Placebo effects in the extreme

Jinjuku · Feb 24, 2016

jkeny said:
I have no difficulty with the AQ stuff - Waldrep measured the tracks & found a manufactured volume difference between them which was a sales trick to fool people into thinking some differences existed in these HDMI cables. Sales men have been using vol. tricks for years & yes, it's inexcusable & should be exposed

I'm not talking about that - you picked out an extract of my post "nor objectivists have a superior viewpoint." & replied "That's a fabrication of the worst pandering kind"

I asked you if you think obj opinion/viewpoint is superior & you avoid answering, instead going into this AQ stuff. As I said if you won't address the question, I'm just not interested in obfuscation

You are simply missing the forest for the trees.

Any opinion, Any statement backed up by data has inherently more value than either mere conjecture or anecdote.

I find there are more objective people with actual data to backup their viewpoint than I find with subjective people.

It's why I don't go for Homeopathy.

Gregadd · Feb 24, 2016

Jinjuku said:
Hmmm... I wonder what the AES reasoning was.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/blind-listening-letters#57xeiM52cJD209hu.97

Read for yourself here.

Jinjuku · Feb 24, 2016

Gregadd said:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/blind-listening-letters#57xeiM52cJD209hu.97

Read for yourself here.

I did. If both parties agreed on the test parameters then Mr. Fremer has a point. I wonder what the AES side of things are? I only have one POV.

I'm also not in the 'All amps sound the same' camp. I thought that attempting to equalize amps was also a problem.

jkeny · Feb 24, 2016

Jinjuku said:
You are simply missing the forest for the trees.

Any opinion, Any statement backed up by data has inherently more value than either mere conjecture or anecdote.

I find there are more objective people with actual data to backup their viewpoint than I find with subjective people.

It's why I don't go for Homeopathy.

Ok, that's an answer I can understand
Your example is very specific to a seeming fraud being perpetrated & one for which a measured differences was found that explained the fraud. I wonder how many subjectivists tried the HDMI cables & found no audible difference?

The opposite is usually the normal case - the objectivist uses lack of a positive blind test &/or measurements which show no difference as the two strands of "evidence" to support their viewpoint/opinion. As I stated to Keith, both of these are not prime facie evidence but are often treated as such - the quality of blind tests are highly variable - the scope of measurements seen on forums tend to be very limited & often reflect a simplistic approach to what to measure & a lack of understanding or interest in auditory perception. Just because something is perceived as bright does not necessarily mean that there is a raised HF - just because someone says "I put my ear to the speaker with the vol up full & hear no noise" doesn't mean that they have a noise free system. More & more systems are being perceived as having a more 3D/solid soundstage, more realism, more connectivity to the performance, more fluidity to the sound, etc - none of these translate to simplistic measurement approaches & hence are usually denigrated by objectivists.

What we end up with is a very self-referential logic being used by objectivists - if it doesn't show up in their limited measurements, it therefore couldn't possibly exist.

I find disingenuous the claim you make for objectivists being "nothing more than a subjectivist not afraid to explore what they heard". In my experience, the forum objs I have witnessed are very limited in what & where & how they will explore, not the intrepid explorers you try to make out - in fact fear of ridicule & losing face are actually their strongest motives & not exploration as you maintain.

Purite Audio · Feb 24, 2016

So if I perform a level matched unsighted comparison and I can't hear any difference between components I should......?
Keith.

spazmatron · Feb 24, 2016

Purite Audio said:
So if I perform a level matched unsighted comparison and I can't hear any difference between components I should......?
Keith.

carry on with the rest of your day... become a secondary school science teacher... what do you want to do? congratulate yourself with a extra half spoon of sugar in your tea?

Andrew Stenhouse · Feb 24, 2016

I wouldn't recommend sugar in your tea Spaz, it is cariogenic.

And my recollection of NHS dentistry isn't overwhelmingly positive.

Forget the results. The bigger question would have to be: why on earth would anyone carry out level matched unsighted comparisons in their spare time? I like listening to music in my spare time (well actually you could be forgiven for thinking I like posting on WBF in my spare time, the amount of activity I have had in the last couple of days...).

spazmatron · Feb 24, 2016

Andrew Stenhouse said:
I wouldn't recommend sugar in your tea Spaz, it is cariogenic. And my recollection of NHS dentistry isn't overwhelmingly positive.

Forget the results. The bigger question would have to be: why on earth would anyone carry out level matched unsighted comparisons in their spare time? I like listening to music in my spare time (well actually you could be forgiven for thinking I like posting on WBF in my spare time, the amount of activity I have had in the last couple of days...).

i would have to agree with somewhat gritted teeth ( i still have mine despite the best efforts of margaret thatcher) better not grit too hard though

yea i spend my spare time listening to music, posting on here and carrying out level matched unsighted comparisons are equally questionable pursuits

Purite Audio · Feb 24, 2016

Andrew Stenhouse said:
I wouldn't recommend sugar in your tea Spaz, it is cariogenic. And my recollection of NHS dentistry isn't overwhelmingly positive.

Forget the results. The bigger question would have to be: why on earth would anyone carry out level matched unsighted comparisons in their spare time? I like listening to music in my spare time (well actually you could be forgiven for thinking I like posting on WBF in my spare time, the amount of activity I have had in the last couple of days...).

Occasionally we have to evaluate products,for example the little SPEC box I referred to earlier in the thread.
Keith.

spazmatron · Feb 24, 2016

Purite Audio said:
Occasionally we have to evaluate products,for example the little SPEC box I referred to earlier in the thread.
Keith.

what!? you did not like tony's SPEC box lol it has science behind it!

“Real-Sound Processor” has two major functions, one is making an improvement to reduce the fluctuations of speaker’s impedance frequency characteristic. The other is absorbing that counter-electromotive current from speaker including network composed of some inductors.

jkeny · Feb 24, 2016

Purite Audio said:
So if I perform a level matched unsighted comparison and I can't hear any difference between components I should......?
Keith.

Accept you can't hear any difference. Does this mean it is more than an anecdote of your personal listening impressions? Maybe if there are many others reporting they can hear a difference you might consider investigating further or not?

Purite Audio · Feb 24, 2016

jkeny said:
Accept you can't hear any difference. Does this mean it is more than an anecdote of your personal listening impressions? Maybe if there are many others reporting they can hear a difference you might consider investigating further or not?

If I compare unsighted and level matched how could I investigate further for me there is no difference, whatever impressions others may express are irrelevant.
Keith.

Purite Audio · Feb 24, 2016

spazmatron said:
what!? you did not like tony's SPEC box lol it has science behind it!

“Real-Sound Processor” has two major functions, one is making an improvement to reduce the fluctuations of speaker’s impedance frequency characteristic. The other is absorbing that counter-electromotive current from speaker including network composed of some inductors.

Yes that's the kiddie, we looked at SPEC before Tony, just decided not to go ahead .
Keith.

jkeny · Feb 24, 2016

Purite Audio said:
If I compare unsighted and level matched how could I investigate further for me there is no difference, whatever impressions others may express are irrelevant.
Keith.

You seem to live under the mistaken belief that if there is an audible difference you will automatically hear it? Don't you think focus, attention & training might play a part? What about your system & your hearing being up to scratch? How about your room? Is there any possibility there might be some investigation to be done?

But you do seem to be be the opposite of the objectivist definition Jinjuku gave "The objectivist is nothing more than a subjectivist not afraid to explore what they heard"

Purite Audio · Feb 24, 2016

jkeny said:
You seem to live under the mistaken belief that if there is an audible difference you will automatically hear it? Don't you think focus, attention & training might play a part? What about your system & your hearing being up to scratch? How about your room? Is there any possibility there might be some investigation to be done?

But you do seem to be be the opposite of the objectivist definition Jinjuku gave "The objectivist is nothing more than a subjectivist not afraid to explore what they heard"

Is that what you would do John, if you couldn't hear a difference between two components after an unsighted comparison, you might not just come to the conclusion that there simply is no difference?
Keith.

jkeny · Feb 24, 2016

Purite Audio said:
Is that what you would do John, if you couldn't hear a difference between two components after an unsighted comparison, you might not just come to the conclusion that there simply is no difference?
Keith.

You asked "how could I investigate further for me there is no difference" I answered
I had previously stated that if a critical mass reported a consensus of opinion, it might be an impetus for investigating further - you answered "whatever impressions others may express are irrelevant."

Whatmore · Feb 24, 2016

jkeny said:
You seem to live under the mistaken belief that if there is an audible difference you will automatically hear it? Don't you think focus, attention & training might play a part? What about your system & your hearing being up to scratch? How about your room? Is there any possibility there might be some investigation to be done?

But you do seem to be be the opposite of the objectivist definition Jinjuku gave "The objectivist is nothing more than a subjectivist not afraid to explore what they heard"

What sort of evidence would it take for you to be convinced that there isn't a difference between component you were comparing?

Purite Audio · Feb 24, 2016

jkeny said:
You asked "how could I investigate further for me there is no difference" I answered
I had previously stated that if a critical mass reported a consensus of opinion, it might be an impetus for investigating further - you answered "whatever impressions others may express are irrelevant."

Yes, for me other listeners opinions would be meaningless if I were satisfied that I could hear no difference I presume you would be influenced by others opinions?
Keith

jkeny · Feb 24, 2016

Purite Audio said:
Yes, for me other listeners opinions would be meaningless if I were satisfied that I could hear no difference I presume you would be influenced by others opinions?
Keith

Your presumption is wrong & a failed attempt at twisting my words/meaning - I will not repeat what I said, it's plainly there to read & not what you wish to imply I said

Jinjuku · Feb 24, 2016

jkeny said:
- the objectivist uses lack of a positive blind test &/or measurements which show no difference as the two strands of "evidence" to support their viewpoint/opinion. .

Blind tests are data points. The data could be positive or negative. If there are issues with the test then indeed they should be dealt with.

The data supports a hypothesis or disproves it. It's just data.

I have a hypothesis that with fixed signal rate, fully balanced, galvonic isolated, 100/1000 BASE-T compliant cables are indistinguishable from one another based on my understanding of the technical underpinnings as presented by both T.I. and Seimons technical papers.

Some one else listens to 4 Ethernet cables and proclaims with each more expensive iteration yields readily apparent differences.

Both of these are testable with a well designed listener evaluation methods. One that removes the obvious sighted bias. Now here is the crux of the matter: Find me a single subjectivist that believes that differences are night/day to even participate in designing the evaluation method.

Placebo effects in the extreme

New Member

WBF Founding Member

New Member

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor

banned

Banned

New Member

Banned

banned

Banned

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor

banned

banned

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor

banned

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor

Well-Known Member

banned

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor

New Member

Similar threads