|   Can a naysayer be objective in a DBT? | okiemax
Nov 5, 2003 9:26 AM | | Suppose a naysayer is to participate in a DBT group comparing an audiophile cable with a zip cord. Being a naysayer, he does not believe speaker wires can be audibly different, a belief which will interfere with his ability to be an objective participant. Therefore, his participation will bias the results of the DBT.
Obviously, the way to avoid this kind of bias is to limit participation in DBT groups to yeasayers, since their belief in audible differences and the very nature of the test assures objectivity on their part. Groups consisting of listeners who have no preconcieved notions also could provide unbiased results.
This issue can't be avoided, however, when it comes to claims made by naysayers about their individual DBT results. If you don't believe a difference exists, how can you be relied on to find it? |
| can a yeasayer understand what a DBT is? | TomN
Nov 5, 2003 12:53 PM | | Your brief description leads me to believe you are not speaking of a true double blind test, but instead a test designed to only reinforce your particular believes, as such you may set any requirements you want for your test.
For a serious DBT, those participating in the test would not know what is being tested. Not only would they not know, that as in your example, zip cord and some other type of speaker wire is being tested for audible differences, but they would not even know the test is about speaker wire. They wouldn't know what was being tested. It could be speakers, ICs, amps, a CD player. Perhaps the test is for different recording parameters used in mastering work. The point is the subjects of the test, as well as the individuals involved in giving the test would not know. The only thing they can be certain of is that the test somehow involves audio reproduction, and even that is not 100 percent, since the test may actually be a disguised group psychology test instead, who knows!
For this and many other reasons, the make up of the those participating in the test does not need to be screened for yea or nay positions before testing.
If however you are talking about just a group of people getting together for a night of fun, then please don't invoke DBT, since in most cases that is not what is being done.
If you only wish to reinforce your prejudices, then you are well on your way to designing a successful test.
Tom N. |
| can a yeasayer understand what a DBT is? | okiemax
Nov 5, 2003 11:47 PM | | I don't recall seeing a true double-blind test of audio components described on the web. Is it a method that has been widely used in comparing components for audible differences? I think true double-blind might reduce bias, but not eliminate it.
Even though you don't tell participants what the double-blind test is about, the nature of the test may lead some to surmise it is a comparison of audio components. Consequently, the possibility of naysayer bias may not be eliminated, since many naysayers believe that among audio components only speakers are audibly different.
I suspect our main area of disagreement may be in how the hypothesis is stated. I would like the hypothesis to be as follows: audiophile speaker cable X and zip cord are audibly different to listeners who think they are different before the testing begins. I believe your hypothesis would cover a more general population group.
By definition naysayers would be excluded from my test. Also excluded would be anyone who claimed during pre-test that he could not hear a difference in the speaker cable and zip cord. Why ask the guy the same question 10 or 15 more times if he has already said he can't hear a difference. |
| can a yeasayer understand what a DBT is? | mtrycrafts
Nov 6, 2003 10:29 PM | | b I think true double-blind might reduce bias, but not eliminate it.
Actually, it accounts for it by the number of trials and statistical analysis.
b Is it a method that has been widely used in comparing components for audible differences?
Yes, for a very long time now but not by golden ears.
b Even though you don't tell participants what the double-blind test is about,
Actually, that is not part of the DBT protocol to hide the purpose of the test, or even the components you are comparing. What you do hide is the randomly selected X component that you are trying to identify as A or B component. X being A or B randomly selected and unknown to the test subject or the person conducting the test, hence the term doubl blind test.
b Consequently, the possibility of naysayer bias may not be eliminated, since many naysayers believe that among audio components only speakers are audibly different.
So, you are saying that they would lie about their response? You think we don't want to know the truth? Really?
b I would like the hypothesis to be as follows: audiophile speaker cable X and zip cord are audibly different to listeners who think they are different before the testing begins. I believe your hypothesis would cover a more general population group.
Good try but useless and not necessary to hypothesis testing. Rather silly.
b By definition naysayers would be excluded from my test.
That is unfortunate and your protocol would be flawed for it.
b Also excluded would be anyone who claimed during pre-test that he could not hear a difference in the speaker cable and zip cord.
Why have a pre test? But this you can do. Nothing is accomplished by retesting those people. And how would you knwo if they told you the truth or lied? YOu wouldn't. |
| Listener selection will introduce bias to a test meant to be unb | Swerd
Nov 5, 2003 2:17 PM | | You said:
b Obviously, the way to avoid this kind of bias is to limit participation in DBT groups to yeasayers. . .
Rather than assume this to be the case, why not test it? Include equal numbers of yeasayers and naysayer in the DBT, and see if there is any correlation with the results they record and their beliefs. |
| Listener selection will introduce bias to a test meant to be unb | okiemax
Nov 6, 2003 12:23 AM | | I like your suggestion. If the groups were large enough, analysis could be interesting. Who knows, maybe their results would be identical. |
| Listener selection will introduce bias to a test meant to be unb | mtrycrafts
Nov 6, 2003 10:30 PM | | b Who knows, maybe their results would be identical.
Historical evidence guarantees this already. |
| re: Can a naysayer be objective in a DBT? | Rockwell
Nov 5, 2003 4:27 PM | | Unless the participant simply makes no attempt to make a choice based on listening(guesses), then there would be no problem. The majority of the people who inhabit this board might be classified naysayer, and from what I can tell, are interested in the truth, not suppression. |
| re: Can a naysayer be objective in a DBT? | okiemax
Nov 6, 2003 12:41 AM | | I think most naysayers would make a genuine effort. But they might not be motivated to try as hard as yeasayers. |
| re: Can a naysayer be objective in a DBT? | mtrycrafts
Nov 6, 2003 10:32 PM | | b But they might not be motivated to try as hard as yeasayers.
And the sky 'might' fall too:) |
| You're certainly going to be embarrassed. . . | Norm Strong
Nov 5, 2003 8:52 PM | | . . .when the envelope is opened and you're the only one in the group that couldn't tell the difference! |
| You're certainly going to be embarrassed. . . | okiemax
Nov 6, 2003 12:48 AM | | I'm not sure what you mean. Are you are suggesting naysayers might score better than yeasayers? |
| You're certainly going to be embarrassed. . . | Pat D
Nov 6, 2003 6:18 AM | | Well, one point might be that the possibility of embarrassment might motivate even a naysayer do his/her best.
A more serious point might be that there are ways of controlling for poor subjects. One would simply be to introduce some 'ringer' signals in, signals which are slightly different, a little above the JNDs, and see who 'gets' them. |
| re: Can a naysayer be objective in a DBT? | mtrycrafts
Nov 5, 2003 10:59 PM | | b Therefore, his participation will bias the results of the DBT.
How so? Lie about the differences? How so? You think th eresults would not show someone is lying?
b This issue can't be avoided, however, when it comes to claims made by naysayers about their individual DBT results.
Actually, you don't have to beileve anything you don't want to. Rather, you need to participate in a credible DBT and see how well you can do. Rec Audio Opinion has a $4000 bounty for anyone who can demonstrate audible differences between comparable cables. I have a slice of that bounty. |
| Check your email(NT) | FLZapped
Nov 6, 2003 7:33 AM | | |
| re: Can a naysayer be objective in a DBT? | okiemax
Nov 6, 2003 1:38 PM | | The naysayer could be influenced by a reverse placebo effect -- because the listener doesn't believe there will be differences, he doesn't hear differences. Because of his belief, a naysayer also may lack the motivation to try hard.
I doubt any naysayer would go into a DBT with subterfuge on his mind. Ironically, he would have to be good at detecting the differences to cheat, since purposely giving the wrong answer requires knowing the right answer. But if he could do that, how could he continue to say he is a naysayer?
May I have the money if I guess who gets to define what "comparable cable" means? |
| re: Can a naysayer be objective in a DBT? | mtrycrafts
Nov 6, 2003 10:38 PM | | b Ironically, he would have to be good at detecting the differences to cheat, since purposely giving the wrong answer requires knowing the right answer.
Exactely. You really think we don't want the truth?
b But if he could do that, how could he continue to say he is a naysayer?
Ah, now you think it is a belief sytem we are testing, not the evidence? Wrong. When there is sufficient difference as Greenhill has demonstrated, naysayers do get positive results. When there isn't sufficient difference to detect by ear, null is the result. So far, comparable cables have shown this to be the case.
b May I have the money if I guess who gets to define what "comparable cable" means?
No, this isn't about guessing definitions:)
22ga and 16 ga is not comparable.
12 ga and 16 are. 50 ft and 10 ft may not be compatible. |
| re: Can a naysayer be objective in a DBT? | JoeW
Nov 6, 2003 12:14 AM | | The better question is: Can a naysayer be objective ABOUT DBT?
Obviously, any test will reveal absolutely nothing, without a baseline to compare.
For meaningful results, you need know other thngs about your test subjects.
In this instance, you'd need other hearing tests first. frequency sensitivities seem crucial. Not just the extremes that a test subject can hear, but also a plot of their overall acuity. If you assume all people hear pretty much the same when it comes to small differences, you should crawl back into your cave and rework your glyphs.
Other factors to be accounted for are,
sensory memory (the ability to hold an image long enough to form a comparison)
multitasking (the ability to track multiple events simultaniously)
Of course, you could skip all this and just go for a random sample. But for it to have any significance, you would need a sample size in the thousands. A couple dozen tests just won't cut it.
I know that DBT is a religeon to some around here, but facts are facts. Any test without a meaningful baseline to compare, isn't worth a rotten tomato - let alone a foodfight.
Flame me if it makes you feel better, but as I've said before - if naysayers spent 1/2 the energy they used DEMANDING DBT on REFINING DBT, they might have something useful by now.
That said, I dont really care. DBT yourself if it makes you feel better. Superstition and mythology are facts of human nature. The superstition of this test is fairly benign compared to other 'reasonable tests' of history. I mean, people who fail this test dont get burned at the stake - not literally, at least.
Besides, if you dont trust your senses, you probably shouldn't be using them anyway. |
| DBT means you trust your hearing. | Pat D
Nov 6, 2003 6:30 AM | | You really don't need to do all that stuff for an individual SBT or DBT for yourself or your friends.
You make valid points about extrapolation of results, but that does not really apply to testing for yourself at home for your own enlightenment.
b Besides, if you dont trust your senses, you probably shouldn't be using them anyway.
You're contradicting yourself, Joe. You also mention acoustic memory and hearing sensitivity.
As well, with a DBT you are trusting your hearing and only your hearing. It is those who insist on sighted testing who don't trust their hearing, as they want to know what is being tested, so they can really on appearance, reputation, and so on, to be able to identify differences. |
| DBT means you trust your hearing. | JoeW
Nov 7, 2003 11:52 AM | | >You make valid points about extrapolation of results, but that does not really apply to testing for yourself at home for your own enlightenment.
I can't think of a way to construct a blind test for myself, by myself. Out of idle curiousity, I once gave myself a semi-blind test, or maybe a blurry test?
I dug out an old preamp and used it to switch between input cables that were Y'd from the CD source to the CD and Aux inputs. The tape out was cabled to my preamp.
Bear in mind, that I do not offer this as scientific evidence to anything. It's just an accounting.
I hooked this up one day and took my 'test' the next.
I wasn't sure which cable was hooked to which input of the switching pre, but you could validly argue that I subconciously knew which was which. Other flaws of my test were that I wasn't directly comparing 2 cables. I was comparing cables A+C to cables B+C. I was also aware that I was adding 2 needless conectors and a switch to my signal path prior to any amplification. Needless to say, I was under no pressure here, because it was such obviously flawed test. Basicly, it was as blind as I could arrange for myself and, done only for the sake of bored curiousity
The A and B cables were Jon Risch DIY IC vs an Unused Set of Freebies. The C cable was an MIT if I remember correctly.
The differences were not spectacular, but still obvious to me. I could tell the difference in one cycle of switching, just by listening specificly to the cymbals.
Even though I had dilluted the differences between the cables with the addition of extra cable/connections/switch, I able to get it right because I know what cymbals really sound like. So when one of the selections had better sounding cymbals, I knew which was which.
It's not that my hearing is so great, becuse it's not. This is largely because of all the time I've spent in close proximity to cymbals. |
| DBT means you trust your hearing. | Pat D
Nov 7, 2003 2:46 PM | | Actually, with an ABX switchbox one can do it all alone. However, I was thinking more on the lines of having a friend help you do an SBT on your home sytem. |
| DBT means you trust your hearing. | JoeW
Nov 7, 2003 10:23 PM | | >Actually, with an ABX switchbox one can do it all alone. However, I was thinking more on the lines of having a friend help you do an SBT on your home sytem.
An ABX box shares many of the flaws of my humble experiment.
It is a comparison of A+C to B+C. It has the same extra cabling, connectors, switch. This is problematic where I find cables to have the most pronounced effect on a system - between the source and the preamp.
I dont have any friends who would find such an evening to be elightening, let alone interesting. And I'm not gonna browbeat anyone into abetting a task which is fairly dubious to begin with.
My ears work well enough for my purposes, and I've cobbled together a modestly priced rig that is very pleasing for the genres I use it for. One of these days, I may change my mind and decide that I can do better. When/if that day comes, I wont start with cables, but I wont ignore them either. |
| DBT means you trust your hearing. | mtrycrafts
Nov 8, 2003 9:40 PM | | b This is problematic where I find cables to have the most pronounced effect on a system - between the source and the preamp.
That is yet to be demonstrated under bias controlled conditions, with or without a box doing the switching.
b One of these days, I may change my mind and decide that I can do better.
In the meantime your hearing ability is declining, not improving. |
| Why must you speak when you have nothing to say? | JoeW
Nov 8, 2003 9:51 PM | | Why do you need to urinate on everything you disagree with?
Do you have a singular constructive thought? Any insight whatsoever?
I say you are a moron, because you behave like a moron.
Should you choose to behave like an adult, I will treat you as one. |
| Why must you speak when you have nothing to say? nt | mtrycrafts
Nov 9, 2003 7:57 PM | | nt |
| re: Can a naysayer be objective in a DBT? | mtrycrafts
Nov 6, 2003 10:45 PM | | b In this instance, you'd need other hearing tests first.
But you never ask golden ears this. Why?
b But for it to have any significance, you would need a sample size in the thousands.
Wrong.
I guess in medical trials you preselect the subject? Or other research? Yeah, sure.
b but facts are facts.
That would be what, to you?
b Besides, if you dont trust your senses, you probably shouldn't be using them anyway.
Yep, that is why eye witnesses are given such low marks at trials, right? I suppose you trust what you see with David Copperfiled, et al? Why not? |
| re: Can a naysayer be objective in a DBT? | JoeW
Nov 7, 2003 10:02 AM | | >>In this instance, you'd need other hearing tests first.
>But you never ask golden ears this. Why?
What does this have to do with anything? If a "golden ear" - whatever that means - offers a subjective opinion, I'll take it for what it is - an opinion.
When something is presented as scientic evidence, the methodology should hold up to reasonable scrutiny.
How can anyone take a listening test seriously without some measure of hearing ability and listening skills? Are you testing recording engineers? Deaf-mutes? Do they have good aural retention? Or, could they not hum the root pitch of a song 10 seconds after it's passed?
>I guess in medical trials you preselect the subject?
I should hope so. This preliminary stage is known as 'screening'.
Would you take a trail for an anti-cancer drug seriously, if the testers did not first determine if any of the subjects actually had some form of cancer?
Thank you for illustrating the point I was trying to make. |
| re: Can a naysayer be objective in a DBT? | mtrycrafts
Nov 7, 2003 9:21 PM | | b whatever that means - offers a subjective opinion, I'll take it for what it is - an opinion.
You may, others may not.
b When something is presented as scientic evidence, the methodology should hold up to reasonable scrutiny.
It does. Your objections do not apply.
b How can anyone take a listening test seriously without some measure of hearing ability and listening skills?
Easy.
b Are you testing recording engineers? Deaf-mutes?
Whoever will sit down.
b Do they have good aural retention? Or, could they not hum the root pitch of a song 10 seconds after it's passed?
Are you after threshold discovery or what they can hear? Do you hand pick people for medical trials too? Skew the pie curve and only test the 1%? Really? Is that how you run testing?
b This preliminary stage is known as 'screening'.
Oh, you will stack the deck? Of course you will pick people who need that medication. Healthy people have no need to participate.
b Would you take a trail for an anti-cancer drug seriously, if the testers did not first determine if any of the subjects actually had some form of cancer?
Depends on what you are testing, future avoidence of cancer or remission of aready cancer patients? |
| re: Can a naysayer be objective in a DBT? | JoeW
Nov 7, 2003 10:43 PM | | You toss about phrases like 'medical trials' so as to make it seem you have some clue as to scientific method, then turn around and display the most amazing ignorance of scientific method.
I dont even know where to start.
I suppose you'd give hemeroid medicine to bald people.
Viagra to liver cancer patients.
Then you'd hold this up as evidence that medicine can do no good to anyone.
I used to recognize you as a joke, now I realize you are pathetic. |
| re: Can a naysayer be objective in a DBT? | mtrycrafts
Nov 8, 2003 9:41 PM | | Pathetic and idiotic. |
| Sure don't tell them it's a DBT for cables. | Bobby Blacklight
Nov 6, 2003 9:52 AM | | Don't tell anyone what the DBT is testing just ask for diferences. No preconcieved predjudices that way. |
| Probably not --I'd throw out all naysayers | Richard Greene
Nov 6, 2003 11:44 AM | | A DBT is a tiring analytical listening experience that requires motivated participants. Any participant who is confident he can't hear a difference during the sighted audition "warm-up" should not stay for the double-blind portion of the test. That person would probably have no motivation for careful listening over the next hour or two.
I'd want motivated participants -- people who think they hear a difference in the warm-up audition, or are not sure. |
| I agree. Naysayers are just a bunch of cheap liars anyway (nt) | skeptic
Nov 6, 2003 4:41 PM | | |
| I agree. Naysayers are just a bunch of cheap liars anyway (nt) | mtrycrafts
Nov 6, 2003 10:48 PM | | No, just harder to fool :) |
| I agree. Naysayers are just a bunch of cheap liars anyway (nt) | skeptic
Nov 7, 2003 4:03 AM | | I'd love to see a DBT with only yeasayers. Their favorites against 12 gage landscape wiring. After that, the only remaining question might be, is Kimber Kable good enough to wire you walkway lights? |
| I agree. Naysayers are just a bunch of cheap liars anyway (nt) | mtrycrafts
Nov 7, 2003 9:22 PM | | b is Kimber Kable good enough to wire you walkway lights?
No they are not. Will not stand up to the elemets:) |
| What, you didn't know..... | FLZapped
Nov 10, 2003 6:31 AM | | that they yield clearer, more defined light with better spectral balance?
-Bruce |
| Interesting premise, however.... | Monstrous Mike
Nov 6, 2003 7:52 PM | | Let's look at some other areas of scientific pursuit that parallel cable sonics.
You have heard of the Loch Ness Monster no doubt. I think most scientific types do not believe in such a creature and feel reports to date have been exaggerated personal accounts or other explanations that have nothing to do with a large prehistoric creature.
However, there have been people of science who have hunted in Loch Ness with some very complex sonar equipment. These people probably had the preconception that they wouldn't find Nessie but for some reason decided to expend a certain amount of energy just in case. I think it is fairly obvious that if they found something they would have shared it and paved the way for further investigation.
The same can be said for the search for extra-terrestial life. An institute named SETI comes to mind. The scientists devoted to listening to radio signals from space do not believe that aliens built the pyramids or landed in a Kansas trailer park last year but they do believe that aliens may exist and may be transmitting radio frequency signals. It is much more likely that we will learn of aliens in this manner than having one land in Billy Bob's cornfield. Thus, to UFO watchers and believers, these people may be seen as naysayers, like most people.
As a so-called naysayer myself, I do not have any reason to disregard a test in which I hear a difference in components. That makes no sense to me. If a component has a superior sound I want to know and then can make an informed decision on whether this increased performance is worth the cost and would benefit my system.
It simply makes no sense to disregard the truth. I'd love to participate in a DBT that shows a distinct difference between two cables. As an engineer, I would certainly want to know the reason for the difference.
Why would I want to disregard a truth? It is almost unethical. |
| Interesting premise, however.... | pctower
Nov 7, 2003 6:11 AM | | In other words, because you are an engineer you are immune from subconscious bias (of which you would be unaware) that you and others have told us about for so many years and that all of us non-engineers suffer from.
If only I had been smart enough when I was young to have chosen a profession that would free me from my human limitations. |
| Lawyer logic | RobotCzar
Nov 7, 2003 6:50 AM | | Everyone has biases, that is why testing is blinded. A so-called naysayer does not know that the test really does exhibit differences so his biases are irrelevant. The test might, for example, insert differences that are known to be audible as a control. Or maybe the particular items being tested have audible differences.
The real problem with the assertion of the base note is that "naysayers" deny audible differences in components or testing. They do not. They are interested in finding out if there are such differences for various components in various situations. There are plenty of items that ARE audible (and have been demonstrated in DBTs). A subject would be honor bound to try to report differences (by agreeing to be a subject) and would undoubtedly be interested in seeing if he or she could detect differences. Unlike subjectivists, "naysayers" do not have an agenda other that accepting what the tests tell us. At least, that is my characterization and it is as valid as that of the base post. |
| I can't believe I'm agreeing with PC | skeptic
Nov 7, 2003 7:18 AM | | I must say that people who have already made up their mind that no differences exist might be inclined to under state when differences, especially subtle differences do exist by doubting their own ears. I can see that this could be entirely subconscious and therefore these participants should be automatically disqualified. Even "maysayers" like myself should be disqualified because we might have a deep seeded anti cable bias. I didn't choose the name skeptic for nothing. So this leaves us with yeasayers claiming that they can hear the difference and the test should definitively show one way or another whether their picks are based on random chance or not. I even concede that the yeasayers should be segregated into different testing groups based on their auditory accuity. That way, no one could say that the group as a whole failed to definitively determine a difference because some of the participants were half deaf from a lifetime of loud rock music or whatever. I think its unfair to characterize this arguement as "lawyer talk", after all the entire purpose of a DBT is to create as fair a test as possible to see whether changing the control element is significant.
Besides Mr. Czar, aren't you the one who claims that there are no audible differences between amplifiers. With that bias or accuity, you may not hear even more subtle differences between cables. |
| Speak for yourself | RobotCzar
Nov 7, 2003 8:22 AM | | Well, many of the DBTs I have read about are composed exclusively of people claiming to hear differences (prior to testing). So the point may be moot for many tests.
What I claim is that there is no evidence of people being able to distinguish properly performing amplifiers. This is not a bias, it is a statement of fact as I see it.
The attempt to classify naysayers as "biased" is not supported by any evidence I know of. As I said, all subjects have a bias of some kind. If blinded properly, this should make no difference--but that could be tested. |
| No logical or rational, it just doesn't fly. | skeptic
Nov 7, 2003 8:44 AM | | Deaf people are also unbiased. Would you be willing to include them? I for one would find much more credibility in the results if they were among people who claim to be able to hear a difference and who demonstrate through audiometry testing that they have excellent hearing. This gives them the opportunity to prove their point. Why should I trust the subjective reactions of people who begin with the premise that they can't hear a difference because there is none? If there is a difference, either they are insensitive to it because of their limited hearing ability or they may be indifferent to it. If you are trying to prove that something is at all audible, the best way is by first testing only those most likely to hear it. |
| experimental subjects | RobotCzar
Nov 10, 2003 7:19 AM | | Skep, you are quick to point out the failings and knowledge gaps in people. This leaves you open to similar chastisement. You really need to find out more about experimental design. Perhaps you could ask some of your scientist friends (the soft sciences in this case). You are never too old to learn.
The real null hypothesis (not the erroneous claim that the null hypothesis expects a null result) requires that subjects be selected in a completely random manner. Any variation from random selection weakens the validity of the results (by weakening the null hypothesis). Obviously, the target subjects must be able to accomplish the operation required of the experiment, so deaf people would not be included (but this opens the question of what you mean by deaf).
A study about bias would, of course, select subjects based on bias as it this the indepentend variable under study. |
| (but this opens the question of what you mean by deaf). | skeptic
Nov 10, 2003 5:38 PM | | Precisely.
One demonstration is not the end all be all so I'm not sure what anyone is getting worked up about. Since the question of whether ANYONE can hear cable differences is the first question being asked, the most logical place to start is with those who claim that they can. If they can't hear differences, probably nobody else can either. Then additional tests would work their way down to Joe sixpack off the street meaning a random sample of individuals. Suppose the results showed that only the top one percent of listeners have hearing sensitive enough to hear differences. There wouldn't be much point to devoting a whole industry to these products. But this one percent could get lost in the statistical noise and jitter of a purely random sample. So to truely study this claim, start with the strongest candidates who will demonstrate if they can. If they can't, the whole thing is over. |
| Lawyer logic | pctower
Nov 7, 2003 9:28 AM | | b Everyone has biases, that is why testing is blinded. A so-called naysayer does not know that the test really does exhibit differences so his biases are irrelevant. The test might, for example, insert differences that are known to be audible as a control. Or maybe the particular items being tested have audible differences.
I agree, and I wasn't addressing that issue. I was commenting on MM's own statements that suggested to me that he believed he was immune from bias.
b Unlike subjectivists, "naysayers" do not have an agenda other that accepting what the tests tell us.
I seriously doubt that the agendas of many naysayers is as pure as you portray. They too are just human. But that doesn't mean that I would keep them out of DBTs, although in the interest of thoroughness and good science I think the subject was worth discussing. |
| BTW Mr. Czar (with thanks to Skeptic for that salutation) | pctower
Nov 7, 2003 9:39 AM | | Does the fact that you took my narrowly focused comments regarding MM's post and ran with them (including a covert reference to my profession) making a wild assumption as to my (as of that point) unstated position on the primary question of the thread suggest any possible "bias" on your part? |
| Let us assume... | skeptic
Nov 7, 2003 10:27 AM | | ...that some listeners could reliably pick out certain wires by listening alone in DBTs from others. It's a long long way from that to justifying the kind of claims the people who make and sell wires imply (but rarely if ever outright state) for their products. Or as I've said, it's the first rung on a very long ladder and the industry hasn't even reached that rung yet. If interested parties with accute hearing can hear it under certain conditions, can disinterested people or those with less accute hearing hear it? What measured results can be established to show a causal relationship between electrical performance and audibility? Can it be demonstrated that what they hear is better or merely different? Are there other more cost effective ways and predictible or controllable ways to achieve the same result? And finally, what is the cost to achieve the result and is it cost effective? Once those hurdles are overcome, then manufacturers can start making legitimate claims. Until this scientific process is explored, the results all found to be positive, and independently verified, this is an industry whose ads are deceptive to the point of being fraudulent IMO. What is the legal interpretation of their claims I wonder? |
| Let us assume... | okiemax
Nov 8, 2003 12:32 AM | | I agree with going to the next step, and considering whether a difference is worth the difference. I think discussions on this forum get too caught up in arguments over whether cables sound different at all. I never think just in terms of difference when I'm trying a new cable or any other component. I want to know if the new thing is much better than the thing I am replacing. How do I evaluate an improvemet in dollar terms? I try to consider the opportunity cost. I also consider resale value. |
| Let us assume... | skeptic
Nov 8, 2003 4:00 AM | | Not only don't we have any proof that these expensive wires sound different, but even if we did, we have no way to know if the difference you hear in one sound system would be heard in another. We have no information about how much effect different lengths have. We have no qualitative or quantitative comparison. In other words, even accepting what hasn't been demonstrated, that there are differences, making the best choice or even a good choice, given the countless models available is a hopeless matter of endless trail and error. And to what rational purpose? Putting profits in the pockets of the people in that business of course. |
| Bias in the defense of evidence is no vice | RobotCzar
Nov 15, 2003 6:39 PM | | I just said everybody is biased. Bias is good, that is why it evolved. And, I certainly am biased about your comments.
You are smart enough to know that a DBT employs blinding to remove bias, yet you bring it up as an issue in blind testing.
You also seem to want show that those of us who except the evidence are somehow the "same" as those who do not. No amount of twisted logic can do that.
My bias is based on what the evidence shows, this does not make me unsuitable for testing or make me the same as those who insist they are right contrary to the evidence. (See the difference?)
The problem with your twisted view of bias is that it does not consider the verdict of the evidence. Perhaps many (if not all) naysayers had an open mind about cables until they performed or read of a controlled test where people have failed to hear cable differences (or noticed that there seem to be no tests that indicate that people can hear differences).
Your assertions seem to say that people who believe that cables are not audibly different would not be able to hear a difference if one were present. I'm not aware of any support for that notion. Your assertion is analogous to thinking that subjects would not respond to a drug if they didn't think it would affect them (the reverse of a placebo affecting a person when there is no physiological effect.)
You are the one who is taking the placebo effect and attempting to make it something it is not. The situation is not symetric and your fence-sitting position is not noble, no matter how hard you try to make your case. |
| Bias in the defense of evidence is no vice | pctower
Nov 16, 2003 5:03 AM | | Man, you are desparate for someone to argue with. Your capacity to mischaracterize and mistate what others have said or even implied is unparalleled in my experience.
You are intellectually dishonest and not worth the bother. |
| We always seem to get here, don't we? | RobotCzar
Nov 16, 2003 8:25 AM | | "Man, you are desparate for someone to argue with. "
Come on, you write in this forum much more than me and your comments are almost always designed to start an argument. You are are lawyer, you make a living by arguing--arguing for entertainment is a primary motivation of this forum. Quit trying to pretend you are somehow above it every time you get backed into a corner you can't get out of.
Frankly, I am failing to see the point of your posts other than to somehow establish that your position is correct. Well, I don't think so. Get over it.
--------------------
"Your capacity to mischaracterize and mistate what others have said or even implied is unparalleled in my experience."
I am really sick of this one. This is what you say when your position is exposed for the fraud it is. It is an attempt to misdirect the discussion as it conveniently allows you to ignore what I said. If I am misinterpreting you (which I doubt) then set me straight with some logical points and evidence--or even a reasonable argument. Don't just whine and name call, and mention "others" as if you are just another victim of my evil campaign.
I am reacting to what I hear you saying. That is all anyone can do. If I am getting your position wrong, it may not be my fault.
---------------------
"You are intellectually dishonest and not worth the bother."
That is my view of you exactly. You are not even being honest with yourself. I really don't want to bother with you, but I will challenge the statements you make in a public forum if I choose to.
Instead of heading to another sad farewell to this forum, why not try to take in some of what people are trying to tell you in it? Improvement can be made. |
| We always seem to get here, don't we? | pctower
Nov 17, 2003 7:46 PM | | For the first time below, you challenged my claim that Mike could be biased. I addressed that issue in my response to that post.
Other than that, specifically what have I said that you are reacting to and with which you disagree? I specifically agreed with you on the main issue in this thread, by saying that I would not exclude a naysayer from a DBT. |
| Court is in session | RobotCzar
Nov 16, 2003 10:05 AM | | [judge] The defendant is accused of hypocricy and being an intellectual fraud. Mr. Prosecutor?
[prosecutor] Isn't it true that in AR forum you mischaracterized and mistated MM in AR forum in a response to a note on "naysayer bias"?
[defendant] Not me, I am not like that. Only those who disagree with me and a forceful enough to make their point are inellectually dishonest.
[prosecutor} Would you mind reading your response?
[defendant] "In other words,...."
[prosecutor] Hold it right there for a second. What do you mean by "in other words"?
[defendant] Um, I just meant...
[prosecutor] ...to put words in the mouth of MM?
[defendant] I was just trying clarify what he said.
[prosecutor] By using words that you could easily deride?
[defendant] No, I...
[prosecutor] Please continue with your statement...
[def] "..because you are an engineer you are immune from subconscious bias that you and others have told us about for so many years and that all of us non-engineers suffer from.
[prosecutor] I don't see anywhere in MM statement that he says he or engineers are immune from bias.
{def] But, he implies....
[prosecutor] No, you interpreted, assumed, made up.
[def] But, my heart was in the right place, I was only trying to make a point, to get to the truth.
[prosecutor ] Would you read the last sentence of your statement?
[def] "If only I had been smart enough when I was young to have chosen a profession that
would free me from my human limitations."
[prosecutor] You don't find that statement a bit intellectually dishonest? Were you trying to deride MM? To imply that he is not a smart as you? Or that he is missing the obvious?
[def] No, I, uh, not me--others do that, I'm above it. It is them! This court is a sham, and itellectual fraud, and not worth my bother!!
[prosecutor] I rest my case. |
| Court is in session | pctower
Nov 17, 2003 7:41 PM | | b I don't see anywhere in MM statement that he says he or engineers are immune from bias.
Try this:
MM said:
b As a so-called naysayer myself, I do not have any reason to disregard a test in which I hear a difference in components. That makes no sense to me. If a component has a superior sound I want to know and then can make an informed decision on whether this increased performance is worth the cost and would benefit my system.
b It simply makes no sense to disregard the truth. I'd love to participate in a DBT that shows a distinct difference between two cables. As an engineer, I would certainly want to know the reason for the difference.
b Why would I want to disregard a truth? It is almost unethical.
I'll answer that last question for Mike. Consciously, I dont think you would, just as I would not want to ignore the truth. What good would it serve either of us to ignore the truth. While you and I have views that differ, I dont believe either of us believes it is more important to win an argument than it is to get to the truth.
But you have already identified yourself as a naysayer, and from reading your posts for almost 2-years now, it is obvious you have strong feelings about this issue, and I believe those feeling are that there is in all likelihood no sonic differences between similar cables of similar gauge.
Do you remember Mike when we were discussing the CRC about a year ago, and I asked why they never had actually conducted DBTs on cable. In your answer, you screamed that it was because THERE'S NOTHING TO TEST!
So while there is no reason you would want to disregard the truth, Mike, you cannot predict what your subconscious will do, particularly in light of the strongly held beliefs you have repeatedly enunciated on this board.
You, as with anyone, are subject to the effect of the subconscious and all of your ABE's. Therefore, you cannot guaranty to anyone, including yourself, that your sole motivation, taking into account both your conscious and subconscious minds, in taking the test would be to seek the "truth".
But that doesn't mean I'd exclude you from a DBT. I do think, it makes more sense, as some others have suggested in this thread to focus DBTs on those who are claiming to hear differences, because what I think we are trying to test here is whether those claims are valid.
Nonetheless, in any test that is properly designed to control for bias, I would have no problem in you participating as I would assume that your particular biases, as with the other participants, would be eliminated by the testing protocol as a factor that might influence the outcome of the test.
I just dont think that being an engineer and consciously wanting to know the truth, insulates you from ABEs that might, without your conscious knowledge, contaminate what your conscious mind is telling you is a pure and unbiased desire to know the truth. |
| Guilty as charged | RobotCzar
Nov 18, 2003 2:31 PM | | I don't take his statements to mean that he believes he is immune to bias at all. The original note confuses the issue a bit because it does not specify conscious or unconscious bias, but it does imply that those who think cables do not have audible differences could not be trusted to respond correctly because they refuse to accept differences (i.e., it is a conscious bias). That is what MM is responding to, and I can see why he thinks that because a "naysayer" does not have an agenda other than to find out if he can hear differences.
It is a least debatable that he meant to imply that he is immune to unconscious bias. This seems ironic to me since you are so quick to accuse people of putting words in your mouth, misquoting you, or not understanding what you said. I really think that is simply a convenient dodge. Just as you think you know my positions (you don't because I didn't say what you quoted me as saying), I am judging your responses by other things you have said. I think I have a fair idea of where you are coming from. I am prepared to debate the concepts and evidence, not to keep hearing you whine about not being understood. No communication is perfect, no communicator is perfect, so some mistakes are a given.
I restate that I see you as attempting to make an argument of symmetry for so-called yea and nay sayers. There is no symmetry in this case because there is sound evidence (and several logical arguments) that people cannot hear differences among typical cables. A bias is justified if it is supported by evidence, we call that logic. One is foolish when one ignores the evidence, which is what yearsayers are doing.
This does not mean naysayers are not biased. It also does not rule them out as subjects for controlled tests--especially if you don't tell them what is being tested. Consider that naysayers do NOT claim tha t it is impossible to hear differences among all possible cables. They would not know what kinds of cables were being tested, so even the unconscious bias would not apply (or would be lessened). In any cable test I could not assume that I would not be able to hear a difference (that is what the test is for) and I would attempt to do so (so even an unconscious bias MAY not be present). Maybe the test uses string for one set of cables. |
| Guilty as charged | pctower
Nov 19, 2003 11:58 AM | | b I don't take his statements to mean that he believes he is immune to bias at all. The original note confuses the issue a bit because it does not specify conscious or unconscious bias, but it does imply that those who think cables do not have audible differences could not be trusted to respond correctly because they refuse to accept differences (i.e., it is a conscious bias).
Mike could have clarified if he thought I had misinterpreted him. I did not specify unconcious bias as I know Mike is very familiar with the concept.
b I restate that I see you as attempting to make an argument of symmetry for so-called yea and nay sayers.
If you mean I'm trying to say they stand on equal grounds with their scientific reasoning, that is certainly not true. I have made it real clear that I have seen no valid scientific argument to support yeasayer claims.
If you mean I think both are human and subject to bias, you are correct.
b This does not mean naysayers are not biased. It also does not rule them out as subjects for controlled tests--especially if you don't tell them what is being tested.
I agree and said so at the outset.
b I think I have a fair idea of where you are coming from.
And where's that?
b I am prepared to debate the concepts and evidence,
I don't think that would be a very interesting debate, as I suspect that on most major issues we are in agreement. However, I believe that we do disagree on some of the details, but when I raise those details, my experience is you immediately put words in my mouth and saddle me with a yeasayer view of science which I have never espoused. |
| Same of different? You be the judge | RobotCzar
Nov 18, 2003 3:10 PM | | Yeasayer: I can hear huge differences in cables.
Naysayer: Oh yeah, let's see you do it
Yeasayer: Piece of cake, listen--that is cable A and that is that cheap cable B--sounds like crap.
Naysayer: Wait a minute, let's see you do it with your eyes closed.
Y: I don't listen with my eyes closed.
N: Are you saying you can't do it with your eyes closed?
Y: Oh alright mister doubter.
[Y fails to ID the cables correctly.}
N: Hmm, you can't do it when you don't know which is which. I don't think you can hear a difference.
Y: Yes I can. There is someting wrong with the test. You can't expect me to get it right under that kind of pressure, besides I think closing my eyes affects my hearing. And, I need a long time to tell the difference.
N: Take all the time you want.
Y: This test is unfair you tin-eared freak. Bob Harley can hear differences, he said so in print.
For complete symmetry, naysayers would have to deny the results of a test AFTER testing. Suppose several tests were run where people demonstrated they CAN hear a difference (as happens with a host of suble audio factors) and a naysayers said "No, people cannot hear that ."
THEN they would be "like" yeasayers. But, there is a very clear and distinct difference--one group believes the evidence and the other does not.
Yeasayers can cry and whine and bitch and namecall--and say they don't accept the evidence, that it is flawed. That is fine, but until they can produce some evidence that they CAN hear differences. They should not expect to be believed. |
| Same of different? You be the judge | pctower
Nov 19, 2003 12:09 PM | | Whatever you are trying to get across here has nothing to do with what I have said. I clearly accept that the only way audible differences could ever be established scientificially is through blind, controlled tests.
I have raised legitimate questions about the reliability of tests that have been reported, but I have always done so in a manner that would be consistent with peer review (taking into account that I'm trying to do so as a non-expert) and legitimate scientific inquiry about the reliability of protocol and results. That's done all the time in scientific journals. Do you contend that such questioning is improper? |
| re: Can a naysayer be objective in a DBT? | okiemax
Nov 7, 2003 7:41 PM | | My base post does not accuse naysayers of lying or disregarding the truth. It supposes attitudes, beliefs, and expectations can affect what people think they hear or don't hear. Nevertheless, I can empathize with those naysayer who feel their integrity has been questioned, recalling my own dismay when naysayers tell me what I report hearing actually doesn't exist.
I believe my hypothesis zeroes in on the question of whether listeners who claim to hear differences actually can hear differences in a controlled test. Others may wish to test different groups in the population and state their hypotheses in ways that address their questions. The hypothesis chosen will dictate the kind of test needed. The nature of my question precludes a triple-blind test, referred to in one reply as a "true" double-blind test, so plain double-blind would have to do. |
| If I were running the test... | skeptic
Nov 8, 2003 9:18 AM | | ... I wouldn't give a damn what naysayers felt, said, were up in arms about, or how they were outraged. You don't usually take guys off the street to see if ESP exists. You grab the people who say that they have the power and put them to the test by making them prove it with a test as foolproof of cheating as you can devise. If they can't do it, most likely no one can. Funny thing though, they get exposed by guys like the Amazing Randy, and they go right back to their scam while the suckers just keep coming. So even if there is 100 percent agreement after a test that nobody heard anything for real, the cables would still be there, the ads and the high pressure salesmanship in the showrooms would still be there, and the suckers would still keep shelling out the dough. Nothing changes. (70 years after the post office exposed them and made it illegal, pyramid schemes and chain letters still take in legions of suckers. There's one born every minute just like PT Barnum said.) |
| re: Can a naysayer be objective in a DBT? | mtrycrafts
Nov 8, 2003 9:45 PM | | b recalling my own dismay when naysayers tell me what I report hearing actually doesn't exist.
Under sighted conditions, it is very real and legitimate.
b The nature of my question precludes a triple-blind test,
No such test. |
| re: Can a naysayer be objective in a DBT? | okiemax
Nov 9, 2003 12:34 AM | | "No such test." Sure, there is! Do a Google search for "triple-blind," and you will find lots of information on the subject. It means knowledge of the test is concealed from the researchers who organize and analyze the data, as well as the participants and the people administering the test.
On closer reading, the reply that used the term "true double-blind" was not referring to a triple-blind test. By "true", it just meant the participants would not know what is being tested. Obviously, this is not a condition to be used with my hypothesis. |
| re: One more thing about triple-blind | okiemax
Nov 9, 2003 12:56 AM | | And to correct what I said previously, the nature of the hypothesis would not preclude a triple-blind test. |
| |
