Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 minutes ago, wgscott said:

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

 

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

[Ralf11]

The central problem on the last few pages is that some people are standing upside down -- they are calling for scientific studies to show that no effect exists. 

 

Yet, it is the affirmative that has the burden of proof.

 

Those selling cables (or drugs for that matter) have the burden to show efficacy of their products.

[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.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

37 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

The central problem on the last few pages is that some people are standing upside down -- they are calling for scientific studies to show that no effect exists. 

 

Yet, it is the affirmative that has the burden of proof.

 

Those selling cables (or drugs for that matter) have the burden to show efficacy of their products.

 

 As Albert said something like, no amount of experimentation can prove me right but only  one experiment can prove me wrong. The null hypothesis if forwarded looking for that instance. The trouble is you have to come up with under what conditions you are willing to accept falsifiability - refuting the null hypothesis. As said in this case without a valid test it is not easy

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

32 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

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

 

Thats not the problem.

The opposite applies. person A says I can hear a difference and Person B says no you can't. Person A doesn't really care what Person B thinks or about any test protocols. So I would say, if it matters, it is incumbent on Person B to worry about careful test protocols

 

Quote

.  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.

 

Thank you for your well wishes about my sleep. You too - big hug

[Ralf11]

I don't care what person A says; I care if A can tell a difference.

 

See the difference?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I don't care what person A says; I care if A can tell a difference.

 

See the difference?

 

Yes but how do you tell?

[vmartell22]

15 hours ago, jabbr said:

Nor am I aware of any peer reviewed published study that says that Ethernet cables can’t affect SQ.

 

Theres no actual science to say one way or the other. 

 

Thats the bigger picture.

 

Hrm - is about inferring what it means. For example,

 

- There is no actual science backing the existence of the tooth fairy. There is also (to my knowledge) no peer reviewed science (paper or otherwise) dedicated to explicitly disprove the existence of the tooth fairy.

- However, there is actual science explaining how and why children of a certain age lose their teeth, all peer reviewed and accepted.  Once accepted, that knowledge is used as and considered the truth in how we deal with the subject. Unless disproved; after all this is science.

- Because of above, anyone that believes in the tooth fairy is delusional. If you are a kid, it is cute and delusional. If you are an adult, cute does not apply.

 

Now - the problem is that "delusional" sounds a bit like an insult - and people take offence. They should not. It is not strictly an insult. But I do understand.  Colloquially, in daily life, it is used as such. Maybe if we used a different phrase, we will achieve the much sought after civility we all crave in this and other forums!

 

How about, "under the illusion" instead of "delusional" - In a phrase:

 

"There are some people under the illusion that a $10,000 a foot Ethernet cable will make a difference in the sound of their system".

 

Nicer, isn't it?

 

hrm - I just re-read and I still think I am gonna get flamed. Oh well...

 

v

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

 

Hrm - is about inferring what it means. For example,

 

- There is no actual science backing the existence of the tooth fairy. There is also (to my knowledge) no peer reviewed science (paper or otherwise) dedicated to explicitly disprove the existence of the tooth fairy.

- However, there is actual science explaining how and why children of a certain age lose their teeth, all peer reviewed and accepted.  Once accepted, that knowledge is used as and considered the truth in how we deal with the subject. Unless disproved; after all this is science.

- Because of above, anyone that believes in the tooth fairy is delusional. If you are a kid, it is cute and delusional. If you are an adult, cute does not apply.

 

Now - the problem is that "delusional" sounds a bit like an insult - and people take offence. They should not. It is not strictly an insult. But I do understand.  Colloquially, in daily life, it is used as such. Maybe if we used a different phrase, we will achieve the much sought after civility we all crave in this and other forums!

 

How about, "under the illusion" instead of "delusional" - In a phrase:

 

"There are some people under the illusion that a $10,000 a foot Ethernet cable will make a difference in the sound of their system".

 

Nicer, isn't it?

 

hrm - I just re-read and I still think I am gonna get flamed. Oh well...

 

v

 

 

 

Delusion is generally seen as part of a psychiatric disorder "Delusions are deemed bizarre if they are clearly implausible and and not understandable to same-culture peers and do not derive from ordinary life experiences". DSM5

 

Illusion is generally considered a sensory distortion shared by peers

[vmartell22]

2 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Delusion is generally seen as part of a psychiatric disorder "Delusions are deemed bizarre if they are clearly implausible and and not understandable to same-culture peers and do not derive from ordinary life experiences". DSM5

 

Illusion is generally considered a sensory distortion shared by peers

 

I am liking "illusion", more and more!  - let's use it instead of "delusion"  - maybe that will bring about peace in this forum!

 

(or maybe, Dr., do you think we should add Audiophilia to Kraft-Ebbing?)

 

v

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

51 minutes ago, wgscott said:

The burden of proof falls on those wishing to refute the null hypothesis.

 

yes agreed, IMO that is person B in the example above.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, vmartell22 said:

(or maybe, Dr., do you think we should add Audiophilia to Kraft-Ebbing?)

 

sex acts with ear, why not

[Teresa]

16 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Teresa I was talking about volume matching. John Darko(Digital Audio Review) liked the MQA version of a song on The Nightfly because it was 2 dB louder than the other version he was comparing it to. Its an old trick of the industry louder is preferred. More people than me beat him up pretty good at RMAF.

 

This agrees with what I stated, if both samples have identical dynamic ranges they can be level-matched. If their dynamic range differs the loudest one will be selected as the best sounding, even if it is not. So I agree, John Darko likely selected the MQA version because it was 2dB louder.  

 

16 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

I got to disagree with second paragraph. Every room I listened to music in at RMAF sounded different.

 

I agree, all the rooms I have been to at an audio show have sounded different to me as well, some very different. However, I was discussing hearing differences under A/B conditions. With an audio showroom I can listen normally under comfortable conditions and then walk to another room and do it all over again. If there was a way to directly A/B those rooms it would much harder to hear any differences because of how the human brain works. Which is why I quit A/B’ing decades ago as it hides real audible differences.

[Teresa]

10 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Technically unexplainable.

 

Expanding from the civility thread this is probably the most "technically accurate" and I suspect least offensive. It says, "all my data and *available* scientific evidence cannot explain your experience". Of course others can submit other evidence if available or argue the point. Evidence also changes over time."Delusional" is simply incorrect...

 

I agree technically unexplainable would be the best term to use, and one both sides can agree on.

 

10 hours ago, esldude said:

But there is REAL scientific methodology...

 

Is there one that actually works with real music and real people?

 

6 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

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

 

That is the assumption I believe is wrong. My friend, audio designer John Curl has stated many times that we can only measure a small percent of what we can hear. Measurements get you a competent design, selection of quality parts by listening is what gets you a product people want to hear music through.

 

4 hours 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?

 

The problem is not blind testing conditions, the problem is A/B'ing IMHO.

[Teresa]

4 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

...person A says I can hear a difference and Person B says no you can't. Person A doesn't really care what Person B thinks or about any test protocols. So I would say, if it matters, it is incumbent on Person B to worry about careful test protocols...

 

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

I don't care what person A says; I care if A can tell a difference.

 

See the difference?

 

But in this scenario Person A doesn't care what Person B thinks and is not interested in doing any tests. So only Person A will know if he heard a difference. In this case Person B would have to do the test he(she) wanted Person A to do.

 

If Person B could somehow make Person A comply with his(her) demands it wouldn't tell me how it will sound to me, for that I need my ears, my room and my audio system. IMHO nothing beats listening for oneself. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

22 minutes ago, Teresa said:

Is there one that actually works with real music and real people?

 

I feel the breeze of fresh air!

[jabbr]

6 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

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.

 

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

 

What I have heard is the assertion that Science has determined that cables sound the same. (or something close to this).

 

I have asked for a single example of a real scientific study which makes this determination: none found as of yet. i.e. Science has not determined that cables sound the same. That's a null hypothesis.

 

Let's backup: The original assertion is that People are delusional in their beliefs because these beliefs are impossible according to science.

 

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

[jabbr]

5 hours ago, vmartell22 said:

Nicer, isn't it?

Yes. The tooth fairly isn't a delusion shared by young children because they are told by their parents (authoritative figures) that the tooth fairy exists -- do any parents belief this is real? No delusion. They have been tricked (the parents have -- the kids also know that the tooth fairly is unlikely but want the $5).

 

Any "science" involving the tooth fairy would be about marketing, co-manipulation, and psychology.

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, jabbr said:

the kids also know that the tooth fairly is unlikely but want the $5).

 

What a con game

[pkane2001]

8 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

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.

 

To me, it's not the physical reality that is the surrogate for perception, it's the other way around.  Perhaps you are interested in perception as the primary object of study, but that's not at the top of my list.

 

I'm interested in faithful sound reproduction. Note that I didn't say 'the perception of faithful sound reproduction'. That last one leads directly to all kinds of aberrations, from lossy MP3 standard, to vinyl, to expensive USB and ethernet cables.

 

[jabbr]

3 hours ago, Teresa said:

That is the assumption I believe is wrong. My friend, audio designer John Curl has stated many times that we can only measure a small percent of what we can hear.

John’s a highly esteemed designer. Not a measurement expert though — we can measure truly amazing levels of small signals. Think satellites able to listen in on ground conversations. The problem is that we don’t know how to properly interpret what we are measuring and that requisite equipment may be prohibitively expensive.

[jabbr]

8 hours ago, plissken said:

You are missing the part where you start.

 

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

Are you actually making a point. You keep on changing the discussion. You asked me to comment on Archimago. Right? 

 

If if you have an actual question please clearly formulate it and place it into a single post. I can’t go out into the ether and discern what you are trying to say. If there is a clear protocol you’d like me to look at you need to give me a link to the entire protocol. 

 

Note that when I review research proposals, I reject them if not clearly written and the group being presented to goes along with that invariably.

 

This doesn’t need to be formal but Does need to be reasonably comprehensible and in entirety in a single post.

[lucretius]

6 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

yes agreed, IMO that is person B in the example above.

 

Are you familiar with Russell's teapot?

[plissken]

30 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Are you actually making a point. You keep on changing the discussion. You asked me to comment on Archimago. Right? 

 

If if you have an actual question please clearly formulate it and place it into a single post. I can’t go out into the ether and discern what you are trying to say. If there is a clear protocol you’d like me to look at you need to give me a link to the entire protocol. 

 

Note that when I review research proposals, I reject them if not clearly written and the group being presented to goes along with that invariably.

 

This doesn’t need to be formal but Does need to be reasonably comprehensible and in entirety in a single post.

I believe someone else brought up Archimago.

 

I quite clearly stated he's doing instrumented measurement that require zero listener participation. Ergo he believes his results show no possible difference

 

I quite clearly stated my approach requires listeners and not just any listener off the street. It requires subjectivists that think they hear differences. I also quite clearly stated that I have two data points: 1: Out of the people that have DL'd and listened to the anonymized tracks none can year the difference in 98 meters of generic CAT5e or 3 meters of $28 a foot cabling.  2: That at last count I have zero people that want to make an easy $2000. If I was given the shot at an easy $2000 I'd take it. 

[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.