In Reply to: What a total blind test ! (long) posted by cheap-Jack on March 13, 2006 at 09:02:18:
Take the three discs and have one blessed by a Rabbi, one by a Catholic Priest, and one by the Dali Lama. Of course you are going to need a non-denominational congregation in order to test the discs, else faith-based powers may sway the results!!Ha Ha Ha! I digress... but seriously now:
1. The test has no validity. It is merely a subjective claim.
Here is what you need to do. The test IS blind - since the person listening did NOT know which discs were in which room. But how do we know that adjectives were not assigned ala 'pick-of-the-hat' either intentionally or accidentally?
For the test to have and merit you would need to have this same person describe each disc almost identically (or at least identify them from eachother) on a number of occasions (five at least) and have a success rate over a predetermined value.
I bet you a dollar if the tests were reapeated with your present method you would get different "adjectives" for each disc each time.
2. There is no link between any possible physical (or meta-physical) changes in the dicsc due to environment and the alleged sonic differences heard. Why no placebo here? Give this same person three discs all stored in the same room and DON'T TELL HIM this.
I bet you will get three different descriptions once again.
The problem here is you're trying to turn belief into science, instead of using science to confirm belief.
If that floats your boat, then fine. But real science this is not. This is power of suggestion. You told someone to listen to three different discs and there was SUGGESTION (either directly or indirectly) that the discs were different. So the good test subject did what he was supposed to do: hear and report differences.
But don't let me stop you. If you invent a magic box in which to store CD's that "varies the light intensity, color temperature, temperature, and relative humidity as to prolong the life of the discs and actually freshen it's content" you go right ahead.
I'll go and get the tar and feathers.
Cheers,
Presto
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- How about this... - Presto 11:41:14 03/14/06 (47)
- What about it? - cheap-Jack 12:39:44 03/14/06 (46)
- Yes my post was in the wrong spot but... - Presto 13:27:58 03/14/06 (45)
- Please qualify your "scientific method".. - cheap-Jack 13:37:49 03/14/06 (44)
- Re: Please qualify your "scientific method".. - Presto 14:17:37 03/14/06 (43)
- Good argument ! (long) - cheap-Jack 09:20:15 03/15/06 (42)
- Re: Good rebuttle. lol - Presto 17:28:22 03/15/06 (38)
- Try to read between the lines, my friend. - cheap-Jack 07:50:19 03/16/06 (37)
- What I would do is simple. - Presto 14:10:09 03/16/06 (36)
- Trust them or not, we hear with our ears. - cheap-Jack 09:09:33 03/17/06 (33)
- When they learn how to shine some ray through wine and tell us exactly how it tastes... - clarkjohnsen 09:17:14 03/17/06 (32)
- Re: When they learn how to shine some ray through wine and tell us exactly how it tastes... - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 10:45:19 03/17/06 (31)
- "We can tell flawed from [good or great]." There you have it, folks. - clarkjohnsen 08:27:53 03/18/06 (30)
- Re: "We can tell flawed from [good or great]." There you have it, folks. - kerr 04:49:18 03/20/06 (1)
- Yes. Thank you! nt - clarkjohnsen 09:27:30 03/20/06 (0)
- Re: a correction - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 00:28:40 03/19/06 (15)
- I too have hung out with wine, beer and coffee people. Never once... - clarkjohnsen 11:32:19 03/19/06 (14)
- Re: I too have hung out with wine, beer and coffee people. Never once... - john curl 16:40:18 03/19/06 (7)
- Re: I too have hung out with wine, beer and coffee people. Never once... - Inmate51 08:01:24 04/12/06 (0)
- What's your evidence, John? - real_jj 17:28:30 03/24/06 (0)
- Take a look below and discover how MKJ has weaseled out of his former, undefendable position. Very amusing. nt - clarkjohnsen 07:59:12 03/21/06 (3)
- Now that's just enough! - real_jj 17:31:34 03/24/06 (2)
- He narrowed his claims down to "research" from the broad ones he made earlier. Because he had to! - clarkjohnsen 09:06:36 03/25/06 (1)
- No, Clark, and that is really, really enough - real_jj 10:34:50 03/25/06 (0)
- Re: I too have hung out with wine, beer and coffee people. Never once... - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 01:10:11 03/20/06 (0)
- Re: I too have hung out with wine, beer and coffee people. Never once... - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 13:30:32 03/19/06 (5)
- This has nothing to do with Larry being an amateur. Nor were my claims false. - clarkjohnsen 09:34:41 03/20/06 (4)
- Re: One point of clarification - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 18:57:32 03/20/06 (0)
- Re: Your claims are false - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 18:17:04 03/20/06 (2)
- Oh, so now it's "wine research". You've narrowed the field of contention dramatically... - clarkjohnsen 07:56:51 03/21/06 (1)
- bullcrap - real_jj 17:34:10 03/24/06 (0)
- Martians regularly visit my apartment... - andy_c 20:24:43 03/18/06 (1)
- Re: Martians regularly visit my apartment... - kerr 04:55:02 03/20/06 (0)
- Well, Clark I agree to a point. - Presto 12:32:27 03/18/06 (9)
- Re: Well, Clark I agree to a point. - theaudiohobby 16:20:17 03/18/06 (8)
- Chris Sommovigo said it elegantly, for us who listen. - clarkjohnsen 10:37:24 03/19/06 (7)
- Irrelevant.... - real_jj 14:01:57 03/31/06 (3)
- "I would prefer it if you would be more logical in the future." And *I* would prefer it if... - clarkjohnsen 10:15:20 04/01/06 (2)
- Just accept the truth, Clark - real_jj 20:25:41 04/05/06 (1)
- Still making a spectator sport of yourself we see. - clarkjohnsen 08:00:02 04/06/06 (0)
- Re: He's full of it - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 11:30:42 03/19/06 (2)
- Notice you didn't mention Paul Prudhomme, nor did you take Chris's point. nt - clarkjohnsen 11:35:15 03/19/06 (1)
- Re: Notice you didn't mention Paul Prudhomme, nor did you take Chris's point. nt - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 13:32:21 03/19/06 (0)
- Re: A better method - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 00:16:19 03/17/06 (1)
- HEAR HEAR! EXACTLY!!! lol Nicely Put. (nt) - Presto 12:33:29 03/18/06 (0)
- Re: Good argument ! (long) - theaudiohobby 11:22:09 03/15/06 (2)
- Why change subject ? Nitpicking or what? - cheap-Jack 11:57:44 03/15/06 (1)
- Re: Why change subject ? Nitpicking or what? - theaudiohobby 16:45:11 03/16/06 (0)