Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message
news:h1S0c.95108$Xp.423683@attbi_s54...
Harry Lavo wrote:

This is a misrepresentation of those members' position. What some of us
are saying is that you have to be cognizant of the effects of
expectation bias, and take proper steps to control it , if you really
want to find out if there are *audible only* differences. We always
have
said that if the differences are big enough, like those between
speakers, then you don't really need DBT's to differentiate them. We
don't say that "sight always overrides true differences" (in fact we
argue if the audible difference exists in the first place), we are
saying that expectation bias is very likely to override subtle
differences, and that DBT is the best way to control for expectation
bias. In the case of competent amps and speakers, we know that those
differences should be subtle at best, from measurements like frequency
response, distortion and signal-to-noise ratio tests.


What you are saying above is a very reasonable position. Unfortunately,
it
seems to believed only in the abstract here. When somebody such as
Michael
comes on saying he can hear differences in amps...there is no
questioning
him on his listening conditions

Actually I asked him whether he level-matched...


You did late in the game, but that was not the initial concern of those who
responded.

, no consideration of the age or circuitry of
the amps in question (despite one being a digital amp...the one chosen
at
that). .no discussion of his stated purpose or state of mind. All that
happens is that he is told because he listened sighted, he is surely
imagining things.

He did describe his listening conditions. Maybe you have missed that?


Yes, and listening over stax headphones should probably have raised a few
cautionary red flags among the objectivists, since listening on a really
good set of headphones lets your hear things that ordinary speakers and
room reflections might obscure.

Yes, listening via headphones is more sensitive. So is using pink noise.
But even a bigger red flag is the alleged "huge" differences that even
someone blind and deaf could discern. And his insistence that he was
immune from expectation bias.

Then the turmoil ensues.

The turmoil ensues because he refused to believe that expectation bias
could lead to false positives when trying to detect differences. Now
please answer this: do you agree with Michael on this key point? Do you
believe that expectation bias should be controlled for?


I believe it should be if you are after scientific proof.

Good. Let's remember that.

Done with a
blind, monadic, evaluative test.

We had this discussion before, and you could not make decisions once you
had to compare. Interesting that Michael told us he actively *compared*
the several amps. He did not have any difficulty discerning differences
in your so-called "comparative" mode. So why not do the standard DBT?

I think it is a ridiculous burden to put
on an audiophile trying to decide for himself what to buy...and it is an
equally ridiculous thing to demand that he do before he dare discuss on this
newsgroup the sound of products as he heard them on a "kitchen table test".

You seem to have missed the point. If he said he heard differences
between amps, that would be just an anecdote. What raised the discussion
level up was his insistence that expectation bias could never affect
one's ability to discern difference.

He is perfectly welcome to his belief, but when he flat out refutes the
existing body of knowledge on human perception, that's where challenges
come in.

Note that you have erected another strawman again when you said "it is a
ridiculous burden to put on an audiophile trying to decide for himself
what to buy". How many times do you need to put that up and burn it? Can
you tried to be more objective in representing viewpoints of those you
don't agree with?



They should
know better, but they don't seem to be able to allow even the
possibility
that there are real differences and that you might have heard them.

No, they do, that's why they recommend the Harry Lavo's and Michael
Scarpitti's of this newsgroup to do controlled tests to see if those
differences are real. Heck, they even throw in real money to motivate
them, in the case of cables.


Insisting on a test that the "testees" don' t believe is valid. Nice
'gotcha.

Now Harry, how does the word "recommend" become "insist"?


The insistance is that the test be a blind comparative a-b or a-b-x test
rather than a serial, modadic, evaluative test that happens to be blind.

But we never insist that he has to do that in selecting components. If
he wants to prove without doubt to us, of course then he has to use a
bias-controlled methodology, and DBT is such a commonly used
methodology. BTW, he did not think that he would have problem passing
the DBT, unlike in your case where "comparative" causes panic.


As far as I am concerned, you don't have to do any controlled testing.
You can pick amps/cables based on whatever criteria. However, when you
want to convince others that there is real, audible, difference between
them, you should use controlled testing like DBT to make sure that
expectation bias (and other stuff like mismatched levels) does not
invalidate your listening tests. DBT is the standard methodology on
difference detection for such a long time, that I don't see any reason
why Michael would have problem with it.


He may not have a problem with it. Other than to consider it a waste of
time. But he certainly didn't expect to be told that he was wrong, wrong,
wrong to have thought he heard different sound characteristics from the amps
because he didn't do the test double blind.

What he was told "wrong, wrong Wrong" was his insistence that
expectation bias could not lead to false positives. You believe he's right?

He might or might not have
heard such characteristics...he was given no benefit of the doubt.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he truly believes what he heard
was real.



So
don't get upset...it's a world view of theirs that you are not going
to
change.

All you need to change their world view is to pass the cable DBT test!
. Simple, isn't it?


Sure, would greatly simplify the objectivist world-view here if we would
just go away and stop challenging the test.

The funny thing is no one asked you to go away and stop challenging the
test. (In fact we even put up money hoping you would take the test.) And
you were the one who said that Michael should go away and find some
other topics to discuss...

Nobody asked him to go away. We just suggested he not tear himself apart
looking to convince you guys. It looks like he reached the same conclusion
on his own.

It did not appear that he is tearing himself apart at all!


You yourself put the smiley in your statement, meaning you know it is a
ridiculous statement that won't be accepted.

No, your interpretation is wrong. I put the smiley because I know that
you or others know that you will fail the cable test, and will not
participate. It is not because the test is ridiculous (why is it
ridiculous, Harry, given night and day differences?), it is because the
subjectivists are really afraid to learn that without sight information,
they do not have that touted ability to discriminate.

Why, because you are asking us
to "beat" a test that we think is flawed.

You said it's flawed because of that mystical comparative vs evaluative
dilemma. Others said that it is flawed because the test period is too
long, too short, snippets too long, too short, while in academics and
industry DBT's are used day in and day out.

Meanwhile, my efforts to point
out why I and others believe it is flawed and to propose a proper control
test have met with very little but stoney silence...as if the issue were
never raised.

Stoney silence? You seem to have very selective memory. If you are
looking for posts supporting your proposal only, yeah, I guess that was
stoney silence .

If something uncomfortable comes up, just ignore it, right?

Please reread the responses to your proposal.

The way to prove the test right or wrong is to devise the control test and
get on with executing it.

You seem to want to prove an established methodology is wrong. Yeah, go
ahead and prove it.

I say the best way to get to the other side of the fence is to open the
gate. You say the best way is to lower my head and keep charging the fence.
Which do you think has the best chance of getting us to the other side?

Nil, because you made up your mind a long time ago not to go there!

BTW, how would you know that Michael would fail a DBT on amps?


I don't know nor did I claim to know that he would. But like Mike Kueller,
I believe the test technique itself loads the test in favor of "no
difference". And I would never encourage him to undertake a loaded test.

Maybe because in most cases, there is really no difference?




But you can ignore them and instead focus on other topics of interest
here
on the forum.


I think the subjectivists actually find this topic of great interest,
based on how frequently they post in these threads...


You think the objectivists ever let an assertion of heard differences
pass
without comment or challenge?


You realize how many of these threads were started by subjectivists?


This one was started not once, but twice, by an objectivist.

And subjectivists would never let an assertion by the other side pass
without comment or challenge, so there you go...