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

[AJ Soundfield]

1 minute ago, firedog said:

Looked at your links. Only the third, about the Strad, has any actual validity

Wrong. They are all valid audio tests. All highlight why sighted, uncontrolled "listening" create purely biased, invalid results for audio.

 

Quote

I'm referring to some small difference we strain to hear in audiophile testing.

What differences? That is purely presumptive and fallacious. It's wishful thinking that the "small" differences are "audio" real, thus must be then tested.

 

Quote

Like does  USB device A sound better than USB device B. I doubt the conductor, first violinist, or orchestra administrator auditioning a violinist feels the kind of stress I referred to.

There is zero "stress" in sitting on ones posterior listening to music.

The only "stress" is looking the total fool when the audio results show squat. If that's the case, then yes, audiophiles should indeed avoid/evade reality tests at all cost.

 

Quote

Not trying to say DBT pr BT has no validity. But not every test is the best test for each situation. 

Correct. As I've said numerous times, if you want to find out whether you prefer a watch or a USB widget, no test is needed at all.

Tests are only needed for objective verification, of things like sound, or audio, or speed, weight, etc. All objective measures.

[AJ Soundfield]

5 minutes ago, firedog said:

Whenever someone tells me how much better digital is than vinyl, that's the challenge I give them.

Good luck getting them to take that challenge. Incredibly "stressful" listening to music sitting on ones arse.

Or so I'm told...

[AJ Soundfield]

4 minutes ago, jabbr said:

i'd say your interpretation of the links you provide is subjective

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

Luckily, orchestras and science are no longer beholden to audiophiles

[AJ Soundfield]

Just now, jabbr said:

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

Of course it appears that way to an audiophile

 

Quote

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?

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

[AJ Soundfield]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

still confused about the fact that use of blind auditions has been supported by science.

Correct, you are and thats why you reject science in favor of your biases

[AJ Soundfield]

8 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

I posted my views on A/B testing

Right, which have zero scientific basis.

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

[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 

[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.
 

[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?

[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

[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

[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?

[AJ Soundfield]

 

25 minutes ago, Superdad said:

 

Quote

 

  1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

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.

 

 

 

Easily the most spot on post in today's arguments here!  

 

(Also the entire reason why our products have been so successful--with zero advertising and near zero returns.)

 

So your products make "smack you in the face" audible differences...that are unmeasurable and/or disappear completely when no peeking allowed.

Interesting.

[AJ Soundfield]

42 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

it certainly seemed like it made sense to remove the noise to improve the SQ

Since it's objective metric "noise" related, then it's both measurable and creates soundwave changes audible to ears, which would require no peeking.

Unless it isn't...

[AJ Soundfield]

21 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Yes they are and semi-intensive, completely blinded, audio evaluations are 100% doable.

Yeah, I have no idea how they sit through those orchestra player auditions without a few Valium.

OMG, the sound of a oboe, I can't take it!!

[AJ Soundfield]

5 minutes ago, Jud said:

As I also noted in my response, the problem of unequal loudness has to do with your single blind test example.

So again, your claim is that blind auditions are invalid, thus the resulting large shift is gender is from flawed non-level matched testing, women having played louder than men.

[AJ Soundfield]

11 minutes ago, Jud said:

As I noted in my response, your audition examples show a problem with sighted testing

Right

Quote

and have nothing at all to do with the validity of blind testing

Wrong

[AJ Soundfield]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

 the validity of blind tests depends on how they are conducted.

Only a strawman argued differently

 

Quote

Any problems with sighted tests make blind tests no more valid; they must rise or fall on their own.

Classic audiophile false equivalence fallacy.

No one is arguing for invalid blind tests, but a lot of folks are arguing for invalid sighted tests

[AJ Soundfield]

12 minutes ago, Jud said:

an inadequately controlled blind test of violins

Please provide evidence for claim of inadequacy

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/million-dollar-strads-fall-modern-violins-blind-sound-check

Multiple tests in link. Please be specific

Quote

You also referenced two examples of sighted bias being removed.  Did you also make an independent investigation of the validity of the blind auditions for the jobs auditioned for that I somehow missed?

Ok, so you are now unambiguously saying all blind (musician) auditions are invalid (no "level matching") and player skill cannot be determined unless player is visible

[AJ Soundfield]

7 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

 

Oh dear.  If you must mischaracterize what I've said to that extent, why are you bothering at all, except to be argumentative?

So that's a no for invalid violin tests evidence and also a yes for blind musician skill auditions are worthless due to level mismatching.

Ok 

[AJ Soundfield]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

what I actually did say about a potential problem with blind auditions.

Oh, "potential" problems.

How about specific ones invalidating these

 

Quote

 

 

Quote

 

 10 hours ago, firedog said:

I'm doubtful about the efficacy of blind listening tests in practice.

 

 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w5903

http://www.upworthy.com/this-orchestras-blind-audition-proves-bias-sneaks-in-when-you-least-expect-it

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/million-dollar-strads-fall-modern-violins-blind-sound-check etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

 

TIA

[AJ Soundfield]

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I already responded several times about the violin test

With zero reasons for invalid

 

Quote

With regard to the blind auditions, you may have forgotten: You said these supported the scientific effectiveness of blind testing.

Not forgotten. The results are orchestras that reflect the population diversity one would expect statistically..

Unless you believe the only good musicians are white males as believed prior to blind testing. Which of course you reject as valid.

 

Quote

the fact that there is a bias problem with sighted auditions doesn't prove blind auditions are valid.

So what do you suggest to address the sighted bias problem?

[AJ Soundfield]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

So having doubts about the validity of the violin test because those selected appear to be the loudest ones is "baffling" to you?

IOW, your accusation is baseless, because you simply didn't comprehend the study.

The Strads were supposed to "project" "better", but they didn't. This was a totally subjective claim by the players which turned out to be the opposite of belief. You have completely mischaracterized because you don't like the results of blind tests of belief, period

[AJ Soundfield]

5 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I eagerly await the next blind A/B test with one sample louder than the other that you think is perfectly valid.

You're embarrassing yourself now. The blind audition is a test of player skill. You (lawyer perhaps?) could saw the instrument in half at 120db and still lose out to that very soft playing female. lol

We're done here Jud, you've made that clear

[AJ Soundfield]

45 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

if you know the characteristics of your speakers (that can also be measured), you can even predict with some degree of accuracy how well this amp will work in your system.

Reality is full of traps for believers, because they are blissfully unaware of so many technical issues when they carry on their "hearing" sessions (aka "tests, listening, etc").

For example, take a speaker with highly erratic polar response:

 

(keep in mind the off axes curves are normalized to the (averaged curve above) on, so they are not as smooth as shown near zero axis).

What this means is that even the slightest head movement can result in a change is sound reaching the ears, in rather critical bands.

Unless a head vice is used, getting up even when listening to same amp, could sound different. Good luck getting up and actually inserting another!