Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

Mapman you dont seems to realize that anybody with a brain can only welcome the measures set Amir gave and say thanks... No problem here...Because i have a brain i thank Amir ...For the 17th time...

But you seems to forget that Amir dont present them as only useful measures faisification and verification but as AUDIBLE TRUTH and more than that the ONLY AUDIBLE TRUTH , anything else being subjective illusions with no value ...

Thats the problem... A falsehood submitted as truth to promote an ideology and a site..

Just saying ...

So what we have is people standing up for individual choice and saying I don’t care about measurements, I’ll do it my way. Ok fine! That’s how it should be.

But then you have a guy who tries to scientifically measure things and that’s his way. He also has a website to publish the info and many choose to value that because they value metrics.

But now the guy who chooses metrics is chastised for doing it his way He can do more than most anyone in this area and collect technical data that can help people make decisions but the “libertarians” can’t handle THAT guy deciding for himself how to do things because they don’t like the way he does things. They’d like him to be silenced

This is a common phenomena that we witness everyday on the internet, talk shows etc. people want the right for themselves to be free and do it their way but not the people they disagree with. That’s being a hypocrite with a capital H .

The fact is many who want freedom for themselves can’t handle when others who are different want the same freedom. They think they are right and other guy wrong so he should be stopped.

Take note. Hypocritical libertarians are everywhere. Politicians know this and take full advantage.

Just saying.

Again, I’m thankful to rodman99999 for providing the longer quotes from Feynman

which serve so well to support the point I’d been making (as well as Amir).

Let’s take this section:

FEYNMAN: It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it.

I think a nice example of how this can work is the infamous Opera Experiment that purported to detect faster-than-light neutrinos:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly

The team of physicists upon finding the anomoly in their results knew how momentous it would be, and so they checked and double checked their findilngs looking for any way things could have gone wrong. They re-ran the experiment, getting the same results, and when months of doing everything they could to find errors was finished, the announced the results. However, being good scientists they understood the extraordinary nature of the results and presented it to other scientists saying basically "Look, we got these unexpected results. We’ve done everything we can to trace possible biases, influences or technical issues in our experiment...but we are presenting the results so you can double check our work, and hopefully replicate the results."

Various possible flaws were suggested, and then the Opera scientists later...just as Feynman would council - reported some possible flaws in their experiment they’d discovered. Further investigation confirmed the flaws and that combined with others failing to replicate the results, dis-confirmed the initial "discovery."

Just as science should work - for either disconfirmation or confirmation.

Along those lines, in a much more modest level, I’ve tried to hew to these general principles when I’ve wanted to be more sure or rigorous about my conclusions.

For example I was curious about my Benchmark SS preamp I’d just bought vs my CJ tube preamp, in which the sonic differences seemed pretty obvious. Well...most here would say "of course they’d be obvious."

However, having done a variety of blind testing over the years - AC cables, video cables, DACs/CDPs, music servers - I’m familiar with how "obvious" sonic differences can feel under the influence of sighted bias - e.g., when you know what it is you are listening to. I’ve had "obvious" sonic differences vanish when I wasn’t allowed to know which was which. It’s very educational.

It was entirely possible that I could be perceiving a sonic difference because of my perception being swayed by those wonderful "warm, glowing tubes...of course it’s going to sound different!"

So, again, as Feynman would advise: the first rule is not to fool yourself as you are the easiest person to fool. And since I know sighted bias is a big variable, I attempted a blind test to reduce the possibility of "fooling myself." I took various other steps to reduce "fooling myself" - ensuring there wasn’t a way I could tell which preamp was being switched to, ensuring the switching was randomized, trying to ensure the levels were matched so as to account for loudness bias, etc.

When I did my best...once again in concert with what Feynman would advise...I presented the results for other people to critique:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/blind-test-results-benchmark-la4-vs-conrad-johnson-tube-preamp.33571/

As Feynman advised, I made sure to add as much detail about my method as I could, INCLUDING areas where I thought flaws could arise. And then I answered every question, I could about my method, took some suggestions to double check certain aspects and looked at how others assessed the results.

It wasn’t a scientific-level of rigor, but I think it was in the spirit of the scientific mindset/approach in the sense of all the above.

So I think I get fairly close to walking-the-walk in such instances with some of my own testing.

I wonder if rodman or others can show any of their audio tests havea similar level of steps put in place to "not fool yourself" as well as presenting the results looking for others to critique?

This, btw, is also generally what Amir does. He presents his results with plenty of detail about his METHOD and RESULTS so there is plenty of information given on which people can critique the method or results. It's not just "I put this in my system and I heard X, trust me!"  It's "here, YOU can look for yourself at my DATA to see if I'm wrong."   He presents it to the more general public on his youtube channel, and in the ASR forum in which he knows there are plenty of technically informed people who can help catch problems. And this is what goes on at ASR all the time.

Yeah @amir_asr your posted results for the listening test are meaningless and unverifiable. No way to know you did that unless it was proctored like @soundfield says 

There is a proctor: it is called a computer.  In comparing files, a computer program randomizes trials, keeps the results and summarizes and reports them at the end. 

As to verification, I showed you video where I explain precisely how I passed the test and how you too -- assuming you have critical listening abilities -- can do the same.  

Furthermore, newer versions of the ABX comparator has a cryptographic hash which makes it impossible to doctor the results:

foo_abx 2.0 beta 4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.5
2014-12-09 14:24:40

File A: 30 Hz jitter strong level .025.flac
SHA1: 54719c17fd29d0546b79f50bd7e3c61de1dd025d
File B: no jitter.flac
SHA1: 262cd6c4d4c73502a0142f867b00aae013fd13ce

Output:
DS : Primary Sound Driver

14:24:40 : Test started.
14:25:00 : 01/01
14:25:06 : 02/02
14:25:16 : 03/03
14:25:21 : 04/04
14:25:27 : 05/05
14:25:34 : 06/06
14:25:39 : 07/07
14:25:45 : 08/08
14:25:51 : 09/09
14:25:56 : 10/10
14:25:56 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 10/10
Probability that you were guessing: 0.1%

-- signature --
ba16bda939028d34d8b131283f9d46709dab36f9

You run the above result against a signature check program and it will give thumbs up/down as to whether the results are hand modified.

So no, you have many ways to build confidence on such results and I have given you reasons above.

Ultimately though, if we are going to doubt each other's ethics, then we can't go anywhere.  I could accuse you of being AJ for example. You could jump up and down 1000 times and I can still say you are him.  What are you going to do then?  Accept that you could be AJ?

If these results can be gamed so easily, why don't you, AJ or whoever show us that?  If you can't, then you don't know how they can be games and therefore, all you have is FUD, not facts.

Ok, so you confirm those are indeed signal analyzers, Oscilloscopes etc that could theoretically real time analyze and identify signals, visibly. Cool.

What theory?  Two files that are presented as 24 bit/96 kHz while in reality one has a true dynamic range of 16 bits, can NOT be analyzed with any tool I have.  A smart signal processing person made sure of that.

BTW, a digital scope has at best 12 bits of resolution (most are 8 bits).  Yet you think that can be used to detect high-res music at 24 bits vs 16 bit audio?

So no, you don't get to waive your hands and claim this and that.  Learn the real theory, and the capabilities of the measurement devices, and then we can at least have a conversation. 

Bottom line: no analyzer of any sort was used in any of my testing.  You don't have any evidence to the contrary other than your incredulity that someone like me could pass such tests.  Well, tough.  I did pass them and I explain the science and signal processing of each. 

You wrote too long post prof... 😊

How about the techno cultist bias equatiing a set of electrical measures designed to verify the well behaviour of circuits and components as the ONLY VALID PREDICTION about the STATUS and VALUE of audible qualities as described in psycho-acoustic experiments and in ecological hearing theories as more than just Fourier maps made of linearly related abstract concepts as frequencies, amplitude, phase and duration ? All these abstract mathematical factors are not able alone to explain and describe why and how the brain work in his time dependant domain ( rise and decay not decay and then rise ) and with his non linear QUALITATIVE and evaluating perception ?

No bias here ?

Are you able to read an article ?

Read Magnasco and Oppenheim experiment and explain the meaning , we will se if you understand it...

It is not always our bias who fool us, it is some adopted bias we borrow from someone else... by the way we cannot suppress ALL of our biases... We can only became conscious of some of them... our personal history is the history of our biases for the best or for the worst.... You read Feynman as if when he spoke he was a schoolboy thinking only about a blind test ... Biases are not all bad, we must train our mind and perception with the right set of biases... Biases can be acquired... Acoustician for example and musician are trained "golden ears"...

Again, I’m thankful to rodman99999 for providing the longer quotes from Feynman which serve so well to support the point I’d been making (as well as Amir). Let’s take this section: FEYNMAN: It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it.   I think a nice example of how this can work is the infamous Opera Experiment that purported to detect faster-than-light neutrinos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly The team of physicists upon finding the anomoly in their results knew how momentous it would be, and so they checked and double checked their findilngs looking for any way things could have gone wrong. They re-ran the experiment, getting the same results, and when months of doing everything they could to find errors was finished, the announced the results. However, being good scientists they understood the extraordinary nature of the results and presented it to other scientists saying basically "Look, we got these unexpected results. We’ve done everything we can to trace possible biases, influences or technical issues in our experiment...but we are presenting the results so you can double check our work, and hopefully replicate the results." Various possible flaws were suggested, and then the Opera scientists later...just as Feynman would council - reported some possible flaws in their experiment they’d discovered. Further investigation confirmed the flaws and that combined with others failing to replicate the results, dis-confirmed the initial "discovery." Just as science should work - for either disconfirmation or confirmation. Along those lines, in a much more modest level, I’ve tried to hew to these general principles when I’ve wanted to be more sure or rigorous about my conclusions. For example I was curious about my Benchmark SS preamp I’d just bought vs my CJ tube preamp, in which the sonic differences seemed pretty obvious. Well...most here would say "of course they’d be obvious." However, having done a variety of blind testing over the years - AC cables, video cables, DACs/CDPs, music servers - I’m familiar with how "obvious" sonic differences can feel under the influence of sighted bias - e.g., when you know what it is you are listening to. I’ve had "obvious" sonic differences vanish when I wasn’t allowed to know which was which. It’s very educational. It was entirely possible that I could be perceiving a sonic difference because of my perception being swayed by those wonderful "warm, glowing tubes...of course it’s going to sound different!" So, again, as Feynman would advise: the first rule is not to fool yourself as you are the easiest person to fool. And since I know sighted bias is a big variable, I attempted a blind test to reduce the possibility of "fooling myself." I took various other steps to reduce "fooling myself" - ensuring there wasn’t a way I could tell which preamp was being switched to, ensuring the switching was randomized, trying to ensure the levels were matched so as to account for loudness bias, etc. When I did my best...once again in concert with what Feynman would advise...I presented the results for other people to critique: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/blind-test-results-benchmark-la4-vs-conrad-johnson-tube-preamp.33571/ As Feynman advised, I made sure to add as much detail about my method as I could, INCLUDING areas where I thought flaws could arise. And then I answered every question, I could about my method, took some suggestions to double check certain aspects and looked at how others assessed the results. It wasn’t a scientific-level of rigor, but I think it was in the spirit of the scientific mindset/approach in the sense of all the above. So I think I get fairly close to walking-the-walk in such instances with some of my own testing. I wonder if rodman or others can show any of their audio tests havea similar level of steps put in place to "not fool yourself" as well as presenting the results looking for others to critique? This, btw, is also generally what Amir does. He presents his results with plenty of detail about his METHOD and RESULTS so there is plenty of information given on which people can critique the method or results. It’s not just "I put this in my system and I heard X, trust me!" It’s "here, YOU can look for yourself at my DATA to see if I’m wrong." He presents it to the more general public on his youtube channel, and in the ASR forum in which he knows there are plenty of technically informed people who can help catch problems. And this is what goes on at ASR all the time.