Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

[firedog]

1 minute ago, AJ Soundfield said:

There is zero "stress" in sitting on ones posterior listening to music.

The only "stress" is looking the total fool when the audio results show squat. If that's the case, then yes, audiophiles should indeed avoid/evade reality tests at all cost.

Says you. I say you are wrong. Based on personal experience and what others have told me.  Somehow, with all your penchant for "science", you've forgotten the difference between your opinions and facts.

2 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Wrong. They are all valid audio tests. All highlight why sighted, uncontrolled "listening" create purely biased, invalid results for audio.

 

Didn't say they weren't. Still don't think all audio tests are testing the same thing.

2 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

What differences? That is purely presumptive and fallacious. It's wishful thinking that the "small" differences are "audio" real, thus must be then tested.

Again, you are projecting your prejudices and preconceptions onto others and deciding what they must have meant. I said nothing of the sort. But I don't think all types of listening are the same, and neither should the testing of everything audio always be done in the same way. Even with BT and DBT their are lots of different ways to conduct the test. 

[Dragonfyr]

Quote

Like does  USB device A sound better than USB device B. I doubt the conductor, first violinist, or orchestra administrator auditioning a violinist feels the kind of stress I referred to.

 

Stress? Listening to stereos? Please. 

 

I can understand how stressful it must be when deep down in your psyche you know your hearing ain't all that good to begin with despite all claims to the contrary. Blind tests usually lead to lots of embarrassing consequences and lots of exciting entertainment for the rational folks.

[firedog]

5 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

I'm replying to your USB A / USB B testing and differences and how blind/bias controlled evaluation isn't applicable.. I'm not drawing this stuff out in crayon for you. You wanted to get into this with. Figure it out on your own.

Never said it wasn't applicable. Said that it can be done in a way that makes the results of dubious value. People aren't robots. 

[firedog]

1 minute ago, Dragonfyr said:

 

Stress? Listening to stereos? Please. 

 

I can understand how stressful it must be when deep down in your psyche you know your hearing ain't all that good to begin with despite all claims to the contrary. Blind tests usually lead to lots of embarrassing consequences and lots of exciting entertainment for the rational folks.

Again, all sorts of assumptions and projections that  exist nowhere except among your own stereotypes and prejudices. Embarrassment could have absolutely nothing to do with it. 

I guess for some of you everything is obvious. 

Try to consider for  a moment that not everyone reacts like you do to a given situation.. 

[Dragonfyr]

Just now, firedog said:

Again, all sorts of assumptions and projections that  exist nowhere except among your own stereotypes and prejudices. Embarrassment could have absolutely nothing to do with it. 

I guess for some of you everything is obvious. 

Try to consider for  a moment that not everyone reacts like you do to a given situation.. 

Well then, denial isn't just a river in Egypt.  

 

Please explain how, in the comfort of your own home, a blind test could create so much "stress" that it would cause you not to hear what is normally glaringly obvious in a sighted test?

 

Why can't you accept the possibility that maybe your hearing isn't infallible? That maybe you aren't perceptually perfect? That maybe your claims of superior hearing are just that, claims. That you hide behind and can never audibly demonstrate in the real world? 

 

[beerandmusic]

^^^ INRE blind tests

If a blind test needs to be done at all, it is not worthy of the "upgrade".

 

buy a mcintosh amp.

 

[jabbr]

29 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Wrong. They are all valid audio tests. All highlight why sighted, uncontrolled "listening" create purely biased, invalid results for audio.

 

"valid" and "invalid" have a specific meaning in science. since not all the links describe scientific experiments, you are using the term valid in a subjective fashion. that's ok but "blinding" does not in and of itself make something scientific nor a test scientifically valid. moreover a test could be blinded and "subjective" as in a listening test. "objective" generally means measured by machine or interpretable equally by multiple independent observers. 

 

i'd say your interpretation of the links you provide is subjective

 

 

[jabbr]

10 minutes ago, Dragonfyr said:

 

Please explain how, in the comfort of your own home, a blind test could create so much "stress" that it would cause you not to hear what is normally glaringly obvious in a sighted test?

Don't know. There are various biases that might be introduced in a study. There are also both Type I and Type II errors, both of which need to be prevented. To wit, some systems may make both things under test sound the same.

[AJ Soundfield]

4 minutes ago, jabbr said:

i'd say your interpretation of the links you provide is subjective

I'd say your misinterpretation and denial of the science facts in the links is audiophile 

Luckily, orchestras and science are no longer beholden to audiophiles

[firedog]

16 minutes ago, Dragonfyr said:

Well then, denial isn't just a river in Egypt.  

 

Please explain how, in the comfort of your own home, a blind test could create so much "stress" that it would cause you not to hear what is normally glaringly obvious in a sighted test?

 

Why can't you accept the possibility that maybe your hearing isn't infallible? That maybe you aren't perceptually perfect? That maybe your claims of superior hearing are just that, claims. That you hide behind and can never audibly demonstrate in the real world? 

 

Well, since I didn't claim to have "infallible" hearing or "perfect" perception or "superior" hearing, your question is a) irrelevant; and b) a perfect demonstration of what I claimed - that you are projecting your prejudices and preconceptions onto the discussion.

 

I don't have to explain or prove anything to you about stress. Your understanding or confirmation is meaningless. If listening tests don't stress you, good for you. Maybe I'm different. I can guarantee you I've been in some situations I didn't find stessful that you would. Horses for courses, as it were. 

 

I also didn't refer to not being able to hear something "glaringly" obvious because of stress in a home listening test.  Again just you projecting onto my posts something I didn't claim and twisting my meaning so that you can make arguments. Set up all the red herrings and straw men you want, if it makes you feel good. Doesn't prove your point. 

[jabbr]

Just now, AJ Soundfield said:

I'd say your misinterpretation and denial of the science facts in the links is audiophile 

I'd say that quote demonstrates you have no real knowledge of science.

 

I do know a bit about orchestras and how they conduct tryouts. None claim to be performing science. Why would you be confused about that?

[Dragonfyr]

6 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Don't know. There are various biases that might be introduced in a study. There are also both Type I and Type II errors, both of which need to be prevented. To wit, some systems may make both things under test sound the same.

So which do you think is more likely to be true: differences can be heard that can't be measured, yet are somehow designed into the equipment and only manage to manifest in casual, uncontrolled,  bias-overloaded sighted listening, or the differences can't be heard as demonstrated by scientifically accepted, controlled blind test methods demonstrating no magical "measured yet somehow designed into the equipment beyond scientific understanding" and demonstrating that human hearing is not perfect, that bias can affect what we hear? 

 

Which is the more likely scenario here? Please explain your theory. 

[AJ Soundfield]

Just now, jabbr said:

I'd say that quote demonstrates you have no real knowledge of science.

Of course it appears that way to an audiophile

 

Quote

I do know a bit about orchestras and how they conduct tryouts. None claim to be performing science. Why would you be confused about that?

No you dont https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_audition

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Of course it appears that way to an audiophile

 

No you dont https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_audition

You are still confused about the fact that use of blind auditions has been supported by science. Taking an aspirin when you have a headache might have also been supported by science but we don't think that we are doing science when taking an aspirin for a headache, do you?

[Dragonfyr]

2 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Of course it appears that way to an audiophile

 

No you dont https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_audition

Next he'll claim Wikipedia is an unreliable source of information.

[firedog]

My experience tells me that the people who shout the most about DBT's and science on audiophile forums are generally not experienced at testing and have such a simplistic understanding of it, that much of what they say about it is wrong. 

Some of you need to read about testing methodologies and how tests are designed and conducted  by real scientists who need to have valid results. It's a lot more difficult and complicated to do than some of you "armchair scientists" seem to think. 

AJ and Dragonfyr: how many scientifically valid and peer reviewed audio tests have you conducted? 

[jabbr]

I understand you are new here ... these permathreads have been going on forever. Summary of my position is that blinding is necessary but not sufficient. Read above.

[jabbr]

10 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Of course it appears that way to an audiophile

 

However this quote is very appropriate to the actual topic of this thread:

 

"why do people come to computer audiophile to display their contempt for audiophiles?"

 

you are the subtype of this group which comes from the "i'm in the know because I'm in the field"

 

hopefully you aren't in the subgroup: "I'd be successful if the audiophiles weren't all suckers that can't understand how great my product is"

[Dragonfyr]

9 minutes ago, firedog said:

Well, since I didn't claim to have "infallible" hearing or "perfect" perception or "superior" hearing, your question is a) irrelevant; and b) a perfect demonstration of what I claimed - that you are projecting your prejudices and preconceptions onto the discussion.

 

I don't have to explain or prove anything to you about stress. Your understanding or confirmation is meaningless. If listening tests don't stress you, good for you. Maybe I'm different. I can guarantee you I've been in some situations I didn't find stessful that you would. Horses for courses, as it were. 

 

I also didn't refer to not being able to hear something "glaringly" obvious because of stress in a home listening test.  Again just you projecting onto my posts something I didn't claim and twisting my meaning so that you can make arguments. Set up all the red herrings and straw men you want, if it makes you feel good. Doesn't prove your point. 

Yes, we know this is just an excuse that audiophiles use to shift the blame on to something other than their hearing. The perfect escape clause.

 

If you don't have perfect hearing and/or perception then you understand you have limits. Thank you for admitting that. 

[firedog]

10 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

However this quote is very appropriate to the actual topic of this thread:

 

"why do people come to computer audiophile to display their contempt for audiophiles?"

 

you are the subtype of this group which comes from the "i'm in the know because I'm in the field"

 

hopefully you aren't in the subgroup: "I'd be successful if the audiophiles weren't all suckers that can't understand how great my product is"

Read audio related stuff long enough and one of the things you find out is that for every "engineer" with an EE degree that says something about audio with 100% confidence, there's another guy with an EE degree who will explalin to you why he is wrong. 

[jabbr]

5 minutes ago, firedog said:

Read audio related stuff long enough and one of the things you find out is that for every "engineer" with an EE degree that says something about audio with 100% confidence, there's another guy with an EE degree who will explalin to you why he is wrong. 

hopefully everyone here is an audiophile, regardless of their degree or however they evaluate their equipment.

[plissken]

44 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I'd say that quote demonstrates you have no real knowledge of science.

 

I do know a bit about orchestras and how they conduct tryouts. None claim to be performing science. Why would you be confused about that?

 

No, they are practicing it. They've taken a well understood concept of both auditory and physiological constraints that was causing a large abnormality in their evaluation process and put in controls to correct for it.

 

You are trying to change the subject.

[jabbr]

27 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

You are trying to change the subject.

 

To be blunt: There was a long thread were I posted my views on A/B testing, blinding and bias. My objection is the way "audiophile thinking" is being used as a term of derision. The topic.

[AJ Soundfield]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

still confused about the fact that use of blind auditions has been supported by science.

Correct, you are and thats why you reject science in favor of your biases

[AJ Soundfield]

8 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

I posted my views on A/B testing

Right, which have zero scientific basis.

That's why these threads exist and is the true dichotomy. Those who reject science for their views