| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:44 am Post subject:
Product comparisons |
|
|
Product comparisons are not scientific experiments. It is pointless to
try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different
products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a
full scientific protocol be carried our. If the prospective purchaser
hears a difference and wishes to buy the product based on that
difference, no-one else has any business getting involved or making
criticisms.
If you self-appointed 'scientists' want to run such experiments, do so
on your time and your dime.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:53 pm Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Product comparisons are not scientific experiments.
|
Contrary to your impression, no one here has ever claimed otherwise.
| Quote: | It is pointless to
try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different
products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a
full scientific protocol be carried our.
|
Again contrary to your impression, no one has ever made such a demand.
| Quote: | If the prospective purchaser
hears a difference and wishes to buy the product based on that
difference, no-one else has any business getting involved or making
criticisms.
|
Agreed. You might be interested to know that, here on RAHE, if you
start a thread that says, "I listened to X and Y, and Y sounded better
to me in these ways," no one would challenge you, because we wouldn't
be allowed to. That's one of the nice things about a moderated
newsgroup--we can make a space for people who just want to talk about
how things sound to them.
Unfortunately, all too often (and very specifically in your case), that
isn't all they/you want to say. They/you often add technical statements
about WHY (as opposed to HOW) the two differ, and those statements open
the thread to rebuttals by people who disgree with your technical
assessments and claims.
For example, while you've been insisting for weeks that you're only
describing a purchasing decision, you can't seem to help adding a
statement like:
| Quote: | The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
themselves are responsible for these phenomena.
|
(Post:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/33f438a5aa7d9bd4?hl=en&)
When you make statements like that, you can expect to get called on it
here.
bob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven Sullivan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:15 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Product comparisons are not scientific experiments.
|
Well, they can be performed with scientific controls
for bias in place, as is done in marketing research
and product development. The rationale for this is
the the same as it is for basic scientific research.
| Quote: | It is pointless to
try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different
products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a
full scientific protocol be carried our.
|
Indeed. And I haven't in fact seen anyone insist that.
I have seen loads of audiophiles concluding that two things sound
different, simply because they did a nonscientific product comparison.
Often this isn't sufficient evidence for such a claim.
Audiophiles don't like being told that, but it's an entirely
uncontroversial fact, to a scientist.
--
-S
"God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:25 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
Product comparisons are not scientific experiments.
Contrary to your impression, no one here has ever claimed otherwise.
It is pointless to
try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different
products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a
full scientific protocol be carried our.
Again contrary to your impression, no one has ever made such a demand.
If the prospective purchaser
hears a difference and wishes to buy the product based on that
difference, no-one else has any business getting involved or making
criticisms.
Agreed. You might be interested to know that, here on RAHE, if you
start a thread that says, "I listened to X and Y, and Y sounded better
to me in these ways," no one would challenge you, because we wouldn't
be allowed to. That's one of the nice things about a moderated
newsgroup--we can make a space for people who just want to talk about
how things sound to them.
Unfortunately, all too often (and very specifically in your case), that
isn't all they/you want to say. They/you often add technical statements
about WHY (as opposed to HOW) the two differ, and those statements open
the thread to rebuttals by people who disgree with your technical
assessments and claims.
For example, while you've been insisting for weeks that you're only
describing a purchasing decision, you can't seem to help adding a
statement like:
The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
themselves are responsible for these phenomena.
(Post:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/33f438a5aa7d9bd4?hl=en&)
When you make statements like that, you can expect to get called on it
here.
bob
|
Hello,
The full oontext of Uranium Committee's post was
"I claim that I heard a consistent difference between products or a
consistent lack of difference between products.
The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
themselves are responsible for these phenomena."
I agree with his statement.
The reality of sonic differences is a consistent, coherent reality that
stands up to investigation at the subjective level. The simplest
explanation for this is that products have sonic differences. Otherwise
you have to explain it as random neuronal firings--which isn't really
an explanation, since it can explain, or rather explain away, anything
you like.
--
Michael Mossey "Correctly functioning amps and cd players have
dramatic,
audible differences in subjective effect." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven Sullivan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:44 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
Product comparisons are not scientific experiments.
Contrary to your impression, no one here has ever claimed otherwise.
It is pointless to
try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different
products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a
full scientific protocol be carried our.
Again contrary to your impression, no one has ever made such a demand.
If the prospective purchaser
hears a difference and wishes to buy the product based on that
difference, no-one else has any business getting involved or making
criticisms.
Agreed. You might be interested to know that, here on RAHE, if you
start a thread that says, "I listened to X and Y, and Y sounded better
to me in these ways," no one would challenge you, because we wouldn't
be allowed to. That's one of the nice things about a moderated
newsgroup--we can make a space for people who just want to talk about
how things sound to them.
Unfortunately, all too often (and very specifically in your case), that
isn't all they/you want to say. They/you often add technical statements
about WHY (as opposed to HOW) the two differ, and those statements open
the thread to rebuttals by people who disgree with your technical
assessments and claims.
For example, while you've been insisting for weeks that you're only
describing a purchasing decision, you can't seem to help adding a
statement like:
The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
themselves are responsible for these phenomena.
(Post:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/33f438a5aa7d9bd4?hl=en&)
When you make statements like that, you can expect to get called on it
here.
bob
Hello,
The full oontext of Uranium Committee's post was
"I claim that I heard a consistent difference between products or a
consistent lack of difference between products.
The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
themselves are responsible for these phenomena."
I agree with his statement.
The reality of sonic differences is a consistent, coherent reality that
stands up to investigation at the subjective level. The simplest
explanation for this is that products have sonic differences.
|
It depends entirely upon other circumstances. What were the products?
What were the listening conditions? And does the 'reality' stand up
to investigation at the *objective* level?
| Quote: | Otherwise
you have to explain it as random neuronal firings--which isn't really
an explanation, since it can explain, or rather explain away, anything
you like.
|
You're ignoring, of course, the distinct possibility of self-reinforcing
perception. And the fact that various forms of perceptual bias are
a *given*.
What made you decide , a priori that these are *less* likely than real
difference?
--
-S |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:44 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
Product comparisons are not scientific experiments.
Contrary to your impression, no one here has ever claimed otherwise.
It is pointless to
try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different
products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a
full scientific protocol be carried our.
Again contrary to your impression, no one has ever made such a demand.
If the prospective purchaser
hears a difference and wishes to buy the product based on that
difference, no-one else has any business getting involved or making
criticisms.
Agreed. You might be interested to know that, here on RAHE, if you
start a thread that says, "I listened to X and Y, and Y sounded better
to me in these ways," no one would challenge you, because we wouldn't
be allowed to. That's one of the nice things about a moderated
newsgroup--we can make a space for people who just want to talk about
how things sound to them.
Unfortunately, all too often (and very specifically in your case), that
isn't all they/you want to say. They/you often add technical statements
about WHY (as opposed to HOW) the two differ, and those statements open
the thread to rebuttals by people who disgree with your technical
assessments and claims.
For example, while you've been insisting for weeks that you're only
describing a purchasing decision, you can't seem to help adding a
statement like:
The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
themselves are responsible for these phenomena.
(Post:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/33f438a5aa7d9bd4?hl=en&)
When you make statements like that, you can expect to get called on it
here.
bob
Hello,
The full oontext of Uranium Committee's post was
"I claim that I heard a consistent difference between products or a
consistent lack of difference between products.
The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
themselves are responsible for these phenomena."
I agree with his statement.
The reality of sonic differences is a consistent, coherent reality that
stands up to investigation at the subjective level. The simplest
explanation for this is that products have sonic differences.
|
You seem to not understand the difference between simple and
simplistic.
| Quote: | Otherwise
you have to explain it as random neuronal firings--which isn't really
an explanation, since it can explain, or rather explain away, anything
you like.
|
Not at all. It' a shame you've never studied psychology. It's an
evolving field, but it can explain an awful lot.
| Quote: | --
Michael Mossey "Correctly functioning amps and cd players have
dramatic,
audible differences in subjective effect."
|
....so dramatic, in fact, that you could hear them with your eyes
closed?
bob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Sep 08, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
On 6 Sep 2005 23:25:47 GMT, michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | The full oontext of Uranium Committee's post was
"I claim that I heard a consistent difference between products or a
consistent lack of difference between products.
The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
themselves are responsible for these phenomena."
I agree with his statement.
|
In the face of all available experimental evidence? Fascinating logic
process you must have!
| Quote: | The reality of sonic differences is a consistent, coherent reality that
stands up to investigation at the subjective level.
|
So is the reality of sighted listeners hearing differences which
patently do not exist in the physical soundfield, i.e. when nothing
has actually been changed. This is a *much* more likely reason for
U238 believing that he can hear differences among cables.
| Quote: | The simplest
explanation for this is that products have sonic differences.
|
No, it isn't.
| Quote: | Otherwise
you have to explain it as random neuronal firings
|
No, you don't. There need be no neurological activity whatever for
differences to be *imagined*.
| Quote: | --which isn't really
an explanation, since it can explain, or rather explain away, anything
you like.
|
So can magic - which is a more likely explanation for 'cable sound'
than anything to be found in physics or medicine.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Sep 08, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
| Quote: | uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
Product comparisons are not scientific experiments.
Well, they can be performed with scientific controls
for bias in place, as is done in marketing research
and product development. The rationale for this is
the the same as it is for basic scientific research.
It is pointless to
try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different
products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a
full scientific protocol be carried our.
Indeed. And I haven't in fact seen anyone insist that.
I have seen loads of audiophiles concluding that two things sound
different, simply because they did a nonscientific product comparison.
Often this isn't sufficient evidence for such a claim.
|
Sufficient for WHOM? And what qualifies as 'scientific'? That in itelf
is controversial.
I listen under conditions that meet MY criteria. That includes a rather
quiet, late-night environment, no illumination, and excellent,
familiar, recordings. If any differences are there to be heard, they
will be heard under those conditions or else they're too subtle to be
worthwhile.
| Quote: | Audiophiles don't like being told that, but it's an entirely
uncontroversial fact, to a scientist.
|
That's irrelevant, because we're not acting as scientists, nor are we
claiming to. What scientists think here is irrelevant to our purposes.
Not everything needs a scientific explanation or justification. My
choice of car, for instance, need not be sanctioned by any scientist or
scientific organization.
People make claims every day that are 'true' (or true enough) but do
not meet scientific standards, and these do not cause any concern.
("Pepsi is sweeter than Coke". "Michelin tires give great mileage". "93
octane gas gives better performance.") Why do you fixate on audio?
What is it about ordinary everyday claims in audio that brings out this
sort of response?
If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me
that I'm wasting my money?
It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons
are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for
constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be
rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they
should be.
They need be only as rigorous as I need.
Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it
out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you
try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out
CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the
mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact
they were inferior to what I had.
I have long experience with making product comparisons in photography.
I own Leica equipment, and I have 'tested' my camera lenses and
enlarging lenses against the competition (they ALWAYS win). I have also
compared color/B&W films, B&W developers, and B&W papers. These
comparisons are always revealing, even if the products are not suitable
for my use.
I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my
own satisfaction and that of others. In some cases, interpretation of
the results is necessary to the uninitiated, who simply don't notice at
first the subtler differences. Once these subtler differences are
pointed out, then they can recognize these sorts of differences in
future. In other words, just because someone needs to have astigmatism
in a photograph explained and pointed out does not mean that it was not
there before, or that it is not a significant flaw in a lens design. On
the other hand, I have had people refuse to look at the images I
presented to them, saying that cheap lenses were just as good, and that
you were 'just paying for the name'. I know this is false, and I
suspect the same attitude is behind this constant barrage of put-downs
of those who claim they hear differences in audio cables and
amplifiers.
I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing
audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of
'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Sep 08, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
| Quote: | michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
Product comparisons are not scientific experiments.
Contrary to your impression, no one here has ever claimed otherwise.
It is pointless to
try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different
products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a
full scientific protocol be carried our.
Again contrary to your impression, no one has ever made such a demand.
If the prospective purchaser
hears a difference and wishes to buy the product based on that
difference, no-one else has any business getting involved or making
criticisms.
Agreed. You might be interested to know that, here on RAHE, if you
start a thread that says, "I listened to X and Y, and Y sounded better
to me in these ways," no one would challenge you, because we wouldn't
be allowed to. That's one of the nice things about a moderated
newsgroup--we can make a space for people who just want to talk about
how things sound to them.
Unfortunately, all too often (and very specifically in your case), that
isn't all they/you want to say. They/you often add technical statements
about WHY (as opposed to HOW) the two differ, and those statements open
the thread to rebuttals by people who disgree with your technical
assessments and claims.
For example, while you've been insisting for weeks that you're only
describing a purchasing decision, you can't seem to help adding a
statement like:
The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
themselves are responsible for these phenomena.
(Post:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/33f438a5aa7d9bd4?hl=en&)
When you make statements like that, you can expect to get called on it
here.
bob
Hello,
The full oontext of Uranium Committee's post was
"I claim that I heard a consistent difference between products or a
consistent lack of difference between products.
The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
themselves are responsible for these phenomena."
I agree with his statement.
The reality of sonic differences is a consistent, coherent reality that
stands up to investigation at the subjective level. The simplest
explanation for this is that products have sonic differences.
It depends entirely upon other circumstances. What were the products?
What were the listening conditions? And does the 'reality' stand up
to investigation at the *objective* level?
Otherwise
you have to explain it as random neuronal firings--which isn't really
an explanation, since it can explain, or rather explain away, anything
you like.
You're ignoring, of course, the distinct possibility of self-reinforcing
perception. And the fact that various forms of perceptual bias are
a *given*.
|
'Bias' isn't creative, and it requires a detailed explanation, to
account for peculiarly consistent results. In other words, you have to
give an account that explains how 'bias' can produce consistent
effects, when it appears at first blush to be incapable of such. After
all, if our brains are so easily fooled by 'bias' that they can produce
these interesting effects, what is to constrain them from time to time?
What makes them produce the SAME sound on an amplifier last heard heard
MONTHS ago? EVERY time that I listened to a given amp (several trials,
months apart) it sounded the same, and different from my then-current
amp. I also had a friend come over and listen with me. The expression
on his face told me that I was not imagining things, when I hooked up
the Sony TA-N88B, which, by the way, is a very ordinary-looking amp.
| Quote: | What made you decide , a priori that these are *less* likely than real
difference?
--
-S |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Sep 08, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
"The reality of sonic differences is a consistent, coherent reality that
stands up to investigation at the subjective level. The simplest
explanation for this is that products have sonic differences. Otherwise
you
have to explain it as random neuronal firings--which isn't really an
explanation, since it can explain, or rather explain away, anything you
like."
You have it reversed. When it is observed using listening alone that
knowing or not which is connected toggles the subjective effect on and
off,
then the explanation requires that the knowing either changes the signal
at
a distance or the difference resides in the observer. Given the obvious
choice we have also the simplest answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven Sullivan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Sep 08, 2005 10:29 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Steven Sullivan wrote:
uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
Product comparisons are not scientific experiments.
Well, they can be performed with scientific controls
for bias in place, as is done in marketing research
and product development. The rationale for this is
the the same as it is for basic scientific research.
It is pointless to
try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different
products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a
full scientific protocol be carried our.
Indeed. And I haven't in fact seen anyone insist that.
I have seen loads of audiophiles concluding that two things sound
different, simply because they did a nonscientific product comparison.
Often this isn't sufficient evidence for such a claim.
Sufficient for WHOM? And what qualifies as 'scientific'? That in itelf
is controversial.
|
Not at all. By scientific standards, a sighted claim of
audible difference, absent any independent support, is simply
inadequate as proof of real difference.
| Quote: | I listen under conditions that meet MY criteria. That includes a rather
quiet, late-night environment, no illumination, and excellent,
familiar, recordings. If any differences are there to be heard, they
will be heard under those conditions or else they're too subtle to be
worthwhile.
|
How would you verify this? Or do you believe that error is impossible
under these circumstances?
| Quote: | Audiophiles don't like being told that, but it's an entirely
uncontroversial fact, to a scientist.
That's irrelevant, because we're not acting as scientists, nor are we
claiming to. What scientists think here is irrelevant to our purposes.
|
But when audiophiles start talking about *why* they heard what they
heard, they move directly into the realm of science.
| Quote: | Not everything needs a scientific explanation or justification. My
choice of car, for instance, need not be sanctioned by any scientist or
scientific organization.
|
Of course not. But the reasons you publicly provide for that
choice can either be make scientific sense, or not.
Buying a red car because you like red more than other colors,
is uttely unobjectionable from a scientific standpoint.
Buying a red car because you think red makes a car go
faster, is quite objectionable from a scientific standpoint.
Audiophile claims tend to be of the latter type, alas.
| Quote: | People make claims every day that are 'true' (or true enough) but do
not meet scientific standards, and these do not cause any concern.
("Pepsi is sweeter than Coke". "Michelin tires give great mileage". "93
octane gas gives better performance.")
|
All of those are verifiable scientifically, so the could certainly
cause concern among those who care. And I expect that they do.
| Quote: | Why do you fixate on audio?
|
On rec.audio.high-end? It seems to make a certain sense.
| Quote: | What is it about ordinary everyday claims in audio that brings out this
sort of response?
|
Probably the same thing that brings out this sort of response
when quack medical claims are made on other forums.
| Quote: | If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me
that I'm wasting my money?
|
Depends on your stated reason for using 94 octane.
If you happen to simply like the number '94', I certainly won't
tell you you're wasting your money. But if you claim to
use 94 octane because it makes your car perform better, and
there is good reason to believe it doesn't, then I'll be happy
to inform you of that.
But more likely, I'd leave that sort of education to Stewart P.
He knows loads more about cars than I do.
| Quote: | It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons
are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for
constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be
rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they
should be.
|
;>
And who are you to tell me what my place is?
| Quote: | They need be only as rigorous as I need.
|
If you are upset when people question your
claims on a public forum
and the logic behind them, might I suggest you either refrain
from making such claims, or else ensuring that they are
unobjectionable?
| Quote: | Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it
out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you
try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out
CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the
mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact
they were inferior to what I had.
|
Well, there's the thing...you don't know 'in fact' if they were
inferior in any objective sense. I'm afraid you don't even know
if they really sounded different.
| Quote: | I have long experience with making product comparisons in photography.
I own Leica equipment, and I have 'tested' my camera lenses and
enlarging lenses against the competition (they ALWAYS win). I have also
compared color/B&W films, B&W developers, and B&W papers. These
comparisons are always revealing, even if the products are not suitable
for my use.
I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my
own satisfaction and that of others. In some cases, interpretation of
the results is necessary to the uninitiated, who simply don't notice at
first the subtler differences. Once these subtler differences are
pointed out, then they can recognize these sorts of differences in
future. In other words, just because someone needs to have astigmatism
in a photograph explained and pointed out does not mean that it was not
there before, or that it is not a significant flaw in a lens design. On
the other hand, I have had people refuse to look at the images I
presented to them, saying that cheap lenses were just as good, and that
you were 'just paying for the name'. I know this is false, and I
suspect the same attitude is behind this constant barrage of put-downs
of those who claim they hear differences in audio cables and
amplifiers.
|
Many things *are* of course really different. But it is also the
case that not everything we *perceive* as different, really is.
| Quote: | I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing
audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of
'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972.
|
Quite possibly so. But that doesn't mean you have become immune
to psychological bias.
--
-S |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:44 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
On 8 Sep 2005 02:18:02 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | 'Bias' isn't creative, and it requires a detailed explanation, to
account for peculiarly consistent results.
|
You'll find that explanation in any psy texbook. We are hardwired to
detect difference - even when it is not present. Better to jump out of
the way of a tiger that isn't there, than to sit still when one leaps
at you.
| Quote: | In other words, you have to
give an account that explains how 'bias' can produce consistent
effects, when it appears at first blush to be incapable of such.
|
You will find detailed explanations of the effect known as
'reinforcement' in any psy textbook.
| Quote: | After
all, if our brains are so easily fooled by 'bias' that they can produce
these interesting effects, what is to constrain them from time to time?
|
Not much. Some people hear voices. Some people even act on the
instructions of those voices.
| Quote: | What makes them produce the SAME sound on an amplifier last heard heard
MONTHS ago?
|
Reinforcement. No magic, just very basic psychology.
| Quote: | EVERY time that I listened to a given amp (several trials,
months apart) it sounded the same, and different from my then-current
amp. I also had a friend come over and listen with me. The expression
on his face told me that I was not imagining things, when I hooked up
the Sony TA-N88B, which, by the way, is a very ordinary-looking amp.
|
This is a standard variation on the 'even my wife heard it from the
kitchen' tale. Your friend of course, just like you, *expected* to
hear a difference. That you don't seem to understand (or simply refuse
to accept) these very real effects, makes you a target for every basic
sales technique ever taught. Ask a Linn dealer about the 'toe-tapping'
reinforcement they've all been taught.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:44 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
| Quote: | michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
Product comparisons are not scientific experiments.
Contrary to your impression, no one here has ever claimed otherwise.
It is pointless to
try to insist that they are. When someone is listening to different
products in the shop or in his home, it is perverse to insist that a
full scientific protocol be carried our.
Again contrary to your impression, no one has ever made such a demand.
If the prospective purchaser
hears a difference and wishes to buy the product based on that
difference, no-one else has any business getting involved or making
criticisms.
Agreed. You might be interested to know that, here on RAHE, if you
start a thread that says, "I listened to X and Y, and Y sounded better
to me in these ways," no one would challenge you, because we wouldn't
be allowed to. That's one of the nice things about a moderated
newsgroup--we can make a space for people who just want to talk about
how things sound to them.
Unfortunately, all too often (and very specifically in your case), that
isn't all they/you want to say. They/you often add technical statements
about WHY (as opposed to HOW) the two differ, and those statements open
the thread to rebuttals by people who disgree with your technical
assessments and claims.
For example, while you've been insisting for weeks that you're only
describing a purchasing decision, you can't seem to help adding a
statement like:
The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
themselves are responsible for these phenomena.
(Post:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/33f438a5aa7d9bd4?hl=en&)
When you make statements like that, you can expect to get called on it
here.
bob
Hello,
The full oontext of Uranium Committee's post was
"I claim that I heard a consistent difference between products or a
consistent lack of difference between products.
The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products
themselves are responsible for these phenomena."
I agree with his statement.
The reality of sonic differences is a consistent, coherent reality that
stands up to investigation at the subjective level. The simplest
explanation for this is that products have sonic differences.
It depends entirely upon other circumstances. What were the products?
What were the listening conditions? And does the 'reality' stand up
to investigation at the *objective* level?
Otherwise
you have to explain it as random neuronal firings--which isn't really
an explanation, since it can explain, or rather explain away, anything
you like.
You're ignoring, of course, the distinct possibility of self-reinforcing
perception. And the fact that various forms of perceptual bias are
a *given*.
What made you decide , a priori that these are *less* likely than real
difference?
|
I haven't decided a priori. I've taken this theory, that what I hear is
influenced by non-sonic factors and put it against the evidence. I
track my expectations and, later, my experiences of the sound. They
usually don't match.
But let's take me as an example. Lets say I've had N listening sessions
in my life. Let's say that I had taken notes on all my reactions, so
call the set of my reactions R (which contain R_i for i <= N). Let's
also say we could somehow quantify and qualify the context of each
listening session-- that is, we could somehow write down all the
non-audible factors that influenced me, such as my expectations, the
appearance of the equipment, my knowledge of its design, what my
friends had said to me on the way over, etc. Let's call the set of
contexts C (which contains C_i for i <= N).
Now let us suppose ALL of the equipment in my N listening sessions was
identical in sound, according to psycho-acoustics.
So where do all my reactions R come from? Are they in any way
correlated to C?
There are some experiments that can correlate some things. For example,
we know that if you let someone listen briefly, then throw a fake
switch and tell them how much better it will sound, and let them listen
again, very likely they will report it sounds better. So that part of
the context C-- the "fake switch"/short session context-- can be
correlated with R.
However, there's a heck of a lot in R that you haven't said anything
about, since most of my experience is not the "fake switch" nor short
session kind. It would seem to me that you should either make a stab at
explaining it quantitatively, or admit that R is random and
meaningless.
The problem with deciding that R is random and meaningless, is that
you've removed all responsibility for explaining anything in R. Then
there's no way of checking your psycho-acoustic theories again real
listening experiences.
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:44 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
On 8 Sep 2005 02:19:24 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Not everything needs a scientific explanation or justification. My
choice of car, for instance, need not be sanctioned by any scientist or
scientific organization.
|
Unless you built it yourself (including the engine), it has in fact
been sanctioned by upwards of a dozen scientific organisations, who
won't let you choose one which does not meet their standards.
| Quote: | People make claims every day that are 'true' (or true enough) but do
not meet scientific standards, and these do not cause any concern.
("Pepsi is sweeter than Coke". "Michelin tires give great mileage". "93
octane gas gives better performance.") Why do you fixate on audio?
What is it about ordinary everyday claims in audio that brings out this
sort of response?
|
Propably people who don't believe that high octane petrol improves
performance. BTW, you can't buy petrol that bad in the UK..........
| Quote: | If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me
that I'm wasting my money?
|
I use 97. I get about 2 mpg better mileage, which just about covers
the extra cost, and more power, which is why I buy it. That you seem
unaware of this scientific fact is unsurprising.
| Quote: | It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons
are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for
constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be
rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they
should be.
|
So stop making baseless assertions about what you think you hear.
| Quote: | They need be only as rigorous as I need.
Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it
out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you
try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out
CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the
mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact
they were inferior to what I had.
|
As it happens, I also use a mid-fi Sony, The CDP-715E from 1995, which
has stood up against all-comers to date. Not of course by beiong
'better', but by being *the same* as other good players.
| Quote: | I have long experience with making product comparisons in photography.
I own Leica equipment, and I have 'tested' my camera lenses and
enlarging lenses against the competition (they ALWAYS win). I have also
compared color/B&W films, B&W developers, and B&W papers. These
comparisons are always revealing, even if the products are not suitable
for my use.
|
I use Zeiss, and you wouldn't win. This argument is of course *much*
older than anything in audio! :-)
| Quote: | I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my
own satisfaction and that of others. In some cases, interpretation of
the results is necessary to the uninitiated, who simply don't notice at
first the subtler differences. Once these subtler differences are
pointed out, then they can recognize these sorts of differences in
future. In other words, just because someone needs to have astigmatism
in a photograph explained and pointed out does not mean that it was not
there before, or that it is not a significant flaw in a lens design. On
the other hand, I have had people refuse to look at the images I
presented to them, saying that cheap lenses were just as good, and that
you were 'just paying for the name'. I know this is false, and I
suspect the same attitude is behind this constant barrage of put-downs
of those who claim they hear differences in audio cables and
amplifiers.
|
OTOH, I have about 7,000 Kodachrome 25 slides in my archive, and
perhaps a dozen of them have images whose quality is limited by lens
resolution and geometry.
OTGH, I have yet to encounter *anyone* who can hear differences among
cables, despite many baseless assertions to the contrary.
| Quote: | I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing
audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of
'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972.
|
I am sure that's true - but you still can't hear differences among
cables.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:44 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
| Quote: | Sufficient for WHOM? And what qualifies as 'scientific'? That in itelf
is controversial.
Not at all. By scientific standards, a sighted claim of
audible difference, absent any independent support, is simply
inadequate as proof of real difference.
|
You use the term 'scientific' when the term itself is undefined, and
when exactly what constitutes a 'scientific' audio/listening test is
itself controversial. But I think we must agree that such a comparison
must be 'objective' and 'sensitive'. This means that the same
(familiar) conditions used to listen to Product A must be used to
listen to Product B, and that the system's other components must be of
high overall quality. To listen in an unfamiliar environment is a
recipe for disaster.
| Quote: | I listen under conditions that meet MY criteria. That includes a rather
quiet, late-night environment, no illumination, and excellent,
familiar, recordings. If any differences are there to be heard, they
will be heard under those conditions or else they're too subtle to be
worthwhile.
How would you verify this? Or do you believe that error is impossible
under these circumstances?
|
I don't believe error is impossible, but I believe that taking the
precautions I did take were sufficient to assure a high degree of
reliability in the results. I listened in the dark and repeated the
comparisons over several evenings. The results were consistent and
unmistakable.
| Quote: | Audiophiles don't like being told that, but it's an entirely
uncontroversial fact, to a scientist.
That's irrelevant, because we're not acting as scientists, nor are we
claiming to. What scientists think here is irrelevant to our purposes.
But when audiophiles start talking about *why* they heard what they
heard, they move directly into the realm of science.
|
There is a difference between forming an hypothesis and conducting a
full-blown examination of that hypothesis on the one hand, and
performing a 'casual' comparison for evaluating a potential purchase on
the other. Such a comparison does not warrant a full-blown 'scientific'
protocol (whatever that is). It merely needs to be 'objective' and
'sensitive'. The hypothesis police are not needed or wanted.
| Quote: | Not everything needs a scientific explanation or justification. My
choice of car, for instance, need not be sanctioned by any scientist or
scientific organization.
Of course not. But the reasons you publicly provide for that
choice can either be make scientific sense, or not.
|
That is a matter of some controversy in itself. We all know that even
the most rigorous research is not always conclusive and without error.
But, even if someone happens to be wrong about a whether a particular
product (cables or amplifiers) 'REALLY' is better, what difference does
it make to YOU? Making a purchase is not the same sort of thing as
submitting a research paper to a peer-reviewed journal, now is it?
You're applying a standard where it has no place. It's quite literally
none of your business.
| Quote: | Buying a red car because you like red more than other colors,
is utterly unobjectionable from a scientific standpoint.
Buying a red car because you think red makes a car go
faster, is quite objectionable from a scientific standpoint.
|
No, it is not. People are permitted to believe anything they want,
however nonsensical it may appear to you or me. If, however, they want
to publish such a claim in 'Nature', then you certainly have a valid
point, and there are mechanisms in place to weed out such foolishness.
It's all a matter of context.
| Quote: | Audiophile claims tend to be of the latter type, alas.
|
They are not 'claims' in the same sense as a submission to 'Nature'.
There are different levels of 'seriousness' in claims. I play tennis,
and I string my racquets with natural beef gut. There are players I run
into who swear it makes no difference, or 'is not worth the cost' and I
politely ignore them. They are mistaken: Cheap, and mistaken. I do not
believe it is my solemn duty to harangue them every time I see them at
the courts and tie up their time arguing about the superiority of gut,
and how cheap they are. It's impolite.
The same applies here. People come here to discuss high-end audio.
Constantly haranguing them about 'DBT protocol' and the like is frankly
impolite. It is NOT educative.
| Quote: | People make claims every day that are 'true' (or true enough) but do
not meet scientific standards, and these do not cause any concern.
("Pepsi is sweeter than Coke". "Michelin tires give great mileage". "93
octane gas gives better performance.")
All of those are verifiable scientifically, so the could certainly
cause concern among those who care. And I expect that they do.
|
But that's not the point. These claims are not being made in a research
paper being submitted to 'Nature', are they? They are 'informal'
claims. They are in principle, refutable. So are claims about audio
amplifiers and cables, but the process is inherently subjective and not
without controversy. It involves an observer whose only way of making
the determination is by listening.
| Quote: |
Why do you fixate on audio?
On rec.audio.high-end? It seems to make a certain sense.
|
HUH?
| Quote: | What is it about ordinary everyday claims in audio that brings out this
sort of response?
Probably the same thing that brings out this sort of response
when quack medical claims are made on other forums.
If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me
that I'm wasting my money?
Depends on your stated reason for using 94 octane.
|
No, it does not.
| Quote: | If you happen to simply like the number '94', I certainly won't
tell you you're wasting your money. But if you claim to
use 94 octane because it makes your car perform better, and
there is good reason to believe it doesn't, then I'll be happy
to inform you of that.
|
I didn't ask you.
| Quote: | But more likely, I'd leave that sort of education to Stewart P.
He knows loads more about cars than I do.
It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons
are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for
constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be
rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they
should be.
;
And who are you to tell me what my place is?
|
The one making the purchase. This seems, shall we say, obvious, nicht
wahr?
| Quote: | They need be only as rigorous as I need.
If you are upset when people question your
claims on a public forum
and the logic behind them, might I suggest you either refrain
from making such claims, or else ensuring that they are
unobjectionable?
|
No, that's not the problem. This is a discussion group whose purpose is
to serve those who wish to discuss high-end audio products. It was
never intended to serve those who want to turn such discussions into a
peer-reviewed process like for journal 'Nature'. It's impolite to do
so.
| Quote: | Typical high-end audio shops let you take home a product and try it
out. Whatever method you use to 'try it out' is fine with them. If you
try it out and don't like it, then you bring it back. I have tried out
CD players (JVC, Yamaha?) that were supposed to be better than the
mid-fi Sony (1988 model) I already owned. They were not better: in fact
they were inferior to what I had.
Well, there's the thing...you don't know 'in fact' if they were
inferior in any objective sense.
|
Says who? And why do you care? It's none of your business.
| Quote: | I'm afraid you don't even know
if they really sounded different.
|
It does not matter. It's MY money.
| Quote: | I have long experience with making product comparisons in photography.
I own Leica equipment, and I have 'tested' my camera lenses and
enlarging lenses against the competition (they ALWAYS win). I have also
compared color/B&W films, B&W developers, and B&W papers. These
comparisons are always revealing, even if the products are not suitable
for my use.
I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my
own satisfaction and that of others. In some cases, interpretation of
the results is necessary to the uninitiated, who simply don't notice at
first the subtler differences. Once these subtler differences are
pointed out, then they can recognize these sorts of differences in
future. In other words, just because someone needs to have astigmatism
in a photograph explained and pointed out does not mean that it was not
there before, or that it is not a significant flaw in a lens design. On
the other hand, I have had people refuse to look at the images I
presented to them, saying that cheap lenses were just as good, and that
you were 'just paying for the name'. I know this is false, and I
suspect the same attitude is behind this constant barrage of put-downs
of those who claim they hear differences in audio cables and
amplifiers.
Many things *are* of course really different. But it is also the
case that not everything we *perceive* as different, really is.
|
It does not matter. The time and expense necessary to determine whether
or not it is or isn't, is not warranted in the context under
discussion. In any case, no harm is done to anyone, as no-one is
required to buy expensive cables or amplifiers.
| Quote: | I strongly suspect that a learning cuve occurs in those performing
audio product comparisons. I am sure that today I am capable of
'picking up' audio product differences that I would not have in 1972.
Quite possibly so. But that doesn't mean you have become immune
to psychological bias.
|
It does not matter. I have been happy with my purchase of every audio
product I have made (for a while, at least). I have made the purchases
based on comparisons in my home, and I feel strongly that each purchase
decision is more than fully justified given the performance levels
achieved with the new product, AND that the procedure used to perform
the comparison was objective and sensitive. I cannot be sure that the
people who have been subjected to DBT or ABX tests are as good at
listening in THAT environment as I am in MY environment, and therefore
their ability or inability to identify cables or amplifiers under those
conditions is of absolutely no validity or applicability in MY
environment. I have no interest in indulging those who insist that I be
subjected to such a test, when I all I am going to do is to listen in
MY environment. In other words, all that matters is what the product
'sounds like' in MY environment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in