 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.169.213.125
In Reply to: RE: Disagree on that point, but... posted by E-Stat on April 13, 2023 at 12:35:35
Yes, I know, and medicine doesn't have the complexities or subjectivity of audio testing to deal with. That's why my comment was referring to audio tests.Can you think of reasons for negative or inconclusive results of controlled blind tests in audio not having to do with items under test? Because if you can that means the results are probably not valid. And if you can't think of any I will be happy to give some to you. People often get very attached to DBTs because everyone says they are so very scientific.
Edits: 04/13/23 04/13/23 04/13/23 04/13/23Follow Ups:
null results (the most common type) denote a lack of demonstrated result. Which is different than a negative result.
I played the game years ago when Mr. Voodoo dropped the gauntlet with his "audiophile repellent" test and I easily bettered his results using inexpensive Shure IEMs and a generic HP laptop.
Inconclusive or negative results do not (rpt not) necessarily mean the item(s) under test failed. It's because they're are many reasons why the test system and/or test subject had problems. Now, if you run the test on different systems with different test subjects then you might be able to draw some conclusions. The preponderance of the evidence.Scott is using a common logical fallacy by saying a negative or inconclusive test result means something. It doesn't mean anything.
But a single test has almost no meaning if the results are negative or inconclusive. If the results of a single test are positive those results have some meaning since all the problems or potential problems were overcome. Having said that better confidence in those results can be obtained by multiple tests with multiple systems and test subjects.
Allow me to give you some examples of potential test system problems that affect the test results. You don't have to agree with me on all of these, gentle readers, but you probably agree with some of them.
The system is out of absolute polarity.
The source material is out of absolute polarity.
The item under test (e.g., cables, electronics, speakers) were not broken in properly or thoroughly.
The test system was not thoroughly broken in.
The test system was not thorough warmed up.
The room acoustics were very bad.
The test system was not of sufficient quality or resolution to be able to hear any differences.
Cables and or fuses were in the wrong direction.Furthermore, there are potential problems for the test subject. His hearing might not be as good as he thinks it is. He may have a cold or have just gotten over a virus. He might not be experienced in differentiating different sounds, especially when the differences are subtle. He might be convinced a priori that he won't hear any differences. He might not be familiar with the sound of the test system. He might feel pressure to perform.
Of course any controlled blind test can be constructed so that it's practically impossible to get positive results, for example construct a test for which the test subject just guess cirrestkynten times in a row. This is precisely how The Amazing Randi constructed tests for his Million Dollar Challenge.
Edits: 04/16/23 04/16/23 04/16/23 04/16/23 04/16/23 04/16/23
"null results (the most common type) denote a lack of demonstrated result. Which is different than a negative result."
Now THAT is a laughable statement.
I have one question for you. IF something makes no audible difference in a sound system what would it take for you to accept whatever it is does not make an audible difference as a fact? And please don't try to change the premise of the question.
IF something makes no audible difference in a sound system
By whom?
Using what content?
In what system?
Reminds me of the farcical Meyer Moran *study* from 2007 that concluded that SACD offered no audible difference vs Redbook. Some of the SACD content chosen wasn't even natively SACD! It was merely upsampled from Redbook. The primary system was anything but reference and chose a player that John Atkinson observed had no better dynamic range than CD players!
By whom? Anyone making a disputed claim of audible differences
Using what content? Whatever content they used when they allegedly heard these differences
In what system? Whatever system they used when they heard the alleged differences
Most folks couldn't care less.
For those who do, however, tests reported here fail to adhere to standards and/or controls.
The question was "I have one question for you. IF something makes no audible difference in a sound system what would it take for you to accept whatever it is does not make an audible difference as a fact? And please don't try to change the premise of the question."
You tried to obfuscate instead of answering the question. And I am quite certain you will find some other dodge. You won't answer this question. I am sure of it. Not answering it allows you to move the goal posts to serve your agenda.
IF something makes no audible difference in a sound system...
a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump his a$$.
Cite an actual example. Still waiting.
If I cite an actual example will you answer the question? I don't believe you will.
and I'll be happy to comment. :)
Another question you certainly won't answer.
Do you believe Bigfoot is a real and unique creature roaming the forests of the Americas?
And I am going to ask this one again
Do you believe life evolved on earth?
These questions do relate to the issue at hand. But you won't answer them.
Please demonstrate that you accept the basic tenants of science. Creationists claim to believe in science too. But they don't accept the basic tenants of science. At least they are transparent enough to admit it.
emptiness and the absurd.
We'll leave it there. ;)
Says the guy who claims to be scientific and won't answer the simplest of questions about his understanding and beliefs on science
Edits: 04/17/23
comments from a person with no set standards is meaningless. A basic tenant of science is falsifiability. You refuse to acknowledge any rules of falsifiability. If you can not tell us how a claim of an audible difference can be falsified to your satisfaction before applying it to any examples you are being anti-scientific while trying to keep the appearance of being scientific.
What could possibly go wrong with the test in regards to the test system and/or the test subject?
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
