Placebo effects in the extreme

jkeny · Feb 24, 2016

BE718 said:
He is not trolling, his comment was spot on. Personal subjective opinion is little different to anecdote, if there is nothing of any substance to back it up, it could be right it could be wrong. As with personal anecdotes, people also have a great tendency to exaggerate the significance of the differences the apparantly hear.

I find his comment both inciteful & lacking in any individual thought or engagement with the points made in my post
You post , using similarly denigrating terms "Farmer" & "magic crystals" I also find to be trolling & inciteful.

Looking back at that Entreq thread I see Keith posting a snide remark about kitty litter on page 1 & these denigrating terms were used by him & you (& allowed to continue by the mods) for the next for 7 pages of that thread while also throwing in "entrails" & finally "Farmer" - I don't see how this is an "objective viewpoint" or why you complain about this "What is highly objectionable is the way a more objective viewpoint is met."

The tone was set on page 1 & you complain about the kickback to this?

As long as this type of behaviour is allowed there will be constant fighting in this forum & the owners & mods should be very aware that this is the issue.
I believe mods should look at these behaviours & ask what sort of forum they want.
Look at how my post was answered - first by an inciteful slogan which really doesn't advance any discussion, my answer to that post was met by another slogan & now a poster with snide remarks about a product & complaints about how "objective viewpoint is met". I believe you see the root of the conflicts in these posts

Jinjuku · Feb 24, 2016

treitz3 said:
Well Jinjuku, "every time" isn't correct. I trust my ears, accepted the challenge and then the conditions changed.

I'm not sure what you are referring to but it had nothing to do with me. I don't believe in moving the goal posts. I've certainly never suggested anything that was a requirement for a participant to move beyond their own room and equipment or be somewhere (a trade show etc) that they weren't already going to be in attendance.

I know you certainly can't find any posts of mine that back your assertion.

In my attempt to collect data about the preferred audibility of burned in cables the standing offer was to mail them to the participant randomly labeled. One person initially agreed and then, as doubt gripped their mind, backed out.

BE718 · Feb 24, 2016

jkeny said:
I find his comment both inciteful & lacking in any individual thought or engagement with the points made in my post
You post , using similarly denigrating terms "Farmer" & "magic crystals" I also find to be trolling & inciteful.

Looking back at that Entreq thread I see Keith posting a snide remark about kitty litter on page 1 & these denigrating terms were used by him & you (& allowed to continue by the mods) for the next for 7 pages of that thread while also throwing in "entrails" & finally "Farmer" - I don't see how this is an "objective viewpoint" or why you complain about this "What is highly objectionable is the way a more objective viewpoint is met."

The tone was set on page 1 & you complain about the kickback to this?

Actually I thought it was very insightful.

Yep, it sarcasm, stop being so sensitive. Go get a sense of humour. So we have a product designed by a guy who described himself as a farmer, doesnt appear to have electrical/electronic knowledge, and relies on crystals of unknown properties to do unknown allegedly beneficial things. There is every reason to be incredulous about this product. Would you like magic beans with your magic crystals?

Offence is never given, only taken. Anyone is entitled to express the opinion that this product is foo, your reaction is your own, so dont suggest they are trolling. The only other option is censorship.

The thread was started by someone posting pictures of the internals of the box which should lead anyone to at least wonder "what does it actually do"? Its not my problem that some are so insecure about their purchase and feel the need to throw ad hom back as a defence.

treitz3 · Feb 24, 2016

Jinjuku, I was referring to post #127.

Tom

Jinjuku · Feb 24, 2016

Gregadd said:
Sorry ,l don't see my ears as lab instruments.

No disagreement there

Gregadd said:
I am not Mike Lavigne. He's like EF Hutton of audiophiles. When he talks, I listen.

You're also not Chris Wiggles. The one that showed Mike his $20,000(?) Opus cables were no better than Monster. It was after only 8 cable swaps he threw in the towel.

Argonaut · Feb 24, 2016

bonzo75 said:
What makes you think people who demo tweaks always spend on them? There are many who would believe in a rpdocut they haven't spent a cent on, tweak or otherwsie

An excellent point, mostly unconsidered by the self appointed.
For my part I have regected considerably more products (that the self appointed would regard as Foo!) than I have ever purchased.

Jinjuku · Feb 24, 2016

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

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

Last I looked your a subjectivist in a measurements thread... You are here by choice. I'm not in any other subjective thread here calling a subjective evaluation out.

Gregadd · Feb 24, 2016

Jinjuku said:
No disagreement there

You're also not Chris Wiggles. The one that showed Mike his $20,000(?) Opus cables were no better than Monster. It was after only 8 cable swaps he threw in the towel.

I heard Mike could not m pick them. I also heard he backed down from Michael Fremer.

Purite Audio · Feb 24, 2016

Dictionary definition of trolling is, 'to carefully and systematically search ' ,presumably the urban dictionary definition is different?
Surely offering a contrary opinion only provokes debate?
Re placebo, a Japanese manufacturer sent us a box recently which was purported to improve sound quality , there wasn't a technical reason proffered as to why it might improve SQ, I listened to the box in my system, I couldn't detect any difference.
I realise that I am sceptical ,I sent the box out to a couple of friends with different set ups and asked them to try it, I only ncluded the instructions for connection.
When the box returned I listened unsighted whilst the box was connected,disconnected ,again I couldn't discern any difference.
We decided not to stock that particular product, I feel I gave the unit a fair trial, and the procedure overcame any personal negative bias.
Keith.

bonzo75 · Feb 24, 2016

Gregadd said:
I heard Mike could not m pick them. I also heard he backed down from Michael Fremer.

What's this about backing down from Michael Fremer?

Jinjuku · Feb 24, 2016

jkeny said:
nor objectivists have a superior viewpoint.

That's a fabrication of the worst pandering kind. Even in the AQ HDMI debacle an objectivist heard the difference and then set out to provide fact of finding that 100% backed up his viewpoint.

The objectivist is nothing more than a subjectivist not afraid to explore what they heard, show why they heard it, and in the face of not being able to either show empirically or by bias controlled evaluation re-evaluate.

That's the difference: Intellectual Integrity.

jkeny · Feb 24, 2016

BE718 said:
Actually I thought it was very insightful.

Yep, it sarcasm, stop being so sensitive. Go get a sense of humour.

I see this refrain of yours used quite often in your posts "humour bypass" etc. Maybe you should look into your own idea of humour - sarcasm, isn't humour, particularly when it's directed at a product many find benefits their system. I don't have this product, I haven't heard it so I don't have any skin in this game - what I'm reacting to is the obvious snideness & superiority seen in both yours & Keith's posts.

It also helps to avoid answering the honest questions I put to him.

So we have a product designed by a guy who described himself as a farmer, has no electrical/electronic knowledge, and relies on crystals of unknown properties to to unknown allegedly beneficial things. There is every reason to be incredulous about this product. Would you like magic beans with your magic crystals?

I guess your definition of objectivist & mine differ?

Offence is never given, only taken. Anyone is entitled to express the opinion that this product is foo, your reaction is your own, so dont suggest they are trolling. The only other option is censorship.

Inciteful comments can & are being made - that can easily be judged

The thread was started by someone posting pictures of the internals of the box which should lead anyone to at least wonder "what does it actually do"? Its not my problem that some are so insecure about their purchase and feel the need to throw ad hom back as a defence.

I'm sure it leads some to think about how it works but others don't really care.
You've stated your case so is that not enough for you?
Why the continual need to **** on people's parade with such sarcastic remarks?

jkeny · Feb 24, 2016

Purite Audio said:
Dictionary definition of trolling is, 'to carefully and systematically search ' ,presumably the urban dictionary definition is different?
Surely offering a contrary opinion only provokes debate?
Re placebo, a Japanese manufacturer sent us a box recently which was purported to improve sound quality , there wasn't a technical reason proffered as to why it might improve SQ, I listened to the box in my system, I couldn't detect any difference.
I realise that I am sceptical ,I sent the box out to a couple of friends with different set ups and asked them to try it, I only ncluded the instructions for connection.
When the box returned I listened unsighted whilst the box was connected,disconnected ,again I couldn't discern any difference.
We decided not to stock that particular product, I feel I gave the unit a fair trial, and the procedure overcame any personal negative bias.
Keith.

Yes, Keith, that is a worthwhile approach & many subjectivists do exactly the same thing when researching a purchase
But do you call this an example of the "scientific method" or are you not elevating it above it's significance?
Are you calling this "evidence" - please explain how it is different from what many subjectivists do?
Please explain how this overcame your negative bias?

Jinjuku · Feb 24, 2016

treitz3 said:
Jinjuku, I was referring to post #127.

Tom

Gotcha. Sorry I should have provided context and thanks for providing yours. I try not to take someone out of their listening environment if possible. But there are cases where the claim to be so bold that it shouldn't matter.

If AQ can wire up directional cable to a Boom Box....

Jinjuku · Feb 24, 2016

Gregadd said:
I heard Mike could not m pick them. I also heard he backed down from Michael Fremer.

I only have a large thread at AVSForum to go by with Wiggles/Lavigne. As sauce that is good on goose is equally tasty on gander I would like to see that thread if you have a link to it.

jkeny · Feb 24, 2016

Jinjuku said:
That's a fabrication of the worst pandering kind. Even in the AQ HDMI debacle an objectivist heard the difference and then set out to provide fact of finding that 100% backed up his viewpoint.

The objectivist is nothing more than a subjectivist not afraid to explore what they heard, show why they heard it, and in the face of not being able to either show empirically or by bias controlled evaluation re-evaluate.

That's the difference: Intellectual Integrity.

I don't know what AQ HDMI debacle is about?

If I read you right, you are arguing that objectivists have a superior viewpoint!
"The objectivist is nothing more than a subjectivist not afraid to explore what they heard"
And how do they explore it - with ABX testing that has a foundation in perceptual testing but seldom would have the rigour to qualify it as "science"
With measurements which probably served the industry well in the past but that are fairly basic in extent & execution & still not correlated to what we hear.

BTW, did the Aq objectivist find the reason for the audible difference in the HDMI cable?

Jinjuku · Feb 24, 2016

jkeny said:
If I read you right, you are arguing that objectivists have a superior viewpoint!

Viewpoint is another word for Opinion.

And that is not what I said. I said "The objectivist is nothing more than a subjectivist not afraid to explore what they heard"

jkeny said:
And how do they explore it - with ABX testing that has a foundation in perceptual testing but seldom would have the rigour to qualify it as "science"
With measurements which probably served the industry well in the past but that are fairly basic in extent & execution & still not correlated to what we hear.

I guess you will have to backup "probably served the industry well in the past but that are fairly basic in extent & execution & still not correlated to what we hear."

Sounds like conjecture to me. I use a measurement Mic system. I use a pro-audio mastering interface that has inputs that I jack into with RMAA. There are Scopes, Audio Precision Analyzers. Da' Werks.

jkeny said:
BTW, did the Aq objectivist find the reason for the audible difference in the HDMI cable?

Check out: http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5540

BE718 · Feb 24, 2016

jkeny said:
I see this refrain of yours used quite often in your posts "humour bypass" etc. Maybe you should look into your own idea of humour - sarcasm, isn't humour, particularly when it's directed at a product many find benefits their system. I don't have this product, I haven't heard it so I don't have any skin in this game - what I'm reacting to is the obvious snideness & superiority seen in both yours & Keith's posts.

It also helps to avoid answering the honest questions I put to him. I guess your definition of objectivist & mine differ?

Inciteful comments can & are being made - that can easily be judged

I'm sure it leads some to think about how it works but others don't really care.
You've stated your case so is that not enough for you?
Why the continual need to **** on people's parade with such sarcastic remarks?

I am quite happy with my humour and the sarcasm is well founded. Superiority, no, but I am informed and experienced in this area, a lot more than the farmer who designed this box obviously is.

Keith's comments were quite reasonable as far as I am concerned.

No the comments aren't inciteful, some are being over sensitive, probably because they realise how ludicrous the product is. As I said, offence can only be taken, not given.

If they don't care then they have no need to post, especially the ad Hom that was seen.

It's all part of the case, the designers knowledge and experience etc. it's not my fault it lacks credibility. Why are you objecting to this being pointed out?

Purite Audio · Feb 24, 2016

jkeny said:
Yes, Keith, that is a worthwhile approach & many subjectivists do exactly the same thing when researching a purchase
But do you call this an example of the "scientific method" or are you not elevating it above it's significance?
Are you calling this "evidence" - please explain how it is different from what many subjectivists do?
Please explain how this overcame your negative bias?

Some changes are so obviously such a huge improvement there is no need for equivocation or comparison, for example removing my +20dB 28Hz resonance, hugely better no question.
But not everything's so black and white, at the very least level matching would appear to me to be a good idea, and sometimes conduct the component comparison unsighted might be necessary.
I don't believe that would be too arduous for anyone.
I know how easily it is to be influenced by marketing, magazines and salesmen, I am as susceptible as anyone else.
Keith.

BE718 · Feb 24, 2016

Purite Audio said:
Some changes are so obviously such a huge improvement there is no need for equivocation or comparison, for example removing my +20dB 28Hz resonance, hugely better no question.
But not everything's so black and white, at the very least level matching would appear to me to be a good idea, and sometimes conduct the component comparison unsighted might be necessary.
I don't believe that would be too arduous for anyone.
I know how easily it is to be influenced by marketing, magazines and salesmen, I am as susceptible as anyone else.
Keith.

Some do believe they are immune

Placebo effects in the extreme

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor

New Member

New Member

Super Moderator

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

WBF Founding Member

banned

Member Sponsor

New Member

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor

New Member

New Member

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor

New Member

New Member

banned

New Member

Similar threads