Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

[AJ Soundfield]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

hopefully you aren't in the subgroup: "I'd be successful if the audiophiles weren't all suckers that can't understand how great my product is"

No, since I don't sell audiophile stage props.

No hyper-active imagination and susceptibility needed to hear very real differences in the soundfield, easily measured and not mindless voodoo-science, to quote JGH 

[christopher3393]

16 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Right, which have zero scientific basis.

That's why these threads exist and is the true dichotomy. Those who reject science for their views

 

Are you familiar with the term "scientism"?

[AJ Soundfield]

1 minute ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Are you familiar with the term "scientism"?

Sure and are you familiar with the term "daydream believer"?

 

Yep, "scientism" made horses stop counting and orchestras very unaudiophile.
 

[wgscott]

6 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

scientism

 

What Karl Popper used to describe a tendency in the social sciences to slavishly emulate what they (wrongly) perceived as being the aims and methods of the physical sciences.

 

Feynman used the term Cargo Cult Sciences.

[christopher3393]

4 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

What Karl Popper used to describe a tendency in the social sciences to slavishly emulate what they (wrongly) perceived as being the aims and methods of the physical sciences.

 

Feynman used the term Cargo Cult Sciences.

 

definitely an accurate use of the word and accusation , although I would not use it as a blanket statement about the social sciences as some do.

 

I was thinking more of the assumption that the scientific method trumps other ways of knowing and that the rational mind mirrors  the world and both operate in ways that would allow us to fully account for reality through scientific method. So it slips into being a metaphysics, which then isn't really natural science any more.

[AJ Soundfield]

1 minute ago, christopher3393 said:

I was thinking more of the assumption that the scientific method trumps other ways of knowing and that the rational mind mirrors  the world and both operate in ways that would allow us to fully account for reality through scientific method. So it slips into being a metaphysics, which then isn't really natural science any more.

Sure, one can get all philosophical about why "I heard it, I said so" trumps all science.

Wait, did I say trump?

[christopher3393]

16 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Sure, one can get all philosophical about why "I heard it, I said so" trumps all science.

Wait, did I say trump?

 

Yessss, you did!   But seriously, it seems like you've decided to typecast me. I don't think that sighted listening should go unchecked. Measuring is important. Double-blind testing is sometimes very corrective of sighted bias. I'm no engineer, but reading people like Sean Olive and Floyd Toole, and Archimago , as well as reading a number of people here remains a good challenge.

 

I could go on about my own questions regarding how and under what circumstances sighted listening is employed by some manufacturers, most reviewers, and most consumers, when and where it goes wrong, but also ways in which it might actually help. But I'm more interested in the topic of this thread, and more concerned about what I'll just call the quality and character of your rhetoric, not your science. And actually, I'm not sure you are in tune with what some like Archimago recommend for forum posting behavior. I'm also not sure whether "forum behavior guidelines" even matter to you. That concerns me as a member.

[AJ Soundfield]

14 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

I'm no engineer

Me neither, but I play one on TV.

As I've said, whether audiophiles believe in them or not is irrelevant. The scientific standard for audio tests is blind/controlled...if one is seeking valid results free of biases and numerous other factors that affect them.

If one simply wants to know if a widget affects you and/or whether you prefer it, no science or test is needed at all

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Right, which have zero scientific basis.

That's why these threads exist and is the true dichotomy. Those who reject science for their views

Huh? I said I posted my views (referring to the "A/B" thread - and you state that my views have zero scientific basis??? To summarize I said that it's easy for various biases to creep into testing and that real science is hard and probably not appropriate here. Folks want to listen to good music. Real science is real work. 

 

You take that as a rejection of science?

 

Look here's my bias: if my wife determines where the speakers are placed my life is far more pleasurable  I don't need @wgscott to help me out there. It's not that I'm rejecting Bill -- I think that RNA enzymes are one of the coolest things out there  probably up there with the idea that gravity waves affect phase noise  But Bill has very little way to help me out on the weekend  jus' sayin

 

keep it real

[AJ Soundfield]

3 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I said I posted my views

Right, while I posted science.

That's why orchestras are the way they are now

[Jud]

3 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

The gist is that controlled (Blind) testing is the de facto scientific valid standard for all audio, not just electro-acoustic widget audiophoolery

 

How very odd then that you should choose for your illustrations a blind test not controlled for loudness and two examples of sighted bias.

 

 I believe it was in another thread you mentioned to me evolution denialism as an example of anti-science.  “Scientific” creationism and Intelligent Design depend entirely on the binary fallacy that any issue with evolution is somehow proof of their correctness.  So clearly you are aware of the fallacy, and thus of the fact that issues with sighted testing make any blind test neither more nor less valid.

 

And I would suppose one of the first things you’d want to make sure of in any blind test you set up is that loudness was equalized.

[AJ Soundfield]

30 minutes ago, Jud said:

How very odd then that you should choose for your illustrations a blind test not controlled for loudness and two examples of sighted bias.

Why would that be odd in the context posted...unless you missed the context??

Orchestras should regress to audiophile style sighted auditions?

 

Quote

And I would suppose one of the first things you’d want to make sure of in any blind test you set up is that loudness was equalized.

So by your reckoning, the remarkable change in orchestra diversity is due to women playing louder than men?

[beerandmusic]

^^^  wow...i took a nap at the right time...getting hot in here!

[beerandmusic]

i think i will repeat my opinion...

 

if a double blind test is needed to determine which is better....it's not worth the upgrade and really is not needed.

 

If something is worthy of an upgrade, it will smack you in the face.

 

time for another nap....

[semente]

4 hours ago, Dragonfyr said:

Did anyone watch this excellent video? 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqJmqhu2ga0

 

The image quality at 1080p60 is indeed excellent.

Colour me impressed!

[semente]

4 hours ago, Dragonfyr said:

Please explain how, in the comfort of your own home, a blind test could create so much "stress" that it would cause you not to hear what is normally glaringly obvious in a sighted test?

 

I am all for blind testing, just not of the AB type.

 

Sometime ago I had some time to waste and gave Philips' online Golden Ears Challenge a try (the test was later pulled down).

It was very educational in that I was taught to recognize specific qualities in sound, but a very tiring effort ("stressing"?), so much so that I gave up halfway.

I also learnt that I tend not to focus on the same aspects of sound for A as I do for B.

 

[Ralf11]

6 hours ago, firedog said:

I'm doubtful about the efficacy of blind listening tests in practice. Personally I find that I listen differently in "test" situations. There is a fair amount of psychological stress involved also. So I don't think what I hear in that scenario is the same as what I hear when listening for enjoyment, even critically. 

 

I assume one way around this would be to conduct the tests with lots of subjects and under different testing conditions. You'd sort of assume that  any issues of the kind I'm referring to would cease to have much of an influence then. 

But that isn't a likely scenario. And even less so in a home environment.

 

Perfect for an audio club in a big city - Bosstown Audio Society anyone?

[Ralf11]

Again, the thread title is a bit of shuck & jive.

 

A better title would be "Why Do People On Computer Audiophile Display Their Contempt For Magical Woo-Woo Claims?"

 

Of course, the answer is immediately evident.

[Ralf11]

6 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I wonder if the perception of stress comes from trying to do the impossible, employ echoic memory over spans of time longer than just several seconds.  

 

 

No one needs to do that.  The mind is perfectly capable of extracting important features from any sensory input and recalling them much later.

 

The perception of stress is most likely the result of knowing one is being tested.

[christopher3393]

A. J. Soundfield: Are you up for a little challenge? Since you joined C.A. on June 5th, what percentage of your 306(!) posts could be fairly described as including implicit or explicit criticism of audiophiles? Some humorous, some serious. Some could be called sarcasm, some ridicule, some "snark". You can decide the objective term.

 

Given whatever that result is, how would you explain it? I'm guessing it will be an unusually high percentage. How would you interpret what it means? Because for me, at this point it seems justifiable to conclude that you regularly indicate what could reasonably and fairly be interpreted as contempt for audiophiles. But I can only guess as to whether or not it is contempt, or something that just looks like contempt. Depending on your emotional self-awareness, you are the best person to determine this. Depending on how you answer, this could then lead to the question, since you are so new: "Why have you come to Computer Audiophile to display contempt for audiophiles?" But I'm getting ahead of myself. Post count and analysis first.

 

But I will add that I wonder if your long and deep complaint amounts to accusing audiophiles of not being audio engineers.  (winkie of absolution)

[Ralf11]

4 hours ago, Dragonfyr said:

Did anyone watch this excellent video? 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqJmqhu2ga0

 

No, after a few seconds I decided to listen to music instead.

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

What Karl Popper used to describe a tendency in the social sciences to slavishly emulate what they (wrongly) perceived as being the aims and methods of the physical sciences.

 

Feynman used the term Cargo Cult Sciences.

 

Biologists have called it "Physics Envy" to analogize with Penis Envy.

 

Then a segment of those biologists found out that all the psychos and anthros they had tried to drill evolutionary thinking into, had adopted (some of) it and had created fields like "Evolutionary Psychology" making the biologists aghast at the proliferation of untested and untestable BS.

 

Science is a tool that can be applied to a wide range of phenomena, and sometimes you are using a wrench when a screwdriver is what's needed.  Because the evaluation & improvement of SQ to an observer requires knowledge in analog & digital electronics, acoustics, biology and psychology, it is going to be a very difficult task to understand.

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

^^^  wow...i took a nap at the right time...getting hot in here!

 

did you dream of liquid metal filled cables?

[Superdad]

6 hours ago, esldude said:

Actually in terms of fidelity it is black and white. CD is superior. Just like my 1967 12 inch vacuum tube analog TV is far inferior to a modern HDTV.

 

And exactly WHY do you still have your inferior 1967 12" b/w TV?  What are you, some sort of hoarder?  

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, wgscott said:

What Karl Popper used to describe a tendency in the social sciences to slavishly emulate what they (wrongly) perceived as being the aims and methods of the physical sciences.

 

Way back when I took my  undergrad philosophy of science class, I recall that my eyes glazed over when Popper criticized logical positivism. and then Quine proved everyone wrong. thankfully penicillin helped with the sore throat i caught from my classmate  those were the days