Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[wgscott]

39 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Interesting, did not know that about the MTB market.

 

It is much worse than that, and not just limited to mountain bikes.  It is no longer unusual for people to spend $7K to $10K on a road or mountain bike, with carbon frames and components, sometimes electronic shifting and hydraulic disc brakes, and various other things that the industry is pushing as essential.  The fact remains that you can get a perfectly reasonable bike, new, for about $1K if you look around, and 80% of the population would be well-served by a bike that costs half that.  (I'm totally guilty of this.  I do have a steel frame on my main road bike, but it was custom-made, so it is as expensive as a high-end carbon frame.  I spend far more on bikes than audio, fwiw.  But my 20 year old kid on a bike that cost 1/8 of what mine did can still kick my arse, so that is the ultimate reality check.  The engine is far more important than the bike.)

 

Maybe we should ask if the whole of the capitalist economic system is a confidence game...

[wgscott]

On 9/28/2017 at 1:04 PM, rando said:

Through axles will soon be on every type of new bike because they offer the convenience of a quick release with security and stiffness greater than bolt on track wheels.

 

Thru-axles generally now accompany disc brakes.  I have older-generation bikes that have dropouts in the forks.  Although my Enve CX (1st gen) has drop-outs-at least they point forward.  The problem is applying the disc brake puts a downward force on the wheel, which can cause it to move or even eject.  (Mine moved around a little bit until I bought some 10 lb Dura Ace quick release levers for $100 to solve the damn problem).

 

 

This seems to be more of a problem on road bikes for some reason. Maybe the carbon fork is too slick.  The newer version of my fork is a thru-axle.  To upgrade, I would have to shell out $600 for a new fork and probably $100 per hub (I have 2 wheel sets) to convert, so I'll live with the Dura Ace clamps until I break the fork, or something horrific happens.

 

For rim brakes, I doubt there is any compelling reason to have a thru-axle fork.

[wgscott]

2 hours ago, rando said:

What was influencing your decision to build or buy this bike mid-changeover?  Maybe you should consider dealing with more reputable sources if you are of a mind they burned you.  I'm going to leave it at that since it isn't anywhere near a confidence game in the sense audio is.  

 

I don't feel burned at all.  I got the bike in 2014, before road/cx thru-axle was available.  It was a custom (steel) frame and build.  Shimano's disc brakes had just come out (and were bundled with Di2 at the time, and only Dura or Ultegra level). Enve's 1st-gen CX fork has the forward-facing drop-out.  This is by far the best bike I have ever owned.  I'm simply acknowledging that thru-axle would be a welcome improvement, but my current set-up, now that I bought some really strong quick-releases, is perfectly fine.  If I were doing it all over again, I would get the thru-axle version, as it is a significant improvement, and I believe it is now the only option with that fork (and what my builder now uses exclusively anyway).  However, it is only a significant improvement in the context of disc brakes, so the one improvement (which many people dislike) necessitates another. I was insistent upon the Shimano hydraulics, so Di2 came along for the ride.  (SRAM had just had their recall, and I've never liked their brakes).

 

In retrospect, maybe I also should have coughed up an additional $1K for titanium, but my frame builder said it would primarily lighten my wallet, and that he could build me a steel frame that would be at least as comfortable as a more expensive titanium one.  (He also suggested I get mechanical brakes/shifting and wait until hydraulics became unbundled to consider if I needed to upgrade.) It was kind of refreshing not being up-sold, even if I did it to myself anyway.

[wgscott]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

 I wear a $1000 watch

 

[wgscott]

This is no way to have a decent and civil discussion about expensive bike parts.

[wgscott]

22 minutes ago, mansr said:

Too cheap?

 

You could get a nice set of wheels for that.

 

I got a really expensive watch, too.  It was $100 at Costcow.  Photovoltaic Seiko.  Plus, it is analogue, so it reports the time in a much richer and authentic manner.

[wgscott]

6 hours ago, rando said:

Kindly go pontificate upon your unique experiences where they deal with riders imbued with similar insights and expertise on BF.  

Wow   What crawled up your copious arse?

[wgscott]

3 hours ago, rando said:

False alarm @wgscott.  You can pick up wherever you left off about bike parts.

 

Thanks for your royal permission.

 

I've got a better idea.  Let's put each other on ignore.

[wgscott]

 

[wgscott]

7 minutes ago, mink70 said:

Every time I consider spending more time on this site, I spend a few minutes reading threads like this one, and get cured of the desire right quick. 

 

Don't read threads like this.  Or just learn to laugh at them.  There are plenty of other topics to choose from. For example, there are hundreds of threads about bit-identical files that sound different.

[wgscott]

Quote

 business goals of maximizing advertising revenue

 

This is true even of the New York Times and Washington Post.  

 

It shouldn't even raise an eyebrow.

[wgscott]

6 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

It would be interesting to access the full article

aesthetic Theory and Aesthetic Science: Prospects for Integration

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jl6kgduchal7rau/Aesthetic Theory and Aesthetic Science%3A Prospects for integration - Oxford Scholarship.pdf?dl=0

[wgscott]

On 10/7/2017 at 3:25 PM, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Thank you Bill

 

Something else worth a read:  https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/the-mysterious-nocebo-effect-a-drugs-side-effects-may-hinge-on-its-price-tag/

[wgscott]

2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Okay I get you don't get it. instruments don't measure differences in the perceptual experience but rather aspects of the signal or the stimulus. Not sure if you can understand the distinction.Your assumptions are not scientifically grounded, just assumptions that you choose to believe.

 

If the perceptual differences disappear under blind testing conditions, how are we to ascribe any objective reality to them?  How do we distinguish it from expectation-bias-induced hallucinations?

[wgscott]

Nah.  I think you are probably tiring of defending the palpably absurd and indefensible.

[wgscott]

15 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Well it least it shows you have a caring sensitive side.

 

All you have to do is close your eyes and have someone switch two sets of cables or whatever.  Unless you can identify a difference in a statistically meaningful way, you are done.  If you can identify a difference, and wish to assert it is real, then you can start worrying about careful test protocols, etc.  

The burden of proof falls on those wishing to refute the null hypothesis.  But since hearing differences between similar cables, files with identical checksums, etc., is almost certainly nothing more than expectation bias, you should be able to get a full night of sleep.

 

Good night.

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

What is the hypothesis? The answer determines the null hypothesis.

 

...

 

As I am sure you know half the battle is choosing a reasonable null hypothesis.

 

Maybe an example would help:

 

Null hypothesis:  files with identical checksums sound identical regardless of their history.

 

Non-null hypothesis:  files with identical check-sums can sound different depending on their history.

 

You can do the same thing for wires with and without pictures of wolves on them.

 

Note that there is no law of physics I am aware of that says the files cannot sound different, or the wires branded with wolves must sound the same.  The idea behind the null hypothesis is simply parsimony, or Occam's Razor.

[wgscott]

The fact that you have to explain how such differences would arise and could somehow maybe be made audible tells me it is a better null hypothesis than the alternative hypothesis.

[wgscott]

27 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Unfortunately, there are different interpretations of the "null hypothesis".

 

A. Null hypothesis could imply a statement that expects no difference or effect. 

B. OTH, the null hypothesis could simply imply a commonly accepted statement.  In this case, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the statement is null itself. (Perhaps the term should be called the “nullifiable hypothesis” as that might cause less confusion).

 

For case A, the burden of proof is always on someone rejecting the "null hypothesis".  Case B is much more fuzzy!

 

Most people would recognize "God exists" as not being a null hypothesis, even though in the US something like > 90% claim to believe in God.

[wgscott]

6 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

You would think, but in my ealier years I have come across many who would not accept this. And while you may think the above a good example, I would argue that "God" is not a valid concept and should not form part of any hypothesis (i.e. the statement "God exists" is neither true nor false, rather it's simply giberish -- it has no real meaning).   

 

I don't think it is a good, nor an appropriate example.  

 

I just wanted to make clear the popularity of a belief should not be a criterion for whether it would be accepted as a null hypothesis.  The lack of a deity is a more parsimonious hypothesis, just like explaining something with four physical forces is more parsimonious than explaining something with five.

[wgscott]

On 10/9/2017 at 7:05 PM, wgscott said:

 

Something else worth a read:  https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/the-mysterious-nocebo-effect-a-drugs-side-effects-may-hinge-on-its-price-tag/

 

We were already told to shut up and go away:

 

Thanks Bill, nothing new here (for me). Not sure if you are suggesting parallels?

[wgscott]

5 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

you mean Audiophool 

 

You cannot, by definition, be an Audiophile unless you hold the same set of beliefs as Alex, ipso facto.  Therefore anyone who disagrees with those beliefs has no business posting to this website, and should be banned.  So either become one of the Happy People, or do what ML suggests we do.

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, Speed Racer said:

 

A testable hypothesis that can falsified or proved. You left the second part out. To be done correctly and without bias, the goal of the process cannot be to be prove the hypothesis false. The goal is to test the hypothesis to see if it is true or false. 

 

No, his point is that outside of pure mathematics, there is not inductive law that permits you to prove a hypothesis.  cf David Hume.  So the best we can do is try to falsify a hypothesis.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

 

Amongst other things this leads to a form of intellectual humility.  Unless you can state under what circumstances you would be willing to accept that your hypothesis is wrong, you are operating in the realm of metaphysics and religious beliefs.  In other words, science is simply a formalized approach to being reasonable.

 

Ask SankyK under what conditions he would accept that his hypothesis that music files having identical checksums can sound different, depending on his past history, would be demonstrably wrong.  His answer is fairly telling.

[wgscott]

This is an often-repeated assertion.  

 

Those of us worried about expectation bias are thinking of Feynman's favorite bit of advice:  

• The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. 

-- from lecture "What is and What Should be the Role of Scientific Culture in Modern Society", given at the Galileo Symposium in Italy (1964).

 

The point is "being delusional" is the basic default human condition.  

[wgscott]

Just now, Ralf11 said:

 

 

I agree with you in general (not surprising) but isn't this a bad example?

 

that is, a matching checksum does not guarantee 100% that all bits in the string are identical, does it?  I thought it was only an addition of the bit values or some such

 

Please show me a single actual counter-example, and I will accept that my hypothesis has been falsified.