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

[Jud]

Just now, AJ Soundfield said:

With zero reasons for invalid

 

I eagerly await the next blind A/B test with one sample louder than the other that you think is perfectly valid.

 

Just now, AJ Soundfield said:

Not forgotten. The results are orchestras that reflect the population diversity one would expect statistically..

Unless you believe the only good musicians are white males as believed prior to blind testing. Which of course you reject as valid.

 

So what do you suggest to address the sighted bias problem?

 

I suggest blinding to address the sighted bias problem, of course.  Do you believe this is all one has to do to assure a valid audition?

[fas42]

10 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I wonder if the perception of stress comes from trying to do the impossible, employ echoic memory over spans of time longer than just several seconds.  

 

mansr put out a couple of files, one with a considerable amount of distortion, the other “clean.”  I did not try to employ switching every 2-4 seconds.  Listening to one 30 second file followed immediately by the other 30 second file, though I ultimately guessed correctly I told mansr that I felt the harder I concentrated, the less certain I became.

 

Yes, the concentrating is the killer ... the best technique is "listening without listening" - that is, turning one's attention to something totally divorced from the music at the same time - say, filling out a form. The inferior version immediately rings loudly, because you become more agitated, trying to multi-task filtering out the distortion while doing something else.

[christopher3393]

6 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Dialetic is two parties attempting to come to the truth of the matter. It doesn't seem possible here because of the rejection of common methods of determining the positive or negative outcomes of claims.

 

I test claims.

 

Well, I don;t want to painfully belabor this, but you are confrontational with others so often, that I think it is good for you to face what you might only have a surface understanding of. And debate is not what happens when dialectic fails. Debate can be dialectic. I could go on for hours: dialectic has been understood and continues to be understood in a number of ways. I'm suggesting that you do not have a methodical approach to discussion here. Your approach is not objective. Neither are you simply open to the play of conversation as it unfolds, which implies willingness to honestly and humbley risk your position in the face of the the claims of the other, to give them the most charitable reading possible, and to consider their meaning on the terms (often not scientific) of your interlocutor BEFORE you go on the habitual attack. There is a mutuality in genuine dialectic.

[AJ Soundfield]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

So having doubts about the validity of the violin test because those selected appear to be the loudest ones is "baffling" to you?

IOW, your accusation is baseless, because you simply didn't comprehend the study.

The Strads were supposed to "project" "better", but they didn't. This was a totally subjective claim by the players which turned out to be the opposite of belief. You have completely mischaracterized because you don't like the results of blind tests of belief, period

[Jud]

23 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Of course. If the goal is to produce 50% females, and the order of play is 50/50 m/f and the play order bias is such that the second performer is always picked, then those female musicians would be very happy.

 

Who said the orchestras are intending to perform a scientific study during tryouts? Really?

Conductors, concertmasters, guest performers? Y'know the really important stuff like getting Yo-Yo Ma or Midori to come perform so you can sell out the house. That's.done.with.science? Is that what we are really arguing here?

 

Blinding is an excellent idea to remove sighted bias.  It just doesn't take care of anything else.

[AJ Soundfield]

5 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I eagerly await the next blind A/B test with one sample louder than the other that you think is perfectly valid.

You're embarrassing yourself now. The blind audition is a test of player skill. You (lawyer perhaps?) could saw the instrument in half at 120db and still lose out to that very soft playing female. lol

We're done here Jud, you've made that clear

[Jud]

Just now, AJ Soundfield said:

IOW, your accusation is baseless, because you simply didn't comprehend the study.

The Strads were supposed to "project" "better", but they didn't. This was a totally subjective claim by the players which turned out to be the opposite of belief. You have completely mischaracterized because you don't like the results of blind tests of belief, period

 

Indeed, *one* theory about the liking for Strads is that they were supposed to project better.  And the study worked to show that if projection means loudness, which apparently the people participating in the study thought it did, Strads do not project better.  Yup, blinding worked for that, no problem at all.  But don't you think microphones and measuring equipment would have done a much more accurate job there?

 

People were also asked to express a preference.  The preference went along similar lines to the assessment of "projection," i.e., people preferred the louder instruments.  So are the louder violins actually better?  Do you think the blind testing scientifically established that?

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

You're embarrassing yourself now. The blind audition is a test of player skill. You (lawyer perhaps?) could saw the instrument in half at 120db and still lose out to that very soft playing female. lol

We're done here Jud, you've made that clear

 

I suppose we are, since you've now deliberately mischaracterized my remarks about loudness differences as referring to the stories you cited regarding orchestra auditions, for what, the fifth or sixth time in your last group of comments?  If you have to lie rather than respond to what I've actually said, is it really worth it, A J?

[mansr]

42 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

So that's a no for invalid violin tests evidence and also a yes for blind musician skill auditions are worthless due to level mismatching.

Ok 

Obviously, you need to have one violinist play in your right ear while another plays the same piece in your left ear. It's the only way to escape the limits of echoic memory.

[fas42]

I must say that AJ is running well - it was a long, slow windup, but now he's hitting the straps very nicely ...

[Ralf11]

56 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Do you prefer it to all other means of human knowledge? Do you think it is superior and should be the guiding light to all other fields of knowledge? This is what I understand to be generally intended by scientism. It is my opinion that this generally leads to intolerance of other approaches. I think we see some of that here at times. Never quite sure. And of course we see a cornicopia of intolerance from a number of perspectives at times. 

 

As to fondness, you do fucking love science don't you, whereas I tend to hate fucking science. Working on it.

 

I think that fucking science is great and worthy of deep study.

 

Moreover, there are different types of science, which I usually categorized by the types of difficulties involved in doing science.  e.g. some sciences require very large and costly machines - you could start maybe with a mass spec. and end the range with the Super Conducting Super Collider 

 

other sciences (I call them the complex sciences) require quantitative analyses of many factors, any or all of which might determine the outcomes - these sciences (e.g. behavior) can make headway thru suitable experimental designs [details on request - text "Sherman Squirrels" to WTF?.com]

 

I'm not a cognitive psychologist but read one of their textbooks recently and was impressed with the clever way they designed experiments to get at seemingly insoluble questions

 

Science however does not apply to all aspects of human endeavor (I won't say knowledge here).  For example, science offers a clear answer to the fundamental question of "Why are we here?"

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

As to fondness, you do fucking love science don't you, whereas I tend to hate fucking science. Working on it.

I fucking love science but it's not the way I obtain knowledge about many things. For example the knowledge that I fucking love science. Or Van Gogh or music or other things that I love  

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

...when the FDA approves a drug, it is on the basis of a "scientific" study. Subsequent prescription of the drug I don't call scientific, but hopefully based on science.

 

this is a good one

 

there are 3 levels here

 

1. scientific studies (say, in vitro) to approve the drug

2. clinical studies

3. then the clinical experience of an expert for prescribing (and maybe followup evaluations)

 

this example points up scientific method vs. expert evaluation - you need both if the outcome is important

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

some folks like to "collect" aspects of some scientific experiments without a great understanding of the role those aspects play.

 

 

How true!

 

Yet how ironic!  (echoically)

 

at least people try 

[Ralf11]

3 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I fucking love science but it's not the way I obtain knowledge about many things. For example the knowledge that I fucking love science. Or Van Gogh or music or other things that I love  

 

IS this a good time to have Dylan and Patti Smith shout "Go Rimbaud!" ??

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

 

Oh dear.  If you must mischaracterize what I've said to that extent, why are you bothering at all, except to be argumentative?

Because it has become rather obvious that he's an "armchair scientist", who's limited understanding of science is only being deployed to score points, and not to further any real discussion.

Maybe he will figure out that putting words in people's mouths and not actually responding to what they write scores him lots of points - but only in his own mind.

[lucretius]

20 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Science however does not apply to all aspects of human endeavor (I won't say knowledge here).  For example, science offers a clear answer to the fundamental question of "Why are we here?"

 

"Why are we here?" is not a proper question in a world of efficient causes.

[pkane2001]

23 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

For example, science offers a clear answer to the fundamental question of "Why are we here?"

 

I thought we are here because we want to argue with each other and prove the other side wrong?

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

Perfectly valid non-blinded scientific and medical tests are done every day, some involving human judgment (e.g., reading mammograms, though machines are getting better at the pattern recognition needed for that task, and may at this point be superior to humans).  The fundamental scientific idea is not blinding, but controlling for variables.  If sighted bias is one of the variables, it should be removed if at all possible.  But unless that is the *only* variable, your work isn't done if you want a valid test.

Please don't quote actual facts about testing methodology. The true experts on testing have spoken here, and only their opinions, no matter how misinformed, count as truth.

[jabbr]

16 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

3. then the clinical experience of an expert for prescribing (and maybe followup evaluations)

 

this example points up scientific method vs. expert evaluation - you need both if the outcome is important

 

 clearly the orchestra are experts who are employing scientific tools (blind auditions/reduction of bias) in order to improve their organization. i personally enjoy cross pollinating with the orchestra... 

[pkane2001]

I believe I now know the answer to Jud's original question "Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?". It's because of threads just like this one.  27 pages so far. Have we reached any conclusions yet? Has anyone been convinced of the error of their ways? Anyone change their mind? Hmmm....

[plissken]

1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

 

OK. Can you explain what dialectic and debate are

 

Google it.

[plissken]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

So having doubts about the validity of the violin test because those selected appear to be the loudest ones is "baffling" to you?  Would you have no doubt about the validity of an A/B test that wasn't level matched?  If you would think there's a possibility the louder one might have an advantage, then why does my thinking the same thing baffle you?

 

With regard to the auditions: Do you believe that making the auditions blind removes any and all possible problems with them?  I don't.  Is this baffling?

 

If the preference is for loudness then it's legit.

 

I believe in one instance it removed bias for/against gender from the equation. Were they trying to control from something else?

[plissken]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

Of course. If the goal is to produce 50% females, and the order of play is 50/50 m/f and the play order bias is such that the second performer is always picked, then those female musicians would be very happy.

 

Who said the orchestras are intending to perform a scientific study during tryouts? Really?

Conductors, concertmasters, guest performers? Y'know the really important stuff like getting Yo-Yo Ma or Midori to come perform so you can sell out the house. That's.done.with.science? Is that what we are really arguing here?

That wasn't the goal of their evaluation! Jesus wept. What has happened to reading comprehension around here?

 

The goal was to remove sighted bias that may have them arbitrarily picking candidates for other reasons then musicianship. This isn't that hard to understand folks.

[plissken]

1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Well, I don;t want to painfully belabor this, but you are confrontational with others so often, that I think it is good for you to face what you might only have a surface understanding of. And debate is not what happens when dialectic fails. Debate can be dialectic. I could go on for hours: dialectic has been understood and continues to be understood in a number of ways. I'm suggesting that you do not have a methodical approach to discussion here. Your approach is not objective. Neither are you simply open to the play of conversation as it unfolds, which implies willingness to honestly and humbley risk your position in the face of the the claims of the other, to give them the most charitable reading possible, and to consider their meaning on the terms (often not scientific) of your interlocutor BEFORE you go on the habitual attack. There is a mutuality in genuine dialectic.

 

Debate is part of dialectic. Dialectic is not part of debate.

 

I wouldn't talk about intellectual humility if I where you. I've clearly stated under what conditions that I would be willing to be proven wrong and offered someone money to do so.

 

What conditions would you be willing to be proven wrong. Yes we can indeed prove someone incorrect in their claims.