Blind cable testing..... Guess the outcome lol
Comments
-
So then you agree that the tests don't need to be blinded to be valid. See that's what we've been saying all along.
H9
If and ONLY if the test can be conducted blind and you get the same results.
But that is the argument, if the cable test is conducted blind you will NOT get the same results. -
OMFG!!!!
This is ridiculous, who the eff cares anymore. -
DarkHorror wrote: »But that is the argument, if the cable test is conducted blind you will NOT get the same results.
Come again, why would you think that? Proof? Oh, that's right........you logic tells you that it's so.
H9"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul! -
Come again, why would you think that? Proof? Oh, that's right........you logic tells you that it's so.
H9
Well, given that many people report hearing differences in cables, but there have been no blinded trials that have shown this, the empirical evidence would support his statement.Gallo Ref 3.1 : Bryston 4b SST : Musical fidelity CD Pre : VPI HW-19
Gallo Ref AV, Frankengallo Ref 3, LC60i : Bryston 9b SST : Meridian 565
Jordan JX92s : MF X-T100 : Xray v8
Backburner:Krell KAV-300i -
Isn't that your modus operandi?
You haven't pointed to any specific details at any point in the entire thread. I find it interesting how often you demand proof but never offer any yourself. Your arguments are nearly always bereft of any substantiation that you have provided unless it's a nelson pass discussion, and even then you don't offer any personal analysis or synthesis. Your arguments read like a mash of denigration and textbook superiority complex.
You (and others) let DK do the mental heavy lifting and then dole out the verbal backhands when someone doesn't agree with him. You (and others) come off as little more than DK's lackey in these threads. You're the Chester to his Spike.
Also, I recommend that before you continue to blame people for circular reasoning you learn what it means.
+100 on this - pointing out that heiney9 just DOESN'T get it! -
Just because the conclusion is logical to you doesn't make it correct. For years it was thought lower distortion figures = better subjective sound. That was a logical assumption, but it's simply not true. That is one general example of applying the type of logic you are using.
H9
I'm sure the "correct" evaluators were educated, trained, and received therapy to disregard distortion (were "debiased") in their final assessments of the better sound.
-
Come again, why would you think that? Proof? Oh, that's right........you logic tells you that it's so.
H9
The blind tests prove it. -
Yet somehow the naysayers cling to the notion that if the test is blinded, bias is removed. I don't think anyone stated that you can completely get rid of all biases, yes that would be laughable, but they can be greatly reduced and or trained to be reduced in a particular set of very narrow circumstance to achieve the best possible, consistent outcome.
So your "clinical" trials mirror how to evaluate stereophonic reproduction? I'd be interested to know more about what you do?
Even based on what you say - yes, again I'm not quoting a credible source - the goal in any study is to have the least amount of bias possible. Then, why on earth would you want to increase the likelihood of adding any bias (ie. by using an unblinded trial) just to later try to factor it out? Wow!!!!! :eek: -
DK and H9, why are you even arguing with people that don't contribute anything to the group. DarkHorror has been a member for 7 years and has posted 46 times. And most of those are to argue about Cables or Power Cords with little to add except spin on things that are posted. And Unc (I thought was smarter) likes to jump on the counter point bandwagon so who really wins hear.
I'll tell you who, THE TERRORISTS WIN!!!!!!! -
You are working on the assumption that the testing methods employed by blinding are valid, they aren't as DK has pointed out several times. You are also working under the assumption that by visually seeing what cable brand, color, etc will skew the results. I don't ascribe to those assumptions because I know that is not the case. I have successfully done it on more than one occasion, that is choosen a cable, a dac, a tube, a pre-amp that if I couldn't overcome the sighted bias all my choices would be based on brand and price. Guess what, they aren't.
Please explain how it is possible for me to do sighted comparisons to choose which one I like the best and in many instances I have choosen the lesser expensive pieces and/or lower branded products or even uglier products.
H9"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul! -
DarqueKnight - you asked what of your posts on this thread are silly. For starters...
How about your equating that one's selection process of choosing the best home, car, spouse or jewelry box for themselves can be evaluated in the same way as selecting speaker cables and could just as fairly be done so in a blind study? Tell me, which of these items you mentioned should the selection process of be based solely on how they (as part of a stereo system) sound. Yes.....that assessment IS silly!
DK, I think your closing comment of one of your posts says it all: "I never said that visual bias exists in blinded studies. I provided references to peer-reviewed scientific studies that blinded studies generate guessing bias and evaluator stress." WHY, I ask you, would any of the evaluators have to make any guesses if they were basing their evaluations of cables on sound alone and they were capable, in fact, of distinguishing one from the others? And yes, these evaluators are probably very stressed by the fact, or even the mere possibility, that in blinded studies they can't tell the difference between their cables that cost them hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars per pair and pairs of cables that cost a tiny fraction of that! Now, THAT would stress me out too! -
Wow, talk about just making stuff up. DK provided you with "scientific studies" about guessing bias and evaluator stress specifically related to blinded tests and you just toss it aside like a snot filled rag. It says a lot about you and your credibility as well as how sturdy your argument is. Just gloss right over that little tid bit of info since it goes against your argument.
H9"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul! -
1)DK's evaluation methodology creates a profile of a cable's characteristics: soundstage size, instrument placement, etc
True, but the methodology is not just limited to cable evaluation.2)This methodology produces very similar results if the same piece of music is evaluated by the same trained person using the same gear. If this is not true, the evaluation method worthless.
The methodology has been shown to produce very similar results with different people trained in the same methodology, using different gear, but the same piece of music. Since my descriptive evaluation methodology paper was published in 2010, I have received many appreciative emails from people who value an evaluative framework that is applicable to different equipment configurations, acoustic environments and hearing capabilities.
Why would you say it is worthless for two audiophiles to document how the same piece of music sounds on two different systems? I would think that having information on how a piece of music sounds on a low, mid and high performance system or two high performance, yet different systems, would be very valuable. It would provide valuable insight into the advantages gained by moving up the audio equipment ladder or even moving laterally to equipment with comparable quality, but different design and performance goals.3)There exist two cables which have different profiles. If this is not true, the evaluation is worthless.
Well, if two cables have the same sound profile but one costs $100 and the other costs $500, do you consider that worthless information? Really? If so, you must not be an audiophile. Audiophiles seem to relish finding "giant killer" type gear that outperforms pieces priced at multiples under competing products.4)The evaluator should be able to take his notes and with reasonable accuracy identify which of the two cables that they are listening to in a blinded manner.
Absolutely. I addressed this in my previous post. Perhaps you, with all of your quantitative analysis training and insight, can enlighten us as to why a sighted quantitative measurement needs to be validated by a blinded trial. For example, if a preamp costing $10,000, like my current Pass Labs X0.2 only throws a five foot wide sound stage and a $1500 preamp, like my former Adcom GFP-750, throws a 10 foot wide sound stage, do you think I would "imagine" a wider sound stage for the Pass Labs piece simply because of its brand, price and appearance?This would prove without doubt that the evaluator can actually is observing the different characteristics of the cables.
Prove to whom? If I hear that my sound stage extends three feet wider on the side with preamp A than with preamp B, who do I need to prove it to and why? The only person that needs to be convinced is me. Any info I provide to other parties is strictly for advisement. I can't tell someone, if you buy preamp A their sound stage width will increase by three feet on each side. I can only advise that an improvement in sound stage width is possible. The same preamp might produce the same, worse, or better results in their system.The idea of an unbiased evaluator is completely laughable.
Rather than laughing at us, why not help us by pointing to research which invalidates the economic concept of the "debiased" consumer? Since the concept is so laughable and since you are such a highly trained and experienced researcher, it should be a trivial matter for you to find contravening research.DK-There's a well known experiment pulled on researchers with some regularity:
They give them water, salt water, and a few unknown substances and ask them to measure the density. Nearly everyone finds the density of the water to be VERY close to 1. However, one of the unknowns is the exact same water, which due the variability of the scales, inaccuracy of the getting the volume just right, crap in the water, comes up a good bit off of 1. Same substance, trained professionals, biased result.
This has been done over and over and over again.
I am glad you offered this example, as it provides more insights into your character and motivation.DK-
There's a well known experiment pulled on researchers with some regularity:
Here is an example of some "trick" being "pulled" on researchers. Please explain how an exercise, whose stated goal is to "trick" researchers, is pertinent to an evaluative method for stereo.Same substance, trained professionals, biased result.
Please clarify:
If these researchers are actually trained professionals, why would they be "tricked" by such an experiment? Are they trained in conducting water density experiments? If so, shouldn't they know about calibrating measurement devices to a standard? Shouldn't they know about the possible experimental variables such as "crap in the water"? Shouldn't a professional trained in water density calculations be able to get the "volume just right"?Nearly everyone finds the density of the water to be VERY close to 1.
Are they getting close to 1 because they are lying or because the equipment is inaccurate?He offered the analogy of a using a tape measure, suggesting that such a result could not be biased, and my example shows that this does in fact happen, with trained professionals.
Trained in what? Were they trained in the knowledge, procedures and processes applicable to the experiment? I advocate training in sound localization and developing a descriptive lexicon in order to document and communicate what is heard. I do not advocate setting people up with uncalibrated measurement devices and other deceptions.
It is so sad that you think an exercise purposely designed to trick people with uncalibrated measurement devices is analogous to and honest exercise with calibrated measurement devices.The analogy is also lame in that that is a relatively objective measure and audio is highly subjective.
Which is more lame:
1. An analogy showing that a quantitative measurement will remain the same whether it is done sighted or blind.
2. An analogy showing an exercise purposely designed to trick people, which by description of the participants in the exercise, should not be tricked as they should know how to conduct such and experiment and to avoid inherent pitfalls.
Correct me if I misunderstand, but you seem to believe that objective measurement cannot be applied to audio. On the contrary:
1. I can objectively measure the width, height and depth of my sound stage.
2. I can measure the sound level.
3. I can measure the x, y, and z coordinates of sound images.
4. I can measure the noise content at the output of a speaker or interconnect cable.
The difference between the audio case and the case of measuring the interior volume of a box, is that if I take the box to another location, it would still measure the same. If I took the cable to another location its noise and spatial properties would probably measure differently. However, the individual consumer does not need to be concerned with how a cable will measure or sound in another system. The consumer needs to be able to measure and document how things affect their system. Again, the documented objective and subjective experiences of others cannot predict how something will sound in another system. A stereophonic sound stage is a psychoacoustic phenomenon, an illusion, generated by a person's mind.
I realize this a difficult concept to grasp, but again, I am not concerned with the listener being able to prove to someone else that they can hear what they hear, I am concerned with the listener being able to measure and document what they hear so that they have a consistent evaluative framework for their stereo equipment.I've worked on hundreds of clinical trials; I work with human subject data every day. Evaluator bias is huge, even in relatively objective measures.
Are the clinical trials and human subject data similar to the types of stimuli and data generated by stereophonic audio systems?
The bias we are concerned with in stereo trials is visual bias. Is this the same type of bias you deal with?How much human subject data have you actually worked with?
Do you have self esteem issues? I ask because you always seem to need to express as evidenced by your qualifications and question and/or demean the qualifications of others. I answered this question when it was asked by another person in the "DBT/Null test" thread. You are welcome to go over there and read it.
What you have worked on is irrelevant. Either you have some credible information to share or you do not.
I look forward to reading your answers to my questions.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
teekay0007 wrote: »...yes, again I'm not quoting a credible source...
That's fine. I wouldn't expect anything else from you and others of your tribe.
These types of discussions are entertaining up to a point, but I really don't have the the desire to continue spoon feeding you. In Europe during the Dark Ages, people with your mindset used to torture and kill credible scientists for declaring that the world was spherical.
As I told you before, you need to come back after you have studied some of the scientific literature. Until then, you won't have the intellectual maturity and knowledge required to grasp these concepts that are choking you.
Good luck.DK and H9, why are you even arguing with people that don't contribute anything to the group. DarkHorror has been a member for 7 years and has posted 46 times. And most of those are to argue about Cables or Power Cords with little to add except spin on things that are posted. And Unc (I thought was smarter) likes to jump on the counter point bandwagon so who really wins hear.
Well, I'm sitting in a lab babysitting a network simulation, so this is just something to do.
I'm not certain, but I think H9 does it because he is mean-spirited and likes to see anti-audiophile insurgents choke on their own venom. I'm sure he will correct me if I am wrong.
I think you're the one who is mean-spirited. The word schadenfreud comes to mind.
"Schadenfreud?" Whatever that means, it doesn't sound very nice...and I'm such a gentle soul.~DKProud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
The idea of an unbiased evaluator is completely laughable.
He offered the analogy of a using a tape measure, suggesting that such a result could not be biased, and my example shows that this does in fact happen, with trained professionals. The analogy is also lame in that that is a relatively objective measure and audio is highly subjective.
I've worked on hundreds of clinical trials; I work with human subject data every day. Evaluator bias is huge, even in relatively objective measures.
I agree completely with this. It echoes what I have tried to explain in other such threads. Even scientific instruments of very precise measure have a bias. It is the reason why you note the model, model number, and serial number/or lab unit number on all data collection. And that is for determining a very specific factor with, as unc stated, very high objectivity. The fact that a person could say that a human could somehow be used as the measuring device without concern for bias, even with heavy training, is preposterous.
It is inescapable, and virtually impossible to prove a person is devoid of all bias. There is one surefire way to check to see if a person is likely to be subject to it, however: if they have a pulse.design is where science and art break even. -
Way to run with it guys...............run with something no one ever said. No ever said biases can be 100% eliminated. In fact the whole point in training/educating and coming up with a consistent methodolgy as DK has suggested in his peer reviewed and published paper is a way to minimize bias or manage bias or recognize bias, whatever term/adjective you want to use. I never said, ever, that bias can be completely eliminated and I'll go out on a limb and say DK never said that either.
What I have yet to understand from any of the naysayer crowd is why they think sighted bias is the worst possible of all biases when evaluating stereophonic reproduction. Both UNC and Newrival have rallyed hard against the fact that bias CAN NOT be eliminated, yet if we just close our eyes during testing it somehow makes the results magical and correct and with the evil sighted bias gone (apparently) then the rest of the biases are somehow nulled and a valid conclusion can be drawn.
Quite a ridiculous piece of logic, if you ask me.
I'm also still waiting for an explanation for post #161 to recapYou are working on the assumption that the testing methods employed by blinding are valid, they aren't as DK has pointed out several times. You are also working under the assumption that by visually seeing what cable brand, color, etc will skew the results. I don't ascribe to those assumptions because I know that is not the case. I have successfully done it on more than one occasion, that is choosen a cable, a dac, a tube, a pre-amp that if I couldn't overcome the sighted bias all my choices would be based on brand and price. Guess what, they aren't.
Please explain how it is possible for me to do sighted comparisons to choose which one I like the best and in many instances I have choosen the lesser expensive pieces and/or lower branded products or even uglier products.
H9"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul! -
Way to run with it guys...............run with something no one ever said. No ever said biases can be 100% eliminated. In fact the whole point in training/educating and coming up with a consistent methodolgy as DK has suggested in his peer reviewed and published paper is a way to minimize bias or manage bias or recognize bias, whatever term/adjective you want to use. I never said, ever, that bias can be completely eliminated and I'll go out on a limb and say DK never said that either.
What I have yet to understand from any of the naysayer crowd is why they think sighted bias is the worst possible of all biases when evaluating stereophonic reproduction. Both UNC and Newrival have rallyed hard against the fact that no bias CAN NOT be eliminated, yet if we just close our eyes during testing it somehow makes the results magical and correct and with the evil sighted bias gone (apparently) then the rest of the biases are somehow nulled and a valid conclusion can be drawn.
Quite a ridiculous piece of logic, if you ask me.
H9
Wait, who is the naysayer crowd? And what exactly are they saying nay to?
I haven't seen anyone say that that sighted bias is the worst possible kind. I would question you, though, if the point is to minimize bias, why not site bias as well?
I will never say that closing your eyes makes the testing "magical." More reliable perhaps. My thought is that when it is all said and done, you'll have this wonderfully documented methodology for evaluating stereo equipment that gives you results no better/different than what we read in reviews in all the magazines. As interesting as DK's work is, it seems to have been born without legs.
You seem to espouse that there is a war of two diametrically opposed parties. One side who only rely on measurements, and those that trust their ears. But there is a much larger crowd that relies on both, and those people think that both extremes are equally wrong.design is where science and art break even. -
I haven't seen anyone say that that sighted bias is the worst possible kind. I would question you, though, if the point is to minimize bias, why not site bias as well?
I don't believe sight bias is present for all people in regards to evaluating stereophonic reproduction, again I ask based on what I have observed in my own rig, eyes open, apparently shows sighted evaluation isn't as unreliable as some seem to think.I will never say that closing your eyes makes the testing "magical." More reliable perhaps. My thought is that when it is all said and done, you'll have this wonderfully documented methodology for evaluating stereo equipment that gives you results no better/different than what we read in reviews in all the magazines. As interesting as DK's work is, it seems to have been born without legs.
You are perfectly within your right to think that, I don't agree. Perhaps when you publish a scientific paper about it, I will be more swayed, right now I go with what I have experienced and what has worked for me for the past 30 years evaluating and choosing my audio gear. Remember this is for ME, not anyone else.You seem to espouse that there is a war of two diametrically opposed parties. One side who only rely on measurements, and those that trust their ears. But there is a much larger crowd that relies on both, and those people think that both extremes are equally wrong.
Maybe not you specifically but historically that's how it's been and that's how a good number of people who have responded to this and umpteen similar threads make it out to be. I will say I am much closer to the "trust your ears" end of the spectrum than the measurement end.
H9"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul! -
As interesting as DK's work is, it seems to have been born without legs.
What basis leads you to say that? Are you somehow connected in the circles that would review, discuss, critique his work, and the feedback you are getting is negative? Or is this an assumption on your part? Again, get something reviewed and published about your own views on stereophonic reproduction evaluation before making such an off handed and baseless comment.
H9"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »That's fine. I wouldn't expect anything else from you and others of your tribe.
These types of discussions are entertaining up to a point, but I really don't have the the desire to continue spoon feeding you. In Europe during the Dark Ages, people with your mindset used to torture and kill credible scientists for declaring that the world was spherical.
As I told you before, you need to come back after you have studied some of the scientific literature. Until then, you won't have the intellectual maturity and knowledge required to grasp these concepts that are choking you.
Good luck.
Well, I'm sitting in a lab babysitting a network simulation, so this is just something to do.
I'm not certain, but I think H9 does it because he is mean-spirited and likes to see anti-audiophile insurgents choke on their own venom. I'm sure he will correct me if I am wrong.I think you're the one who is mean-spirited. The word schadenfreud comes to mind.
"Schadenfreud?" Whatever that means, it doesn't sound very nice...and I'm such a gentle soul.~DK
There you go again, DK, being silly! :razz: Taking a little snippet of my post out of context and chewing it up trying to make a point. The non-credible source I was referring to was one of your minions, heiney9. So......have at it, just keep making it up as you go! -
I haven't seen anyone say that that sighted bias is the worst possible kind. I would question you, though, if the point is to minimize bias, why not site bias as well?
I, and to my knowledge, no one else has said that visual bias must not be minimized. My position is that blind testing is not the best and only way to do it for stereophonic system evaluation.
Are you insisting that blind testing is the only way to minimize sight bias in stereo evaluation? What are the "theoretical legs" for this position?My thought is that when it is all said and done, you'll have this wonderfully documented methodology for evaluating stereo equipment that gives you results no better/different than what we read in reviews in all the magazines.
Is this just your unsubstantiated opinion, or are you relating the results of your experiences with various stereo evaluation methodologies?As interesting as DK's work is, it seems to have been born without legs.
I want to be sure I am clear. Does "born without legs" mean without a valid theoretical foundation? What is your basis/evidence for saying this? Of course, I am assuming that you are familiar with my stereo evaluation work going back several years.But there is a much larger crowd that relies on both, and those people think that both extremes are equally wrong.
It should be obvious that I am in the much larger crowd that you describe.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
comment was toward h9DarqueKnight wrote: »I, and to my knowledge, no one else has said that visual bias must not be minimized. My position is that blind testing is not the best and only way to do it for stereophonic system evaluation.
not insisting that at all. I would prefer testing be blind.Are you insisting that blind testing is the only way to minimize sight bias in stereo evaluation? What are the "theoretical legs" for this position?
neither. It is my opinion based on a conversation you and I had regarding methodology application and acceptance. If you feel that I am incorrect, why don't you post an example of a hypothetical analysis that would be presented to readers. It can be an abridged version.Is this just your unsubstantiated opinion, or are you relating the results of your experiences with various stereo evaluation methodologies?
no, i should definitely clarify. I agree that the backrground is there, but I mean to say it's not going anywhere. It's a nice theoretical exercise, but as I stated before, has very little immediate application.I want to be sure I am clear. Does "born without legs" mean without a valid theoretical foundation? What is your basis/evidence for saying this? Of course, I am assuming that you are familiar with my stereo evaluation work going back several years.
It should be obvious that I am in the much larger crowd that you describe.[/QUOTE]design is where science and art break even. -
I'm talking with a fellow Polkie on the phone tonight. We've emailed a lot, but never spoken before. During the conversation he mentions a well respected brand of cable that I have tried in the past. I ask what he thought about them and his response mirrored my impressions exactly! We didn't even use the same gear to come to the same conclusion. We also talked about another well respected brand that we both have used, still using different gear and once again, the same conclusions.
Blind tests? We don't need no stinkin' blind tests!!!Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
I'm talking with a fellow Polkie on the phone tonight. We've emailed a lot, but never spoken before. During the conversation he mentions a well respected brand of cable that I have tried in the past. I ask what he thought about them and his response mirrored my impressions exactly! We didn't even use the same gear to come to the same conclusion. We also talked about another well respected brand that we both have used, still using different gear and once again, the same conclusions.
Blind tests? We don't need no stinkin' blind tests!!!
Too funny oh exhalted one!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes:"2 Channel & 11.2 HT "Two Channel:Magnepan LRSSchiit Audio Freya S - SS preConsonance Ref 50 - Tube preParasound HALO A21+ 2 channel ampBluesound NODE 2i streameriFi NEO iDSD DAC Oppo BDP-93KEF KC62 sub Home Theater:Full blown 11.2 set up. -
pearsall001 wrote: »Too funny oh exhalted one!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes:
uhh well seeing I was there, well its true, but whatever. -
DK-
I really don't have the patience to go point by point, but the fact that you'd take a simple, routine experiment and start talking about how the participants were "tricked" pretty much says it all. Also, it's clear that you've got zero training in human subject data. I've given you ample chance to show some glimmer of familiarity with GCP/ ICH guidance; this training is effectively a requirement in the US for anyone working on human subject data. I haven't seen a single hint that you know anything about it. So, you might think you've got experience, but you don't.
Finally, and this is not meant as an insult: I think you have Asperger's. I work with a guy that has it and your posts are absolutely full of markers... even your system showcase pics have some hints of it. I think it'd be worth your time to read up on it- Adults with Asperger's typically report that they function much better once they are made aware of their condition. Again, this is not an insult, this is a purely objective observation on how you react and interact on this forum from someone that knows the condition.Gallo Ref 3.1 : Bryston 4b SST : Musical fidelity CD Pre : VPI HW-19
Gallo Ref AV, Frankengallo Ref 3, LC60i : Bryston 9b SST : Meridian 565
Jordan JX92s : MF X-T100 : Xray v8
Backburner:Krell KAV-300i -
Never mind it's not worht it"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul!
-
Questions:DarqueKnight wrote: »Rather than laughing at us, why not help us by pointing to research which invalidates the economic concept of the "debiased" consumer? Since the concept is so laughable and since you are such a highly trained and experienced researcher, it should be a trivial matter for you to find contravening research.
Why would you say it is worthless for two audiophiles to document how the same piece of music sounds on two different systems?
Please explain how an exercise, whose stated goal is to "trick" researchers, is pertinent to an evaluative method for stereo.
I look forward to reading your answers to my questions.
"Answers:"DK-I really don't have the patience to go point by point, but the fact that you'd take a simple, routine experiment and start talking about how the participants were "tricked" pretty much says it all.
Also, it's clear that you've got zero training in human subject data.
Finally, and this is not meant as an insult: I think you have Asperger's. I work with a guy that has it and your posts are absolutely full of markers... even your system showcase pics have some hints of it.
No insult taken. Thanks for the "diagnosis" doc.
Back to the topic at hand, blind testing for stereo, since you refused to provide scientific justification for a topic you seem so passionate about, I will assume that you have none.
Let's see where we are: I don't "deserve" to have any of my questions answered pertaining to the scientific principle of the "debiased consumer" or the scientific justification for blind testing in stereo, nor should any of my comments or views be taken seriously because I am:
1. Silly,
2. Stupid,
3. Arrogant,
4. Hypocritical,
5. Unreasonable.
6. Untrained in Human Subject Evaluation.
7. Exhibiting the symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome...even my system showcase shows hints of it,
Asperger's syndrome? I just thought you were straight out crazy...even your system showcase shows overwhelming evidence of it.
Albert Einstein had Asperger's too and he managed to have a reasonably successful life...so there's hope for me yet.~DKProud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
Finally, and this is not meant as an insult: I think you have Asperger's. I work with a guy that has it and your posts are absolutely full of markers... even your system showcase pics have some hints of it. I think it'd be worth your time to read up on it- Adults with Asperger's typically report that they function much better once they are made aware of their condition. Again, this is not an insult, this is a purely objective observation on how you react and interact on this forum from someone that knows the condition.
This statement shows more than just about jelousy, it's actually about the incompetence of the speaker. What an ****!Gears shared to both living room & bedroom:
Integra DHC-80.3 / Oppo BDP-105 / DirecTV HR24 DVR /APC S15blk PC-UPS
Living room:
LSiM707's / LSiM706c / LSiM702 F/X's / dual JL Audio Fathom F113's / Parasound Halo A51 / Panasonic 65" TC-P65VT50
Bedroom:
Usher Dancer Mini 2 Diamond DMD's / Logitech SB Touch / W4S STP-SE / W4S DAC-2 / W4S ST-1000 / Samsung 52" LN52B750
Other rooms:
Audioengine AP4's / GLOW Audio Sub One / audio-gd NFB-3 DAC / Audioengine N22
audio-gd NFB-10.2 / Denon AH-D7000 -
DK-
I really don't have the patience to go point by point.
Then perhaps you shouldn't participate in the thread.
H9"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul!
