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

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

The problem occurs when folks report their subjective, fallible evaluations to others that take it as gospel. Especially bad when this is done by equipment manufacturers. 

 

You're trying to save people from themselves. Live and let live. 

 

Provide information on what you believe, and move on. 

[christopher3393]

Just now, firedog said:

The problem is when audiophile only use sighted evaluation and make claims sound improvements brought about things like cables and other items that can't be supported by known mechanisms. 

If you want to say something definitive like, "cable a reduces harshness compared to cable b", then you should be prepared to test it unsighted. 

 

 

 I can tell you that I wouldn't make those claims unless I qualified them as soft, subjective responses. Not even sure I would call them claims. And I don't think anyone should suggest that these claims are "definitive". But how many do? Moreover, what are the consequences for someone who has made an overly strong claim is not prepared to test unsighted? It is not against policy here. I see no published guideline here that suggests this should be done. I do think that person should be prepared to be challenged civilly, or ignored. But not to be ridiculed.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

With you and Teresa I'm batting 0 and 2.

But I'm hoping for a better result with others more rational.

 

Ah, I get it. Get in line with Sal of you're irrational.

 

I couldn't resist taking a friendly jab :~)

[mmerrill99]

20 minutes ago, firedog said:

Unfortunately, our brain will often continue to allow sight to override what is coming into our ears. We are creatures very oriented towards sight. 

You obviously can listen and enjoy how you like - and should. I think what Sal and some others are reacting to is using sighted listening as some sort of objective, authoritative yardstick. It isn't. Even for our own ears. We should at least acknowledge that. 

It's fine to say, "I like this better and that's what I'm listening to."; That isn't the same as saying, I added this to my system and I KNOW for a fact  that it does x (reduces noise, lifts veils, firms up bass, etc)", because I heard it. 

 

A better approach would be "it sounds better to me, but I haven't tested it non-sighted, so I could be fooling myself."

I think what Teresa is saying is that a test which asks you to taste food with your nose blocked is of no value when she tastes all her food without her nose blocked.

 

What is the point of the test? To show that blocking your nose will depress your taste sensation to the point where almost everything tastes the same?

[pkane2001]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

You're trying to save people from themselves. Live and let live. 

 

Provide information on what you believe, and move on. 

 

No, I'm trying to improve S/N ratio on these forums. Somewhat unsuccessfully, I might add  so the suggestion to move on is perhaps appropriate.

 

[firedog]

2 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Nope, the correct phrase is "CAN change what we hear" but so can smell, mood, lighting, worry, tiredness, company - any number of things!

 

What would you say is the best way to eliminate these influences on what we perceive?

 

Teresa has found that over longer term listening the variations in each of these other biases may well cancel out - in other words her mood listening one day is likely to be different to her mood on another days listening, her tiredness one day, different to her tiredness another day & so on. Over long term listening, these factors will vary so much that what is the essence of  the sound becomes apparent - the characteristic sound of the device, if you like.

 

On the other hand, blind A/B testing focuses so much on eliminating just one bias sigthedness/knowledge that it ignores all the other biases/influences in how we perceive. It tends towards a one shot at "proving" what is audible.

 

See the problem?

You are conflating different arguments. It's not an argument about blind A/B testing. 

 

Sighted listening is well established as a major influence in peoples decisions about what sounds better. That is, people's evaluations of which component sounds better/different are directly and consistently affected when they know which components are being played. Even "large/obvious" differences can magically disappear when we don't know which components are playing. 

The other factors you mention might have some effect, but it certainly isn't established how they work or even if the same variable might work in opposite directions at different times. And it hasn't been shown that they can cause large changes in our perception. Sight can. We know that. 

 

Teresa can listen however she wants. But even given all those factors you mention, she comes up with a decision about what sounds better to her. 

The question remains - would she reach the same decision if she didn't  know which of two components she is comparing? It can't be said with any authority that she would. 

[mmerrill99]

12 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

No, I'm trying to improve S/N ratio on these forums. Somewhat unsuccessfully, I might add  so the suggestion to move on is perhaps appropriate.

One man's signal is another man's noise

Didn't Paul Simon have a song title like this - "One man's ceiling is another man's floor" - obviously all about living in an apartment ?

[firedog]

9 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

 I can tell you that I wouldn't make those claims unless I qualified them as soft, subjective responses. Not even sure I would call them claims. And I don't think anyone should suggest that these claims are "definitive". But how many do? Moreover, what are the consequences for someone who has made an overly strong claim is not prepared to test unsighted? It is not against policy here. I see no published guideline here that suggests this should be done. I do think that person should be prepared to be challenged civilly, or ignored. But not to be ridiculed.

I'm just talking about the concept, not a policy. And yes, often it is said here that "you can't challenge what I hear. If I hear it that's all there is to it."

Well, yes you can challenge it, because it's an thoroughly challengable claim.

I agree people should be civil about it. I also think people should be careful about  how they phrase their claims for what they heard.

[mmerrill99]

11 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

Sighted listening is well established as a major influence in peoples decisions about what sounds better. That is, people's evaluations of which component sounds better/different are directly and consistently affected when they know which components are being played. Even "large/obvious" differences can magically disappear when we don't know which components are playing. 

The other factors you mention might have some effect, but it certainly isn't established how they work or even if the same variable might work in opposite directions at different times. And it hasn't been shown that they can cause large changes in our perception. Sight can. We know that. 

Have you got a study which shows that people are CONSISTENTLY affected by sight of the audio devices? Not statistical averaging but CONSISTENT.

 

So you don't know what effect other factors might have in what we hear & yet you rely on just eliminating sight as the gold standard test?

 

I was giving an alternative justification for Teresa's view about blind A/B testing as I interpret it.

 

But here's the crux of the matter - you keep saying that sightedness affects hearing & yet after a blind test which "proves" that A & B sound the same, this bias magically disappears - now A & B sound the same, sighted. Pleas explain how the CONSISTENT major bias is suddenly no longer extant?

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

No, I'm trying to improve S/N ratio on these forums. Somewhat unsuccessfully, I might add  so the suggestion to move on is perhaps appropriate.

 

 

You have a laudable goal, but are actually accomplishing the opposite. The S/N ratio only goes up when people get into arguments like this. Simply stating one's opinion and any data to back up the opinion, works much better in the long run. 

 

Think about it from your own perspective. Do you tend to listen to people who attempt to jam something down your throat and persist despite a no-win situation? It works the same for both sides. Be pleasant, state your piece.

 

I appreciate what you're trying to do. Honestly. 

[firedog]

5 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Have you got a study which shows that people are CONSISTENTLY affected by sight of the audio devices? Not statistical averaging but CONSISTENT.

 

So you don't know what effect other factors might have in what we hear & yet you rely on just eliminating sight as the gold standard test?

 

I was giving an alternative justification for Teresa's view about blind A/B testing as I interpret it.

yes, but you are just speculating.It's possible other factors exist, but you're speculating on whether they do and how much influence they have. 

There have been lots of demonstrations of people "knowing" that one component sounds much better than another, but not being able to tell which is which when the components are behind a curtain.

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

You have a laudable goal, but are actually accomplishing the opposite. The S/N ratio only goes up when people get into arguments like this. Simply stating one's opinion and any data to back up the opinion, works much better in the long run. 

 

Think about it from your own perspective. Do you tend to listen to people who attempt to jam something down your throat and persist despite a no-win situation? It works the same for both sides. Be pleasant, state your piece.

 

I appreciate what you're trying to do. Honestly. 

 

Point taken. Already unsubscribed from this thread.

 

[Sal1950]

14 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

You have a laudable goal, but are actually accomplishing the opposite. The S/N ratio only goes up when people get into arguments like this. Simply stating one's opinion and any data to back up the opinion, works much better in the long run. 

 

Think about it from your own perspective. Do you tend to listen to people who attempt to jam something down your throat and persist despite a no-win situation? It works the same for both sides. Be pleasant, state your piece.

 

I appreciate what you're trying to do. Honestly. 

Why do you always react as the debate is one sided?

Your input here has been only to call the objectivists unreasonable all the while the subjectives attempt to shout us down.

A bit of a bias showing IMHO

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Why do you always react as the debate is one sided?

Your input here has been only to call the objectivists unreasonable all the while the subjectives attempt to shout us down.

A bit of a bias showing IMHO

 

Hi Sal - That's too bad I came across as one-sided. Perhaps that's my fault. I specifically added the sentence, "It works the same for both sides." In order to get across that it does work both ways. 

 

Like everything in life, audio beliefs are on a continuum from crazy objectivist to crazy subjectivist. The polar ends are equally responsible for acting very similar, but with different beliefs and objectives. I'm not suggesting anyone here is in the crazy camp, just using this as an illustration that this is definitely a two-sided issue. 

[mmerrill99]

 

19 minutes ago, firedog said:

yes, but you are just speculating.It's possible other factors exist, but you're speculating on whether they do and how much influence they have. 

Well, isn't discovery & science about speculation & examining what might be the flaws in current thinking/experiments? I would have thought objectivists would be looking at this critically themselves & not dismissing it out of hand.

If there is no evidence about the influence of these factors then why not? Are you saying that lack of evidence means they have no influence or that people are just not bothered investigating this aspect?

 

How do we know the relative strength of these factors in their power to influence what we perceive? For instance,  inattentive blindness exists for auditory as well as visual perception where we don't see something obvious because our attention is elsewhere. Working memory load is strongly related to this & therefore mood, worry, etc. are factors that may well influence hat we hear.

 

But the whole point is that Teresa listens over the long term, yes sighted. Whose to say that her technique doesn't arrive at a more accurate evaluation than a one shot blind A/B test which is what is considered the gold standard?

19 minutes ago, firedog said:

There have been lots of demonstrations of people "knowing" that one component sounds much better than another, but not being able to tell which is which when the components are behind a curtain.

Sure & what does this tell us?

There have also been blind tests repeated many times, at different times, where no difference is heard until someone identifies the difference & then it's heard blind.

What does this tell us?

 

What is actually being examined in the test?

[Jud]

7 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Why do you always react as the debate is one sided?

Your input here has been only to call the objectivists unreasonable all the while the subjectives attempt to shout us down.

A bit of a bias showing IMHO

 

You’re speaking of the same person who banned a “subjectivist” member in the course of this thread?

 

Perhaps your view of any bias on his part is rather, um, subjective?  

[mmerrill99]

21 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

But here's the crux of the matter - you keep saying that sightedness affects hearing & yet after a blind test which "proves" that A & B sound the same, this bias magically disappears - now A & B sound the same, sighted. Pleas explain how the CONSISTENT major bias is suddenly no longer extant?

@firedog - can you answer this before moving to another point, please?

It's something that I'm interested in hearing an explanation for.

[firedog]

29 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

@firedog - can you answer this before moving to another point, please?

It's something that I'm interested in hearing an explanation for.

No, I didn't actually say that. You did. 

I'm not sure what is hard to understand here, and your question makes no sense to me. Obviously when circumstances change, your added knowledge can also change your perception. "Sighted" doesn't necessarily mean literally sighted. It means knowledge about what's being tested. 

 

I'm not really going to argue the point that knowledge of which components are being tested effects perception, and in a big way. It's been demonstrated repeatedly, with lots of people. 

You can reduce the argument to absurdity by bringing in all sorts of "possible" other factors that haven't been shown to have that kind of effect, for which we don't know what kind of effect they might have, and for which we don't have any evidence, even anecdotal, that they do, and try to say that they are just as significant.  I don't think that's a supportable position, and in any case, it doesn't negate the importance of sighted testing in influencing results.

[mmerrill99]

16 minutes ago, firedog said:

No, I didn't actually say that. You did.

You didn't say what? This:

 

1 hour ago, firedog said:

That is, people's evaluations of which component sounds better/different are directly and consistently affected when they know which components are being played.

Now are you saying that when they are finished their blinded listening they are just as influenced by sightedness/knowledge, as before? If so nothing has changed & they will continue to favor one device over another & the blind test has made absolutely no difference.

 

Or are you saying they now are no longer favoring one over another device? How?

 

This major bias which consistently affects how people hear has now disappeared or are they resisting it's influence?

I just want to know what has changed, if anything & what the mechanism for this change is?

 

16 minutes ago, firedog said:

I'm not really going to argue the point that knowledge of which components are being tested effects perception, and in a big way. It's been demonstrated repeatedly, with lots of people. 

You can reduce the argument to absurdity by bringing in all sorts of "possible" other factors that haven't been shown to have that kind of effect, and for which we don't have any evidence, even anecdotal, that they do, and try to say that they are just as significant.  I don't think that's a supportable position.

Ok, I see you have no appetite for logical debate - that's fine!

 

But I don't see much difference between your stance & the "I hear it, trust me" of the other side! 

[Jud]

Maybe the “great divide” isn’t between subjective and objective, but between those who can have a friendly conversation without turning it into an argument, and those who can’t.

[Albrecht]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

No, I'm trying to improve S/N ratio on these forums. Somewhat unsuccessfully, I might add  so the suggestion to move on is perhaps appropriate.

 

This is part of the denigration of experiences: even well founded ones. I will challenge the notion of "fallible evaluations" being associated with the piling up of experiences. In that most all measurements that we take, (and often only on individual components), are what is fallible. The interplay & variances between the 4 components of a system working together with the room, is far more complicated; making (good) listening tests the BEST measure that we have available. What's a "fallible evaluation?" an obscure measurement of one component, - out of context of an entire system in a room....  And of course, people taking others' experiences as "gospel" simply doesn't happen: outside the realm of reviewers, - who DO sometimes climb all over themselves to start a "trend." But, more often, - those experiences are questioned to determine the CONTEXT and a basis for further study, - or to move on. If you hear Meitner products with 100s of different speakers & amps in different locations, - you are going to get an understanding of what works best with them and where. You are also going to get an understanding of the character of that individual component.

[Sal1950]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

You’re speaking of the same person who banned a “subjectivist” member in the course of this thread?

 

Perhaps your view of any bias on his part is rather, um, subjective?  

The fact that there was a person who couldn't conduct themselves in a acceptable manner shows no relationship to my post.

But good try in any case barrister.

 

It was you that initially stirred this pot so don't go all innocent here.  LOL

[The Computer Audiophile]

47 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

The fact that there was a person who couldn't conduct themselves in a acceptable manner shows no relationship to my post.

But good try in any case barrister.

 

It was you that initially stirred this pot so don't go all innocent here.  LOL

 

Interesting response. 

 

You claimed I was being one-sided. He pointed to evidence of how I wasn't being one-sided. You responded with this? He showed you the "measurements" and now you are getting subjective. 

 

Hmmmm. :~)

[Ralf11]

10 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

No Toole hasn't.

 

I define working as showing a statistical difference in how two things sound. So far only very large differences such as level differences have been revealed in A/B or A/B/X blind tests. As far as I can see blind A/B'ing is guessing, and sighted A/B'ing is guessing.

 

It appears you are not familiar with his publications.

 

There is also way too much hoopla about different ear/brain systems, both here and on other threads.

[Ralf11]

6 hours ago, mansr said:

Then you realise that since audio signals are alternating currents, the micro-diode theory makes no sense at all.

 

no no the glory of it is to prevent all music transmission