Audio Science Review

[Guest Muon N']

30 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

I've noticed that it is not uncommon for forum participants to get a triple whammy, being accused of "owing a poor resolving system",  "having poor hearing", and "suffering from bias".

 

In addition to being told they are biased, they also may be informed they "have a closed mind".   

 

Such is life on audio forums!  Arguably these types of accusations breach the being "respectful of others views" guideline.

Yup! and the same from the other side, I have been in the past been called delusional by some other members here, simply for stating factual experiences.

 

Until recently it was more prominent for the objectionists to call others out in regards to biases, but never talking about how these things can equally apply to them.

 

We can go *** for tat like this if you like, and go nowhere Edit: It's called the 'blame game' and not much fun at all!

Edited August 8, 2019 by Muon N'

[rantan]

This thread ceased to be of any actual value weeksago. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

Perhaps you aren’t meaning to imply that I’m being sarcastic or ridiculing anyone. But it does come across that way. 

 

I have pointed out in this thread where I do think you have used these methods at times, at least it comes across that way, no offense intended. 

 

5 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

My comment was serious. This sub forum is where people should expect vigorous debate. But no one is being forced to participate or defend themselves. The can choose to do so of course 

Sure but hopefully it can be contained here. sadly I predict it will not.

 

 

Regarding your comment that you have been ridiculed with "If you can't hear the difference in cables, this really isn't the hobby for you." I presume this happened outside of this thread (I don't recall it here) I can only offer then,  that if you didn't challenge, no response would have occurred. Irrespective of earnestness, unless someone is an audio forum virgin it has to be reasonably assumed, that like politics and religion, initiating "the great debate" is not going to go well. Blind testing is the typical entry point.

 

[sir sanders zingmore]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Regarding your comment that you have been ridiculed with "If you can't hear the difference in cables, this really isn't the hobby for you."

It wasn’t me being ridiculed (not on that occasion anyway)

[sir sanders zingmore]

9 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I can only offer then,  that if you didn't challenge, no response would have occurred

I’m not clear about what you mean here. It sounds as if you are saying that if I were ridiculed, it was as a result of something I said. 

 

Happy to be wrong about that. Please let me know. 

[Guest deanB]

5 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

They particularly get perplexed that the challengers who extol such noble motivations as saving them from themselves seem to use ridicule and sarcasm as their method.

The Jesus Complex.

If somebody can knock up a cross or two, (I'm no good at woodwork) I'll be more than happy to do the bloodthirsty bits. 

[MLXXX]

1 hour ago, Grant Slack said:

So, when one reads something like the not-untypical observation, "upon changing to the Super Addictz cable, the sound became more rounded, organic, liquid and natural, and I preferred it", let's take a look at the possible reactions (excluding disrespectful reactions).

• "May I ask a point of clarification, please? Did you conduct that listening test under controlled conditions?"
• "No, I simply changed the cable then listened again."
• "Thank you. When you say, "the sound", are you claiming that the sound waves in the room are the reason for your observation? Or are you not making that claim at all, and comfortable that your observation is completely explained by non-audio factors causing you to create the perception internally, in accordance with the best current scientific understanding of how human perception works in uncontrolled conditions?"
• "I am saying the sound changed in the room."
• "Then may I suggest that your conclusion is based on a test method that is inappropriate for that sort of conclusion. It is well understood that there is another explanation for your observation under those test conditions, and Occam's Razor says the other explanation should be adopted, since it involves no assumptions at all, whereas your claim assumes that you are invulnerable to normal human errors in perception in uncontrolled test conditions."
• Reaction A: "I have changed my mind. I am no longer saying that the sound changed in the room. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I will edit my earlier post accordingly."
• "My pleasure."
• Reaction B: "I trust my ears. I don't understand what you are saying. If science says that I should not trust my ears, then I have no use for that science and I distrust it.

We see a lot more of the Reaction B than the Reaction A!

 

1 hour ago, Grant Slack said:

• The only reason I interjected about your report, is because, just like so many reports, including the so-called 'subjective audio review' by experienced reviewers, your report gives readers a pretty strong impression that the sound in the room is the thing that is changing and being adjudicated. That's not fair to the readers. We shouldn't do that, and I object to it, for reasons explained above. If the test is not appropriate for that conclusion, then either change the test or don't give the impression it is all about the sound waves in the room. It is very unfair to readers to report it that way."
• "Okay, I am following you now. I, too, don't want to give the wrong impression. I'm going to edit my report. In fact, now that I think about it, I'm going to be a bit more circumspect about reporting on my impressions, especially for things with tiny measured differences.

I think we hardly ever see that second dot point scenario!

 

It's something I'm very conscious of myself. I'd hate to run the risk of misleading others by recommending a small change that I hadn't checked out with at least a quick unsighted listening session, even if not an actual DBT.

[Grant Slack]

3 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I would cautiously point out that Harman International sell audio gear and their research, whoever is spearheading it, must be seen with at least some potential conflict of interest.

"our technical data are revealing" and " we do tests of these kinds at Harman International as a matter of routine, in competitive analysis of proposed new products".

 

Hi David,

 

are you quoting the marketing department, or a paper from the research division? :)  Best not interleave the two.

 

I actually fully endorse your point, generically. But I think Harman, at least in the past, have been an exception.

 

The reason is Harman himself. One of the grand old men of audio. Toole has spoken of how he went there in 1991 from the Canadian National Research Council, on the understanding that his already-preeminent career as an audio researcher would not be compromised or directed or censored, and would retain the impartiality that the NRC had allowed. But he already knew of Harman's character, so he was confident in making his request, and so it came to pass.

 

Is it impossible to avoid bias in those conditions? Well, one could make ambit claims along those lines, but I guess it is a debate rather than a presumption.

 

But today Harman is part of Samsung Group, so the climate could be quite different, and from the outside one might be more cautious about presuming their researchers to have the same degree of freedom from influence today.

 

Regards,
Grant

[Ittaku]

It's probably time for me to remind you that two straight parallel lines in two dimensions never meet. Being polite doesn't change the fact no one's convincing anyone of anything at all. No one is changing their mind with respect to anything. You're all just expending an exorbitant amount of energy putting your opinions in writing, yet failing to change anyone's mind. It may feel satisfying putting your thoughts into writing, but it's not achieving anything more than self gratification. If that's what you're here for, then by all means please continue.  If anyone here honestly feels their opinion and outlook has somehow been remotely changed by the last 46 pages, I'd be most surprised and would love to hear from you, otherwise please do enlighten me on what purpose this thread is serving otherwise.

[MLXXX]

I think there would have been learnings earlier in this thread about the nature of Type I and Type II errors, and some greater understanding of the facts of the Red Pill Blue Pill thread. Also I suspect a better appreciation of typical mindsets, although that might already have been appreciated by most here. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

19 minutes ago, Ittaku said:

Being polite doesn't change the fact no one's convincing anyone of anything at all.

Maybe there will be some carry-over of politeness in other threads, less urge to mount challenges in other threads and less reactionary bite back. We live in hope

19 minutes ago, Ittaku said:

 it's not achieving anything more than self gratification. If that's what you're here for

Not sayin' there's anything wrong with self gratification (so I'm told).... but for me, being here has got me out of mowing the back 2 acres. I can't complain as I have a wonderful Ferris ride-on mower. You haven't lived until you have mowed grass at 20 kph !! ( I haven't tried it blinded though )

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

41 minutes ago, Grant Slack said:

Hi David,

 

are you quoting the marketing department, or a paper from the research division?  Best not interleave the two.

Floyd E Toole Science in the Service of Art 2002

"The juxtaposition of subjective and objective data is very convincing. It seems that our technical data are revealing essentials of performance that correlate with the opinions of listeners in a room.

 

We do tests of this kind at Harman International as a matter of routine, in competitive analysis of proposed new products. The results are monotonously similar. It is clear that good acoustical performance is available at moderate prices as well as some less good offerings "

 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I can only offer then,  that if you didn't challenge, no response would have occurred

I’m not clear about what you mean here. It sounds as if you are saying that if I were ridiculed, it was as a result of something I said. 

 

Happy to be wrong about that. Please let me know. 

I now gather the offending statement was not said about you.

 

What I meant was, people have become quite sensitized about any challenge of inaudibility and it can derail a thread faster than the speed of light. So even the most innocuous challenge can result in an over-reaction for someone that has been primed and conditioned. So elsewhere on the forum, analogous to bringing up religion and politics, you can expect a stormy course. Ridicule may be part of that course even if not deserved. To eliminate the risk of being ridiculed and have others feel you are ridiculing them, don't challenge IMO.

[rantan]

58 minutes ago, Ittaku said:

It's probably time for me to remind you that two straight parallel lines in two dimensions never meet. Being polite doesn't change the fact no one's convincing anyone of anything at all. No one is changing their mind with respect to anything. You're all just expending an exorbitant amount of energy putting your opinions in writing, yet failing to change anyone's mind. It may feel satisfying putting your thoughts into writing, but it's not achieving anything more than self gratification. If that's what you're here for, then by all means please continue.  If anyone here honestly feels their opinion and outlook has somehow been remotely changed by the last 46 pages, I'd be most surprised and would love to hear from you, otherwise please do enlighten me on what purpose this thread is serving otherwise.

Precisely.

 

This thread is toxic notwithstanding various protestations of civility and is akin to a political stoush where nobody convinces anybody of anything.  No opinions are changed or enhanced and never the twain shall meet.

Political threads were banned long ago to the lasting credit of the administration of SNA and are not missed at all.

 

This type of thread should go the same way, then people could do what consenting adult audio enthusiasts do in private......................listen to and enjoy music................. without seeking or requiring approval by anybody.

[frednork]

This below thread is a typical example of how it goes. This one is special as the op asked mods to step in if comments based on theory alone were posted. Not successful. shut down. Should add some comments were deleted.

 

What should have happened?

 

 

[Grant Slack]

4 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I would cautiously point out that Harman International sell audio gear and their research, whoever is spearheading it, must be seen with at least some potential conflict of interest.

<quote> "our technical data are revealing" and " we do tests of these kinds at Harman International as a matter of routine, in competitive analysis of proposed new products".</quote>

 

 

56 minutes ago, Grant Slack said:

Hi David,

 

are you quoting the marketing department, or a paper from the research division?  Best not interleave the two. 

 

I actually fully endorse your point, generically. But I think Harman, at least in the past, have been an exception.

 

The reason is Harman himself. One of the grand old men of audio. Toole has spoken of how he went there in 1991 from the Canadian National Research Council, on the understanding that his already-preeminent career as an audio researcher would not be compromised or directed or censored, and would retain the impartiality that the NRC had allowed. But he already knew of Harman's character, so he was confident in making his request, and so it came to pass.

 

Is it impossible to avoid bias in those conditions? Well, one could make ambit claims along those lines, but I guess it is a debate rather than a presumption.

 

But today Harman is part of Samsung Group, so the climate could be quite different, and from the outside one might be more cautious about presuming their researchers to have the same degree of freedom from influence today.

 

Regards,
Grant

 

12 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Floyd E Toole Science in the Service of Art 2002

 

"The juxtaposition of subjective and objective data is very convincing. It seems that our technical data are revealing essentials of performance that correlate with the opinions of listeners in a room.

 

We do tests of this kind at Harman International as a matter of routine, in competitive analysis of proposed new products. The results are monotonously similar. It is clear that good acoustical performance is available at moderate prices as well as some less good offerings "

 

Ah, thank you. I remember reading that article. Neither of those quotes are in it, at least not this link on the Harman website.

 

cheers

Grant 

[Grant Slack]

1 hour ago, Ittaku said:

It's probably time for me to remind you that two straight parallel lines in two dimensions never meet. Being polite doesn't change the fact no one's convincing anyone of anything at all. No one is changing their mind with respect to anything. You're all just expending an exorbitant amount of energy putting your opinions in writing, yet failing to change anyone's mind. It may feel satisfying putting your thoughts into writing, but it's not achieving anything more than self gratification. If that's what you're here for, then by all means please continue.  If anyone here honestly feels their opinion and outlook has somehow been remotely changed by the last 46 pages, I'd be most surprised and would love to hear from you, otherwise please do enlighten me on what purpose this thread is serving otherwise.

Hello Con, weren't you the first person to reply to this thread? 

 

cheers

Grant

[Grant Slack]

duplicate post

Edited August 8, 2019 by Grant Slack

[Ittaku]

1 minute ago, Grant Slack said:

Hello Con, weren't you the first person to reply to this thread?

Yep, and I thought I said something useful that was relevant to the original post and answered their question.

 

On 15/07/2019 at 10:11 PM, Ittaku said:

These measurements definitely "matter" but they are also definitely NOT the only thing that matters. Unfortunately we don't truly have any reliable measurements that tell us how good something sounds to human hearing and whether it sounds realistic or not - we just measure what we can measure and that's only part of the picture.

Edited August 8, 2019 by Ittaku

[Grant Slack]

Ah! Such a pity that it turns out that, even with your first post, you were, "just expending an exorbitant amount of energy putting your opinions in writing, yet failing to change anyone's mind. It may feel satisfying putting your thoughts into writing, but it's not achieving anything more than self gratification"

 

I mean, we were just talking about chronic disrespect driving the size of threads, yes?

 

cheers

Grant

[sir sanders zingmore]

39 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

To eliminate the risk of being ridiculed and have others feel you are ridiculing them, don't challenge IMO.

That’s just victim blaming. 

Challenging is not automatically ridiculing. 

 

I should have a reasonable expectation that if I challenge someone (even robustly but without ridiculing them) that the response should not be to ridicule me. 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

I should have a reasonable expectation that if I challenge someone (even robustly but without ridiculing them) that the response should not be to ridicule me. 

 

In an ideal world where you meet face to face yes. In audio fora where people may feel they have been  challenged enough by the "sea lion" and dont want their thread derailed, maybe best to comply with their feelings. That's my feeling

[sir sanders zingmore]

4 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

In an ideal world where you meet face to face yes. In audio fora where people may feel they have been  challenged enough by the "sea lion" and dont want their thread derailed, maybe best to comply with their feelings. That's my feeling

So I had to look that term up. 

You will no doubt claim it wasn’t aimed at me and therefore wasn’t a personal attack. 

 

[Guest Muon N']

12 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

That’s just victim blaming. 

Challenging is not automatically ridiculing. 

 

I should have a reasonable expectation that if I challenge someone (even robustly but without ridiculing them) that the response should not be to ridicule me. 

 

 

Maybe the reality is that It's an unseasonable expectation.

 

Just because one person sees themselves as reasonable, others may not.........this is common in society.

 

[frednork]

46 minutes ago, frednork said:

This below thread is a typical example of how it goes. This one is special as the op asked mods to step in if comments based on theory alone were posted. Not successful. shut down. Should add some comments were deleted.

 

What should have happened?

 

Would love to hear from @Sir Sanders Zingmore @Grant Slack @Ittaku @MLXXX on this.  What should the op have done differently? What should I do if I want to see if there are others who have experienced some dubious sounding tweak? 

Edited August 8, 2019 by frednork
spelling grammar etc