Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[fas42]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

 

What you don't get is that perception is based on physical reality, and physical reality is governed by laws of physics. If there is no measurable difference in the physical world, any detected difference in the perceptual world is faulty. 

 

 

Ummm ... there is always a measurable difference, but you may choose to measure the wrong things - simply because that's the convenient path. This is always the wriggly bit in these discussions - "My measurements count - and that's all that matters!"

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

 If there is no measurable difference in the physical world, any detected difference in the perceptual world is faulty. 

 

Nope, theory not fact and largely based on assumption on a number of levels. Sorry to break it to you

[esldude]

3 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Okay I apologize in advance if I have misunderstood something. I am talking about the chosen way people decide to buy one piece of gear over another.Some listen in a way they have determined yields the best outcome for them (as well as defer to measurements, whatever). This is in an environment that hearing audible differences cannot be proven one way or another.

 

Are you saying there is a scientific methodolgy that dictates how they should buy their gear?

 

snippage..........

You have changed what I thought the conversation was.  Is audiophiledom a confidence game?  That is more than just the chosen way people buy gear. 

 

A scientific methodology will not dictate how people should buy gear or any other voluntary activity.

 

The science will dictate if their method is effective in the aim of getting better playback quality.  Sometimes it is another aim.  Having cool looking unusual gear.  Or a unique sound.  Showing off.  The consumer's urge to get something new being satisfied. 

 

The grossly overwhelming amount of marketing of expensive audio gear is you get better or best sound.  That if you do otherwise you have worse sound.  There are approaches to making decisions informed by science and some leaving yourself wide open to confidence scheming. 

 

Scientific fact.  If you audition two items and one is slightly louder than the other it will be preferred even if there are no other differences.

 

Does this mean scientific methodology dictates people buy gear by level matching during auditioning?  No.  If they wish to reduce polluting or confusing influences and hear how the basic quality differs, they are well advised to follow this practice. 

[jabbr]

Should we look at textbooks?

or articles?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

20 minutes ago, jabbr said:

This isn’t “established science”

 

Edit *for some* it  honestly doesn't seem to matter. They think it is and that's what counts (to them).

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Ummm ... there is always a measurable difference, but you may choose to measure the wrong things - simply because that's the convenient path. This is always the wriggly bit in these discussions - "My measurements count - and that's all that matters!"

 

As I said before in this and other threads -- go ahead and offer different measurements that prove your point, then we'll talk. For now, even the manufacturers of USB cables, USB cleaning devices, ethernet cables, have offered not a shred of evidence that their gadgets have an effect on audio beyond placebo. And I've asked and will keep asking. Because I'm curious.

 

[pkane2001]

18 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Yeah I know a thing or two about physics of sound and electricity — the established science of physics says absolutely nothing about the sound of cables one way or the other.

 

I assure you that real physical difference in any two cables are quite measurable,

 

Use science to measure the differences in the output of a DAC due to an ethernet cable upstream, and then we'll have something to talk about. Of course cables have different LRC characteristics. Who would argue against that?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

12 minutes ago, esldude said:

You have changed what I thought the conversation was.  Is audiophiledom a confidence game?  That is more than just the chosen way people buy gear. 

 

A scientific methodology will not dictate how people should buy gear or any other voluntary activity.

 

The science will dictate if their method is effective in the aim of getting better playback quality.  Sometimes it is another aim.  Having cool looking unusual gear.  Or a unique sound.  Showing off.  The consumer's urge to get something new being satisfied. 

 

The grossly overwhelming amount of marketing of expensive audio gear is you get better or best sound.  That if you do otherwise you have worse sound.  There are approaches to making decisions informed by science and some leaving yourself wide open to confidence scheming. 

 

Scientific fact.  If you audition two items and one is slightly louder than the other it will be preferred even if there are no other differences.

 

Does this mean scientific methodology dictates people buy gear by level matching during auditioning?  No.  If they wish to reduce polluting or confusing influences and hear how the basic quality differs, they are well advised to follow this practice. 

 

I agree with most everything.there is no set scientific methodology as such for buying audio gear but some principles, like loudness matching, needed to be included in any protocol whether short abx or longer session etc.

[pkane2001]

42 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Nope, theory not fact and largely based on assumption on a number of levels. Sorry to break it to you

 

Break it down for me, please. Which assumption is wrong? That perception of sound is based on physical reality -- i.e., sound? That it makes sense to measure physical reality rather than perception of it to determine if there really is a difference? That such measurements can be made with instruments much more precisely than the human ear could possibly do? Or is it that perception can be faulty?

 

[jabbr]

11 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Use science to measure the differences in the output of a DAC due to an ethernet cable upstream, and then we'll have something to talk about. Of course cables have different LRC characteristics. Who would argue against that?

I’m not making the claim that science says this or that. From what I know about science it could go either way.

[plissken]

53 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Ok, scientifically the term “published” means something else: published in a peer reviewed journal

 

I would call that a “report” not a publication. This isn’t “established science”

 

also so the term “there are” as opposed to “there is a” implies that there are more than one publication. So far you have no publications. Let’s not overstate the evidence.

 

Could you, one time, just one time, find an error in the testing method? This rebuttal of 'it's not peer reviewed' is tiresome.

 

You're smart enough to either tear down Archimago's method or repeat it and post contrarian results.

[Ralf11]

what's missing is in []

 

If there is no measurable difference in [any variable] in the physical world [to a level that assures no perceptual difference can be attained ], any detected difference in the perceptual world is faulty. 

 

- This is why I like listening tests - valid statistically and DBL of course.

 

Say, we are doing anal. chemistry in a lake - you measure NO pollutants.  But to what level?  Did you measure to PPT (trillion) or what?  Epidemiology will set the level to which you must detect.

 

And... did you just measure in the water?  Or did you also measure the sediments?

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

31 minutes ago, esldude said:

2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

It remains equally valid in either circumstance. No overreach at all. It is objective because it does not come with an attached opinion or bias, nor insult for that matter.It admits the possibility of both outcomes, the technical evidence is lacking or the experience is somehow influenced by other factors eg bias, madness, tiredness, bad fast-food take-away, price tag. It appears to me Dennis like you are after something more punitive, as in "you can't let em get away with that!"

Yet, when there is no possibility of both outcomes, or even if one outcome is extremely unlikely then this is not objective.  It is instead a valueless ill-informed state.  I don't have to be punitive or say you can't let them get away with that.  Physics will do that all by itself.

 

 

I'm just saying its better to acknowledge the possibility of both outcomes in the hearing differences scenario and "technically unexplainable" does that. It offers further information for the person to evaluate without being confrontational or pejorative. Plenty of room left  if you want to go there. Sure, If you want to postscript it with likelihoods and reasons fine.

 

When I was younger I used to find myself challenging patients ideas unnecessarily . It achieved two things, a waste of my time and loss of any therapeutic relationship I might have accomplished. "so you're telling me its all in my mind" and it all goes pear shaped from there. Now if someone says I have tingling in my little finger after a back injury, I would tell them the truth. I can't explain that.

 

31 minutes ago, esldude said:

Now if we restrict this to people buying gear, what would you call it if claims are made that aren't real yet some people will choose to take that route anyway.  Will feel better as a result.  Will spend money and effort that results in only the illusion of improvement.  What is the very definition of confidence game?

 

Fraudulent misrepresentation. But you have to realize, that so long as you have made people aware of your views, and they choose to ignore it, you probably just should back off. Why do you feel the need to fix the industry and if so, why do you squabble with the victims. Its the drug dealer not the addict you need to get to.

 

it *doesn't* irk me if patients have great faith in unproven,highly unlikely to be scientifically validated interventions.....provided there is no harm (apart from their wallet). The big point here is that it doesn't get me all hot and bothered as if I have some undermining of my authority base.

 

[rando]

Just now, Ralf11 said:

Say, we are doing anal. chemistry in a lake - you measure NO pollutants.  But to what level?  Did you measure to PPT (trillion) or what?  Epidemiology will set the level to which you must detect.

 

And... did you just measure in the water?  Or did you also measure the sediments?

 

 

Let's not and say we didn't.  

[jabbr]

23 minutes ago, plissken said:

Could you, one time, just one time, find an error in the testing method? This rebuttal of 'it's not peer reviewed' is tiresome.

I said that I would not refer to it as a publication because it is not peer reviewed, I’d call it a report.

 

its generally easy to find fault with any testing method — I will read his link and make a comment. I am not saying that he has done anything wrong nor that I would disagree with the results — I’ve said again and again that I have a strong bias that well constructed copper Ethernet cables work flawlessly so probably Id start by looking for leakage current spectra, phase noise spectra etc but will get back.

 

Again, I’d just not use this to claim “science says this or that”

 

Furthermore I have no real interest in the specific outcome, I frankly could care less whether Ethernet cables have a sound, but this is a simple proxy for the larger, in my view, question about how do we “know” something, and how do we use science to help decide what we “know” — otherwise I’m vastly more interested in questions like: do logic families have sound, what are the limits of phase noise impacting sound, interesting amplifier circuits, etc etc etc

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

56 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

 Which assumption is wrong? That perception of sound is based on physical reality -- i.e., sound?

 

not an assumption. Known Fact

 

Quote

That it makes sense to measure physical reality rather than perception of it to determine if there really is a difference?

 

Assumption.

 

You are measuring the surrogate not the object of study. Its a valid indirect marker of the object of study and a reasonable start but not the end game.

 

Quote

That such measurements can be made with instruments much more precisely than the human ear could possibly do?

 

You can measure all you like but you are measuring the wrong thing.Nothing wrong with doing it precisely though - and formulating theory based on those measurements.

 

Quote

Or is it that perception can be faulty?

 

 

This is a more philosophical question. Let me answer it this way, how do you *directly* know one way or the other if you can't test it. Give me a valid test and I'll give you a valid answer. Science not conjecture

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

26 minutes ago, plissken said:

This rebuttal of 'it's not peer reviewed' is tiresome.

 

Science is tiresome if that means it goes about things with a certain methodology. Peer review journals are there for a reason otherwise we could all just spend our lives referencing joe citizen's blog post as edited by Joe. Not that Joe doesnt have a right to an opinion or that opinion possibly right.

[plissken]

19 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I said that I would not refer to it as a publication because it is not peer reviewed, I’d call it a report.

 

its generally easy to find fault with any testing method —

 

Great. Then either get to finding fault or stop saying things that come across as easier said than done.

 

Sorry but your position doesn't help move the marble down the road.

[jabbr]

43 minutes ago, plissken said:

This rebuttal of 'it's not peer reviewed' is tiresome.

Moving the marble: Archimago’s report is probably closer to a scientific research article than it is to a purely subjective listening report but that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful nor does it mean the subjective listening report isn’t useful. You are free to tag each type of information with an “impact” factor that determines how much each moves your own marble: get that

 

If you want to ride the high science horse you need to play by the science rules. Peer reviewed, repeatable, repeated, because we’ve been burned before. Even Einstein was confirmed.

[plissken]

46 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Moving the marble: Archimago’s report is probably closer to a scientific research article than it is to a purely subjective listening report but that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful nor does it mean the subjective listening report isn’t useful. You are free to tag each type of information with an “impact” factor that determines how much each moves your own marble: get that

 

If you want to ride the high science horse you need to play by the science rules. Peer reviewed, repeatable, repeated, because we’ve been burned before. Even Einstein was confirmed.

 

You are missing the part where you start.

 

Archimago has a instrumented measurement approach. My approach is to de-bias.

 

I can take a 24 port switch, create a 23 port LAG, and hang 1 generic and 22 boutique cables from it and run any one of them into any computer or streamer or AES67 or AVB device and enable real time subjective evaluation. Subjective evaluation doesn't require the participant to have knowledge of the DUT.

 

The difference is Archimago doesn't need participants for a instrumented test.

 

My approach needs evaluators. Now if I pull people off the street or I do it on some monitors or HP then I get the typical subjectivist credo: Either their ears or the equipment sucks.

 

So I offer to come onsite and bring compensation as a way to entice participation. But then there is the haughty "$2000 isn't worth any of my time". So what $$ # is it?

 

Why are so many subjectivists shut down by this? It's because the logic is sound and they can't reason a way out of it. They can't poke a hole in the method.

 

If you believe that two interconnects, passing spec, that are typically 1-3% of the length the spec allows for, is going to cause current ramp/deramp, I don't honestly know what to tell you as you should know better.

 

I'm offering $2000 to anyone that can move the marble: Get That they won't. It speaks for itself.

[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?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

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?

 

DBT for audible differences requires a validated blind testing protocol evaluated by a reputable research team and the test itself compared to a known gold standard. Probably not gonna happen any time soon so I suspect you really want to bring up falsifiability?

 

 

[Ralf11]

24 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

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?

 

 

maybe we could use String Theory

 

I hear they are being moved over to the Philosophy Dept.s

[wgscott]

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

[Ralf11]

8 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

DBT for audible differences requires a validated blind testing protocol evaluated by a reputable research team and the test itself compared to a known gold standard. Probably not gonna happen any time soon so I suspect you really want to bring up falsifiability?

 

 

 

 

I will refer you to one of your comments above...