Placebo effects in the extreme

[esldude]

the source of friction tween the 2 camps is the interjection of the measurebators in subjective threads with the intent to destroy the said "tweaky or foo" product , rain on the parade and the "save audiophools from themselves " mentality -- and they cloak it as "scientific investigation".
It all sucks
If they did not interject .. there would be much more harmony.

At the end of it all , you have to trust your ears/brain . AS I said before , what you percieve or hear is YOUR reality.

You don't have to trust your ears. You may choose to do so. You may choose to do so and find it was a mistake or not. What you perceive is reality. And that in no way supports the idea you have to trust your ears.

The interjection you are referring to is better named as participation. One is not required to agree and encourage every idea to participate. What you label intent to destroy is intent to clarify. Your perception is your reality, but it isn't THE reality.

 

[Rodney Gold]

it's pure spoiler tactics .. not participation..you can hide it behind whatever label you want
My reality is what I percieve , that fugly gal looks beautiful to ME.. its MY reality

 

[esldude]

it's pure spoiler tactics .. not participation
My reality is what I percieve , that fugly gal looks beautiful to ME.. its MY reality

Thank you for informing me of my reality via what yours is. Thank you for knowing when I am participating and when I am not even in contradiction to what I did.

 

[Gregadd]

I firmly believe you enjoy your music, as we all do. But we are in the measurements thread here, we don't always talk about enjoyment

Who cares "where we are?
Let's be candid. Argument is my game. I recognize content based censorship when I see it. We are both old guys. We both can Remember when the FCC required equal time for opposing points of view. Right wing talk radio would not be effective if they had a fact checker sitting next to them.
I ask you why are you afraid of a subjectivist sitting on the podium presenting an opposing point of view.?
Trying to limit the content of debate is nothing new.
Quite frankly judging from your comments about how inadequate stereo is I wonder what your goal is.

 

[esldude]

Who cares "where we are?
Let's be candid. Argument is my game. I recognize content based censorship when I see it. We are both old guys. We both can Remember when the FCC required equal time for opposing points of view. Right wing talk radio would not be effective if they had a fact checker sitting next to them.
I ask you why are you afraid of a subjectivist sitting on the podium presenting an opposing point of view.?
Trying to limit the content of debate is nothing new.
Quite frankly judging from your comments about how inadequate stereo is I wonder what your goal is.

An attorney has argument as his game. I suppose in theory he learns the best way to argue whomever he represents. If facts are in his favour he uses facts, if the letter of the law is he keys on the law, and if none of that is in his favour he makes as nice an argument as possible for his client.

Trying to use measurements, known factors of hearing and how humans react to ascertain what is the actual way things work is a very different animal. Things are in reality quite complex enough thank you. Often limiting appropriately an issue is the only chance to make headway at really learning reality. To cry censorship and maintain everyone's experience and opinion is equal and should be respected is not the route to success. Certain things can be ascertained, and then one moves on. If someone without evidence or data or with data that has been dealt with only not to someone's liking has to continually be rehashed it isn't equality. It is muddying the waters and preventing progress from being made. Strange that when someone insists on bringing up inconvenient matters that clash with subjectivists dogma it is those who are accused of derailing threads. It is quite ironic in fact.

 

[jkeny]

I posted this already (during the internecine war posts) but it seems more cogent now:

This whole issue boils down to what level of error is acceptable for the specific target audience: the editor of a peer-reviewed journal; oneself; oneself with a group of friends; some forum readers. Different levels of listening rigour are required to convince different target audiences.

For oneself, many of us are quite happy to listen normally & not worry too much about the possibility of fooling ourselves. If making purchasing decision we usually listen over a week or longer & involve friends & others in this listening. Yes, we often use some informal form of blind A/B test. Is it of any more validity than all the other listening - probably not but we tend to do it, all the same.

For peer-reviewed journal a rigour is required which is demanded by whatever their criteria is for article acceptance & I don't need to state that this is no peer-reviewed journal.

There's really no problem with understanding the requirements of these two widely different target audiences - it's the forum groups where the difficulty arises. Most people on forums are happy to relate their personal experiences of their listening impressions. We all know that these impressions are as liable to error as our own impressions & we judge them accordingly. Paying attention to the consensus & also using our common sense to determine if this consensus is from a group of biased fanboys or from a wider audience whose expectation bias is less. To me, all this talk about being biased in our listening is about psychological expectation. We recognise those more likely to have heightened expectations' like Amir's example of the MS codec, like fanboys, like those who have a psychological stake in the game.

On forums that haven't banned mention of DBTs, we often find a group who seemingly aren't happy to allow these "error prone" listening impressions & often interject with an insistence for more rigour. This usually takes the form of ABX blind listening tests & measurements. So, I guess the question is why is there an insistence on this "to convince others on forums, then it is required work. Fun or not." as Amir says?

And I wanted to add this:
I believe a lot of the problem stems from one side believing their "evidence" is superior to the other. This is where the great tension lies as it's perceived that one side is assuming a superior attitude to the other & in most human interactions this is unacceptable behaviour. As I said above most people are happy to read other people's reports of their listening impressions & find it interesting or not. Most people don't ask the writer of these impressions to provide their age, hearing test results, blind test results, room response, equipment quality test, etc. (in fact where does it end?)

Can I suggest that the objectivist side be aware that more humility is needed on their part - most ABX tests are deeply flawed (unless run in a lab by professionals & even then.....); that no one has identified measurements that correlate sufficiently accurately to auditory perception, that auditory perception is complex, multi-faceted & not fully understood.

If objectivists would couch their "evidence" as just another piece of a jigsaw puzzle rather than as prima facie, then we all might get along better?

BTW, if the line of thought I see in the recent posts are followed to its logical conclusion then it will be acceptable to post "hey, you're old - we don't believe you can have hearing worth a damn - your listening impressions will be ignored by us" Is this really what anybody wants in this forum? Because that is the interpretation of the message being put to subjectivists by a certain group - substitute "deluded/mistaken" for "old" in the above statement ""hey, you're deluded/mistaken - we don't believe you can have hearing worth a damn - your listening impressions will be ignored by us"

 

[Purite Audio]

Subjectivists have no 'evidence'whatsoever just anecdote .
Keith

 

[jkeny]

Subjectivists have no 'evidence'whatsoever just anecdote .
Keith

Keith, it's this sort of troll post that gets up people's back
If you read what I wrote instead of just trying to get to posting a slogan from the party line, you would see that what I'm saying is that NEITHER subjectivists nor objectivists have a superior viewpoint. By your very post you are immediately disregarding this & using a slogan which is meant to display your supposed superior view - it's pretty damning, n'est pas?

Why not, just for a second, consider your so-called "evidence" as just another anecdote to add to the mix of listening impressions?

 

[Rodney Gold]

Appreciation of Music reproduction at home is subjective anyway..

Use your ears and brain..if they fool you .. so be it...they are the ultimate thing the sounds hit and you are the only one you have to satisfy..if its good for YOU it's good
You wanna pontificate and measure .. and try correlate.. fine.
But have respect for those who want to regale the rest of the internet with anecdotes and don't want to sweat blood

Im actually midway between both camps.. I do measure and AB test and stuff but still trust my ears/brain as the final arbiter

 

[jkeny]

Appreciation of Music reproduction at home is subjective anyway..

Use your ears and brain..if they fool you .. so be it...they are the ultimate thing the sounds hit and you are the only one you have to satisfy..if its good for YOU it's good
You wanna pontificate and measure .. and try correlate.. fine.
But have respect for those who want to regale the rest of the internet with anecdotes and don't want to sweat blood

Im actually midway between both camps.. I do measure and AB test and stuff but still trust my ears/brain as the final arbiter

That's it!
I too am between both camps & interested in any correlation to what my sense of auditory perception perceives as my listening experience & if I find some playback more realistic & as a result more enjoyable, I don't agonise about it.

 

[JackD201]

Subjectivists have no 'evidence'whatsoever just anecdote .
Keith

The dismissal of any observation, the basis of theory formation through inductive reasoning, is a mockery of mankind's scientific history. Ask yourself who is being dogmatic here.

 

[Purite Audio]

The dismissal of any observation, the basis of theory formation through inductive reasoning, is a mockery of mankind's scientific history. Ask yourself who is being dogmatic here.

Observation is indeed part of the scientific method.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Keith.

 

[Purite Audio]

Keith, it's this sort of troll post that gets up people's back
If you read what I wrote instead of just trying to get to posting a slogan from the party line, you would see that what I'm saying is that NEITHER subjectivists nor objectivists have a superior viewpoint. By your very post you are immediately disregarding this & using a slogan which is meant to display your supposed superior view - it's pretty damning, n'est pas?

Why not, just for a second, consider your so-called "evidence" as just another anecdote to add to the mix of listening impressions?

See scientific method.
Keith.

 

[Argonaut]

Appreciation of Music reproduction at home is subjective anyway..

Use your ears and brain..if they fool you .. so be it...they are the ultimate thing the sounds hit and you are the only one you have to satisfy..if its good for YOU it's good
You wanna pontificate and measure .. and try correlate.. fine.
But have respect for those who want to regale the rest of the internet with anecdotes and don't want to sweat blood

Im actually midway between both camps.. I do measure and AB test and stuff but still trust my ears/brain as the final arbiter

A series of excellent posts from RG

 

[jkeny]

See scientific method.
Keith.

As I said, if you actually read my post & respond to what I said rather than trot out slogans, I would respect you more ( I believe you are a lovely guy in face to face meeting as am I so why the trolling at every possibility?) - I'll put it more strongly so you don't miss the subtlety - what passes for scientific method on forums is a sorry reflection on those who profess such. An ABX test needs quite a bit of knowledge to do properly & even then, it's rife with issues - measurements of the type shown on forums is fine to fool the layman but would be considered pathetic by anybody who is seriously involved in the "scientific method".

Keith, you have built this dictionary of phrases that you have picked up from participating in different audio forums which you use to both incite & to appear knowledgeable but you seldom if ever engage with a post & use your own words to answer it. If you really understood the "scientific method" or even had given any thought to the phrase, you would not be so casual in it's use.

So.let me ask you directly & I would appreciate a direct answer, not some sloganisms:
- do you really believe that personal ABX tests are of sufficient rigour to warrant being called "scientific"?
- do you really believe that the measurements we see here correlate sufficiently to auditory perception?
- do you really believe that this represents a good example of the "scientific method"

 

[BE718]

the source of friction tween the 2 camps is the interjection of the measurebators in subjective threads with the intent to destroy the said "tweaky or foo" product , rain on the parade and the "save audiophools from themselves " mentality -- and they cloak it as "scientific investigation".
It all sucks
If they did not interject .. there would be much more harmony.

At the end of it all , you have to trust your ears/brain . AS I said before , what you percieve or hear *is* YOUR reality.

The tweaky foo product destroys itself. There are some who seem to object to more information being available.

No-one believes for one second that the people who spend thousands on products designed by a farmer and full of "magic" crystals are going to be convinced that their purchase may have been, how shall we say, of a little dubious merit. Of course they believe it works and will continue to do so.

What is highly objectionable is the way a more objective viewpoint is met. In the thread I am referring to there was a significant amount of ad hom directed at people who suggested the product might be of dubious merit. There was very good reason th be dubious about the product, and there is no reason why this POV should not be expressed. There appeared to be a significant amount of insecurity by some about their purchase, who didnt want to see an opposing view expressed.

The frailty of aural perception is without question, why some appear to deny this reality I do find very curious. These individuals usually have a very adverse reaction to it being suggested they might be wrong, which is a perfectly reasonable POV to express in a forum, subjective or not.

What you are suggesting is censorship, nothing less than.


You are of course entirely correct, your reality is your reality. Then people should feel secure in their reality and shouldnt get all stroppy and offended if opinions in forums dont concur with their own.

FWIW I dont trust anyone elses subjective opinions for precisely the reason that it is only their reality. Thats not disrespectful, there just is no basis to accept their reality as correct.

 

[bonzo75]

The tweaky foo product destroys itself.

No-one believes for one second that the people who spend thousands on products designed by a farmer and full of "magic" crystals are going to be convinced that their purchase may have been, how shall we say, of a little dubious merit. Of course they beleive it works and will continue to do so.

What is highly objectionable is the way a more objective viewpoint is met. In the thread I am referring to there was a significant amount of ad hom directed at people who suggested the product might be of dubious merit. There was very good reason th be dubious about the product, and there is no reason why this POV should not be expressed. There appeared to be a significant amount of insecurity by some about their purchase.

The frailty of aural perception is without question, why some appear to deny this reality I do find very curious. These individuals usually have a very adverse reaction to it being suggested they might be wrong, which is a perfectly reasonable POV to express in a forum, subjective or not.

What makes you think people who demo tweaks always spend on them? There are many who would believe in a rpdocut they haven't spent a cent on, tweak or otherwsie

 

[BE718]

As I said, if you actually read my post & respond to what I said rather than trot out slogans, I would respect you more ( I believe you are a lovely guy in face to face meeting as am I so why the trolling at every possibility?) - I'll put it more strongly so you don't miss the subtlety - what passes for scientific method on forums is a sorry reflection on those who profess such. An ABX test needs quite a bit of knowledge to do properly & even then, it's rife with issues - measurements of the type shown on forums is fine to fool the layman but would be considered pathetic by anybody who is seriously involved in the "scientific method".

Keith, you have built this dictionary of phrases that you have picked up from participating in different audio forums which you use to both incite & to appear knowledgeable but you seldom if ever engage with a post & use your own words to answer it. If you really understood the "scientific method" or even had given any thought to the phrase, you would not be so casual in it's use.

So.let me ask you directly & I would appreciate a direct answer, not some sloganisms:
- do you really believe that personal ABX tests are of sufficient rigour to warrant being called "scientific"?
- do you really believe that the measurements we see here correlate sufficiently to auditory perception?
- do you really believe that this represents a good example of the "scientific method"

He is not trolling, his comment was spot on. Personal subjective opinion is little different to anecdote, if there is nothing of any substance to back it up, it could be right it could be wrong. As with personal anecdotes, people also have a great tendency to exaggerate the significance of the differences the apparantly hear.

 

[BE718]

What makes you think people who demo tweaks always spend on them? There are many who would believe in a rpdocut they haven't spent a cent on, tweak or otherwsie

I wasnt aware I suggested any such thing. People have "faith" in many things.

 

[spazmatron]

What makes you think people who demo tweaks always spend on them? There are many who would believe in a rpdocut they haven't spent a cent on, tweak or otherwsie

very true but as you know there are more ways than one to be invested and have your judgment skewed