Stupid things you hear from the DBT/Null test crowd....

17891012

Comments

  • headrottheadrott Posts: 5,432
    edited May 2012
    newrival wrote: »
    This is getting tedious. What evidence could possibly be necessary? Our conversation is on record in this very thread. do I read to recite everything that was said over and over again? I choose which quotes are useful, or ones i have time to hunt down and repost. Is it too difficult to scroll up the page for the "evidence"? Brevity is not akin to dismissal

    Any evidence would be nice. You simply made accusations and din't even offer any conversation or even quote me to back up your accusations. You do need to offer a specific counterpoint to what I said. Yes. You did not choose any quotes (as I said) in the post you made 2 posts back. You simply made accusations with no reply or quotes because you "didn't have time" to post a full reply. If this is the caase in the future, wait until you can answer fully then.
    newrival wrote: »
    This statement makes my brain hurt. How many times do I have to explain this??? You keep accusing me of not understanding the definition of perception, and then use it improperly in the same breath. This is exhausting. You posted the definition, shall I quote it for you so you don't have to scroll up to see it?

    If you look at the definition I put in bold in my original posting of the definition, you would see that I had #2) and #3) in bold. Why would you use #1) as a defintion? And, isn't it interesting that you took the bold out the quote you made. That is:
    headrott wrote: »
    1
    a: a result of perceiving : observation (see perceive)
    b: a mental image : concept

    2
    obsolete: consciousness



    3
    a: awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation <color perception>
    b: physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience

    4
    a: quick, acute, and intuitive cognition : appreciation
    b: a capacity for comprehension

    newrival wrote: »
    look at item 1. look at it again. now look up at your post. ....Anything?
    If perception is the result of perceiving, and we both agree that what one is perceiving is an illusion, is the perception not illusory(aka not real)?????

    No, your perception of the illusion is not an illusion. You are actively perceiving an illusion in real time for real sitting in your chair/couch and can feel this perception by the sound waves hitting your body. But the perception of (ex.) Led Zeppelin playing in between, above, below, and outside of your speakers is an illusion. This is why I used definitons #2) and #3) instead of #1).

    As you can see, I was not referring to #1. That's why I had #2 and #3 in bold which you went out of your way to remove.

    Why would you use #1 as the definition? It says "a result of perceiving: observation". Yeah, no kidding. Of course if you are using your perception, you are perceiving something. That is redundant. Please look at definition #2 and #3 as that's what I was referring to and you should have known that because it was in bold.

    newrival wrote: »
    because it is a red herring. You are arguing a point that is not the issue. It is a misleading statement. Again, we are not discussing whether or not the ACT of perceiving is is an illusion. That is irrelevant, and it has no standing in our conversation. Again, it is a gross fallacy.

    Oh yes we are arguing if the act of perceiving is an illusion because (as I stated a number of time before) this has to do with bias in stereophonic audio evaluation, which is in fact what we are arguing in this thread, correct? So being as how you perceive not only the stereophonic audio signal, but (apparently according to DBT fans) stereophonic audio equpiment aesthetics and monetary value and whether this bias can be overcome, correct?

    newrival wrote: »
    nope. you keep bringing this up, not me. You seem to think that "you perceiving something" is synonymous with "your perception." They are not the same thing. One is an action the other is an idea, a noun.

    This is in fact proof that you don't know what the definition of perception is. Just because one is a verb and one is a noun does not change the defintion of the words, correct? It only changes the lexical used, but the defintion remains the same.

    I will now post the defintions of perception and percieve and please compare the two:

    Perception:
    headrott wrote: »
    1
    a: a result of perceiving : observation (see perceive)
    b: a mental image : concept


    2
    obsolete: consciousness



    3
    a: awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation <color perception>
    b: physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience

    4
    a: quick, acute, and intuitive cognition : appreciation
    b: a capacity for comprehension

    Perceive:


    1:
    a: to attain awareness or understanding of
    b: to regard as being such <perceived threats> <was perceived as a loser>

    2: to become aware of through the senses; especially: see, observe

    As you can see the defintion of #3) of perception and the defintion of #1) and #2) of perceive are the same. The only difference is the lexical that is used.

    newrival wrote: »
    in this case it is easy. does it exist or doesn't it? is the sound eminating from where it is perceived to be coming from? No it is not, therefore it is not real. pretty simple. Unless you meant philosophically, which is a difficult thing to definitively answer for anything, and I'm not such a **** to have a conversation of that depth here.

    Now can you see why I brought up the fact that what you are perceiving (the apparent sound of a guitar, vocal(s), bass, drums, etc. in the soundstage) and your perception (the sound waves eminating from the speakers and hitting your body) are not the same? One is real and one is not. You perceiving the instruments and vocals in the soundstage is not real, but your perception of the sound waves hitting your body causing your ear drums to vibrate and your couch to shake is very real. It makes your body and house vibrate. That's pretty real. Really. So, since your perception of the stereophonic audio signal (sound waves eminating from the speakers) is real, then how distracted (biased) you are perceiving the audio signal determines how well you perceive the audio. If one is trained to perceive the audio and disregard distractions (using self-awareness (self perception) then one can elimiate bias from listening sessions.

    newrival wrote: »
    And my point is, just because you perceive something, it doesn't inherently make it, your perception, real.
    Would you agree that perception is personal? Moreover, would you agree that it is uniquely individual?
    If so, then how could one assure that one's perception is shared or relatable to another? And even so, how can one be assured that the perception is not influenced by a set of unique circumstances that couldn't possibly be quantified or reproduced, especially if the listener is wholly unaware of them.

    Please see my response above as it covers the first part of this quote. I would agree that perception can be personal and distorted. There is one reality, the questions is how far are you from perceiving that reality. How far from perceiving reality depends on how distracted (biased) you are. I don't think that perception is uniquely individual. Two (or more) people can perceive the same thing in exactly the same way. Again, it depends on how distracted (biased) from reality the people doing the perceiving are. Again, as DK suggested people can be trained to not be distracted (biased) and trained listeners would be able to perceive a sterophonic listening session in the same way (assuming they had equivalent listening training and hearing abilities). Ah, but a trained listener can be aware of their perception using self-perception (self-awareness). Cool, huh?
    headrott wrote: »
    How is my statement in the quote above a "misleading argument, poorly laid out and sloppily thrown together"? We are talking about listening to stereophonic audio. What is the act of listening to stereophonic audio? It is the act of perceiving the stereophonic audio signal, correct?
    newrival wrote: »
    technically not correct, but let's let that slide..

    How is my quote above not correct "technically". Again, you need to be specific in saying how I am "technically" not correct. Instead of stating why I am not correct, you go on to the next quote. This is what I am talking about when I say that you need to specifically and completely respond to what I am saying.
    newrival wrote: »
    you are confused. Sound waves comng from the speaker is not evidence that the act of perception is real.
    This is crazy! You are really saying you perceiving the audio waves hitting your body and making your skin, ear drums and couch, floor and walls shake is not real? You should definately re-think this statement.
    Relayer-Big-O-Poster.jpg
    Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
    "I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion." :\
    My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....


    "Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson

    "Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee
  • headrottheadrott Posts: 5,432
    edited May 2012
    newrival wrote: »
    now we're getting somewhere...
    Correct! now you're catching on. The problem is when you try to bring in the "act of perceiving" into the argument is the problem.
    Perceiving and act of perceiving are the same thing. The difference is the act of perceiving the sound waves (real) produced by the speakers and the act of perceiving the illusion (not real) of the soundstage that the sound waves produce. I still don't think you are catching on though. Hopefully soon though.
    newrival wrote: »
    that's what I'm afraid of

    I'm sorry that you are not getting what I am saying. If you don't understand try asking questions. I have made it plainly clear in the response directly above.
    newrival wrote: »
    those words were probably stronger than I should have used, but still true. If you would like to show where my logic has failed, I am game, but seeing as how you have not done so, this is just a baseless accusation.

    I think I have shown where it has failed a number of times in the responses above. Specifically and detailed.
    newrival wrote: »
    My intention truly is not to make you look like a fool. You seem to have taken great offense to me not completely dissecting your post that ONE TIME. Hopefully you are happier this time around. Again, brevity is a long ways away from deflection.

    Brevity is that you are cutting your responses short. I am saying that you are deflecting your responses by using brevity because you are not backing up the accusations you make and specifically showing where my logic failed and I am using "gross fallacies" and "poorly laid out and sloppily thrown together".

    I am not offended by your statements, I am simply pointing out your behavior. I have been happy every time I have replied to you and everyone else in this thread.
    newrival wrote: »
    I'm sure there are more than one difference.

    But, I am referring to our motive of listening to stereophonic audio and our perception of it as that is the topic.
    newrival wrote: »
    all of which are a result of your mind being tricked!.

    But I am aware that my mind is being tricked and that Jimmy Page isn't really playing a guitar in my room. I am also aware that my self-awarenes allows me to be aware of this and that my motive in listening to stereophonic audio is not to be tricked, but to listen to stereophonic audio and the soundtage, image, detail, and clarity it provides. And, not to be woried about what my stereo equipment looks like or how much it costs. Therefore, because I am able to overcome my distractions (biases). Cool, huh?
    newrival wrote: »
    no. the fact that it is an illusion is not a consequence of listening to stereophonic audio. the fact that it is an illusion is the consequence of nothing. it is a fact because it is true and thats it. facts are not consequential.

    This statement is another completely illogical statement. How can something (in this case the illusion of instruments and vocalists in your listening room) be the consequence of nothing? Something is causing you to hear the instruments and vocals, correct? The answer is yes. What is causing you to hear these things? The stereophonic audio equipment. So, more accurately I should say that the illusion of perceiving a stereophonic audio signal and the soundstage it creates is simply a consequence of listening to sterophonic audio equipment.
    newrival wrote: »
    ok, so why bring it up at all? because you ARE the one who brought it up.

    I brought it up because you stated that my replies were "textbook red harring/misdirection" and that you didn't know why I brough up one's perception of the illusion of a stereophonic audio soundstage. So I was responding to you why I brough it up.
    newrival wrote: »
    correct no, I'm not. You can't "untrick" your brain. While you can be aware that the audio is coming out of two seperated speakers which is causing your brain to think the sound is emanating from a point between the two, you cannot then discern and identify two separate signals coming from their proper sources. The fact that you are aware there is an illusion happening does not counteract the illusion, but it does effect the unique circumstantial experience.

    That is incorrect. If you could not tell where the two individual speaker signals are coming from, you would not have any imaging caused by the combined speaker signals. You could not tell when there is panning from left to right or vice versa. One can easily tell where the audio is coming from each speaker because where the two left and right signals meet is where you are perceiving the audio to appear.
    newrival wrote: »
    ok this point was lost on you, that's ok. let's just leave it. there are plenty of other points in here.



    Interesting. Instead of trying to explain your argument again because "the point was lost on me". You choose to ignore it.
    newrival wrote: »
    I'm sorry, I just can't make heads or tails of this last bit.

    Is it possible that you cannot make heads or tails of my last point because the issues it brings up doesn't fit your agenda? That is that you need to be tested blindly in order to really hear the differences in audio equipment? The statement is pretty darn clear in the last quote you put up above. Try reading it again and responding. Or, ask me specific questions about what you don't understand about it.
    newrival wrote: »
    I think I need to say this, as it seems you might be taking some of this personally with the mention that it is my intention to make a fool of you:there is nothing personal about this. I think of all of you as friends of sorts, even grumpy h9 who likes to get his jabs in when he can. :wink: And maybe no one thinks of me in the same way, but it doesnt change my feelings. but seriously, I just like debate and logic, and any chance I get to exercise it, I do. Hopefully you understand.

    No, I am not taking anything you are saying personally. I am just pointing out the behavior you are exhibiting. I don't have anyone on my ignore list, and would probably never put anyone on it. I don't consider anyone on this forum an "enemy". Some just have a better understanding of how to listen to and evaluate audio and equipment, that's all.
    Relayer-Big-O-Poster.jpg
    Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
    "I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion." :\
    My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....


    "Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson

    "Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 31,430
    edited May 2012
    headrott wrote: »
    I don't have anyone on my ignore list,

    Does that mean I'm off the list ?? Woohoo !! :cheesygrin:

    I don't put anyone on ignore either. The entertainment factor is off the charts at times.
    One more thing, ya know it is OK to agree to disagree, and I think thats how this thread will end up.
    HT SYSTEM-
    Sony 850c 4k
    Pioneer elite vhx 21
    Sony 4k BRP
    SVS SB-2000
    Polk Sig. 20's
    Polk FX500 surrounds

    Cables-
    Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
    Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
    Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
    Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable

    Kitchen

    Sonos zp90
    Grant Fidelity tube dac
    B&k 1430
    Tad 803 speakers
  • newrivalnewrival Posts: 2,020
    edited May 2012
    Tony is right. Although "agree to disagree" is a thought-terminating cliche, the repetition and lack of progression has made this particular thread of the discussion tedious. Additionally, this argument has become wholly tangential and digressive due to you wanting a response to every point given. Do you see how DK and I moved fairly swiftly through our conversation?

    You asserting that my brevity is somehow inferior from lack of dealing with every bit of minutiae and site quotes and specific detailis is yet another logical fallacy, argumentum verbosium. I have made sufficient reference to the idea of the matter without misrepresenting your ideas.

    If the explanations I have given haven't penetrated yet, they likely never will by repeating them a hundred more times. I am trying to give you more detailed rebuttals as you requested, but that has only spurred you to repeat the same points over again at the attempt to beat me into submission with a weaker argument, argumentum ad nauseum. Your first sentence in your response shows that there is just a breakdown in comprehension and there is typically no end in a conversation of that sort without a moderator.

    If you truly believe that "ones perception" and "the act of perceiving" are the same thing, both philosophically and fundamentally, then this exhibits a foundational problem of the comprehension of the issue upon which we can never agree.
    design is where science and art break even.
  • steveinazsteveinaz Posts: 18,998
    edited May 2012
    I let my personal experiences drive my choices. You may as well be arguing religion in these type threads.
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,568
    edited May 2012
    headrott wrote: »
    But I am aware that my mind is being tricked and that Jimmy Page isn't really playing a guitar in my room. I am also aware that my self-awareness allows me to be aware of this and that my motive in listening to stereophonic audio is not to be tricked, but to listen to stereophonic audio and the soundstage, image, detail, and clarity it provides.

    Our (I do it too) application of the word "trick" to the stereophonic illusion is not really appropriate. A trick is some act done to deceive or cheat. An illusion is only a trick when the person perceiving the illusion assumes it to be real. The illusion of stereo, 3-D video and someone being sawn in half by a magician are not "tricks" because no rational person is being deceived into believing what they are hearing or seeing is real. Most people would be horrified if they saw a person actually sawn in half.
    headrott wrote: »
    As you can see the defintion of #3) of perception and the defintion of #1) and #2) of perceive are the same. The only difference is the lexical that is used.

    Looking at the definitions you provided, it seems that perception is the result, understanding or interpretation of sensory information and to perceive is the act of receiving sensory information.

    For example, some people watch soap operas and their perception is that they are witnessing real actual events in real people's lives. The illusion is so convincing to them that they view it as fact. Soap opera actors have been assaulted in real life due to something they "did" to someone else onscreen. Another person, with more complete understanding, watching the same soap opera views it as simple entertainment.

    In the example above, two people perceive (receive) the exact same stimuli (the soap opera) but their perceptions (understandings) are entirely different. One person's perception is that of voyeuristic insight into real people's lives. Another person's perception is that of actors following a script. In the former person's case, the perception (understanding) and what was perceived (soap opera program) were two different things, fiction was being misunderstood to be fact. The latter person's understanding was that they were viewing an work of fiction. Their understanding matched up with the sensory information they were receiving.

    Not withstanding what I said in the preceding paragraphs, I understand that "perceive" and "perception" are often used interchangeably. Sometimes words that mean different things come to be synonyms due to common usage. After a period of time, dictionaries will reflect such common usage. One example is the words skim and scan. In relation to reading, skim means to quickly read over casually or lightly. Scan means to read carefully and thoroughly. However, some dictionaries list skim and scan as synonyms.
    steveinaz wrote: »
    You may as well be arguing religion in these type threads.

    Unlike religion, there is often some scientific basis for audio discussions.
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • headrottheadrott Posts: 5,432
    edited May 2012
    Our (I do it too) application of the word "trick" to the stereophonic illusion is not really appropriate. A trick is some act done to deceive or cheat. An illusion is only a trick when the person perceiving the illusion assumes it to be real. The illusion of stereo, 3-D video and someone being sawn in half by a magician are not "tricks" because no rational person is being deceived into believing what they are hearing or seeing is real. Most people would be horrified if they saw a person actually sawn in half.

    I agree with you said Ray. I was simply using the word "trick" to keep the same line of though that newrival started. Thank you for point that out.


    Looking at the definitions you provided, it seems that perception is the result, understanding or interpretation of sensory information and to perceive is the act of receiving sensory information.

    For example, some people watch soap operas and their perception is that they are witnessing real actual events in real people's lives. The illusion is so convincing to them that they view it as fact. Soap opera actors have been assaulted in real life due to something they "did" to someone else onscreen. Another person, with more complete understanding, watching the same soap opera views it as simple entertainment.

    In the example above, two people perceive (receive) the exact same stimuli (the soap opera) but their perceptions (understandings) are entirely different. One person's perception is that of voyeuristic insight into real people's lives. Another person's perception is that of actors following a script. In the former person's case, the perception (understanding) and what was perceived (soap opera program) were two different things, fiction was being misunderstood to be fact. The latter person's understanding was that they were viewing an work of fiction. Their understanding matched up with the sensory information they were receiving.

    Not withstanding what I said in the preceding paragraphs, I understand that "perceive" and "perception" are often used interchangeably. Sometimes words that mean different things come to be synonyms due to common usage. After a period of time, dictionaries will reflect such common usage. One example is the words skim and scan. In relation to reading, skim means to quickly read over casually or lightly. Scan means to read carefully and thoroughly. However, some dictionaries list skim and scan as synonyms.

    I am not sure how long these definitons of have been the same in the Mirriam-Webster dictionary. I checked in the one published in 1972 that I own and the defintions are exactly the same as the online one I quoted from. The one published in 1972 is the seventh college dictionary and inside the cover it says it is "based on the third college dictionay" which was published in 1931. It seems the defintions of "perceive" and "perception" have been the same for at least the last 81 years.
    Relayer-Big-O-Poster.jpg
    Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
    "I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion." :\
    My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....


    "Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson

    "Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,568
    edited May 2012
    headrott wrote: »
    I am not sure how long these definitions of have been the same in the Mirriam-Webster dictionary. I checked in the one published in 1972 that I own and the definitions are exactly the same as the online one I quoted from. The one published in 1972 is the seventh college dictionary and inside the cover it says it is "based on the third college dictionary" which was published in 1931. It seems the definitions of "perceive" and "perception" have been the same for at least the last 81 years.

    Some dictionaries make a distinction between common usage, where perceive and perception can be used interchangeably, and psychological usage, where perceive and perception have different meanings.

    The American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd Ed., 1997, define perceive (p. 1013) and perception (p. 1014) as follows:

    perceive - 1. To become aware of directly through any of the senses, esp. sight or hearing. 2. To achieve understanding of; apprehend.

    perception - 1. The process, act, of faculty of perceiving. 2. The effect or product of perceiving. 3. Psychol. a. Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory. b. The neurological processes by which such recognition and interpretation are effected. 4.a. Insight, intuition, or knowledge gained by perceiving. b. The capacity for such insight.

    The following four definitions of perception pertain to the field of psychology and were found at various places on the Internet:

    Perception: the active process of selecting, organizing, and interpreting the information brought to the brain by the senses.

    Perception: the process of categorizing and interpreting information.

    Perception: the neurophysiological processes, including memory, by which an organism becomes aware of and interprets external stimuli.

    Perception (from the Latin perceptio, percipio): the process of attaining awareness or understanding of the environment by organizing and interpreting sensory information.

    The four terms above, as well as the psychological definition of perception from the American Heritage dictionary, all have to do with interpretation. While I agree that the terms perceive and perception have come to mean the same thing in common usage, we must note that within the field of psychology they have different meanings. Therefore, since stereo is a psycho-acoustic phenomenon, I think it is more appropriate to apply the term "perception" to the interpretation of sensory stimuli and "perceiving" to the receiving of sensory stimuli. The situation of two people watching (perceiving) the same television program and one person's (false) perception (interpretation and understanding) was that they were witnessing actual events while another person's (accurate) perception was that they were viewing a work of fiction.

    In the context of stereophonic perception, two people can receive (perceive) the exact same sensory stimuli from a pair of loudspeakers. One person's perception (interpretation) of that stimuli might be a diffuse cloud of sound coming from the area directly in front of each speaker. The other person's perception might be that of separate, sharply defined sound images well outside the physical boundaries of the loudspeakers.
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,568
    edited May 2012
    The quote below is from "Perceptual Audio Evaluation-Theory, Method and Application", a text by Soren Bech and Nick Zacharov (2006). Dr. Bech is the head of research at Bang and Olufsen, Denmark. Dr. Zacharov is director of research and development at Genelec (loudspeaker manufacturer), Finland.

    "The aim of this book is to study the topic of perceptual evaluation of audio. Audio is very multidimensional in nature as is its perception. In order to study the nature of audio, it is possible to measure the physical characteristics of an audio signal in the acoustic or electrical domains. However, this characterization of the physical audio signal does not tell us how the human auditory system will interpret and quantify it. In order to do this, a direct measurement of the human perception of the audio signal would be needed, as illustrated in Figure 1.1(a), but this is not yet possible." (p. 1)

    The following definition is offered on page 3:

    "Perceptual measurement An objective quantification of the sensorial strength of individual auditory attributes of the perceived stimulus.

    Bech and Zacharov's use of the term "multidimensional" reminded me of some wisdom once dispensed by one of our forum members:
    Syndil wrote: »
    Multi-dimensional? Tactile? lol.

    I won't argue that judging the quality of audio gear is an objective process, because it isn't. It is very subjective. But what is being judged is audio only. It's not like wine or food, where you look at it, smell it and taste it.
    Syndil wrote: »
    When judging audio gear, the only thing that truly matters is how it sounds.
    Syndil wrote: »
    DK made fun of my disagreement with the usage of the terms "multi-dimensional" and "metrics" and posted some mocking comments, but no argument was made.
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 31,430
    edited May 2012
    I say we string John up and throw raw chicken livers at him for starting this thread.
    HT SYSTEM-
    Sony 850c 4k
    Pioneer elite vhx 21
    Sony 4k BRP
    SVS SB-2000
    Polk Sig. 20's
    Polk FX500 surrounds

    Cables-
    Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
    Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
    Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
    Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable

    Kitchen

    Sonos zp90
    Grant Fidelity tube dac
    B&k 1430
    Tad 803 speakers
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,568
    edited May 2012
    ParisHiltonblonde7caption.jpg
    ....
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • headrottheadrott Posts: 5,432
    edited May 2012
    Some dictionaries make a distinction between common usage, where perceive and perception can be used interchangeably, and psychological usage, where perceive and perception have different meanings.

    The American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd Ed., 1997, define perceive (p. 1013) and perception (p. 1014) as follows:

    perceive - 1. To become aware of directly through any of the senses, esp. sight or hearing. 2. To achieve understanding of; apprehend.

    perception - 1. The process, act, of faculty of perceiving. 2. The effect or product of perceiving. 3. Psychol. a. Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory. b. The neurological processes by which such recognition and interpretation are effected. 4.a. Insight, intuition, or knowledge gained by perceiving. b. The capacity for such insight.

    The following four definitions of perception pertain to the field of psychology and were found at various places on the Internet:

    Perception: the active process of selecting, organizing, and interpreting the information brought to the brain by the senses.

    Perception: the process of categorizing and interpreting information.

    Perception: the neurophysiological processes, including memory, by which an organism becomes aware of and interprets external stimuli.

    Perception (from the Latin perceptio, percipio): the process of attaining awareness or understanding of the environment by organizing and interpreting sensory information.

    The four terms above, as well as the psychological definition of perception from the American Heritage dictionary, all have to do with interpretation. While I agree that the terms perceive and perception have come to mean the same thing in common usage, we must note that within the field of psychology they have different meanings. Therefore, since stereo is a psycho-acoustic phenomenon, I think it is more appropriate to apply the term "perception" to the interpretation of sensory stimuli and "perceiving" to the receiving of sensory stimuli. The situation of two people watching (perceiving) the same television program and one person's (false) perception (interpretation and understanding) was that they were witnessing actual events while another person's (accurate) perception was that they were viewing a work of fiction.

    In the context of stereophonic perception, two people can receive (perceive) the exact same sensory stimuli from a pair of loudspeakers. One person's perception (interpretation) of that stimuli might be a diffuse cloud of sound coming from the area directly in front of each speaker. The other person's perception might be that of separate, sharply defined sound images well outside the physical boundaries of the loudspeakers.

    I was not aware that there was a separate "psychological defintion" of perception. Thanks for pointing that out. I agree that perception is related to ones interpretation of the sound but also has to do with your awareness of the sound itself, which is also related to perceiving the sound. As shown in the psycological defintion of perception:
    perception - 1. The process, act, of faculty of perceiving. 2. The effect or product of perceiving. 3. Psychol. a. Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory. b. The neurological processes by which such recognition and interpretation are effected. 4.a. Insight, intuition, or knowledge gained by perceiving. b. The capacity for such insight.

    Recognition of sensory stimuli is the same as becoming aware of the stimuli. The diference between the psychological defintion of perception and the common defintion is that the common doesn't include interpreting the sound you are aware of. This was the one of the points I was trying to get across to newrival in several posts I made previously, but I was unaware of the difference in a "psychological defintion" and a "common definition" to make the difference and be able to articulate as effectively between the two. And, as you pointed out in the last part of your post part of interpreting ones perception is how close to or how far from reality your perception is. I also pointed this out in several posts I made. You are better at articulating your points than I am Ray. So, thank you for your posts and help.


    Edit: Is anyone else learning anything? I have learned something, so I think this thread is useful. How useful may be up for debate. Others apparently have a different point of view however?
    Relayer-Big-O-Poster.jpg
    Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
    "I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion." :\
    My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....


    "Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson

    "Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 31,430
    edited May 2012
    headrott wrote: »
    Edit: Is anyone else learning anything? I have learned something, so I think this thread is useful. How useful may be up for debate. Others apparently have a different point of view however?

    You take away from threads like this what you will. Some will learn something, others will not. Point is to at least think about all the information posted, discussion is how we learn. You may come away with your feet still planted in your position but thats ok too. Not like the world will end today because of testing methods or placebo.

    Good info anyway in this thread, agree or not, makes one think about it anyway, and thats all anyone could ask for.
    HT SYSTEM-
    Sony 850c 4k
    Pioneer elite vhx 21
    Sony 4k BRP
    SVS SB-2000
    Polk Sig. 20's
    Polk FX500 surrounds

    Cables-
    Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
    Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
    Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
    Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable

    Kitchen

    Sonos zp90
    Grant Fidelity tube dac
    B&k 1430
    Tad 803 speakers
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,568
    edited May 2012
    perception - 3. Psychol. a. Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory.
    headrott wrote: »
    Recognition of sensory stimuli is the same as becoming aware of the stimuli.

    I see recognition and awareness as two different things. If a person is shown a page of Sanskrit writing, but they have never seen it before and don't know what it is, they would be fully aware that they are looking at some smbols. They may correctly guess that it is a type of foreign handwriting. In either case, they won't recognize what they are seeing. They certainly won't be able to interpret it for correct understanding. They would be perceiving the symbols shown to them, but there would be no possibility of perception because the symbols could not be interpreted for meaning.

    In the realm of stereo, a person untrained in stereophonic sound stage listening would perceive (hear) sound from the speakers, but they would not obtain the correct perception. They would not accurately interpret the sound as individual sonic images outside the physical boundaries of the speakers.
    headrott wrote: »
    Edit: Is anyone else learning anything? I have learned something, so I think this thread is useful. How useful may be up for debate. Others apparently have a different point of view however?

    I agree with Paris that this is the best thread ever!

    I find it shocking that some of the more "scientifically" oriented members of our forum seem to have lost interest in this thread...particularly after I did so much research.:sad:
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • newrivalnewrival Posts: 2,020
    edited May 2012

    I find it shocking that some of the more "scientifically" oriented members of our forum seem to have lost interest in this thread...particularly after I did so much research.:sad:

    Your research isn't lost on all, and appreciated by many more than those that would verbally thank you for them. Thanks for taking the time to play intermediary.

    While I have enjoyed your depth and breadth of argument, I wish I had the time to meet or at least approach it in response. Hopefully you understand ;)
    design is where science and art break even.
  • newrivalnewrival Posts: 2,020
    edited May 2012
    headrott wrote: »
    The diference between the psychological defintion of perception and the common defintion is that the common doesn't include interpreting the sound you are aware of.

    The term is common usage NOT common deffinition, but the issue with common usage, much like common knowledge, is the word common. Something common is not an absolute. It is a frequently held idea and is a function of exposure. What is common to you may or may not be common to me. Furthermore, I would submit that even the Merriam-Webster dictionary even makes it clear that the two words are not synonymous and that perception is a result of perceiving. Since something cannot be a result of itself, Perception cannot possibly be the same thing as perceiving. That would be akin to saying an observation is the same as thing observing. No matter what dictionary you are reading from, it is clear they are not the same.

    Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of Perception:

    1
    a : a result of perceiving : observation (see perceive)
    b : a mental image : concept
    This was the one of the points I was trying to get across to newrival in several posts I made previously, but I was unaware of the difference in a "psychological defintion" and a "common definition" to make the difference and be able to articulate as effectively between the two.
    As I have shown you, there is no difference between the "two definitions." The definitions are clear. The problem lies within your common USAGE of the term which erodes the specificity of the actual word, ergo it's very meaning.
    And, as you pointed out in the last part of your post part of interpreting ones perception is how close to or how far from reality your perception is. I also pointed this out in several posts I made.
    did you? is this when you were talking about self-awareness?
    design is where science and art break even.
  • headrottheadrott Posts: 5,432
    edited May 2012
    perception - 3. Psychol. a. Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory.



    I see recognition and awareness as two different things. If a person is shown a page of Sanskrit writing, but they have never seen it before and don't know what it is, they would be fully aware that they are looking at some smbols. They may correctly guess that it is a type of foreign handwriting. In either case, they won't recognize what they are seeing. They certainly won't be able to interpret it for correct understanding. They would be perceiving the symbols shown to them, but there would be no possibility of perception because the symbols could not be interpreted for meaning.

    In the realm of stereo, a person untrained in stereophonic sound stage listening would perceive (hear) sound from the speakers, but they would not obtain the correct perception. They would not accurately interpret the sound as individual sonic images outside the physical boundaries of the speakers.

    I did exaggerate my point by saying that they are the same. I should have said that one is similar and connected to the other. That is, in order to recognize something you must have had experience with it. This is one way the psychological defintion of perception ond the common defintion of perception are (indirectly) similar. Since the common defintion says in the bold section:
    headrott wrote: »
    1
    a: a result of perceiving : observation (see perceive)
    b: a mental image : concept

    2
    obsolete: consciousness


    3
    a: awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation <color perception>
    b: physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience

    4
    a: quick, acute, and intuitive cognition : appreciation
    b: a capacity for comprehension

    and because as I stated, in order to recognize something, you would need to have experience with it, and part of the defintion I was using for perception states:

    "a: awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation <color perception>
    b: physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience"

    then in order to interpret something you would need to have experience with it and I hope you can see why I feel they are connected and therefore recognition and awareness are connected. However, I do see why you say they are different and I agree with you.

    Edit: I hope this makes sense as my blood sugar is low. Please let me know if it makes sense or not Ray. I will amend this if I need to later.
    Relayer-Big-O-Poster.jpg
    Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
    "I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion." :\
    My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....


    "Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson

    "Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,568
    edited May 2012
    It makes sense.
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • newrivalnewrival Posts: 2,020
    edited May 2012
    That was fun, now back to the subject at hand... the only thing that matters is what can be measured! haha :)
    sorry things were getting to civil.
    design is where science and art break even.
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,568
    edited May 2012
    newrival wrote: »
    That was fun, now back to the subject at hand... the only thing that matters is what can be measured! haha :)

    Hey now.........
    EinsteinCountedCounts.jpg
    newrival wrote: »
    ...sorry things were getting to civil.

    If you can be a little bit patient, I'm sure some "scientists" will drop by to share more of their "enlightenment" and "wisdom".:cheesygrin:
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • mrbigbluelightmrbigbluelight Posts: 7,696
    edited May 2012
    tonyb wrote: »
    I say we string John up and throw raw chicken livers at him for starting this thread.

    Corrected because that advice is appropriate at any time under any circumstance. :wink:
    MrBigBlueLight
    Here to pick your brain & steal your cookies
    Shifting to Plan B+
  • nooshinjohnnooshinjohn Posts: 21,297
    edited May 2012
    tonyb wrote: »
    I say we string John up and throw raw chicken livers at him for starting this thread.

    :cheesygrin:

    I fully intended to participate in it too, but DK needs none of my brilliance to shine here.:lol:

    It has been an excellent debate that has bees so far over my head I cannot understand any of it except for your brillant post Tony.:razz:

    I understand now... use your own two ears and nobody else's.
    The Gear... Carver "Statement" Mono-blocks, TriangleArt Reference SE with Pass Labs Xono Phono Preamp, Walker Precision Motor Drive, ClearAudio Goldfinger Diamond v2 cartridge and Origin Conquerer Mk3c tonearm, Polk Audio "Signature" Reference Series 1.2TL with complete mods, Pass Labs X0.2 three chassis preamp, PS Audio PerfectWave DAC MkII, Pioneer Elite SC-LX701, Oppo UDP-205 4K Blu-ray player, Sony XBR70x850B 4k, Polk audio AB700/800 "in-wall" surrounds.

    Saying that it's "too hard" to pursue your dreams is no different than admitting to yourself that you are too lazy to achieve them.

    “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
  • Toolfan66Toolfan66 Posts: 14,248
    edited May 2012
    Your honor I perceived there was a fork in the road, the placebo effect had me go to the right and that's how I ran over that small group of school children walking down the sidewalk, it's a disease your honor I really just need some help..
  • TankmanTankman Posts: 430
    edited May 2012
    ParisHiltonblonde7caption.jpg
    ....
    ..LOLO...Yep says it all about this thread..
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,568
    edited May 2012
    einsteinpipe2.jpg
    Uncle Albert wonders why Naysayers vehemently demand scientific proof of audiophile claims, yet when
    they are asked to provide scientific proof of their claims, they resort to insults, they run off, or they
    desperately and/or ignorantly grab some pseudo-scientific nonsense that has no rational relevance to
    stereophonic audio.


    Overview and recap for those just joining us:

    True audiophiles say that stereophonic audio should be evaluated in a manner in which it is used in the home: by a listener trained in stereophonic spatial perception. Blind testing is not required, since a properly trained listener's performance evaluation will not be influenced by visual bias (knowledge of brand, price or aesthetics). "True audiophile" here means someone who is actively and enthusiastically pursues playback of high quality stereophonic music recordings on high quality stereophonic audio systems.

    Naysayers say that blind testing is absolutely required for stereo because visual bias cannot be trained out of a person. No credible and appropriate scientific support was provided for this position.

    Scientific support for subjective testing of stereophonic audio systems using trained and experienced listeners was presented as follows:

    1. The Bell Laboratories scientists who invented home audio systems were experts in the use of forced choice test methods (ABX, A/B, DBT) for telephony audio. When these same scientists became involved in the development of stereo, they switched to subjective sighted methods using trained and experienced listeners. Several peer-reviewed science journal papers were offered in evidence.

    Reference:

    Post 47 in this thread "design specifications for home stereo"

    A-Survey-Of-Early-Stereophonic-System-Subjective-Evaluation,

    2. Stereophonic sound is multidimensional in nature. As such, forced choice test methods, which are not designed to test multidimensional stimuli, can lead to erroneous results. Information from two authoritative texts, one from the field of food science and the other from the field of audio were offered in evidence.

    References:

    Lawless and Heymann text "the ABX test is not appropriate for multidimensional stimuli"

    Post 340 in this thread, Bech and Zacharov text, "stereo is multidimensional"

    Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing

    Post 147 in this thread "a naysayer ridicules the concept that stereo is multidimensional"

    3. Evidence was offered that it is not necessary to train bias out of an evaluator, although it is possible. The goal should be to train the evaluator so that bias has no effect on the evaluation of performance. Television evaluations are done with full product knowledge, even though the opportunity exists for visual bias. Evaluator training and experience provides a mechanism for setting aside visual bias in television trials. The field of economics offers the concept of the "debiased consumer". This is a consumer whose education and training in evaluating product performance allows them to not be affected by knowledge of brand, price or aesthetics.

    References:

    Post 323 in this thread, "anecdotal evidence that people are able to be trained to overcome much stronger biases than visual product bias"

    Post 323 in this thread, "economics articles on debiased consumers"

    Post 185 in this thread, "non-blind television evaluations"

    Post 141 in this thread, "example of debiased audio consumer"

    Summary

    One is free to use any test methodology they choose for their own personal use. However, if one is claiming that a stereophonic test result is invalid because a blind test was not used, the following must be proved*:

    1a. Stereophonic audio is not multidimensional and therefore forced choice test methods such as DBT, A/B and ABX are appropriate and required.

    or

    1b. Stereophonic audio is multidimensional, but there is some exception that will allow the use of forced choice test methods.

    2a. There are errors in the many scientific papers from the fields of audio, psychology, sociology and economics that show that people can be debiased through training, education and therapy.

    or

    2b. People can be debiased, but there is something about stereophonic audio that prevents debiasing processes from being effective.

    Hope this helps.


    *mad.gifPosts 129 and 171 in this thread illustrate this:

    1. An unscientifically justified opinion that there were no performance differences in power cords was offered.

    2. When it was shown, with scientific measurements, that there were performance differences in power cords, this was "rebutted" with the unscientifically justified opinion that the differences were not audible.

    3. When it was scientifically shown, with prior peer-reviewed research and measurements, that the differences in an audio signal's noise content related to the change in power cords was well above the threshold of audibility, it was unscientifically implied that the results would not be valid until proven with a blind test.:rolleyes:
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 31,430
    edited May 2012
    Very good summery my man, but I'm afraid it's going to fall on deaf ears. Ever think of another career ? I'm thinking trial lawyer.:cheesygrin:

    Seriously, one bang up job you did and personally, I didn't even know most those studies existed. Yep, I learned something. Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks ?:cheesygrin:
    HT SYSTEM-
    Sony 850c 4k
    Pioneer elite vhx 21
    Sony 4k BRP
    SVS SB-2000
    Polk Sig. 20's
    Polk FX500 surrounds

    Cables-
    Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
    Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
    Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
    Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable

    Kitchen

    Sonos zp90
    Grant Fidelity tube dac
    B&k 1430
    Tad 803 speakers
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,568
    edited May 2012
    tonyb wrote: »
    Very good summery my man, but I'm afraid it's going to fall on deaf ears.

    Most naysayers are a lost cause...but this info isn't for them. It's for those who have a serious interest in this hobby.
    tonyb wrote: »
    Ever think of another career ? I'm thinking trial lawyer.:cheesygrin:

    I'd prefer investment banking...with a reputable firm.:smile:
    tonyb wrote: »
    I didn't even know most those studies existed.

    Neither did I...until I began to question...:cheesygrin:
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • headrottheadrott Posts: 5,432
    edited May 2012
    einsteinpipe2.jpg
    Uncle Albert wonders why Naysayers vehemently demand scientific proof of audiophile claims, yet when
    they are asked to provide scientific proof of their claims, they resort to insults, they run off, or they
    desperately and/or ignorantly grab some pseudo-scientific nonsense that has no rational relevance to
    stereophonic audio.


    Overview and recap for those just joining us:

    True audiophiles say that stereophonic audio should be evaluated in a manner in which it is used in the home: by a listener trained in stereophonic spatial perception. Blind testing is not required, since a properly trained listener's performance evaluation will not be influenced by visual bias (knowledge of brand, price or aesthetics). "True audiophile" here means someone who is actively and enthusiastically pursues playback of high quality stereophonic music recordings on high quality stereophonic audio systems.

    Naysayers say that blind testing is absolutely required for stereo because visual bias cannot be trained out of a person. No credible and appropriate scientific support was provided for this position.

    Scientific support for subjective testing of stereophonic audio systems using trained and experienced listeners was presented as follows:

    1. The Bell Laboratories scientists who invented home audio systems were experts in the use of forced choice test methods (ABX, A/B, DBT) for telephony audio. When these same scientists became involved in the development of stereo, they switched to subjective sighted methods using trained and experienced listeners. Several peer-reviewed science journal papers were offered in evidence.

    Reference:

    Post 47 in this thread "design specifications for home stereo"

    A-Survey-Of-Early-Stereophonic-System-Subjective-Evaluation,

    2. Stereophonic sound is multidimensional in nature. As such, forced choice test methods, which are not designed to test multidimensional stimuli, can lead to erroneous results. Information from two authoritative texts, one from the field of food science and the other from the field of audio were offered in evidence.

    References:

    Lawless and Heymann text "the ABX test is not appropriate for multidimensional stimuli"

    Post 340 in this thread, Bech and Zacharov text, "stereo is multidimensional"

    Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing

    Post 147 in this thread "a naysayer ridicules the concept that stereo is multidimensional"

    3. Evidence was offered that it is not necessary to train bias out of an evaluator, although it is possible. The goal should be to train the evaluator so that bias has no effect on the evaluation of performance. Television evaluations are done with full product knowledge, even though the opportunity exists for visual bias. Evaluator training and experience provides a mechanism for setting aside visual bias in television trials. The field of economics offers the concept of the "debiased consumer". This is a consumer whose education and training in evaluating product performance allows them to not be affected by knowledge of brand, price or aesthetics.

    References:

    Post 323 in this thread, "anecdotal evidence that people are able to be trained to overcome much stronger biases than visual product bias"

    Post 323 in this thread, "economics articles on debiased consumers"

    Post 185 in this thread, "non-blind television evaluations"

    Post 141 in this thread, "example of debiased audio consumer"

    Summary

    One is free to use any test methodology they choose for their own personal use. However, if one is claiming that a stereophonic test result is invalid because a blind test was not used, the following must be proved*:

    1a. Stereophonic audio is not multidimensional and therefore forced choice test methods such as DBT, A/B and ABX are appropriate and required.

    or

    1b. Stereophonic audio is multidimensional, but there is some exception that will allow the use of forced choice test methods.

    2a. There are errors in the many scientific papers from the fields of audio, psychology, sociology and economics that show that people can be debiased through training, education and therapy.

    or

    2b. People can be debiased, but there is something about stereophonic audio that prevents debiasing processes from being effective.

    Hope this helps.


    *mad.gifPosts 129 and 171 in this thread illustrate this:

    1. An unscientifically justified opinion that there were no performance differences in power cords was offered.

    2. When it was shown, with scientific measurements, that there were performance differences in power cords, this was "rebutted" with the unscientifically justified opinion that the differences were not audible.

    3. When it was scientifically shown, with prior peer-reviewed research and measurements, that the differences in an audio signal's noise content related to the change in power cords was well above the threshold of audibility, it was unscientifically implied that the results would not be valid until proven with a blind test.:rolleyes:

    Blind test or bust Ray! That's just obvious, you know?!:razz:

    Good summary and although I am certainly not a "science is devine" person, I do belive it has merit when done properly.
    Relayer-Big-O-Poster.jpg
    Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
    "I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion." :\
    My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....


    "Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson

    "Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee
  • lightman1lightman1 Posts: 10,452
    edited May 2012
    I like hot dogs. Sometimes with mustard, sometimes not. It's a matter of my personal tastes at the time.
    Get it?
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 31,430
    edited May 2012
    lightman1 wrote: »
    I like hot dogs. Sometimes with mustard, sometimes not. It's a matter of my personal tastes at the time.
    Get it?

    Just as long as you don't put ketchup on your dog, it's cool. Nobody puts ketchup on a hotdog.:cheesygrin:
    HT SYSTEM-
    Sony 850c 4k
    Pioneer elite vhx 21
    Sony 4k BRP
    SVS SB-2000
    Polk Sig. 20's
    Polk FX500 surrounds

    Cables-
    Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
    Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
    Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
    Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable

    Kitchen

    Sonos zp90
    Grant Fidelity tube dac
    B&k 1430
    Tad 803 speakers
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!