It's amazing that you could really state this - incredible lack of understanding of perception
Of course, it doesn't surprise me that those who talk the most about bias, controlled listening, etc know so little about sensory evaluation
Comparative Listening Tests
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
- Status
Of course, it doesn't surprise me that those who talk the most about bias, controlled listening, etc know so little about sensory evaluation
Yes, sadly I think that's the biggest bullshit statement I've ever read on this forum...
We have no proof that how we recall memory of auditory experiences is even possible without other stimulation of some kind. In fact I propose for most people it's impossible. This is exactly why I've recommended trying a test that gives visual cues, while still leaving the listener "blind" to see if they can differentiate between equipment pieces so long as they can relate it to (or against) something.
We have no proof that how we recall memory of auditory experiences is even possible without other stimulation of some kind. In fact I propose for most people it's impossible. This is exactly why I've recommended trying a test that gives visual cues, while still leaving the listener "blind" to see if they can differentiate between equipment pieces so long as they can relate it to (or against) something.
Hardly. Regrettably, the worst part of all this was how some-to-many here were soaking up everything Klaus said like he was some kinda physics / science phenom. And chances are good to excellent many of us will do the exact same with the next guy who reads more science textbooks then they. Why some so easily and quickly hold these psuedo science types in such high-esteem is beyond me.
Interesting that Klaus joined in 2010 and in the past 7 years had posted some 150+ times which translates to roughly 21+ posts per year. Then outta nowhere when Peter opened a new thread about my particular flavor of vibration mgmt, Klaus arrives on the scene making nonsensical scientific claims like I didn't know what I was doing, all my materials were wrong, wrong design, etc. I knew he was absolutely full of BS and full of himself from the git-go while others obviously saw him as having great credibility.
Klaus claims he did not ridicule anybody. That is true. But only because I wouldn't let him and certainly not because anybody else tried to intervene. IOW, it's not like he didn't try to ridicule my methods and designs routinely throughout many of his 50+ posts over the past few weeks. In fact, at the rate he was going and his spreading his wings into other topics and with so many lapping up his seemingly every word, he was well on his way to an estimated 866 posts for this year alone. Again, this in contrast to his original 150+ posts over the previous 7 years.
Has anybody ever considered the potentially thousands of hours wasted in high-end audio forums by these hack science types and by those who so willingly engage them? And every time it seems with nobody gaining a frickin thing except the hack science type getting his 15 minutes of fame in so many threads before each thread nosedives?
Has anybody noticed the number of Amir's posts? Like I said earlier in this thread, Amir's comrad Ethan Winer whom Amir references from time to time has admitted many times that he too believes all cables sound the same as well as claiming all cables and all components maintain the fidelity of the input signal. Yet, nobody seems to bat an eye.
IMO, many of these closed-minded "science" types have the most untrained ears of all and they think we're dillusional when we claim to hear differences. But rather than look inwardly at their own potential deficiencies to train themselves, their hearing, etc. they much prefer to spend their entire adult lives outwardly trying to drag everybody else down to their lowest performance common denominator.
Time and again, these psuedo science types demonstrate that they are educated well beyond their intelligence levels. And whether it's due to their laziness, arrogance, dillusion, denial, etc, on their part it doesn't really matter. What does matter is they are only partly to blame because without a complicit audience, they are nothing.
What is this supposed to mean? You do know that I am the co-founder of this forum, yes? Have you seen Steve's post count?
+2.
Pseudo-intellectualism and intellectual dishonesty in full bloom, to state nothing of the lack of neutral moderation.
Pseudo-intellectualism and intellectual dishonesty in full bloom, to state nothing of the lack of neutral moderation.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Good morning Ron
Do you have a problem with moderation here. If so I can point you to a site to which you belong that they have none. So let's not spew your intellectual dishonesty post as you so often with every post find a way to do. You always seem to have a problem here Ron. Your posts are all the same. If you have such a problem here why are you always here telling us how we need to act there are other forums Ron which cater to your whims. Alas WBF isn't one of them.
Sensory evaluation techniques does not mean that your senses are tested. It means that your senses are involved in the testing and that they are the very instrument for determining whether there is an effect or not. And since humans are subject to bias this bias must be absent from the evaluation in order to get reliable results.microstrip said:
It’s not (only) reading magazines that creates bias, it’s knowing the identity of the components under test. And that’s only of of the sources. Identity bias is strong, as has been shown by Toole, so obviously biased listening tests work well and thus listening technique can be rightfully characterized as successful in the audiophile’s point of view.
Klaus
Couldnt have said it better! Mr. Party doesn't seem to want to fraternize here just repeat his intellectual dishonesty line as if he's somehow a superior entity entitled to put people down.
david
PeterA said:
We did not measure simply because we did not have a meter, so yes, there is no proof that this difference was real. We did not investigate because this, amongst other things, would have implied to ask the manufacturer questions about the precise nature of the grounding scheme of his preamp. For all of this we just were not motivated enough.
How to reconcile this? Without confirmation by measurement I wouldn’t try to. Had it been confirmed by the meter and properly investigated we probably would have found a sound technical reason, and I would have accepted that based on such reason cables can make a difference. But then the question should be asked: why would someone pay big bucks for a cable which only makes things louder, when a simple turn of the volume knob delivers the same result for free?
Klaus
ddk said:
When food or beverage industry develops new products, controlled test are the standard. I even found publications investigating the crispiness of potato chips, under controlled test conditions.
I agree, without a solid definition high-end is meaningless, everything can be labelled high-end. But numbers alone can have a meaning provided they are based on solid research, Harman is a good example, where the ultimate goal is a single number reflecting the quality of a loudspeaker.
Klaus
Yet you seem happy with Amir's intellectual dishonesty on show here & elsewhere - quelle surprise!!
jkeny said:
After having read the relevant parts of Meilgaard’s “Sensory Evaluation Techniques” and numerous papers from J. of Sensory Studies I thought I had some idea of what this business is about, but apparently I was all wrong. So please enlighten me, what textbooks and scientific journals exactly should I read to close those gaps?
jkeny said:
What’s wrong with that statement?
You just repeated definitions that we all agree on, avoiding the essential question of my post - the objective of audiophile listening tests and their results.
Are you saying that grounding schemes of preamplifiers can change the level of audio signals?
If you still don't know after reading the papers you cited then there's no hope & I would be wasting my time explaining - I suggest you absorb & understand rather than claim having read some papers.
Lack of motivation & lack of inquisitiveness explains quiet a lot.
So you found a difference in perceived loudness between two cables & you didn't have the motivation or inquisitiveness to ask yourself some simple questions? "Is this explainable from a technical perspective?" "If not, could this be a perceptual effect & what's behind it?" And you try to claim that you have some knowledge of auditory perception - jeez!!
As I said lack of motivation & inquisitiveness is often at the core of many objectivists who rely on stock measurements & mantras in support of their shortcomings.
Last edited:
Are you saying that grounding schemes of preamplifiers can change the level of audio signals?
When such people's technical understanding is probed they often run for cover - let's see what happens here?
It is a question of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The "high-end" is intrinsically a loose definition, built essentially around the result - a great subjective sound quality.
Everyone will agree that overpriced junk exists, it is part of the package, but fortunately it is globally acceptable. Audio forums should point the junk, not systematically attack the whole high-end.
- Status
Similar threads
