"Those who seek the chaperone of science need some science."
You don't get to cherry pick terms like expectation bias and double blind to prove your point. For example there is no scientific thing as a double blind test. There is such a thing as ad double blind protocol. Assuring that the test subject or administrator of test is not influenced by their knowledge of the subject matter is but one element of a proper scientific test. The notion then that a test, if you can even call it that, does becomes valid merely because bias was accounted for or failed to be accounted for is not scientific. The results are merely anecdotal
"Those who seek the chaperone of science need some science."
You don't get to cherry pick terms like expectation bias and double blind to prove your point. For example there is no scientific thing as a double blind test. There is such a thing as ad double blind protocol. Assuring that the test subject or administrator of test is not influenced by their knowledge of the subject matter is but one element of a proper scientific test. The notion then that a test, if you can even call it that, does becomes valid merely because bias was accounted for or failed to be accounted for is not scientific. The results are merely anecdotal
Nor is it concerning that there is someone else as equally confused as you. Let's just assume I apply the double blind protocol. Now what? My point is that the scientific method requires you to develop(or utilize an existing one) a scientifically valid test that the protocol can be applied to. It is your apparent attempt (to me at least) to wiggle out of that requirement bothers me. In fact the double blind protocol has not been properly utilized. I know. Science is too hard.
Those who seek the chaperone of science need some science.
I'm trying to understand the false dilemma being set up by @microstrip and @Gregadd here that without a strictly applied double blind protocol, there can be no useful information obtained. Unless that's the point. The false dilemma is a straw man used to dismiss any amateur efforts?
I'm trying to understand the false dilemma being set up by @microstrip and @Gregadd here that without a strictly applied double blind protocol, there can be no useful information obtained. Unless that's the point. The false dilemma is a straw man used to dismiss any amateur efforts?
Now who is setting up a strawman? Let me be clear. As a subjectivist I come to conclusions based on sighted subjective evaluations. I don't require anyone to indulge in blind tests, double or otherwise. My point is if you are going to rely on science, you have to practice science. There is no "informal("amateur"") science." There might be some amateur scientists but they are bound by the same rules.
Now who is setting up a strawman? Let me be clear. As a subjectivist I come to conclusions based on sighted subjective evaluations. I don't require anyone to indulge in blind tests, double or otherwise. My point is if you are going to rely on science, you have to practice science. There is no "informal("amateur"") science." There might be some amateur scientists but they are bound by the same rules.
How can you practice "science" in a blind test when the persons involved are subjected to "unscientific" influences on their perception such as psychological stress to "get it right", which is inevitably higher than in sighted comparisons?
As a biochemist I deal every day with the science of molecules and macromolecules. These entities do their thing simply according to the laws of nature, they don't do things differently just because you subject them to an analytical test (we're not talking double slit experiment here). That's how you can perform objective science. Once human psychology becomes involved in the data points themselves, things get trickier.
In other words, those who claim that blind tests are "scientific" don't actually understand what real science is.
So Al even a blindfolded PHD wont cut it here .
Blindfolded audiophile testing is about as scientific as beavis and butthead describing a music video .
As it comes to loudspeakers there are great accurate testing tools on the market , but most audiophiles will say their ears are much better then that , so you can never win this game of subjectivity .
The only thing that can happen is that a group of subjectivists with the same taste will form a group and proclaim their subjectiveness as being superiour .
This off course gives food to high intensity and some times entertaining debates once in a while
As it comes to loudspeakers there are great accurate testing tools on the market , but most audiophiles will say their ears are much better then that , so you can never win this game of subjectivity . View attachment 104529
Sure, measurements are important, and a designer should rely on them. But they don't give the whole picture of what the ear can perceive, as many top designers will tell you. It's measurements and listening.
Claiming that we currently know how to measure everything that is relevant to human perception is not scientific -- it's naive. Big time.
It's funny how engineers are often so supremely confident in their measurements and their encompassing validity. Actual scientists are more humble. Scientists know how much they don't know. What is more: the more you know, the more you realize what you don't know.
Im a mechanical engineer and tools are extremely important for getting a good result but they remain off course a tool
This week i supervised the alignment of a 22 meter diameter ring gear to a 1.25 mm elevation tolerance .( measured on the tooth of the gear)
Same goes for accurate LS design where would you be without tools and measurements
Im a mechanical engineer and tools are extremely important for getting a good result but they remain off course a tool
This week i aligned a 22 meter diameter ring gear to a 1.25 mm elevation tolerance .( measured on the tooth of the gear)
Same goes for accurate LS design where would you be without tools and measurements
The listener is the person you are trying to convince. There is a reason psychology is the red headed stepchild of conventional science. Human behavior is so variable. Subjective impression analysis is my role in the audio food chain. It's not that it 's superior. It's all I have. I acknowledge how tempting it is stop at measurements.
Real Audiophile testing is throwing all music genres through Loudspeakers and see how they handle it
Forget about all that cabling , blind/ double blind nonsense .
I currently have one speaker on their spikes and the other speaker on after market isolation footers. I’m evaluating if I want to use the isolation footer or stick with the spikes.
In an attempt to have a symmetrical comparison, I have the speakers at precisely the same height and am listening in mono, level matched, to one channel at a time. I am obviously not blind to which is which. But I will invite a few people to listen and it seems sensible to hide the footers from sight. It’s just a very simple way to remove any potential influence of visual associations. For instance, someone might unconsciously associate spikes with “ sharper” or thinner sound.
This is not meant to meet standards of a scientific test or statistical conclusions. But I think it will be useful to me.
Because it is the truth, as there is no control or discussion of a blind decision. It is either valid or not valid. Anyway the real proof of i is in the decision of people who support them not to share their methods and results. The whole community who shares sighted opinions reports on their biases, methods and opinions.
I have read about properly carried blind tests transparently reported and respect them. But I am highly suspicious of uncontrolled audiophile challenges. Surely IMHO, YMMV.
BTW, please do not mix our discussion with your disputes with other members. I could also use some strong sounding latin words to refer to this strategy, but IMO it will only spoil the subject.
Because it is the truth, as there is no control or discussion of a blind decision. It is either valid or not valid. Anyway the real proof of i is in the decision of people who support them not to share their methods and results. The whole community who shares sighted opinions reports on their biases, methods and opinions.
I have read about properly carried blind tests transparently reported and respect them. But I am highly suspicious of uncontrolled audiophile challenges. Surely IMHO, YMMV.
For a simple audiophile A/B listening comparison, the only difference between a sighted and unsighted test is that with the later you don’t which is which.
It can be useful,from my experience, without meeting the strictures of an AES paper.
I currently have one speaker on their spikes and the other speaker on after market isolation footers. I’m evaluating if I want to use the isolation footer or stick with the spikes.
In an attempt to have a symmetrical comparison, I have the speakers at precisely the same height and am listening in mono, level matched, to one channel at a time. I am obviously not blind to which is which. But I will invite a few people to listen and it seems sensible to hide the footers from sight. It’s just a very simple way to remove any potential influence of visual associations. For instance, someone might unconsciously associate spikes with “ sharper” or thinner sound.
This is not meant to meet standards of a scientific test or statistical conclusions. But I think it will be useful to me.
One reason the highend audiophile community rejected the Harman speaker tests was that they were carried in mono. And unless the listeners have perfectly symmetrical hearing and perception the test will be compromised.
For a simple audiophile A/B listening comparison, the only difference between a sighted and unsighted test is that with the later you don’t which is which.
It can be useful, from my experience, without meeting the strictures of an AES paper.
