Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Of $90,000 turntables, Stradivarius violins, red wine, and blindfolds
Unless You Can Do It Blindfolded, Please STFU
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...ed-please-stfu (reacting to Gary's observation that the posting has been light lately, thought I'd pass this one along...) -- //Walt |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Of $90,000 turntables, Stradivarius violins, red wine, and blindfolds
On Friday, 11 April 2014 04:37:49 UTC+8, Walt wrote:
Unless You Can Do It Blindfolded, Please STFU =20 =20 =20 http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...-do-it-blindf= olded-please-stfu =20 =20 =20 (reacting to Gary's observation that the posting has been light lately, =20 thought I'd pass this one along...) =20 =20 =20 --=20 =20 //Walt Read about this article long time ago. I even downgraded my equipment many = years ago because I am unable to pass the blind test and yet now I think bl= ind test may not be telling everything. Read somewhere in one of the scienc= e journals that brain scan revealed different part of the brain active when= a saxophonist plays a score and while improvising the known score. I wonde= r which part of our brain working under blind test. I do not believe that we can distinguish strads or wines or Beluga caviar f= rom Sterlet on immediate blind test but over a period of time they may well= have a preference. All this while, our understanding is the brain function= s uniformly but now science has proven they do not and therefore matters in= volving taste or senses and emotion may need to be relooked. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Of $90,000 turntables, Stradivarius violins, red wine, and blindfolds
In article , Walt
wrote: Unless You Can Do It Blindfolded, Please STFU http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...t-blindfolded- please-stfu (reacting to Gary's observation that the posting has been light lately, thought I'd pass this one along...) I've seen this discussion on another news group. I don't doubt for a moment that many modern violins sound better and are easier to play well than are the Cremona variety of the 16th century. In fact, I've seen many an accomplished violinist state that the carbon-fiber instruments from makers such as Luis & Clark beat everything when it comes to loudness, purity of tone, ease and comfort of playing as well as practical considerations such as ease of travel, environmental stability (in that changes in temperature, humidity, altitude, etc., don't screw 'em up) etc. Audio_Empire |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Of $90,000 turntables, Stradivarius violins, red wine, and blindfolds
On Thursday, April 10, 2014 1:37:49 PM UTC-7, Walt wrote:
Unless You Can Do It Blindfolded, Please STFU =20 =20 =20 http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...-do-it-blindf= olded-please-stfu =20 =20 =20 (reacting to Gary's observation that the posting has been light lately, =20 thought I'd pass this one along...) =20 =20 =20 --=20 =20 //Walt Silly article. Self proclaimed skeptics that don't know how science actuall= y works tend to make science and skepticism look bad. Case in point... "I've long suspected this, but now we have Scientific Proof(tm). Profession= al violinists who insist that there's nothing like a Strad can't even tell = them apart from modern instruments:" This is such a gross misrepresentation. 1. No one who knows anything about = science would ever make such a dogmatic claim based on one study. 2. This w= as not what the test concluded. Not even close.=20 Then the author made some pretty wild assertions that are in no way support= ed by the study he is writing about. Here are a few zingers.... "Wine snobs can barely distinguish red from white when they're blindfolded.= " Aside from being total nonsense there is no connection. =20 Then we have this wild leap... "Pro violinists can't pick out a Strad from a decent modern violin." Huh? "decent?" Did he actually read the study? The Strads were hardly being= compared to "decent" modern violins. This was a blind shoot out between th= e creations of one man hundreds of years ago against modern artisans who ha= ve all the advantages of modern materials, tools and machinery not to menti= on CAD programs, and modern testing facilities. That the Strads were as com= petitive as they were speaks to what an amazing achievement they really are= .. But anyhooo. The test did not demonstrate that the violins were indisting= uishable. All it demonstrated was that state of the art modern violins are = very competitive with Strads. How is this anything but a testimonial as to = how amazing Strads really are?=20 Then he concludes... "So am I skeptical when you claim your $90,000 turntable is really and trul= y light years better than some mere $2,000 POS? Yes I am." As if there were any meaningful connection between this test and the sound = of high end turntables.=20 This is a classic case of self proclaimed skeptic's misunderstandings of sc= ience and misrepresentations of science as something that supports his pers= onal prejudices. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Of $90,000 turntables, Stradivarius violins, red wine, and blindfolds
On 4/12/2014 4:30 PM, Scott wrote:
"Wine snobs can barely distinguish red from white when they're blindfolded." Aside from being total nonsense there is no connection. Um... not "total nonsense" but the result of a 2001 experiment at the University of Bordeaux: "The perceptual ambiguity of wine helps explain why contextual influences—say, the look of a label, or the price tag on the bottle—can profoundly influence expert judgment. This was nicely demonstrated in a mischievous 2001 experiment led by Frédéric Brochet at the University of Bordeaux. In one test, Brochet included fifty-four wine experts and asked them to give their impressions of what looked like two glasses of red and white wine. The wines were actually the same white wine, one of which had been tinted red with food coloring. But that didn’t stop the experts from describing the “red” wine in language typically used to describe red wines. One expert said that it was “jammy,” while another enjoyed its “crushed red fruit.” Another test that Brochet conducted was even more damning. He took a middling Bordeaux and served it in two different bottles. One bottle bore the label of a fancy grand cru, the other of an ordinary vin de table. Although they were being served the exact same wine, the experts gave the bottles nearly opposite descriptions. The grand cru was summarized as being “agreeable,” “woody,” “complex,” “balanced,” and “rounded,” while the most popular adjectives for the vin de table included “weak,” “short,” “light,” “flat,” and “faulty.” " As for the connection to violins and turntables, I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. -- //Walt |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Of $90,000 turntables, Stradivarius violins, red wine, and blindfolds
On 4/14/2014 3:47 PM, Walt wrote:
On 4/12/2014 4:30 PM, Scott wrote: "Wine snobs can barely distinguish red from white when they're blindfolded." Aside from being total nonsense there is no connection. Um... not "total nonsense" but the result of a 2001 experiment at the University of Bordeaux: Sorry, forgot to include the link: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...ine-taste.html -- //Walt |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Of $90,000 turntables, Stradivarius violins, red wine, and blindfolds
On Monday, April 14, 2014 12:47:31 PM UTC-7, Walt wrote:
On 4/12/2014 4:30 PM, Scott wrote: =20 =20 =20 "Wine snobs can barely distinguish red from white when they're blindfol= ded." =20 =20 =20 Aside from being total nonsense there is no connection. =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 Um... not "total nonsense" but the result of a 2001 experiment at the =20 University of Bordeaux: =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 "The perceptual ambiguity of wine helps explain why contextual =20 influences--say, the look of a label, or the price tag on the bottle--can =20 profoundly influence expert judgment. This was nicely demonstrated in a =20 mischievous 2001 experiment led by Fr=E9d=E9ric Brochet at the University= of =20 Bordeaux. In one test, Brochet included fifty-four wine experts and =20 asked them to give their impressions of what looked like two glasses of =20 red and white wine. The wines were actually the same white wine, one of =20 which had been tinted red with food coloring. But that didn't stop the =20 experts from describing the "red" wine in language typically used to =20 describe red wines. One expert said that it was "jammy," while another =20 enjoyed its "crushed red fruit." =20 =20 =20 Another test that Brochet conducted was even more damning. He took a =20 middling Bordeaux and served it in two different bottles. One bottle =20 bore the label of a fancy grand cru, the other of an ordinary vin de =20 table. Although they were being served the exact same wine, the experts =20 gave the bottles nearly opposite descriptions. The grand cru was =20 summarized as being "agreeable," "woody," "complex," "balanced," and =20 "rounded," while the most popular adjectives for the vin de table =20 included "weak," "short," "light," "flat," and "faulty." " =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 As for the connection to violins and turntables, I'll leave that as an =20 exercise for the reader. =20 =20 =20 --=20 =20 //Walt When blind tests are reduced to parlor tricks to shame people they cease to= be anything other than a tool to promote an agenda. I remember an interest= ing and eye opening experience I once had. I went to get a glass of milk in= the middle of the night. Without looking I poured from a carton of unfilte= red apple juice and took a big drink. I instantly ran to the sink and spit = out what i thought was rancid milk. So what does that prove? That we really= can't tell the difference between rancid milk and unfiltered apple juice b= y taste alone? That we are fooling ourselves when we think we like apple ju= ice or dislike rancid milk?=20 Or maybe, just maybe we are wired to use our different senses and previous = experiences in conjunction and that the right misdirection with one sense o= r preconception can cause our perceptions to go haywire. The idea that we c= an set up a test with deliberate misdirection that can fool the senses hard= ly shows that there is no discernible differences. this is why it is so dif= ficult to actually put together really good tests of human perception. agen= das can easily creep in and ruin the test. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Of $90,000 turntables, Stradivarius violins, red wine, and blindfolds
What Scott says may be true, but when you do it blind you remove all of
those prejudices. But remember there are (at least) two kinds of blind tests, difference tests and preference tests. For a wine tasting, you could either ask them their reactions and preference toward two unknown samples (preference testing), or you could simply ask them if they can tell ANY difference between the two. HOWEVER, it is not sufficient that they tell you whether they can tell a difference, they must prove it in a statistically significant manner by doing it at least 16 times, because if they only guessed one time it could be luck. So, for example, if they can tell the white from the red, or the fancy from the table wine, at least 12 out of 16 times (95% level of confidence) then they would have proven that there is a difference, but not a preference. If they can't even do THAT, then not only could they not have a preference, but they cannot even tell under blind conditions whether there is any difference between the two at all. The obvious connection to audio is if someone is trying to sell me a $15,000 set of speaker cables, the easiest way for him to prove that he can hear an improvement with his own product would be to test his ability to tell a difference between them under blind conditions. If he can't even do that, then he cannot convince me that he hears an improvement with his fancy wires. Of course I could take the same test, but if I flunked it he would just give the standard phrase, well you can't hear it but I can. So you make him put his ears where his mouth is. The subjectivist audio press comes out with endless prose and poetry about what they hear in the latest products, but it is totally meaningless if it is done under sighted conditions. They will never say "well, this new $50,000 amplifier is certainly the same as all other decent amplifiers." That wouldn't show the fineness of their hearing or advance their magazine sales. But most of us know all that. Just saying for the benefit of the newbies lurking in. Gary Eickmeier |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Of $90,000 turntables, Stradivarius violins, red wine, and blindfolds
On 2014-04-16 19:39, news wrote:
HOWEVER, it is not sufficient that they tell you whether they can tell a difference, they must prove it in a statistically significant manner by doing it at least 16 times, because if they only guessed one time it could be luck. So, for example, if they can tell the white from the red, or the fancy from the table wine, at least 12 out of 16 times (95% level of confidence) then they would have proven that there is a difference, but not a preference. If they can't even do THAT, then not only could they not have a preference, but they cannot even tell under blind conditions whether there is any difference between the two at all. If I'm not misstaken five trials will suffice; the probability of guessing correctly five times is 0.5^5 = 0.03125 which is less than five percent. -- August |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Of $90,000 turntables, Stradivarius violins, red wine, and blindfolds
On 4/16/2014 1:39 PM, news wrote:
...if they can tell the white from the red, or the fancy from the table wine, at least 12 out of 16 times (95% level of confidence) then they would have proven that there is a difference, but not a preference. If they can't even do THAT, then not only could they not have a preference, but they cannot even tell under blind conditions whether there is any difference between the two at all. It probably should be noted that the wine tests cited were not really difference tests, but rather a demonstration of the rather large effect of suggestibility. A real difference test would be to give the subjects two different wines (a red and a white, or an expensive and a cheap) and see if they could detect the difference while blindfolded. My hunch is that they would be able to do so at the 95% confidence level. But the expirement didn't do that. Instead, the expirement gave the subjects two identical wines (except for the food coloring and the bottle) and the subjects perceived large differences when there was none. That's explained by suggestibility. Agree with your larger point - in order to get to *preference* one must first establish *difference*. The subjectivist audio press comes out with endless prose and poetry about what they hear in the latest products, but it is totally meaningless if it is done under sighted conditions. They will never say "well, this new $50,000 amplifier is certainly the same as all other decent amplifiers." That wouldn't show the fineness of their hearing or advance their magazine sales. But most of us know all that. Just saying for the benefit of the newbies lurking in. The science of why $50k amplifiers and $15k cables sound better than $500 amplifiers and Belden 8451 is pretty well explained by the Asch Paradigm. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_c...ty_experiments -- //Walt |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Of $90,000 turntables, Stradivarius violins, red wine, and blindfolds
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:39:04 AM UTC-7, news wrote:
What Scott says may be true, but when you do it blind you remove all of= =20 =20 those prejudices. But remember there are (at least) two kinds of blind=20 =20 tests, difference tests and preference tests. For a wine tasting, you cou= ld=20 =20 either ask them their reactions and preference toward two unknown samples= =20 =20 (preference testing), or you could simply ask them if they can tell ANY= =20 =20 difference between the two. =20 =20 =20 HOWEVER, it is not sufficient that they tell you whether they can tell a= =20 =20 difference, they must prove it in a statistically significant manner by= =20 =20 doing it at least 16 times, because if they only guessed one time it coul= d=20 =20 be luck. So, for example, if they can tell the white from the red, or the= =20 =20 fancy from the table wine, at least 12 out of 16 times (95% level of=20 =20 confidence) then they would have proven that there is a difference, but n= ot=20 =20 a preference. If they can't even do THAT, then not only could they not ha= ve=20 =20 a preference, but they cannot even tell under blind conditions whether th= ere=20 =20 is any difference between the two at all. =20 =20 =20 The obvious connection to audio is if someone is trying to sell me a $15,= 000=20 =20 set of speaker cables, the easiest way for him to prove that he can hear = an=20 =20 improvement with his own product would be to test his ability to tell a= =20 =20 difference between them under blind conditions. If he can't even do that,= =20 =20 then he cannot convince me that he hears an improvement with his fancy=20 =20 wires. Of course I could take the same test, but if I flunked it he would= =20 =20 just give the standard phrase, well you can't hear it but I can. So you m= ake=20 =20 him put his ears where his mouth is. =20 =20 =20 The subjectivist audio press comes out with endless prose and poetry abou= t=20 =20 what they hear in the latest products, but it is totally meaningless if i= t=20 =20 is done under sighted conditions. No, it is not "totally" meaningless. yes it is flavored with sighted bias. = But honestly so are your personal perceptions of your own stereo. Does that= make your perceptions meaningless? You have talked about those perceptions= at length and have come up with some very unconventional beliefs on stereo= playback based on those perceptions.=20 They will never say "well, this new=20 =20 $50,000 amplifier is certainly the same as all other decent amplifiers."= =20 =20 That wouldn't show the fineness of their hearing or advance their magazin= e=20 =20 sales. So why did Stereo Review/Sound and Vision say just that for all those years= ? By the way, you don't know that those unnamed 50,000 dollar amps sound th= e same as all other "decent" amps. (whatever you may mean by "decent" amps) =20 =20 =20 But most of us know all that. Just saying for the benefit of the newbies= =20 =20 lurking in. =20 =20 Yeah me too.=20 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags | High End Audio | |||
Bach, via Parisot, Stradivarius and a bunch of wires and stuff | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Why so many violins in an orchestra? | Pro Audio | |||
Wine | Audio Opinions | |||
Cool weather may be Stradivarius' secret | Pro Audio |