Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Tim, I agree it's not a test but how many people on audio forums do you see citing "blind test results" when they are talking about these forms of casual listening. So this is at least progress - they are anecdotes, that's all.
So to your point - why should removing one bias (what are the many that you talk about?) surely be better than removing no biases? It's an unfounded statement.
How is it better if any of the remaining biases, collectively or individually, are substantially influential enough to mask the difference?
The differences are still masked by the remaining biases so how can this be better?
Unless you can prove that the remaining biases are not of a strong enough influence to mask the differences. But then you would need to know what they are & measure them & compare the result with/without these biases. Oh, wait, you've just done a fully controlled test
John, you are talking about a situation where differences are still masked, so I assume you mean that there is no difference detected in the sighted testing and there are still no differences when testing unsighted. If that's what you mean then sure, we can't say much about the influence of knowledge in that test.
But what about the case where difference is detected sighted and then disappears unsighted? Are you proposing that some previously insignificant influence suddenly appears when you don't know which component is being listened to?
John, sorry for any confusion. My point is that once knowledge is removed and levels matched, there is little that I can think of that will invalidate a test.
When I mentioned nocebo I was really meaning negative expectation bias - something you often mention - this won't be an issue if differences were reported sighted, or if some listeners in a particular test believe the items under test do/should/will/have been said to sound different.
I'm asking you what variables aside from the three I've just mentioned - which would be accounted for - could - using your words - mask differences?
When I mentioned nocebo I was really meaning negative expectation bias - something you often mention - this won't be an issue if differences were reported sighted, or if some listeners in a particular test believe the items under test do/should/will/have been said to sound different.
I'm asking you what variables aside from the three I've just mentioned - which would be accounted for - could - using your words - mask differences?
I think this was asked & answered before - all it demonstrates is that removal of sight changes the result - it doesn't mean that this is now the correct result.
There could still be underlying factors that now mask the differences. The sightedness was the dominating bias previously & gave a positive result, now there could be other dominating bias which gives a negative result.
Right but let's be careful with words here. When you say invalidate a test - you mean arrive at the wrong result? I remember giving you a list of influencing factors posted by J_J - do you not remember these? All these factors & more can affect the result of a test thereby rendering it invalid
Again, a nocebo will not manifest as someone who hears differences sighted - it is someone who is convinced that there are no differences & this conviction prevents them from hearing any differences. You are a perfect example, Max - you are convinced that there is no difference between DACs & therefore stated that your iPhone 5 sounds exactly the same as any other DAC, including the one in your AVI speakers.
I refer you to the list of factors from J_J
esldude has given some of his list
THere are others contained in various documents on AB testing
Yes, I think that's a good description of not valid.
John, this is where we differ. I think blind-tests are of far more value than sighted.
Well yes, I suppose I do.
I dont agree that uncontrolled blind-tests are not valid. IMO, removing knowledge and matching levels is a valid way to find out whether sighted differences are real or not, is just doing this considered uncontrolled? Such tests are of far more importance than similar, sighted tests, the type of which Steve Toy will soon host.
BTW - There'll be no null results there
I'll explain that later - let's stick to the valid-not valid theme for now
John, I've seen the list, but will you perhaps utilise it in a hypothetical way, please?
Ie, assume a test where knowledge, levels and nocebo are accounted for. No differences are identified blind even though the listeners reported them sighted - a very common result in a test of this type and with only these variables accounted for.
Could you list one or more variables that may have caused this difference between sighted and non-sighted reports, and explain how it/they might cause the non-sighted null result?
Ah, Max, I'm not going through a list of variables that needs controlling when it's evident to anyone reading the list. Basically you are saying that you don't believe the list is warranted until examples are given to you to prove it.
I'll give you one example but let's not go through a list, so that you can find something to argue with.
Let's use this example of an influencing factor that is very common in forum organised blind tests - particularly the forum you alluded to, the blind test is organised as a challenge. This is verboten in tests - I'm sure you can understand why?
Max, again, I'm not going to get into a rat-a-tat posting with you. Most of the things you are asking me are already answered in my posts preceding your post - please demonstrate that you have read it before posting the same question again - otherwise it gets very tiring & trying
John, it's not really evident for the specific case that you are hanging your hat on.
Specifically, you require a new variable to appear only when sight is removed.
Yes, this is what the debaters here seem to miss - the tests are invalid but they are arguing that their test is more valid than my test - let's not even deem them tests, as someone said - let's correctly call them anecdotes - their anecdote is more valid than mine
John,
Surely all these tests are individually equally invalid, but we have thousands of pages of independent people describing sighted tests in high-end that show some coherency in many aspects. Sighted tests that have lead to a continuous improvement of stereo sound reproduction, and the blind tests, except for the Harman speaker tests and now Amir tests, only proved that everything sounds the same.
Well, yes a new variable has been introduced by the blind "challenge" - is that difficult to understand?
I was asked for a specific example by Max & I used an example that he would be familiar with.
So, I'm not sure what you are saying?
Last edited:
Ssh, Micro - I was trying to use logic & you're blowing it by introducing a conclusion that will be utterly rejected & will just act as another point for argument & deflection
John, no worries, I've read everything you've said but never mind, we'll leave the debate (well I will) for now as a little break allows time for reflection and assures things don't get heated
The list is fine and dandy, but it isn't my list, and I would have liked to see you attempt to explain, hypothetically how some of the variables listed on it could cause a null non-sighted result yet not cause a null sighted result in a typical blind-test, especially as you're so keen to declare any such test not accounting for every variable on the list as worthless.
Perhaps others would have liked this too.
The list is fine and dandy, but it isn't my list, and I would have liked to see you attempt to explain, hypothetically how some of the variables listed on it could cause a null non-sighted result yet not cause a null sighted result in a typical blind-test, especially as you're so keen to declare any such test not accounting for every variable on the list as worthless.
Perhaps others would have liked this too
.Max, did you miss the example I gave? I thought it was cogent & appropriate to what you asked.
Do you have a problem with the example?
Please don't accuse me of dodging this when I patently gave you an example which you choose to ignore
BTW, the list is from J_J - you should look him up here if you want to find out how a real scientist & therefore objectivist operates!! I don't always agree with him or him me - which might please you?
Do you have a problem with the example?
Please don't accuse me of dodging this when I patently gave you an example which you choose to ignore
BTW, the list is from J_J - you should look him up here if you want to find out how a real scientist & therefore objectivist operates!! I don't always agree with him or him me - which might please you?
Please see below
John, I've no problem with anything, but I asked you to name a variable/s other than knowledge, levels and nocebo (which would be accounted for) that can cause a null result when differences were first reported sighted, (same test, sighted first, then blind) and explain the mechanism by which this happens, hypothetically.
I will draw my own conclusions as to why you do not wish (apparently?) to do this.
Please see below
John, I've no problem with anything, but I asked you to name a variable/s other than knowledge, levels and nocebo (which would be accounted for) that can cause a null result when differences were first reported sighted, (same test, sighted first, then blind) and explain the mechanism by which this happens, hypothetically.
I will draw my own conclusions as to why you do not wish (apparently?) to do this.
Huh?????
What do you not understand in this example I gave
If you have read it & don't understand it then ask a question - don't incorrectly accuse me of avoidance & then make suggestions based on this that try to impugn my character, please.
You are acting exactly like a troll, Max - I have to say
Yes, of course it is! But you are couching it as though the participants are deciding themselves that it is a challenge rather than it is presented to them as a challenge - to prove that they can hear blind what they claim they can sighted - exactly like you are doing, Max. You would inadvertently add another factor as an organiser of any blind test of this nature.
There will be no arguing if you desist from this sort of post - stop playing to the crowd - it's creeping into your recent posts & you know what that leads to?
Thanks for clarifying. So pressure may mask differences? As opposed to there just being none, unless sighted, when pressure isn't a factor?
Similar threads
