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

[AJ Soundfield]

8 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Even if doing blinded listening tests, two devices which measure the same, will bias one towards not hearing any difference between these devices. 

 

Why do you think they use a hidden reference in ABCHR testing?

To eliminate those who are unable to differentiate the hidden reference for any number of reasons - one of which is that they are psychologically disposed  to not hearing any difference between A & B (they have been primed by beliefs or measurements that A is exactly the same as B)

 

Please educate yourself in blind testing before making yourself look foolish

Perfect 

[AJ Soundfield]

2 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Not worth wasting any more time on ill-educated, illogical know-it-alls

Develop some actual listening skills and you won't have to fear blind "Just listen" tests like you do.

[AJ Soundfield]

No real listening skills/trust in ears and inability to comprehend/do measurements is a bad combo

[AJ Soundfield]

8 hours ago, Superdad said:

 

There, fixed it for you.

Thanks Superman. Hows that leap tall buildings and hearing phase noise inside head demonstration ability going?

 

Oh yeah 

 

[AJ Soundfield]

6 hours ago, esldude said:

Actually it was the girls that were appreciative.  The sound was so bad they were complaining of headaches.  Someone knowing me told the owner, "I bet that guy could fix it up for you".  So I did. 

 

The girls loved the new sound.  No headaches and the patrons liked it better and spent more money.

 

I had free drinks and the girls gave free dances anytime I was there.  Enough to get a guy in trouble if he isn't careful there. 

See, sometimes it pays to have demonstrable real vs imaginary abilities 

[AJ Soundfield]

6 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

good point

Utter nonsense is a good point?

So it's blind test "bias" why audiophiles can't hear Santa and Uri Geller can't bend spoons under controlled conditions? Really?

[AJ Soundfield]

2 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

You are really only showing your own ignorance in the area 

Sure thing Mr nocebo affects ABCHR listening tests 

[AJ Soundfield]

1 minute ago, mmerrill99 said:

Try googling "false negatives" & educate yourself or do not exist?

 

  On 7/6/2017 at 4:08 AM, esldude said:

You might find understanding my approach easier if you remember, it is my opinion, other than gear designed to have a particular sound, everything between the transducers is not detectable with a slight exception for matching amps to speakers. And exceptions for low quality gear which has sub-standard measured performance.

 

  22 hours ago, mmerrill99 said:

Sure, I know your approach & many others is that all gear, except transducers, sounds the same but this isn't borne our in reality so I don't subscribe to your approach.

If you can't judge the sound without measurements then it's a sad state of affairs

Reading comprehension failure or intellectual dishonesty.

Speaking of sad state of affairs.

[AJ Soundfield]

2 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Try googling

Since you are clueless about blind tests, that expose your real abilities, thats all you can do 

 

ABCHR Nocebo LOL

[AJ Soundfield]

2 minutes ago, plissken said:

And yes, we measured almost everything.

Real demonstrable abilities are critical out in the real world, vs fantasies and delusions of grandeur 

[AJ Soundfield]

I'm guessing a Philips HTIB wouldn't

[AJ Soundfield]

11 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

perhaps the obstacle is trust.

Yes. Folks whose hearing abilities are poor have zero trust in their ears.

In a blind controlled test, the only thing you can trust is ears, not eyes, beliefs, audio comic books, reviewer-prophets, etc.

So yes, the obstacle is indeed trust. For good reason!

[AJ Soundfield]

Just now, christopher3393 said:

Clearly not what I meant.

Truth hurts 

[AJ Soundfield]

3 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

is there evidence that supports the precise claim you are making

Overwhelming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinded_experiment

But that won't stop believers thinking horses can count, power bracelets work, etc, etc, etc 

[AJ Soundfield]

5 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

I'm not interested in wasting time repeating 

LOL

[AJ Soundfield]

21 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Just trying to summarize your statements...

....Using a 2.0GHz processor over a 40mbps connection responding to those "measureist" idiots 

[AJ Soundfield]

1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

"Imagine.."

Precisely 

You employ what you do best, others choose physical reality and its measures.

[AJ Soundfield]

51 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

If you measure two devices & you are convinced they show no audible difference between them, any blind test you do on

More rubbish. A rational person who believes there is no audible difference is not doing the blind listening tests.

The only ones who are burdened with blind tests are believers who believe they "hear" differences when they stare either device, perhaps while exposing themselves and whatnot.

[AJ Soundfield]

4 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

This is what analogies do, logically, right?

No, it's for when you have baseless specious arguments and need diversions. Or maybe a joke. 

 

Quote

Analogies often involve a bit of imagination.

That and staring at components for weeks because you can't trust your ears to hear any real differences

[AJ Soundfield]

28 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

Can AJ agree to that? 

That horses can count? No sir. Some of us are way past that.

[AJ Soundfield]

14 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

  On 7/6/2017 at 4:08 AM, esldude said:

You might find understanding my approach easier if you remember, it is my opinion, other than gear designed to have a particular sound, everything between the transducers is not detectable with a slight exception for matching amps to speakers. And exceptions for low quality gear which has sub-standard measured performance.

 

  On 7/6/2017 at 10:06 AM, mmerrill99 said:

  22 hours ago, mmerrill99 said:

Sure, I know your approach & many others is that all gear, except transducers, sounds the same but this isn't borne our in reality so I don't subscribe to your approach.

If you can't judge the sound without measurements then it's a sad state of affairs

 

You see the problem? 

Sure do

[AJ Soundfield]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

you seem to be confused about what was said - please go back and read it again

I'm quoting verbatim, no confusion or rereading needed on my part.

You thought nonsense was a good point

[AJ Soundfield]

2 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Well yes but I'm also saying that measurements prior to listening can bias listening 

Sure. John Atkinson always measures last just in case.

 

What does that have to with being totally one dimensional by being incapable of measuring and subsequently having zero trust in ears and avoiding trust ears tests at all cost? 

[AJ Soundfield]

7 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

15 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

19 hours ago, mmerrill99 said:

Even if doing blinded listening tests, two devices which measure the same, will bias one towards not hearing any difference between these devices. 

And you yourself claimed it as absolute rubbish just above

Yep, but not a "claim". It is rubbish.

Maybe not quite as funny as the nocebo ABCHR flailing, but still pretty good 

[AJ Soundfield]

4 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

It must be difficult for you to find your way out of your mind's labyrinth

I'm not the one exposing myself to components for weeks to "hear" them, remember?

I trust my ears