Audio Science Review = "The better the measurement, the better the sound" philosophy

So tantejuut, is it your contention that, unlike the rest of the human species, you are totally immune from perceptual bias effects?  That you just couldn't be wrong in what you perceive when you "hear" something?

No. The assumptions about my hearing capabilities and my openness to learning sound a bit dogmatic. I think being right is more important then enjoying audio for some people. Have fun measuring while I hallucinate and trip on my silver wires ;)

I have seen this stated more than once "Science is observation then measurement". It's not really how it works,  it would be "verifiable observation". Science has no interest in measuring every non verified observation. "I saw a leprechaun hiding gold under a rainbow" isn't a verified observation neither is" I heard differences swapping power cords".  If you heard differences between power cords during a controlled blind test then that's worth investigating. That's a verified observation. 

@prof, excellent and very thoughtful answer to my post.  I agree wholeheartedly that if something measures differently (and I referred to REW, and not just S/N, distortion figures, etc., because that theoretically should give you lots of data points that show a difference when something is changed in your system, since something should change in some of that data if it sounds different). If you think that there is a difference, despite no objective support for it, A/B testing is the perfect way to eliminate confirmation bias.  Can a difference in depth of soundstage, or positioning of instruments within a soundstage be objectively measured?  I don't know the answer to that. What role does confirmation bias play in me believing that I hear a difference?  I don't know the answer to that either, although I like to think that I am being objective. I replaced an Audience Power Chord that I had used for a long time on my DAC with a $$$ Shunyata one (same length, but slightly lower AWG after liking what they did for my Preamp (over stock) and speakers.  I can honestly say that I hear no real difference . . . maybe an ever so slight improvement, but that could definitely be representative of a struggle to hear a difference because I expect/want a difference -- the paradigm of confirmation bias.

 But as you accurately point out, whatever the answers are, A/B testing should yield a consistent result that eliminates confirmation bias. That is why I am surprised that A/B testing is not more widely accepted here on AudioGon.  A very interesting thread as putting many manufacturers' claims to objective tests has always been an interest of mine.  Thanks for the thoughtful response.

@crymeanaudioriver I personally would love to participate in A/B testing for anything, but especially the seemingly wild claims of things like the Shun Mook, Stillpoints that you scatter around, risers that elevate cables off the floor, that weird brass salad bowl that "snaps the soundstage into focus," etc.. . every manufacturer has some sales patter regarding how their tweak real works, but no one really cites either objective measurements or the results of A/B testing. That would be a lot of fun! Maybe some tweaks manufacturers would be willing to do some A/B testing at Axpona?

Have fun measuring while I hallucinate and trip on my silver wires ;)

Since when does saying ALL humans have perceptual biases the same as saying someone is hallucinating? The rejection of basic science here is mindboggling.

@crymeanaudioriver 

Indeed.  I'm always conscious that there are other people reading who are more open-minded.

A lot of the rancor comes, as I mentioned, from the problem that some of us "don't know what we don't know."   And then that ignorance is projected.

So often one sees an appeal to "But this is mysterious, WE don't know the answers to this" or "Science doesn't know everything, and Science doesn't have the answer for the phenomenon I'm describing!"    Which is often just another way of saying "I'm ignorant of the science on this subject" and then projecting that ignorance on to science or anyone else who is aware of the science.

There certainly are jerks on all sides of an issue.  But in terms of the basic approach, the "objectivist/ASR-type member" is starting with acknowledging the inherent limitations and fallibility of our human condition.  And then going on to ask "ok, how can we account for fallibility in our method of inquiry?"  It's a personal acknowledgement of fallibility as it is a general acknowledgement about our species. "I Could Be Wrong" is the fundamental starting point of the inquiry.

On the other hand, we have folks who are Absolutely Certain of the reliability of their perception.  It's unshakable - and if you try to bring any objective or control methods to the claim, those methods will be faulted, never that individual's belief.

And since this is essentially a religious-faith-like stance of personal dogmatism, it tends to lead to rancor.  The "belief and confidence in what I hear" is wrapped up in someone's view of themselves, and they think it can't be challenged lest the whole thing fall like a house of cards (since they won't accept the "way out" offered by more objective inquiry).  Therefore there isn't much else left to say "I heard it, that's that" and the only recourse is ultimately feelings of insult "how dare you try to tell me I didn't hear what I KNOW I heard!" and so we get lots of ad hominem.

As I've said, this Purely Subjective approach leaves no way to ever adjudicate truth claims about audio gear.  If the idea is that our perception is the Ultimate Arbitor, then in the very same setting evaluating equipment, audiophile A can say "I heard a difference between these cables" which is supposed to mean 'therefore there is a change in the signal.'  But if audiophile B is there using precisely the same method and reports "I don't hear any difference" then that should stand as a refutation of the first audiophile's claim.  But it never is, because audiophile A will always say "Sorry, I'm not wrong, it looks like your hearing just isn't as acute as mine because I know I hear the difference!"    It's a completely unfalsifiable method in this sense.

And the problem with unfalsifiable claims which resort to ad hoc reasoning like this is that they are consistent with any observation (I hear a difference, if someone else does it confirms my claim, if they don't, they simply can't hear the difference), and hence do not predict any observation.

Now, nobody HAS to give a damn about any of this.  No audiophile has to be a consistent thinker, or aware of all the science, or do any scientific or rigorous inquiry AT ALL when choosing gear.  But the issue is that people will inevitably make claims of truth from their experience, with unshakable conviction, and that's where we end up in this mess.