Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Walt Walt is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
ST[_2_] ST[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio-Empire Audio-Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Walt Walt is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Walt Walt is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
news news is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
August Karlstrom August Karlstrom is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Walt Walt is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default 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
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
news news is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Of $90,000 turntables, Stradivarius violins, red wine, and blindfolds

Scott wrote:
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:39:04 AM UTC-7, news wrote:


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.


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.


Not totally unconventional. There are a few others who have observed the
same, such as Linkwitz, Moulton, Davis, maybe include Toole if you consider
his reports on the prefernce for a wide, smooth response to indicate
something about radiation pattern.

But all of that is why I, too, must compare my new speakers against some
conventional ones in a blind study.

I do wish I knew which Scott you are, so that I know what body of discourse
we are referring to when you mention that you have read my material before.

Gary Eickmeier

  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Of $90,000 turntables, Stradivarius violins, red wine, and blindfolds

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:21:12 AM UTC-7, news wrote:
Scott wrote:

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:39:04 AM UTC-7, news wrote:




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.




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.




Not totally unconventional.


I didn't say totally unconventional though did I?

There are a few others who have observed the

same, such as Linkwitz, Moulton, Davis, maybe include Toole if you consider

his reports on the prefernce for a wide, smooth response to indicate

something about radiation pattern.



While I disagree with many things Floyd Toole and company assert about speaker design I don't think his ideas are at all in line with yours.




But all of that is why I, too, must compare my new speakers against some

conventional ones in a blind study.


But you haven't. That was my point. Perceptions, even under sighted conditions are not "totally meaningless." You find meaning in your own sighted perceptions.




I do wish I knew which Scott you are, so that I know what body of discourse

we are referring to when you mention that you have read my material before.



There are only two Scotts that regularly post here. I go by Scott. The other Scott goes by ScottW. He always has.

  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
KH KH is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Of $90,000 turntables, Stradivarius violins, red wine, and blindfolds

On 4/19/2014 6:20 AM, Scott wrote:
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:39:04 AM UTC-7, news wrote:
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.


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.


Not "totally", no, just meaningless if *audible* differences are your
only interest. I don't doubt that many, if not all, of us have used many
different factors in selecting our gear, including it's looks. But I
don't need a reviewer to wax poetic about how the gear looks, I need
only see a picture for that. I can research the manufacturer, and
obviously I can see the price, so the sound is really the only other
criterion of interest, and a subjective, sighted-only review won't
reliably provide that information. So..."essentially meaningless".

Keith

  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Of $90,000 turntables, Stradivarius violins, red wine, and blindfolds

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 7:56:51 PM UTC-7, KH wrote:
On 4/19/2014 6:20 AM, Scott wrote:

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:39:04 AM UTC-7, news wrote:


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.




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.




Not "totally", no, just meaningless if *audible* differences are your

only interest. I don't doubt that many, if not all, of us have used many

different factors in selecting our gear, including it's looks. But I

don't need a reviewer to wax poetic about how the gear looks, I need

only see a picture for that. I can research the manufacturer, and

obviously I can see the price, so the sound is really the only other

criterion of interest, and a subjective, sighted-only review won't

reliably provide that information. So..."essentially meaningless".



That's just wrong. The actual sound of the gear is an actual factor in a person's perceptions of what they hear. Even under sited conditions. There is this thing called gray between the black and the white.


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
KH KH is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Of $90,000 turntables, Stradivarius violins, red wine, and blindfolds

On 4/20/2014 6:30 AM, Scott wrote:
On Saturday, April 19, 2014 7:56:51 PM UTC-7, KH wrote:
On 4/19/2014 6:20 AM, Scott wrote:

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:39:04 AM UTC-7, news wrote:


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.




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.




Not "totally", no, just meaningless if *audible* differences are your

only interest. I don't doubt that many, if not all, of us have used many

different factors in selecting our gear, including it's looks. But I

don't need a reviewer to wax poetic about how the gear looks, I need

only see a picture for that. I can research the manufacturer, and

obviously I can see the price, so the sound is really the only other

criterion of interest, and a subjective, sighted-only review won't

reliably provide that information. So..."essentially meaningless".



That's just wrong. The actual sound of the gear is an actual factor in a person's perceptions of what they hear. Even under sited conditions. There is this thing called gray between the black and the white.

No, you're conflating "perception", inclusive of bias, with *audible*.
If you put the same component in two different boxes, one may well be
preferred over the other, sighted, but it will have zero to do with
*audibility*.

Keith

  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Of $90,000 turntables, Stradivarius violins, red wine, and blindfolds

On Monday, April 21, 2014 4:02:48 PM UTC-7, KH wrote:
On 4/20/2014 6:30 AM, Scott wrote:
=20
On Saturday, April 19, 2014 7:56:51 PM UTC-7, KH wrote:

=20
On 4/19/2014 6:20 AM, Scott wrote:

=20

=20
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:39:04 AM UTC-7, news wrote:

=20

=20
The subjectivist audio press comes out with endless prose and poetry=

about
=20

=20

=20

=20
what they hear in the latest products, but it is totally meaningless=

if it
=20

=20

=20

=20
is done under sighted conditions.

=20

=20

=20

=20
No, it is not "totally" meaningless. yes it is flavored with sighted =

bias. But honestly so are your personal perceptions of your own stereo. Doe=
s that make your perceptions meaningless? You have talked about those perce=
ptions at length and have come up with some very unconventional beliefs on =
stereo playback based on those perceptions.
=20

=20

=20

=20
Not "totally", no, just meaningless if *audible* differences are your

=20

=20
only interest. I don't doubt that many, if not all, of us have used ma=

ny
=20

=20
different factors in selecting our gear, including it's looks. But I

=20

=20
don't need a reviewer to wax poetic about how the gear looks, I need

=20

=20
only see a picture for that. I can research the manufacturer, and

=20

=20
obviously I can see the price, so the sound is really the only other

=20

=20
criterion of interest, and a subjective, sighted-only review won't

=20

=20
reliably provide that information. So..."essentially meaningless".

=20

=20

=20

=20
That's just wrong. The actual sound of the gear is an actual factor in =

a person's perceptions of what they hear. Even under sited conditions. Ther=
e is this thing called gray between the black and the white.
=20

=20
No, you're conflating "perception", inclusive of bias, with *audible*.=20
=20
If you put the same component in two different boxes, one may well be=20
=20
preferred over the other, sighted, but it will have zero to do with=20
=20
*audibility*.
=20
=20
=20

I am not conflating anything. If you put two different components that are =
known to sound different in those same boxes the sound difference will also=
affect preference. Once again you gravitate towards the black and white an=
d ignore the gray in between. We actually do hear things under sighted cond=
itions and what we actually hear also affects what we think we hear. Bias h=
ardly makes up 100% of our perceptions.=20

  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
KH KH is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Of $90,000 turntables, Stradivarius violins, red wine, and blindfolds

On 4/22/2014 7:16 AM, Scott wrote:
On Monday, April 21, 2014 4:02:48 PM UTC-7, KH wrote:
On 4/20/2014 6:30 AM, Scott wrote:


No, you're conflating "perception", inclusive of bias, with *audible*.

If you put the same component in two different boxes, one may well be

preferred over the other, sighted, but it will have zero to do with

*audibility*.



I am not conflating anything. If you put two different components that are known to sound different in those same boxes the sound difference will also affect preference.


Uhmm, yes, because they sound different.

Once again you gravitate towards the black and white and ignore the gray in between. We actually do hear things under sighted conditions and what we actually hear also affects what we think we hear. Bias hardly makes up 100% of our perceptions.


It is black and white. Sighted, you cannot *know* how much bias is
introduced, or whether it suppresses differences or "creates"
differences in perception where no audible differences are present. That
is an established fact. So, virtually meaningless for any subtle
differences in components where, from an engineering perspective, no
audible difference should exist.

  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Of $90,000 turntables, Stradivarius violins, red wine, and blindfolds

On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:08:35 AM UTC-7, KH wrote:
On 4/22/2014 7:16 AM, Scott wrote:
=20
On Monday, April 21, 2014 4:02:48 PM UTC-7, KH wrote:

=20
On 4/20/2014 6:30 AM, Scott wrote:

=20
=20
=20
No, you're conflating "perception", inclusive of bias, with *audible*.

=20

=20
If you put the same component in two different boxes, one may well be

=20

=20
preferred over the other, sighted, but it will have zero to do with

=20

=20
*audibility*.

=20

=20

=20

=20
I am not conflating anything. If you put two different components that =

are known to sound different in those same boxes the sound difference will =
also affect preference.
=20
=20
=20
Uhmm, yes, because they sound different.
=20
=20
=20
Once again you gravitate towards the black and white and ignore the gra=

y in between. We actually do hear things under sighted conditions and what =
we actually hear also affects what we think we hear. Bias hardly makes up 1=
00% of our perceptions.
=20
=20
=20
It is black and white. Sighted, you cannot *know* how much bias is=20
=20
introduced, or whether it suppresses differences or "creates"=20
=20
differences in perception where no audible differences are present. That=

=20
=20
is an established fact. So, virtually meaningless for any subtle=20
=20
differences in components where, from an engineering perspective, no=20
=20
audible difference should exist.


Alas, as John Atkinson said so wisely. Everything sounds the same except wh=
en it doesn't. You have now attached enough conditions that I think I can p=
robably mostly agree with you...now. Of course the goal posts have been mov=
ed so far that this is no longer the original assertion. That being "The su=
bjectivist audio press comes out with endless prose and poetry about what t=
hey hear in the latest products, but it is totally meaningless if it is don=
e under sighted conditions."
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
KH KH is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Of $90,000 turntables, Stradivarius violins, red wine, and blindfolds

On 4/22/2014 7:02 PM, Scott wrote:
On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:08:35 AM UTC-7, KH wrote:
On 4/22/2014 7:16 AM, Scott wrote:

On Monday, April 21, 2014 4:02:48 PM UTC-7, KH wrote:


On 4/20/2014 6:30 AM, Scott wrote:




No, you're conflating "perception", inclusive of bias, with *audible*.




If you put the same component in two different boxes, one may well be




preferred over the other, sighted, but it will have zero to do with




*audibility*.








I am not conflating anything. If you put two different components that are known to sound different in those same boxes the sound difference will also affect preference.




Uhmm, yes, because they sound different.



Once again you gravitate towards the black and white and ignore the gray in between. We actually do hear things under sighted conditions and what we actually hear also affects what we think we hear. Bias hardly makes up 100% of our perceptions.




It is black and white. Sighted, you cannot *know* how much bias is

introduced, or whether it suppresses differences or "creates"

differences in perception where no audible differences are present. That

is an established fact. So, virtually meaningless for any subtle

differences in components where, from an engineering perspective, no

audible difference should exist.


Alas, as John Atkinson said so wisely. Everything sounds the same except when it doesn't. You have now attached enough conditions that I think I can probably mostly agree with you...now. Of course the goal posts have been moved so far that this is no longer the original assertion. That being "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."

You need to read more carefully. I have put *no* conditions on
anything. The "subtle" comment above only acknowledges that no one ever
argues that speakers, for example, need blind testing to hear the
obvious audible differences. You know that, clearly.

It's clear that sighted testing is subject to bias - unrelated to the
actual audible signal. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knows how
bias affects any given reviewers perception, only that it *will* affect
it. So, as I originally said, the statement "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." is perfectly accurate if the *sound* is the only
thing of interest. No goalpost moving or conditions. If you're
interested in a reviewers Gestalt of a piece (I have no idea why one
would, but...) then feel free.



  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Low Hertz Low Hertz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default Of $90,000 turntables, Stradivarius violins, red wine, and blindfolds

On Monday, November 10, 2014 3:58:50 AM UTC-8, Barkingspyder wrote:
On Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:21:12 AM UTC-7, news wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:39:04 AM UTC-7, news wrote:

=20
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.

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
Not totally unconventional. There are a few others who have observed th=

e=20
same, such as Linkwitz, Moulton, Davis, maybe include Toole if you cons=

ider=20
his reports on the prefernce for a wide, smooth response to indicate=

=20
something about radiation pattern.
=20
But all of that is why I, too, must compare my new speakers against som=

e=20
conventional ones in a blind study.
=20
I do wish I knew which Scott you are, so that I know what body of disco=

urse=20
we are referring to when you mention that you have read my material bef=

ore.
=20
Gary Eickmeier

=20
Why compare your speakers in a blind study at all? The difference betwee=

n speakers are not in any question, their differences are usually painfully=
obvious. The use of blind testing that I know about is to determine so ca=
lled subtle differences. Nothing subtle about speakers, they are and alway=
s have been the weakest link in the audio chain. =20
=20
Frequency response is all over the map and often times so is the impedanc=

e. They can present loads that make amps cry uncle. =20
=20
The only blind testing of speakers that I know of that have any meaning a=

re the ones done by the BBC when they were getting out of building their ow=
n speakers and deciding which speakers from which company they were going t=
o choose. They wanted the most accurate speakers they could get, so they l=
ined up some likely candidates based on measured performance and blind list=
ening. As we all probably know Dynaudio won. Not that hard to see why onc=
e you listen to any Dynaudio speaker, at least that's been my experience. =
I have yet to hear a better tweeter made by anybody than the D28 and the T3=
30. =20
=20
But I digress.
=20
I ask again why would you need to compare speakers in blind listening com=

parisons? I know you have a thing for direct reflecting speakers, and almo=
st nobody seems to understand why, but to compare them to any more conventi=
onal speakers is bound to show a difference.
=20
For any other audio device blind comparisons likely are going to show no =

difference, assuming everything is working like it should and one designer =
has not decided to try for something other than accurate response, meaning =
flat frequency response. =20
=20
I have a hard time understanding why this is still being talked about as =

if double blind testing had not been shown to be the best possible way to d=
etermine if there is any difference between audio devices. Why do people s=
till tell the same stories about non-existent stress? Can the subjective p=
undits really be powerful enough and persuasive enough to fool so many peop=
le so often?

As a musician and good friends with luthiers, you have to understand that
virtually no Stradivarious violins are in original condition. To begin with=
,
their necks/fingerboards were adapted for modern music. =20

That's less of a consequence as violin shops, to make the instrument sound
immediately bigger and louder, removed wood. This provided short term bene=
fit, but in the long run, without the mass the tone became compromised,
as it takes mass for a clean sound to carry.

Carbon fiber is interesting. If you heard carbon fiber dropped it has a ho=
rrible metallic sound. Yes, I've heard Lewis and Clark instruments, and th=
ey are amazing for what they are. But in cold weather, musicians such as Y=
o Yo Ma, were considering using them, but the weather warmed up enough so t=
hey were able to use their warmer, richer sounding spruce and maple instrum=
ents.

I'd like a Lewis and Clark bass as a back up instrument, they're light weig=
ht, indestructible, sound good. But they sound no where near as complex and=
interesting as my old Italian bass.

For a while Coda make great carbon fiber bows, Coda Orchestral Bows.

I wanted one but they no longer make that model. It drew a lot of sound an=
d spoke really quickly. The new models are much stiffer and I don't like t=
hem.

  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Peter Wieck Peter Wieck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,418
Default Of $90,000 turntables, Stradivarius violins, red wine, and blindfolds

On Monday, November 10, 2014 12:13:01 PM UTC-5, Low Hertz wrote:
Much Stuff Clipped

Coming late into this thread by virtue of two recent posts - I would sugges=
t that the horse is thoroughly dead, cannot be revived, and at this point i=
s probably not even good for leather.=20

By way of costs - the point of diminishing returns is far, far below $90,00=
0 in any piece of audio equipment, moving parts or otherwise. There is only=
but so much *stuff* that may be crammed into an object specific to any giv=
en audio purpose, and that *stuff* can only cost so much. After which the r=
est is eyewash. With moving parts, agreed that the threshold is much higher=
than with electronics. But even if made entirely from titanium and with ru=
by bearings, humanely harvested whale-oil lubricants, solid silver wire ins=
ulated with virgin kynar, there is still but so much. $90,000 - the price o=
f a modest house in many, many parts of the US, including a car in the gara=
ge, is well beyond that 'so much'.=20

Violins: The story of the mis-shipped 'fiddle' comes to mind. De Gustibus n=
on est disputandum. Those who prefer *THIS* to *THAT* might be persuaded to=
consider *THAT*. But those who consider *THIS* vs. *THAT* to be matters of=
revealed religion have no such flexibility, nor should it be asked of them=
.. They believe what they choose and will continue to do so, other considera=
tions notwithstanding.=20

Every so often, this fly is cast across these waters - and always some few =
rise to the bait. We are a highly opinionated bunch, it is to be expected. =
Participate as you choose, but with humor, not hostility....=20

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA=20

p.s.:=20
a) Ruby is naturally lubricious. Diamond and/or many other precious stones =
are not. Hence rubies commonly used as 'jewels' in machinery over other mat=
erials.=20
b) Silver is the best room-temperature conductor - far better than gold.=20
c) kynar is an extremely thin, extremely tough insulator with very high die=
lectric properties. Much better than lacquer or shellac.=20


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags [email protected] High End Audio 27 January 13th 12 04:02 AM
Bach, via Parisot, Stradivarius and a bunch of wires and stuff Watt? Me worry? Vacuum Tubes 1 April 17th 10 11:14 AM
Why so many violins in an orchestra? peter Pro Audio 55 June 13th 08 05:59 AM
Wine Lionel Audio Opinions 1 December 27th 04 01:44 PM
Cool weather may be Stradivarius' secret Rob Adelman Pro Audio 7 December 21st 03 11:28 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:32 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"