status. At least, that's what it
snarlydwarf;180335 Wrote:
I dunno, I think everyone should at least keep it in mind or it is
(depending on whether you are a half-empty or half-full person I guess)
easy to be suckered into buying the latest-area-51-gadget or risk
missing out on something affordable that makes a real
ezkcdude;180340 Wrote:
Actually, anyone who has performed DBT is automatically disqualified
from audiophile status. At least, that's what it says in the small
print on the back of my membership card.
No, that would be petty!
We audiophiles can forgive and forget! ;-D
I have occasionally
P Floding;180332 Wrote:
However, I don't think the hobbyists called audiophiles should have to
keep this in mind every time the would like to endulge in their chosen
hobby.
Well, while I try to be respectful of people who can hear a difference,
I have to somewhat disagree with this
Eric Carroll;180342 Wrote:
Well, while I try to be respectful of people who can hear a difference,
I have to somewhat disagree with this statement.
I have been personally subjected to salespeople who promolgate unproven
claims of better audio quality in order to extract money. The audio
Ok, how about a sci.audiophile and alt.audiophile then?
Or take the mods to the DIY forum.
Personally I want to understand what is superstition and what is
reproducible.
I think the response on anti-aging creams is self-evident. If it claims
efficacy I want to know it really works, not just
Eric Carroll;180342 Wrote:
You can always mod something, or sell something on non-performance
features. Claims of performance and efficacy demand a higher standard,
if you want my money.
And it may be a case of getting More For The Buck.
If using some special disc from a hardwood reduces
snarlydwarf;180363 Wrote:
And it may be a case of getting More For The Buck.
If using some special disc from a hardwood reduces vibration (which is
counterintuitive... a hard substance wouldn't absorb as much as a soft
wood), then would any hardwood do? Does it have to be ebony? Or would
P Floding;180365 Wrote:
Look, it is not as if there is, or will be A TRUTH, that we can all just
look up in a nice book and go by. You won't find it, and I won't and it
is pointless demanding it.
...
But see, that is incredibly anti-scientific. If something makes a
discernable difference,
snarlydwarf;180366 Wrote:
...
But see, that is incredibly anti-scientific. If something makes a
discernable difference, then it should be possible to show that. Even
if it is wow, P Floding has incredible hearing, he can hear the
difference, and we can -show- he can, though no one else
P Floding;180368 Wrote:
I don't believe I have fantastic hearing.
It may be better than average, but that doesn't mean much. Anyway, that
idea was foremost hypothetical to forward a line of reasoning.
And that has nothing to do with anything? You said you heard a
difference with those wood
snarlydwarf;180370 Wrote:
And that has nothing to do with anything? You said you heard a
difference with those wood things, and I am not disputing that. You
did. The question remains, then, why?
Is it because of the properties of the wood? Is it because of
something else?
Eric Carroll;180342 Wrote:
I have been personally subjected to salespeople who promolgate unproven
claims of better audio quality in order to extract money. The audio shop
I bought my recent power amp stated that everything has a colour,
meaning even piece of equipment influences tonality,
If more audiophiles actually learned how to DIY, and I don't just mean
rolling tubes and op amps, and swapping in boutique caps, but actually
learned how to build and design amps/DACs/speakers from the ground up,
well, there would be a lot less audiophiles. The problem with
audiophiles is,
Wow - I go away for a few days and this thread explodes.
Let me start by welcoming Hirsch to the discussion. I find his
comments to be well reasoned and he articulates the objections to DBT
much better than I ever could.
I also agree with the comments from P. Floding
P Floding;180356
GaryB;180422 Wrote:
I often feel that I'm being told what I'm allowed to hear. And ideas
are thrown out as obviously correct that don't agree at all with my own
perceptions.
Gary,
I believe this is the crux of the issue as I said in another posting.
Side A perceives something is true
GaryB;180422 Wrote:
Let me start by welcoming Hirsch to the discussion. I find his comments
to be well reasoned and he articulates the objections to DBT much better
than I ever could.
I sure didn't read Hirsch's comments as criticism of DBT. I read it as
an informed practitioner's
Eric Carroll;180431 Wrote:
If illusions and confirmation bias exists in the taste and visual
worlds, why is it so hard to believe the auditory equivalent? Why *not*
measure?
Eric,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I think everyone agrees that the placebo effect is real and must be
avoided.
Gary,
Thanks for your very well thought out response. I think I understand
the A viewpoint better now. I understand how these claims for testing
could be frustrating given your posting.
You put it quite well:
GaryB;180436 Wrote:
My point is that a request for such testing is beyond the
Eric Carroll;180440 Wrote:
Would you not also agree that claims of performance and efficacy based
on single users hearing it, given all the issues I listed and which you
did not dispute, are also a form of proof by assertion by side A?
Actually I don't agree.
When people suggest that they
GaryB;180436 Wrote:
My point is that a request for such testing is beyond the scope of
99.99% of the participants. Since that is true, calls for these types
of testing really are a way of saying everything Side A is saying is
bunk since they can't provide the proof requested.
It's really
GaryB;180422 Wrote:
It reminds me of the struggles of Galileo and the Catholic church
regarding whether the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa.
Anyone offering anything other than the officially sanctioned views of
the Church of the Objectivists must recant.
Yet it still moves
opaqueice wrote:
With the help of one other person it's really not hard to conduct
single blind testing, which, if done with some care and in good faith,
is usually good enough for these purposes.
While I do not want to get into what is clearly a theological argument,
I can't let this one
There's a strange fear of trying these tests... it's really not that
hard. I've done it several times now, including recently for the
linear versus stock PS (which requires a minute or so of downtime).
If in the 20 seconds it takes to swap a cable you've already forgotten
the sound enough that
One test that would be easy to perform with SlimServer (and I think I
will try it this weekend) is to compare different compression ratios
starting with lossless going down to 128kbps. Simply take a song and
rip it with the different schemes, put the different copies in a
folder, each with a
opaqueice;179870 Wrote:
I didn't start this conversation. Someone else came into this thread,
after it had finally died, and started making false statements about
BT.
They obviously do have significance - they provide strong evidence that
the subject couldn't hear a difference under
P Floding wrote:
opaqueice;179870 Wrote:
I didn't start this conversation. Someone else came into this thread,
after it had finally died, and started making false statements about
BT.
They obviously do have significance - they provide strong evidence that
the subject couldn't hear a
P Floding;179893 Wrote:
Negative results:
1. We would like to prove that there exists red cars.
2. We observe cars.
3a. We see red car. We have proven that at least one red car exists.
or
3b. We never see a red car. We didn't prove a single thing. This is
what's called a negative
P Floding wrote:
Negative results:
1. We would like to prove that there exists red cars.
2. We observe cars.
3a. We see red car. We have proven that at least one red car exists.
or
3b. We never see a red car. We didn't prove a single thing. This is
what's called a negative result.
Pretty
Pat Farrell;179980 Wrote:
P Floding wrote:
Negative results:
1. We would like to prove that there exists red cars.
2. We observe cars.
3a. We see red car. We have proven that at least one red car exists.
or
3b. We never see a red car. We didn't prove a single thing. This is
opaqueice;179972 Wrote:
In any case, for blind testing, what is being tested is whether or not
the subject can actually hear a difference. A positive result
provides evidence that s/he can, a negative result that s/he can't.
That's it; the negative result is just as meaningful and just as
opaqueice;179972 Wrote:
Well, we had this debate before. You can find it if you search the
forum - there is no such logical distinction (a statement is equal to
the negation of its negation, so obviously you can't classify
statements as positive or negative). Sometimes the negation of some
hirsch;180007 Wrote:
Nope. You're back at the basic error. How do you distinguish the results
obtained in a negative DBT from those obtained in a hearing-impaired
sample?
Let's take a basic perceptual test. We test for a difference between
two stimuli, and try to figure out whether or
hirsch;180007 Wrote:
Note that blinding is not even mentioned in the above. It's simply a
way of removing a confounding variable so that a significant alpha
becomes more interpretable. That's it. If you think what I'm saying
is in any way false, I strongly recommend reading a book on
Opaqueice,
Is perhaps one of the confusing things in this discussion the
difference between a single person, single trial negative result (i.e.
null) vs a single person multiple trial negative result/positive
results vs multiple person multiple trials?
When someone says I heard a difference, I
Eric Carroll;180082 Wrote:
Maybe I am not expressing this well enough and you could eloborate or
say it better. The point I am making is that many people feel offended
when someone says it got better and thus it is due to X and someone
else says did you ABX it - they interpret this to mean
jeffmeh;179144 Wrote:
I fail to see how the quote you reference displays a general
misunderstanding of DBT limitations, as the poster is merely stating
that verifying that someone can hear a difference through DBT proves
that the change is audible, rather than psychological. If I read
opaqueice;179151 Wrote:
That's just obviously false. The fact that there is a measurable
difference and that someone claims to hear something clearly does not
mean you are done. The set of things that are measurable is not the
same as the set of things that are perceptible. Measuring
hirsch;179800 Wrote:
If I can measure it objectively, it's real. End of story.
This was mentioned on Nova the other day. 'Cortisone injections were so
effective in treating rheumatory arthritis that ABX wasn't needed'.
/useless info
--
Skunk
hirsch;179800 Wrote:
If I can measure it objectively, it's real. End of story. Whether or
not I can hear it is another question, so I do a test. Maybe blind,
maybe not. Blinding is not all that interesting when the difference in
stimuli can be measured. In fact, if an objectively
opaqueice;177833 Wrote:
But blind testing is actually a lot more useful than a voltmeter,
because it tells us what we really want to know - whether we can hear a
difference. In your rather perfect example, blind testing would be a
very natural thing to discuss - one would want to ask, is
hirsch;179123 Wrote:
You have a difference. You don't know if the difference is due to
physical or psychological influences. DBT can help rule out
psychological influence. You've run DBT. Congratulations! Your
difference is likely not due to psychological influence.
Correct.
hirsch;179123 Wrote:
If you hear a difference, and can go back and measure a difference in
the stimuli, why bother with DBT? It's not a necessary control at that
point. You've got a measurable difference, and you can hear it. Done.
That's just obviously false. The fact that there is a
GaryB;177733 Wrote:
This thread was about how we can avoid having EVERY thread turn into a
discussion about DBT. I'm still looking for suggestions on how to
accomplish that and it needs some cooperation from the rest of the
community.
Thanks,
---Gary
I think a good suggestion was
opaqueice wrote:
ErikM;177742 Wrote:
Start a DBT forum, this is supposed to be the audiophile forum. Frankley
if I hear a difference then for me it exists.. not saying better,
different.
Audiophile: literally, one who loves sound. Less literally, one who
cares about accurate reproduction
opaqueice;177741 Wrote:
There is simply no way to discuss audio quality seriously without blind
testing coming up.
I so completely disagree with this.
If I do a cable swap and find that the frequency response of my system
changes, why should I need to discuss blind testing?
--
PhilNYC
PhilNYC wrote:
opaqueice;177741 Wrote:
There is simply no way to discuss audio quality seriously without blind
testing coming up.
I so completely disagree with this.
If I do a cable swap and find that the frequency response of my system
changes, why should I need to discuss blind
PhilNYC;177830 Wrote:
I so completely disagree with this.
If I do a cable swap and find that the frequency response of my system
changes, why should I need to discuss blind testing?
Well, it doesn't have to come up in every comment or thread. Blind
testing is a tool, like a voltmeter. If
Robin Bowes;177828 Wrote:
You're still missing the point.
I don't think *anyone* has said DBT is bad and shouldn't be used.
What we're saying is that you don't *have* to bring it up in *every*
thread; it gets very tiresome.
Actually that *has* been said several times on this forum.
opaqueice;177833 Wrote:
Well, it doesn't have to come up in every comment or thread. Blind
testing is a tool, like a voltmeter. If someone suggested we never
mention voltmeters, wouldn't you find that a bit odd?
Odd, but I wouldn't object.. ;-)
But blind testing is actually a lot more
My friend, PhilNYC argues quite reasonably that some differences in
sound quality are so obvious that double blind testing isn't
necessary.
PhilNYC;177835 Wrote:
. . .In the cases where the magnitude of change is great enough, I also
see no need to discuss double-blind testing. For example,
1 - 100 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
