The Absolute Sound vs Pleasing Sound

Effectively you are trying to use bias as a positive variable in the reproduction of sound. That is what you are writing, whether you realize it or not.

You are right in this sentence and remark for sure ... I NEVER contested that... I contest your AFFIRMATION that ALL what i perceived is ONLY deception...

What do you think, that i am NOT conscious of the deceptive powers of any bias? I am and it is for this reason that listening experiments are necessary and blind test also...

I repeat that from the beginning...Audiophiles must use their EARS...Biases included....Then how can you affirm that i am not conscious of that? For sure you think i am an idiot...But audiophiles must conduct listening experiments also even blind test if possible for some very small debatable audible change... Why not?

You are obsess by your own agenda and unable to read ANY of my post...

I never contested the fact that i have biases like all people, and i used them for sure creating my own audio system myself...It is EVIDENT fact.....Biases are not something negative to be elimated always and at all times, sometimes it is a learned useful sum of habits that created a real phenomenon of their own with different meaning for different people but anyway a real phenomenon...

My last device a mechanical equalizer is fine tuned by my BIASES and specifically structured EARS only.... Who negate this fact? not me nor anyone with a minimal I.Q. i will never pretend that this tuning will be pure objective optimal perfection for all ears others than mine.... This is precisely the gist and goal and usefulness of this no cost project...




Then if i did not contested this point what is the reason for me to argue with you?


FIRST-

It is precisely the fact , an epistemologically precise one in acoustic science, that some phenomena COULD not be studied with the elimination of ALL biases, save at the cost of erasing the phenomena under study itself, like the timbre musical perception of a playing instrument and his perception by the artist or the listener which are 2 different phenomena which may be and can be connected tough...

SECOND-

The central epistemological truth is also that you CANNOT conclude after a blind test to a POSITIVE demonstration of inexistance of some phenomena by only the absolute virtue of the blind test itself only....

Blind test are useful for eliminating biases from a tested drug in statistical studies.... NOT IN EMPIRICAL science like acoustic to prove the existence or inexistance of phenomena...The reason is simple some phenomena are discernible and experienced in some context and environment not in others...The biases here are habits in a very definite environment and the habits Are LEARNED way to navigate in this environment... Change the environment and the perceptive habits decline...Change the perceptive habits and the environment is erased... Do you understand this SUBTLE point?






Your favorite tactic in discussing is the fallacy which consist in attributing to someone an argument which is NOT his argument but your own accusation disguised... Read that 2 times, spelling it....

I am in favor of blind test, why not? Whose the fool who is not in favor of their use or against them by principle ?

I am in favor of their use NOT FOR DECIDING what is real or unreal in objective realm and in subjective realm in the absolute sense tough and this is the CRUX of the matter... Only for investigating the border between these double 2, the real and unreal in objective reality and in subjective reality also, which in acoustic like in many science is not a definite "line" but some country in itself separating the objective and the subjective and created by their interpenetration....I am opposite to their errenous conclusion, not the use of blind test, especially when these conclusions consist to negate the fundamental existence of some reality by reducing it ONLY to material measurable one...

Perhaps my thinking is a bit too complex for your "analytical superior power"... Then you may persist and going on with the false accusation that i dont want blind test or negate them.... I negate the false use and propaganda linked to blind test by scientism ... Not the blind test in their own legit range of application....

James Randi is not Einstein... And even a debunker can bunker himself easily....

Epistemological studies are not comic books illustrated by conjuring tricks and optical illusions...

Audio is not about scientific testing of one’s hearing or memory, it’s about enjoying the music.

His pleasure and goal here seems to be proving that all audiophiles are idiots hypnotized by their biases and unable to read reality: which is first and last a measured dial numbers on an apparatus...They prefer their "illusion" to "reality"....They are deluded...

I dont even know why i discuss with him save for the fact that i am in my own way "idiot"....I prefer to think that i am passionate.... But it is my bias no?

**** However, absolutes are transferable, and yes, there are absolutes. ****

NOW you’re getting somewhere.  

To my point, biases are not transferable, not in audio, not even in society, even if many share the same biases. There is no way of knowing. However, absolutes are transferable, and yes, there are absolutes.

Head coinciding with the location of ass is called gymnastic not epistemology...




The important words in your sentences here is the beginning unconscious wording : " To my point.. "
which can be translated by : never mind the accepted meaning of " bias", for my agenda the meaning of "bias" is......


The problem is there exist a general definition of the word "bias"

I will use wikipedia definition:

«

Bias is a disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing, usually in a way that is closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. Biases can be innate or learned. People may develop biases for or against an individual, a group, or a belief.[1] In science and engineering, a bias is a systematic error. Statistical bias results from an unfair sampling of a population, or from an estimation process that does not give accurate results on average.[2]»

Reading the citation i extracted from your post and the wiki general definition demonstrate clearly that you dont know what is a bias objectively... IT CAN BE "INNATE OR LEARNED"....Contrary to what you explicitly said.... And the 2 at the same time yes...

I will add to the uncomplete wiki definition that a bias could also be the 2 at the same times, innate AND learned in specific collective and cultural context....

You said that "biases" are not transferable nor learned but the general accepted definition says like i said myself all the times in all my posts here, to no avail, that they are...

Not surprizing that with 2 defiintion of the word "bias", a true one and a false one, the discussion is impossible with you...

The only absolute reality transferable for you is the objective reading of a number on a measuring dial... 

Which is the fallacy of the measuring gear measuring itself without needing a brain to interpret it with his learned biases... Your notion of Science is like the the well known baron lifting itself by his own hairs...This is your "gymnastic"...You called this gymnastic science...I called it technocratic deception or superstition...

You reduced "bias" to the partial view of being something impeding with the lecture of your own measuring dial apparatus in digital engineering in ALL your posts...Timbre perception is an audiophile taste only, not a real complex concept in acoustic.... Imaging concept is reducible to physical design of speakers location, specific drivers types  etc All that is erroneous and limited narrow views of these deep acoustical concepts...

Why is the word " bias" related to a " SYSTEMATIC error" in the general definition?

Because a bias is a concept primarily belonging to statistic methodology ....

Then using blind test and bias out of a statistical context to prove an agenda about what is real or not, what is subjective and objective or not, in an absolute sense, is an abuse of the scientific methodology...Especially when we called "bias" anything which impede with our own agenda...The confirming bias fallacy here :Blindtest ONLY confirm reality and all that exist really could be confirm to exist by blind test...

But you reduced from the beginning "bias" to the partial view of being anything impeding with the lecture of your own measuring dial apparatus in digital engineering...Then audiophiles unable to read and trust only these dials are deceived idiots...

The problem is your view of reality is simplistic if not childish, a technological fad and habit....

Guess who is deceived here, and worst, deceiving others?