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

[jabbr]

10 minutes 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?

Don't know. There are various biases that might be introduced in a study. There are also both Type I and Type II errors, both of which need to be prevented. To wit, some systems may make both things under test sound the same.

[jabbr]

Just now, AJ Soundfield said:

I'd say your misinterpretation and denial of the science facts in the links is audiophile 

I'd say that quote demonstrates you have no real knowledge of science.

 

I do know a bit about orchestras and how they conduct tryouts. None claim to be performing science. Why would you be confused about that?

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Of course it appears that way to an audiophile

 

No you dont https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_audition

You are still confused about the fact that use of blind auditions has been supported by science. Taking an aspirin when you have a headache might have also been supported by science but we don't think that we are doing science when taking an aspirin for a headache, do you?

[jabbr]

I understand you are new here ... these permathreads have been going on forever. Summary of my position is that blinding is necessary but not sufficient. Read above.

[jabbr]

10 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Of course it appears that way to an audiophile

 

However this quote is very appropriate to the actual topic of this thread:

 

"why do people come to computer audiophile to display their contempt for audiophiles?"

 

you are the subtype of this group which comes from the "i'm in the know because I'm in the field"

 

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"

[jabbr]

5 minutes ago, firedog said:

Read audio related stuff long enough and one of the things you find out is that for every "engineer" with an EE degree that says something about audio with 100% confidence, there's another guy with an EE degree who will explalin to you why he is wrong. 

hopefully everyone here is an audiophile, regardless of their degree or however they evaluate their equipment.

[jabbr]

27 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

You are trying to change the subject.

 

To be blunt: There was a long thread were I posted my views on A/B testing, blinding and bias. My objection is the way "audiophile thinking" is being used as a term of derision. The topic.

[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

[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  

 

[jabbr]

11 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

adopted (some of) it and had created fields like "Evolutionary Psychology" making the biologists aghast at the proliferation of untested and untestable BS.

 No way. Evolutionary psychology is practicing genetics with a cute post-doc...

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

how about 2 of them in a hot springs?

... and that's what Physicists call "Biologist Envy"

 

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

actual event - you triggered an old memory trace

 

Environmental Biophysics was involved

 

I take it that if you had the presence of mind  not to be too critical of any particular field of study, that a good memory trace was laid down...?

 

(gulp)

[jabbr]

9 minutes ago, Wavelength said:

Jonathan,

All interfaces including Ethernet have a problems. Ethernet 1000 and higher especially have problems. Because unlike 10/100 were you have a dedicated differential pair of transmit and receive. You now have bi-directional 4 bit data and things get a lot more hairier!!!

 

Thanks,

Gordon

Gordon,

 

As far as I can tell the Ethernet cables themselves are generally proper impedance (100 Ohm) and I see much more cable testing data. Harder to find that for USB ... maybe I've seen TE Connectivity and surely some others but much more difficult to find than Ethernet e.g, Belden mediatwist etc...

 

Oh and I really meant fiberoptic Ethernet

 

That said, somehow this makes it through the DMA/FIFO/reclock? Implementation dependency in the interface?

 

Jonathan

[jabbr]

26 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

fat is only burned in the flames of carbohydrates

 

I'm sure that at Berkeley in the 1970s-1980s that fat was burned in the presence of other than carbs... in New England we made the discovery that the effect of EtOH on the nervous system is enhanced in the presence of a hot tub  Red and white wine were equally effective that day but red had residual effects the following day. We did careful blind testing that involved many many many samples  and the testing was replicated many times... thankfully we had a large student population.

 

 

 

[jabbr]

18 minutes ago, Jud said:

Feynman's term, though not as snappy as "scientism," really gets to the idea that, like cargo cults, some folks like to "collect" aspects of some scientific experiments without a great understanding of the role those aspects play.

Yes!. I've previously used the term "scientism" to refer to Feynman's description, whereas the Popper definition is closer to how the term is actually used: that all knowledge derives from science

 

-- regarding medical tests -- I'm not sure they are all what I would call "scientific" themselves even though we hope that the basis of doing the test is scientific. For example when the FDA approves a drug, it is on the basis of a "scientific" study. Subsequent prescription of the drug I don't call scientific, but hopefully based on science.

[jabbr]

5 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Dialetic is two parties attempting to come to the truth of the matter. It doesn't seem possible here because of the rejection of common methods of determining the positive or negative outcomes of claims.

 

I test claims.

 

Would you pay me $10,000 if we have an argument and I can prove myself correct with scientific testing? I would find that motivating if the proof isn't too difficult  $100,000 for a more difficult proof -- now we are talking  

 

cable testing? -- meh

 

we can let @Jud be the judge

 

(hey @Jud -- 10%?)

 

[jabbr]

12 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

I read the same articles you did Jud. I have to say your interpretation of the results are baffling. I'm sure the female musicians would disagree with your summation of the outcomes.

Of course. If the goal is to produce 50% females, and the order of play is 50/50 m/f and the play order bias is such that the second performer is always picked, then those female musicians would be very happy.

 

Who said the orchestras are intending to perform a scientific study during tryouts? Really?

Conductors, concertmasters, guest performers? Y'know the really important stuff like getting Yo-Yo Ma or Midori to come perform so you can sell out the house. That's.done.with.science? Is that what we are really arguing here?

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

As to fondness, you do fucking love science don't you, whereas I tend to hate fucking science. Working on it.

I fucking love science but it's not the way I obtain knowledge about many things. For example the knowledge that I fucking love science. Or Van Gogh or music or other things that I love  

[jabbr]

16 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

3. then the clinical experience of an expert for prescribing (and maybe followup evaluations)

 

this example points up scientific method vs. expert evaluation - you need both if the outcome is important

 

 clearly the orchestra are experts who are employing scientific tools (blind auditions/reduction of bias) in order to improve their organization. i personally enjoy cross pollinating with the orchestra... 

[jabbr]

10 minutes ago, plissken said:

That wasn't the goal of their evaluation! Jesus wept. What has happened to reading comprehension around here?

 

The goal was to remove sighted bias that may have them arbitrarily picking candidates for other reasons then musicianship. This isn't that hard to understand folks.

Sorry for not properly enclosing my post in

<sarcasm>

...

</sarcasm>

or would CSS have been more appropriate?

Do you think @The Computer Audiophile would be able to enable this in the toolbar above ... it would be very useful  or at the very least the emoji :eyesrolledbacksofarinheadneedopthalmolgicsurgeontoremove:

 

I hope I clarified this later when I suggested that the elimination of bias by experts, while being a very good thing, does not in and of itself equate to "science" which is only relevent in the context of the exchange

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, wgscott said:

 

Cascading Sarcasm Sheet?

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Hi Teresa.  There are situations where blind A/B testing works very well.  What your statement has in common with a lot of folks that you'd be surprised to have something in common with (  ) is that it doesn't pay attention to the specifics that might make a particular test valid or not.

 

The fact that blind or sighted A/B testing doesn't work for you is fine - you've put together a system you like at low cost without it.  But if you're saying that blind testing doesn't work for anyone in any circumstances, then that's really just the flip side of someone else trying to tell you it works for everyone in all circumstances.  It's just you (or them) trying to impose one (inaccurate) view on everyone else.

 

One thing that I've learned, and in particular to the discussion @mmerrill99 and I had regarding A/B testing, that in the context of this group, and perhaps in the audiophile discussions in general, that A/B testing and in particular A/B/X implies a specific protocol. For me A/B testing simply means testing between 2 things. That creates confusion. I don't think there is ever one protocol that is appropriate for every situation and these testing techniques, like measurement equipment (e.g voltmeters, oscilloscopes etc) are toolkits to be applied appropriately to a given situation. Blinding is one technique and there are others. Personally I don't make my judgments blind  

 

generally elimination of confounding variables is helpful whatever they may be  

[jabbr]

2 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

 

I prefer to watch them being lifted.

I prefer skirts

 

[jabbr]

23 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

No, what I said was her approach to evaluation of a systems capability to accurately reproduce music was flawed.

But in the end if you don't care about such things and love the sound of your rig that is all that counts for you.

 

Sal, I appreciate the goal of accurate music reproduction -- the goal being "live" that sounds live, and recorded, sounding as the artist intends etc. The issue is that nothing is 100% accurate in the sense that each two replays or reproductions of a piece will be slightly different. At the most basic level the background noise level will be random, so not the same from play to play. Ok, we discount that. But there might be 100 factors and what we just don't know is to what degree each of the 100 factors is important for the recoding to "sound live" for us. Suppose it is only 3 out of 100. So we have tradeoffs and because we don't have knowledge of which tradeoffs are critical vs irrelevant, we don't really even know what to measure. I do believe that if we knew, we could measure but we aren't there yet -- hence these permathreads... reminds me of the old measures bad-sounds great "looks bad feels great" joke  ... and yeah in the end what you conclude is all that counts.

[jabbr]

16 minutes ago, Superdad said:

 

Oh okay. Now it finally makes sense why I prefer speakers that use that Scanspeak nipple tweeter! 

Dude, you were brought up wrong ...