Subjective/objective testing /AB / AB/X, thoughts.

[the record spot]

Yeah, you got that bit right JC. Still mixed your tenses up, so ambiguous at best...

 

[jcbrum]

Still mixed your tenses up,

Not so, RS. As I have demonstrated.

JC

 

[jcbrum]

My position is this; imagine you are standing looking at an Aardvark,

This is clearly written in the present tense, as was my response to this hypothesis.

JC

 

[John Duncan]

Oh do STFU, the pair of you.

 

[jcbrum]

I am standing here, looking at a Unicorn . . . . .

Oh hang on, it's a foo cable

JC

 

[John Duncan]

jcbrum, can you read my previous post again please? Let me know if it's not clear.

 

[jcbrum]

Sorry John, crossed posts, - didn't refresh the browser before posting. :doh:

 

[matthewpiano]

I don't wish to take sides or get overly involved with this argument, but isn't it all being taken a bit too seriously on both sides?

How important is all this, really? Its only a form of home entertainment, a way of listening to music! Why not enjoy 'knowing' what you 'know' and take advantage of the knowledge, and just leave those who don't 'know', and who are happy not 'knowing' to continue enjoying their take on the matter?

All everybody seems to be doing is winding each other up and that can't be productive for anybody.

 

[Alec]

I don't wish to take sides or get overly involved with this argument, but isn't it all being taken a bit too seriously on both sides?

How important is all this, really? Its only a form of home entertainment, a way of listening to music! Why not enjoy 'knowing' what you 'know' and take advantage of the knowledge, and just leave those who don't 'know', and who are happy not 'knowing' to continue enjoying their take on the matter?

All everybody seems to be doing is winding each other up and that can't be productive for anybody.

The horror...

 

[Overdose]

The key to the argument/discussion, as with most linked topics re differences, is what is realistically audible, not what is absolute. Remember that whatever is audible can be measured [...]

Certainly, whatever is audible can in principle be measured. That doesn't mean we're actually able to measure what's audible. For instance, experiments on jitter in human voices have shown that listeners give more reliable assessments of the amount of roughness/jitter than measurements do. Whilst we are of course prone to all manner of auditory illusions, human hearing is exceptionally sensitive, especially in the frequency range of the human voice (for obvious reasons).

[...] but not all that can be measured is audible.

True, but human auditory experience extends well beyond the range of 12Hz to 20KHz that's normally cited in these discussions. That range represents what humans can consciously hear. We can experience subliminally frequencies both higher and lower than this range. The same applies to our ability to experience changes in volume.

All well and good, but none of that addresses why, when visual information is removed during blind listening tests, so are the apparently large differences.

 

[John Duncan]

I don't wish to take sides or get overly involved with this argument, but isn't it all being taken a bit too seriously on both sides?

How important is all this, really? Its only a form of home entertainment, a way of listening to music! Why not enjoy 'knowing' what you 'know' and take advantage of the knowledge, and just leave those who don't 'know', and who are happy not 'knowing' to continue enjoying their take on the matter?

All everybody seems to be doing is winding each other up and that can't be productive for anybody.

1) I tend to agree. I'm quite happy in my putative ignorance;
2) Sadly some people feel it is their duty to dissuade me of such (I have the inbox to prove it);
3) if we did all that, I fear there would be any need for Internet forums of any kind :-D

 

[cheeseboy]

I don't wish to take sides or get overly involved with this argument, but isn't it all being taken a bit too seriously on both sides?

How important is all this, really? Its only a form of home entertainment, a way of listening to music! Why not enjoy 'knowing' what you 'know' and take advantage of the knowledge, and just leave those who don't 'know', and who are happy not 'knowing' to continue enjoying their take on the matter?

All everybody seems to be doing is winding each other up and that can't be productive for anybody.

I agree it can get a bit serious, and I have been guilty myself. Speaking personally, I think it just riles me when people make unsubstantiated claims in advertisements, or word of mouth, that are generally just guff and take people's money for the pleasure - that's when it really grates and I have a hard time not wading with my size 11's.

Another persona thing that I find is that it's odd that in some realms of hifi, like other walks of life, the faith some people have in things that can be proven to have no effect, yet people still believe they do. not many electronic devices that I can think of that people have that level of faith, even if in the presence of all the proof saying otherwise.

 

[jcbrum]

if we did all that, I fear there would be any need for Internet forums of any kind :-D

Don't you believe it. Some forums are clearly run by marketing and promotional organisations, for profit.

JC

 

[steve_1979]

I don't wish to take sides or get overly involved with this argument, but isn't it all being taken a bit too seriously on both sides?

How important is all this, really? Its only a form of home entertainment, a way of listening to music! Why not enjoy 'knowing' what you 'know' and take advantage of the knowledge, and just leave those who don't 'know', and who are happy not 'knowing' to continue enjoying their take on the matter?

All everybody seems to be doing is winding each other up and that can't be productive for anybody.

Fully grown men arguing like primary school kids about geeky stuff which doesn't really matter. Yep, you've come to the right place.

Now stop posting sensible comments and acting like a mature adult. You're on a HiFi forum for Gods sake. Just pick a side, get stuck in and let 'em 'av it!

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Care to give an example, JCB - whoops, just realised where you post mostly, sorry if I've embarrassed you, not intended!

 

[cheeseboy]

Now stop posting sensible comments and acting like a mature adult. You're on a HiFi forum for Gods sake. Just pick a side, get stuck in and let 'em 'av it!

:type:

Now can we all get down to the most serious question of all.... Daddy or Chips???? 😀

 

[John Duncan]

Now can we all get down to the most serious question of all.... Daddy or Chips????

Chips. Dur.

 

[Dave_]

if we did all that, I fear there would be any need for Internet forums of any kind :-D

Don't you believe it. Some forums are clearly run by marketing and promotional organisations, for profit.

JC

No ****

 

[CnoEvil]

I am standing here, looking at a Unicorn . . . . .

Oh hang on, it's a foo cable

JC

Is it by any chance, connected to "what may well be the finest sounding speakers money can buy?" 😉

 

[matt49]

All well and good, but none of that addresses why, when visual information is removed during blind listening tests, so are the apparently large differences.

Yes, I was focusing on other (related) issues that arose from your post.

I'm relaxed about the idea that blind tests make it harder to discern differences, so that apparently large differences might, when subjected to blind testing, seem much smaller or disappear altogether.

IMO there are three possible explanations for this:

1. the differences are objectively much smaller than many people think they are

2. blind tests aren’t designed and conducted with sufficient rigour to make their results reliable

3. people aren’t very good at taking blind tests

I suspect it’s a combination of all three.

 

[John Duncan]

if we did all that, I fear there would be any need for Internet forums of any kind :-D

Don't you believe it. Some forums are clearly run by marketing and promotional organisations, for profit.

JC

No ****

I know this one is, Angelo...

 

[jcbrum]

Care to give an example, JCB - whoops, just realised where you post mostly, sorry if I've embarrassed you, not intended!

There's no embarrassment, lemon.

It was a perfectly straightforward answer to JD's observation about the necessity or otherwise of forums.

You attempt to throw some snide remarks in for your own purpose it seems. I don't believe you about your intentions. It's you who should be embarrassed.

JC

 

[fr0g]

IMO there are three possible explanations for this:

1. the differences are objectively much smaller than many people think they are

Almost certainly the case.

2. blind tests aren’t designed and conducted with sufficient rigour to make their results reliable

That's true, but even unreliable results, given enough people tend to "lead to a conclusion". And if they are VERY positive they can lead to a high statisctical probability

3. people aren’t very good at taking blind tests

I agree that such testing can affect the test by the very fact we are being tested, but again, back to the sample size I think it can be ignored. In the end you're ears are still your ears, and any differences that can't be made out when you're not looking are either not there or are too small to worrry about...surely?

 

[DocG]

if we did all that, I fear there would be any need for Internet forums of any kind :-D

Don't you believe it. Some forums are clearly run by marketing and promotional organisations, for profit.

JC

No ****

Moderator, he's using the s-word, and it is not even EDITED. What kind of place is this actually?

EDIT: Well, it is now... (crossed posts)

EDIT 2: and now I made it reappear :doh: I'll fix this one myself!

 

[John Duncan]

if we did all that, I fear there would be any need for Internet forums of any kind :-D

Don't you believe it. Some forums are clearly run by marketing and promotional organisations, for profit.

JC

No ****

Moderator, he's using the s-word, and it is not even EDITED. What kind of place is this actually?

EDIT: Well, it is now... (crossed posts)

EDIT 2: and now I made it reappear :doh: I'll fix this one myself!

Put a space (or full stop) after the word **** and it goes away.