Articles You Feel Should be Shared

Life is an illusion. But this thread is not. 😬

In that last article from Audio Science Review djones51 just posted I don’t think I’ve seen so much misinformation and disinformation since Gandhi was a Boy Scout. ✌️Good name though, Audio Science Review. As if it was scientific. 🤗

I wouldn’t use the word bogus. I would use the word inconclusive or perhaps meaningless. Performing many tests on the same system by different testers and performing many tests on different systems by different testers would be a much more scientific approach. What are you afraid of?

As your friendly local testing guru, can I say for the umpteenth time any test, even a controlled test, has no significance because of the situation in audio system that so many things can go wrong with the test and usually do? You think you’re in complete control but you’re not. This is especially true for a test with negative results. Which is ironic perhaps because that’s usually what pseudo scientists tell you will happen. Would a determined pseudo skeptic lie about the results of a test? Well, duh! Maybe. That’s why tests for big projects, e.g., Government projects, are performed by independent, experienced testers, you know, someone without an ax to grind.

mahgisterAwake yourselves.... :)

>>>>>Perhaps it’s best to let sleeping dogs lie. 🐩 🐩 🐩

cd318
Talking of outsiders looking in, here’s an extract from an article by ’Bad Science’ author Ben Goldacre.
“I give you the editor of Stereophile, a respected hi-fi magazine of 33 years standing. He’s talking about blinded tests on amplifiers:

“It seems," he says, "that with such blind listening tests, all perceived subjective differences ... fall away ... when you have taken part in a number of these blind tests and experienced how two amplifiers you know from personal experience to sound extremely different can still fail to be identified under blind conditions ..."

Now I’m getting worried. Here comes the money shot.

"... then perhaps an alternative hypothesis is called for: that the very procedure of a blind listening test can conceal small but real subjective differences."

Ouch.

"Having taken part in quite a number of such blind tests, I have become convinced of the truth in this hypothesis."“

>>>Ben Goldacre is a piece of work. Typical pseudo reviewer/scientist. IMHO. Perhaps he should change his name to Ben Wiseacre. 😀 I know the guy JA from Stereophile and he’s right. Blind tests are at best inconclusive due to all the things that can and do go wrong. Ben Goldacre should not quit his day job. At least the name of his blog “Bad Science” is apropos and ironic. Ouch,

Lunatic fringe is the pejorative term given to advanced audiophiles by backsliding knuckle dragging pseudo skeptics when unfamiliar or preposterous sounding concepts infringe on their world view. A bit like natives on some distant isolated island ranting at the sun 🌞😀

I’m pretty sure you meant the doubtable Ethan Winer. 🙄 Innocent question: is someone holding up cue cards for him on those videos?