Audio Science Review

[rantan]

Just now, LHC said:

Actually there is no need for war paint at all if all participating members follow forum guidelines and display 'respect' for everyone in the community, including those they disagree or have issues with. Something usually goes wrong and threads like these typically fall under 'moderator watch'. The mods would also appreciate it too as there would be less posts reported to them.

Noble words indeed and I agree completely.

 

However......this is not utopia and people will pursue their favoured agenda . If this were not the case the entirety of SNA would not require moderators and since the whole thread has indeed come under moderator watch it does not bode well for your hopes of mutual respect and tolerance.

The subject of the thread itself almost guarantees that this would happen and so it has proven.

[LHC]

1 hour ago, Grant Slack said:

One other point, if I may. I read a comment earlier in this thread, that I have also heard confirmed by Toole: that it is one thing to be able to detect a difference at all between two things, but it is not the same as having a reliable preference for one over the other. And it is the latter that matters. Toole's book devotes no space to exploring the limits of human detection by ear, except a few pages about how high and wide does a frequency response variation have to be, to be heard. Instead, he writes at great length about discovering what we prefer in our reproduced sound. And that is the nub and the hub of what we, in my opinion, need to focus on as audiophiles, in our pursuit of relevant excellence.

You have made some fair points in your post, so good on you. I hope my response below is also fair as well.

 

As we know Toole and his colleagues focused predominately on testing speakers and room interactions (and Olive branched out to headphones).  Does your call for pursuit of relevant excellence include amplifiers, sources (analog or digital), recording methods (I think MQA may be relevant here), and dare I say, some tweaks like isolation? I understand they have lower level of effects compared with speakers and room, so I guess that is where you are potentially heading towards.  

[proftournesol]

24 minutes ago, rantan said:

Noble words indeed and I agree completely.

 

However......this is not utopia and people will pursue their favoured agenda . If this were not the case the entirety of SNA would not require moderators and since the whole thread has indeed come under moderator watch it does not bode well for your hopes of mutual respect and tolerance.

The subject of the thread itself almost guarantees that this would happen and so it has proven.

One way to make mods unnecessary is for everyone to self-moderate their own posts

[sir sanders zingmore]

3 minutes ago, proftournesol said:

One way to make mods unnecessary is for everyone to self-moderate their own posts

***&%$**#%

Edited August 7, 2019 by Sir Sanders Zingmore

[rantan]

1 minute ago, proftournesol said:

One way to make mods unnecessary is for everyone to self-moderate their own posts

Agreed.

However there are people in the world whose idea of self moderation is different to its actual meaning.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

30 minutes ago, LHC said:

Actually there is no need for war paint at all if all participating members follow forum guidelines and display 'respect' for everyone in the community, including those they disagree or have issues with. Something usually goes wrong and threads like these typically fall under 'moderator watch'. The mods would also appreciate it too as there would be less posts reported to them.

I would settle for civility. Some aspects of "respect" such as implying admiration need to be earned. Whatever you call it the moderators appear to be winning the battle because IMO the behaviour and general tenor on this message board is overall light years ahead of some others.

 

[Ittaku]

6 hours ago, rocky500 said:

Suppose for a minute that this statement is true for people like us at home "that a DBT will make small differences impossible to hear a difference. "

Fine, but people plug some component in, say a power cord, and describe it as a "night and day difference." Shouldn't a difference that big show up?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

37 minutes ago, proftournesol said:

One way to make mods unnecessary is for everyone to self-moderate their own posts

I don't think there is a perfect system, each way having its pros and cons. IMO having little to no moderation does not work, period. Having moderators will not please everyone. OP as moderator will probably work to some extent but only in threads were they remain vigilant and then it will be open to abuse - I don't agree with you therefore you are deleted.

 

A compromise that appeals to me would be for the OP to have the right to tag on and off topics in the opening post eg blind tests are off topic in this cable thread or can we stay focused on measurements not subjective listening. Yes it potentially limits healthy debate but some thread starters are not interested in debate, just discussion of their topic without challenges that they have heard before. Are such requests permitted on this forum?

Edited August 7, 2019 by Audiophile Neuroscience

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 minutes ago, Ittaku said:

people plug some component in, say a power cord, and describe it as a "night and day difference." Shouldn't a difference that big show up?

I"ve told those people a billion times, don't exaggerate ! 

[LHC]

3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I"ve told those people a billion times, don't exaggerate ! 

See, this is where it gets hard with regards to moderation. If someone truly feels the difference is 'night and day' to them, I believe they should be respected for stating that. It is a fine line though. If they make an exaggerated claims mainly to antagonise others, then they are being disrespectful themselves. Of course much of this won't be an issue in face-to-face conversations. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

20 minutes ago, LHC said:

See, this is where it gets hard with regards to moderation. If someone truly feels the difference is 'night and day' to them, I believe they should be respected for stating that. It is a fine line though. If they make an exaggerated claims mainly to antagonise others, then they are being disrespectful themselves. Of course much of this won't be an issue in face-to-face conversations. 

Oh totally agree. I think we can also take ourselves too seriously sometimes but agreed it becomes difficult sometimes to distinguish light hearted, good natured humour from veiled ridicule. I think context is important

Edited August 7, 2019 by Audiophile Neuroscience

[MLXXX]

9 hours ago, frednork said:

Perhaps a better question is why dont all (audio or non-audio) companies perform DBT 's or large statistical trials to demonstrate the superiority of their products.

 

Some quick answers that jump to mind are:

1.  They are difficult and expensive and the outcome is not guaranteed
2. Even if successful it would be difficult to satisfy the "non believers" as found in the "Red or Blue Pill" experiment and could result in more negative rather than positive publicity.
3. If there are any checks and balances in their commercial process it wouldn't pass the risk/benefit analysis over spending the money of lots of marketing.

I'd certainly go along with 1 and 3.

 

One issue is the need to avoid to be seen to be unnecessarily denigrating a competitor's product.  

 

The main issue though I would think for most products would be that the audible differences would be so minor as to be very difficult to hear.  It would be embarrassing if your "premium" product couldn't  be distinguished from your competitor's "ordinary" models. 

 

I would exclude speakers as they are usually very easy to tell apart; though not necessarily easy to rate for sound quality (opinions on which speakers sound "best" can differ).

[sir sanders zingmore]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Oh totally agree. I think we can also take ourselves too seriously sometimes but agreed it becomes difficult sometimes to distinguish light hearted, good natured humour from veiled ridicule. I think context is important

If people make broad sweeping statements they should always expect to be challenged….

[rantan]

8 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

If people make broad sweeping statements they should always expect to be challenged….

...but not judged or demeaned.

[proftournesol]

16 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

If people make broad sweeping statements they should always expect to be challenged….

perhaps they could be politely asked to clarify?

This is a hobby, it's supposed to be fun

[n0bleINtP]

Just now, rantan said:

...but not judged or demeaned.

or teased after being invited to share their audiophool notions ...

Don't think I've seen a heated audio debate where everyone decided to be nice
This sure isn't audiogon

[Addicted to music]

13 minutes ago, proftournesol said:

 

This is a hobby, it's supposed to be fun

 

spot on. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

59 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

If people make broad sweeping statements they should always expect to be challenged….

Absolutely yes, if and when the challenge is verifiably based on conclusive evidence, not variance of belief. If you challenge be prepared to produce verifiable conclusive evidence.

 

Edit: and IMO the burden of proof is on the one claiming it is not possible not the one reporting an observation as shared by others.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Audiophile Neuroscience

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, proftournesol said:

This is a hobby, it's supposed to be fun

+1000 and then some

[LHC]

28 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Edit: and IMO the burden of proof is on the one claiming it is not possible not the one reporting an observation as shared by others.

I always maintain the philosophy that the burden of proof is shared equally by everyone, both for and against the claim. I feel this is fair if the driving interest is to investigate the claim and see what we can learn. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, LHC said:

I always maintain the philosophy that the burden of proof is shared equally by everyone, both for and against the claim. I feel this is fair if the driving interest is to investigate the claim and see what we can learn. 

If i say I feel less pain and you say sorry that is not possible, I say the burden of proof is on you. 

[LHC]

2 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

If i say I feel less pain and you say sorry that is not possible, I say the burden of proof is on you. 

My imagination is taking this example way too far off topic, , maybe I should decline to comment here

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Just now, LHC said:

My imagination is taking this example way too far off topic, , maybe I should decline to comment here

go ahead LHC, its about exploring ideas

[sir sanders zingmore]

1 hour ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by Sir Sanders Zingmore

[sir sanders zingmore]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Edit: and IMO the burden of proof is on the one claiming it is not possible not the one reporting an observation as shared by others.

me and a bunch of mates discovered this tweak that reverses gravity.