Objectivity without measurements

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

The question is how accurate is this "instrument" 🤔?

Always!

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, monteverdi said:

How well our senses can differentiate is a matter of training. That applies to vision, sound and taste.

Harman Research (Toole and Olive) used extensive blind listening test to establish objective evaluation of loudspeakers. It is clear that trained listeners give more reliable information than untrained. 

 

 

Toole seemed to find that experienced listeners had less overall variation in their judgements and tend to differentiate their ratings more strongly compared to untrained listeners, but the averaged results for each group was the same.IOW their was overall agreement (concordance) between the two groups but differences in what Toole called kind. One would expect less experienced listeners to be required to get a statistically significant result.

 

"Inexperienced listeners, and listeners with deteriorated hearing exhibited higher variations in their judgments , for different reasons obviously. The opinions of the inexperienced youths when averaged were not different from those of selected and trained listeners"

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

26 minutes ago, hopkins said:

If differences can only be perceived by trained listeners than chances are they are subtle and not significant... 

 

In the Toole example, as I understand it, both groups heard differences and chose similarly. The trained group were just better at it (read more consistent and more definitive).

 

In the case where things can only be perceived with training I believe there can be large differences once you learn where and how to look/listen. Perception is more than just registration of a sensory stimulus in the cortex. Thats a big topic.....

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, hopkins said:

 

That [Audiophiles make up less than 1% of music lovers] does not mean that "non audiophiles" cannot appreciate a good system.

 

Totally agree

1 hour ago, hopkins said:

It [Audiophiles make up less than 1% of music lovers] probably means that good systems are rare,

 

This assumes that only audiophiles have good systems.

 

1 hour ago, hopkins said:

and that most expensive audio equipment has little added value.

 

IMO the assertion (right or wrong) of "most expensive audio equipment has little added value"  does not follow from "Audiophiles make up less than 1% of music lovers"

 

1 hour ago, hopkins said:

It is surprisingly easy to make a "non musical" system with expensive audiophile equipment. 

 

as it is with cheap systems.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 minutes ago, alfe said:

Objectivist humour.

Hmmm....maybe more hubris than humour

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

27 minutes ago, alfe said:

The wife is not a measurement tool.

Well I think we should let this one pass...😉

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Objective findings must be repeatable and reproducible by others. What I find when my wife is in the kitchen and I switch some random component, is that she invariably yells down into the basement: CAN YOU PLEASE TURN THAT NOISE DOWN??!??!

 

So, no, while the wife measuring device may be self-consistent, it is not very repeatable, I'm afraid.

 

 

All this tells me objectively speaking is that your wife banishes you to the basement and screams at you to be quiet !🙄😁

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

That is all true. But, still, I can't reproduce the findings offered by others in this thread, therefore they are not repeatable

 

Firstly, you need to escape from the basement. Basement acoustics makes everything sound the same ! 🙄😉

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Just now, sandyk said:

 

I seriously doubt that this is the case. All that I see is a robust discussion.

Agreed.One that maybe needs a little more reflecting but not on reflectivity