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

[Jud]

5 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.

 

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.

 

Perfectly valid non-blinded scientific and medical tests are done every day, some involving human judgment (e.g., reading mammograms, though machines are getting better at the pattern recognition needed for that task, and may at this point be superior to humans).  The fundamental scientific idea is not blinding, but controlling for variables.  If sighted bias is one of the variables, it should be removed if at all possible.  But unless that is the *only* variable, your work isn't done if you want a valid test.

[Jud]

 

3 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

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

 

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

[Jud]

5 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

I was thinking more of the assumption that the scientific method trumps other ways of knowing....

 

I'm quite fond of the scientific method as a way of knowing.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, AJ Soundfield said:

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

Ok 

 

Ah, a smiley face.  More humor?

 

A continued quite deliberate failure to deal with what I've actually said, though.  I'm not sure why any of it should be a problem for you.  I've seen you now three or four times say I'm making a claim I'm not, and you haven't yet mentioned what I actually did say about a potential problem with blind auditions.

[Jud]

Just now, AJ Soundfield said:

Oh, "potential" problems.

How about specific ones invalidating these

 

 

TIA

 

I already responded several times about the violin test, so no need to repeat myself there.

 

With regard to the blind auditions, you may have forgotten: You said these supported the scientific effectiveness of blind testing.  You'd be the one making the claim.  That seems to me to make you the one responsible for coming up with supporting evidence, yes?

 

All I said about the blind auditions (repeatedly) was that the articles pointed out problems with sighted auditions, and the fact that there is a bias problem with sighted auditions doesn't prove blind auditions are valid.  Apparently you feel these articles show positive evidence of scientific validity that I'm not seeing.  Thus if you wished to respond to what I've actually said, once again, your time to come up with positive evidence of scientific validity.

[Jud]

Just now, plissken said:

 

You could simply try reading what AJ is saying. You seem to be deflecting and AJ putting it right on the chin.

 

Perhaps you haven't been following the conversation from the beginning?

[Jud]

Just now, 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.

 

So having doubts about the validity of the violin test because those selected appear to be the loudest ones is "baffling" to you?  Would you have no doubt about the validity of an A/B test that wasn't level matched?  If you would think there's a possibility the louder one might have an advantage, then why does my thinking the same thing baffle you?

 

With regard to the auditions: Do you believe that making the auditions blind removes any and all possible problems with them?  I don't.  Is this baffling?

[Jud]

Just now, AJ Soundfield said:

With zero reasons for invalid

 

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

 

Just now, AJ Soundfield said:

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.

 

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

 

I suggest blinding to address the sighted bias problem, of course.  Do you believe this is all one has to do to assure a valid audition?

[Jud]

23 minutes ago, jabbr said:

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?

 

Blinding is an excellent idea to remove sighted bias.  It just doesn't take care of anything else.

[Jud]

Just now, AJ Soundfield said:

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

 

Indeed, *one* theory about the liking for Strads is that they were supposed to project better.  And the study worked to show that if projection means loudness, which apparently the people participating in the study thought it did, Strads do not project better.  Yup, blinding worked for that, no problem at all.  But don't you think microphones and measuring equipment would have done a much more accurate job there?

 

People were also asked to express a preference.  The preference went along similar lines to the assessment of "projection," i.e., people preferred the louder instruments.  So are the louder violins actually better?  Do you think the blind testing scientifically established that?

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

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

 

I suppose we are, since you've now deliberately mischaracterized my remarks about loudness differences as referring to the stories you cited regarding orchestra auditions, for what, the fifth or sixth time in your last group of comments?  If you have to lie rather than respond to what I've actually said, is it really worth it, A J?

[Jud]

9 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

I believe I now know the answer to Jud's original question "Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?". It's because of threads just like this one.  27 pages so far. Have we reached any conclusions yet? Has anyone been convinced of the error of their ways? Anyone change their mind? Hmmm....

 

I have to say I'm surprised at what's taken up some of this space.  That another member would act so outrageously toward mansr surprised (and angered) me.  (For anyone catching up with the thread, don't bother looking.  Chris quite rightly banned the member and deleted posts having to do with the member's conduct and comments on it.)  The reaction to saying what we all learned about science in high school, that for a valid experiment you want to control for as many variables as possible, and the sheer number of comments that reaction involved, surprised me.

 

There've been some valuable and interesting comments along the way, too (thank goodness  ).

[Jud]

3 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

No, it proves what I have been saying for decades that AB’ing either sighted or blind doesn’t work.

 

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.

[Jud]

10 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

If you circumscribe 'high fidelity' by what limited testing reveals then I don't agree.

 

If you describe high fidelity as better perceived realism & insight into the music reproduced then I would agree & last I understood, that seems to be what most audio forums are about - people stating what they hear & others using this information & evaluating it themselves by their own listening.

 

Do you see how you resist Sal's attempt to circumscribe in your first paragraph, and then in your second paragraph make your own attempt to circumscribe?

[Jud]

13 minutes ago, mansr said:

Not so. The buffer stores digital sample values as received over the wire. There is no mechanism by which it could store anything else, including noise.

 

As I've said from time to time, you could handwrite the values (might take a while), transcribe and input them via keyboard into a buffer, and it would work perfectly well.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, mmerrill99 said:

I was circumscribed when I was young - nothing I can do about it

 

Where is that "rimshot" emoji when you need it?

[Jud]

32 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Last I understood, this "hobby" was about obtaining High Fidelity

Not just "sounds good to me"

 

Ah, sorry.  Here I thought the point, as with any hobby, was enjoying yourself, in which case "sounds good to me" is pretty much a requirement.  Teresa's got there, so kudos to her.

 

Hey, I've got there too, so kudos to me too!    And to all of you who enjoy your music, and your audio system's contribution to that enjoyment.

[Jud]

15 hours ago, plissken said:

 

If the preference is for loudness then it's legit.

 

I believe in one instance it removed bias for/against gender from the equation. Were they trying to control from something else?

 

Hi plissken -

 

- Regarding preference for loudness, here are the headline and lead sentence for the cited article:

 

Quote

 

Million-dollar Strads fall to modern violins in blind ‘sound check’

 

Perhaps no name conveys superiority quite like Stradivarius.

 

 

Do you think this was about loudness, or superiority?

 

- Regarding the auditions: These are auditions for jobs.  Blinding the auditions removed gender bias from the situation, which is a very good thing.  If you were interviewing someone for a job, would you be concerned about anything other than gender bias?  I certainly would.

 

Taking the specific example of an orchestra, playing in coordination with others is essential.  At one time (don't know if they still do), the Vienna Philharmonic required all its violinists to use the same bowing when playing in unison (in other words, upstroke at the same time, downstroke at the same time - kinda like absolute polarity  ).  So if you were setting up the auditions, you might want to set up a one way mirror or video feed to test the auditioner's ability to play in coordination with other orchestra members, while maintaining the blinding.

 

Blinding the audition certainly makes it better at determining who's the superior player regardless of gender.  But there are other qualities you want in a new hire besides gender neutrality, and so there are better and worse blind audition setups to get the results you want.

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, firedog said:

No, Jud, you have it wrong. The point of the hobby is to listen the way a chosen few listen. Only they actually know how audio works and how to choose what sounds good.

 

"But I'm not bitter!"   

[Jud]

50 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I thought people were listening to soundstage...

(just kidding) 

 

In my view, the problem starts when people discuss "sounds good" instead of discussing performance or accuracy because it is impossible to express "sounds good" in a way that is really meaningful to others.

This is why "tasting" reviews, professional or amateur, are worthless.

 

The way I see it, system performance can only be achieved if we can recognise shortcomings, identify possible causes and look for replacements that improve on what we currently have.

This requires unbiased or emotion free listening performed from an observational perspective with adequate methodology supported by measurements.

Upgrading or system building through "tasting" is a trial and error affair and good results are accidental.

 

I'm not so "down" as you are on reports of items of equipment being to someone's taste.  With all the factors affecting taste, it's somewhat difficult for me to determine from specs and the usual measurements whether a component will help my system make things sound more like "real life" to me, or at any rate, do the best job possible at not making everything sound the same.  The less sound of its own a system has, the more it should allow the sound of the recording to come through.  How we each perceive whether this happens is a topic of great interest to me.  (As I've mentioned to you several times, I like the job my speakers do of this, while for you their frequency response *would* make everything sound the same to you through them.)

 

So while I do pay attention to any objective reports of relevant facts about equipment I'm interested in, I also pay attention to whether people whose tastes seem to coincide with mine like that equipment.

 

Edit: A good example is music.  I certainly pay attention to DR ratings when available.  On the other hand, if the DR is middling, not awful, but someone whose tastes seem similar to mine says it sounds good, then I'm more likely to consider buying it.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, plissken said:

 

It's only ONE metric. The are controlling for THAT metric as best they can. That metric may or may not be combined with others in a final hiring decision.

 

I wouldn't know what else gets considered but I'm sure there are other traits.

 

Maybe they have a history of not showing up on time for rehearsal. Maybe they are some sort of diva to deal with. Maybe they like to pick their nose with their bow.

 

Yup, we are in agreement.

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, semente said:

Unlike most, I can hardly ever find any useful information in reviews.

 

In “official” reviews, and anywhere else that has the Lake Wobegon effect (“where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average”), I agree with you. Only those who have a variety of opinions are helpful if I am looking for subjective input.

[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?  

[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.

[Jud]

45 minutes ago, Teresa said:

Pattern matching is also why A and B in an audio test will start to sound the same when switching back and forth

 

Hi Teresa -

 

This is not actually the case.  Pattern matching can be inborn, as various experiments regarding the way we hear have shown.  If it is not an inborn pattern, then laying down that auditory pattern to the point where your brain automatically matches it isn’t a quick process.  Experiments have been done showing a week of training just in perceiving a single type of sound is inadequate.

 

So whatever is occurring in several minutes of A/B doesn’t have to do with your brain learning to do pattern matching in that amount of time.