Or we work in the industry and actively use the methodology to improve our products without putting money into the cost of the product that has no value ....
cleeds2,472 posts10-22-2019 10:35amgeoffkaitIt was only a matter of time before controlled double-blind testing reared it’s ugly head. By now you would have thought everybody and his brother knows the results of a double blind test don’t mean anything, anymore than any other kind of test. It’s unfortunate that it’s virtually impossible to reasonably discuss controlled double-blind testing here. Its advocates seem to suffer from nearly religious fervor, which is an obstacle to conversation.
Such tests have very limited value to the typical audiophile. Those who profess the greatest interest in these tests often seem to have a very limited understanding of not only proper test protocols, but how to interpret the results of such tests. So the discussions lead nowhere.
What I’ve observed over the years is this: Those who most noisily proclaim the necessity and value of controlled double-blind testing very rarely conduct such tests themselves. Why is that? I suspect many references to such tests are just red herrings. |
This concept of "I know my system intimately and would notice any change" was blown out of the water a few years back when a bunch of audiophiles (high end) were given a box, either a placebo (straight wire) or a device that injected serious distortion into their system (on the order of 2.5%). That box was to be placed in their system, and they could add/remove the box, leave it in or out as long as they wanted, etc. and they just had to report back whether they got the placebo or the distortion box. The end result is that this experienced, high end audiophiles couldn't tell if they had the distortion box or not. Their results were no better than random guesses. When the same test was done under controlled conditions (blind testing, fast changes), untrained listeners quickly picked up the distortion adding box reliably. The real reality is room humidity, our mood, our at that moment health, the stressors of the day, the exact spot we are sitting, etc. have far more impact on what we perceive than just about any "tweak". The only possible way to separate the "tweak" from all those variables above is to isolate all those variables so that only the tweak is what changes ... that is why rapid switching reveals differences far more reliably than ad-hoc methods. w.r.t. your car, I could probably take a few PSI (kPa) out of your tires and you would not notice, you certainly would not be sure. However, if I could rapidly change it, you would know right away.
rodman999994,105 posts10-22-2019 10:49amOn another thread, Elizabeth brought up a subject, that is typically ignored in these conversations. ie: Familiarity(with the system being altered/used as a test platform). Hours spent in a car familiarize it’s owner with the overall sound of it’s operation. Slight perturbations/changes in those sounds, will usually go unnoticed by an infrequent passenger, but will(generally) be obvious to the owner. My system’s presentation has aspects, with which I’m intimately familiar, when reference material(call that a, "control") is played. When something(fuse, cable, outlet, vibration control, whatever) is replaced, and that changes an aspect of my system’s presentation; it’s going to be much more noticeable to my ears, than anyone else’s(again: usually, because- there are variables). Einstein theorized/realized(and it bugged him) what The Hubble Space Telescope confirmed, in the 90’s. ie: Around 95% of our universe, is comprised of stuff, no one understands or knows how to measure(but- to which unexplained phenomena point). (https://home.cern/science/physics/dark-matter) I have no problem, trusting my ears to tell me when/if things have improved in my system’s sound(unexplained phenomena/various controversial means), without knowing the precise mechanism. No one has ever proven(or- categorically disproven) anything, through endless theories, conjecture and rhetoric. Theories are proven through experimentation and measurement. But- you have to know WHAT and HOW to measure. In the case of expanding our musical enjoyment, it starts by listening to something new, if we care enough. Anyone else’s having convinced themselves otherwise, through whatever process, should not dissuade anyone else(that cares about sound) from experimentation. |
A single test, whether controlled double-blind or any other kind of test, is simply a data point. Therefore, no conclusions should be drawn. Certainly not proof of anything. It’s only when the test results have been repeated on the same system and on other systems by other individuals can inferences be made. It’s a question of evidence accumulating over time, it’s not about proof. The motivation of the tester should should also be examined. 😬
|
rodman99999... Hours spent in a car familiarize it’s
owner with the overall sound of it’s operation. Slight
perturbations/changes in those sounds, will usually go unnoticed by an
infrequent passenger, but will(generally) be obvious to the owner.
My system’s presentation has aspects, with which I’m intimately
familiar, when reference material(call that a, "control") is played.
When something(fuse, cable, outlet, vibration control, whatever) is
replaced, and that changes an aspect of my system’s presentation; it’s
going to be much more noticeable to my ears, than anyone else’s
... That is a very good point and absolutely true. It drives some of the measurementalists here crazy to acknowledge that simple fact, as evidenced two posts above.
|
I suppose; some are so lithocephalic(an indicator of hubris), that they’re incapable of noticing another’s use of words like, "generally", "variables", "usually", etc. And, again(my point): Anyone’s having convinced themselves otherwise, through whatever process, should not dissuade another(that cares about sound) from experimentation. ie: Listening/testing/exploring, on their system, with their ears. |
