geoffkaitAll the more reason not to accept blind tests, uh, blindly. There is no reason why ANY blind test protocol should be considered above all others as being infallible. Of course. That’s part of why I think blind testing has very little value to most audiophiles. What’s interesting about this thread about blind testing is that its noisiest advocates aren’t scientists, cite special exemption from blind testing for their claims, and don’t even understand proper testing protocols. One of them is staying one step ahead of the moderators and is still trying to hustle his $25,000 scam "challenge." |
geoffkait@cleeds No, this is how science works:
Many
scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details
available. Hopes faded due to the large number of negative replications,
the withdrawal of many reported positive replications ... We are not really in disagreement here. The results obtained through scientific research are not always as hoped, and not every experimenter finds himself able to duplicate the results reported by another. The point I was trying to make is that from the beginning of a supposedly scientific test, the methodology must be something others can duplicate in an effort to confirm the result. That a result cannot be confirmed - as was clearly the case with Pons & Fleischmann - isn't "anti-science," but science at work. And to make trying to replicate a result worthwhile, the experimenter should be assured that the test itself was scientific.
|
geoffkaitNo, it means the results must be repeatable. Remember Cold Fusion. They had rigged the rest or whatever. Are you referring to Pons & Fleischmann? If so, you are the first to suggest that they rigged anything. Indeed, the opposite was the case, and they freely shared their test procedure. As fate would have it, others couldn’t duplicate their results. But, as I said, that’s how science works. Thank goodness. |
It’s unfortunate that this thread - which is about the science of double blind audio testing - has become one of the ugliest ever on Audiogon. It’s proof how some want to politicize this issue - and I say that even as I argue that while such testing has its place, it’s of limited value to most audiophiles. geoffkait Just to mention, the word repeatable can be misleading I think "repeatable" in this context means that the test can be replicated by others. That requires that the test protocol be explained to at least allow the possibility of independent verification even if - as sometimes happens in science - another conducts the ostensibly same test, but arrives at a different result. If the testing protocol is inherently unscientific (as proposed by gdhal here), it saves other experimenters the trouble of trying to replicate the test. If you’re trying to apply science, it’s futile to pursue an unscientific protocol. That’s how science works. |
nonoiseImagine
going through life not being allowed to believe something you can hear,
let alone see, taste, smell or touch, because someone else
hyperbolically claims that it's not so.
Well said. That's part of why I think that blind testing really has very limited value to most audiophiles. |
gdha
You, and everyone else subscribed to the thread and who have been
reading it since its inception, are very much aware of the parameters
(general framework as outlined in the example procedure) There's a large body of scientific literature that shows your proposed testing protocol isn't scientific. I can only conclude that your effort here is a con. |
geoffkait0... if test results of any test - including a double blind test - are negative
you cannot assume there’s no difference between cables OR that device X
doesn’t work as claimed OR that wire directionality is a hoax. The test
just wasn’t capable of revealing the differences ... There are too many things that can go
wrong with a particular test, including the test conductor is all
thumbs, the person who put the system together is all thumbs, the test
procedure is faulty ... It’s the
preponderance of the evidence that prevails. That is quite true. That's why those who promote such tests should be using themselves first as subjects; if they are sincere, they'd want as large a body of test results as possible. They'd also want to ensure that each test be scientifically valid, which is most likely if it's consistent with established testing methodologies, such as quick switching. The poster who is promoting this "challenge" is clearly a con, and I suspect that's why the moderators are removing his posts. |
moto_manI
don't doubt that on a good quality system, different cables sound
subtlely different. Whether that subtle difference is worth 5, 10 or
even 20K is another story. Agreed! Whether the results are worth the cost is a completely subjective choice.
However, it just stuns me that there is any
dispute over the value of double blind testing to test outlandish claims
made for any piece of equipment or cables .. What is wrong with
removing the possibility of bias and just make judgments ... What stuns me is that the most vocal advocate here for blind testing doesn't know how to conduct such a test and exempts himself from the requirement ... based on his performance in the same kind of sighted test that he thinks is unreliable for everyone else. That, and his bogus $25,000 wager, make it clear he has some funny agenda.
I'm not at all convinced of the value of blind testing to the typical audiophile, by the way. But the efforts some go to insist that others submit to such testing, while they enjoy some special exemption, just doesn't make any sense. |
gdhal.... As to switching quickly,
realistically/practically that doesn't play a role ...We're
talking a matter of minutes. Those who claim to hear a difference should
be able to demonstrate to disbelievers, or they shouldn't make such
claims There is abundant research on this that conflicts with your claim that quick switching isn't required for a proper audio test. It's a puzzle that you choose to avoid existing research while promoting your $25,000 challenge, which increasingly appears bogus. If you're sincere about double blind testing, I suggest you look at the existing body of evidence about how double blind testing for audio is properly conducted. Then subject yourself to the rigors of such a test before insisting others do the same.
In the interim, everyone here is free to offer their observations free of any testing requirement, notwithstanding your insistence that "they shouldn't make such claims."
I remain open minded to an
alternative. Like speaker wire, I'm flexible. Then why don't you subject yourself to double blind tests? |
gdhalI’m not advocating for anything. So please, lets clear the air. That’s just not true. You wagered $25,000 on this proposed test of yours until the moderators shut it down. Your proposed testing protocol is inherently flawed, in large part because it doesn’t allow for quick switching between the two choices. Meanwhile, you dismiss with a wave of the hand the suggestion that you undertake a proper test. What is it that frightens you so? Why not conduct your own, valid, double blind test? |
gdhaThere is no difference without a blind test, so there is no need for me to try it blind You’re not making any sense. Blind test advocates such as yourself claim that sighted tests are unreliable. Yet you now seek special exception from being subjected to the rigors of blind/scientific testing, based upon your special privileged use of the same methodology you claim is unreliable when cited by others. That is an extreme example of expectation bias and illogic. Also, my challenge (undefined but can be worked out) is open to you too I have a passing interest in double-blind testing, even though I think it has little value to audiophiles and is mostly a waste of my time. But I’m not interested in gambling, and your efforts to turn your challenge into wagering is what I suspect led the moderators to delete your posts. |
gdhal... the reason reversing speaker wire doesn't show up in a blind test is because there is no audible difference. Have
you actually confirmed this by conducting a double-blind test? If so,
please tell us how you conducted the test. Or ... are you just
speculating?
|
gdhalSeems
to me you're skirting the issue.
Just the opposite is the case! You've proposed a test that would produce invalid or unreliable results because it isn't double-blind.
Regardless of the type of test or
however conducted, the spirit in what I'm suggesting to those who
purport to hear a difference is that *they* should take it upon
themselves to validate what they believe Double-blind testing is time-consuming and tedious. Audiophiles who are happy with their systems have no incentive to undertake such testing. It's great if you want to validate your beliefs and if you undertake such a test, please share the details with us.
|
gdhal... those who purport to hear a difference when they
reverse their speaker wire really ought to perform their own blind
testing (of course with the assistance of a trusted friend). That's pretty silly. Those who have reversed their speaker wire are probably happy with the result - they have no need to test it for you. On the other hand, if you enjoy performing double-blind tests - go for it! Please post results here.
The notion to engage a "trusted friend" in the test is also ill-advised, because it can only taint the process. Plus, if you're going to rely on a friend for help, you'll need two. After all, you want this to be double-blind, correct? A much, much better approach is to employ an abx test and with the right equipment, no assistant is required.
I've long found it interesting that so many who clamor for others to conduct double-blind tests actually don't know how to properly conduct such a test. |
nugat ... That
process can be a subject of scientific research. What goes into the
cable and what comes out. People and their ears are redundant here.
Really nobody has done it in the whole world? You may very well be the first to suggest that when it comes to audio cable research, people and their ears are redundant. Perhaps you'll undertake the research that you're so surprised remains unexplored. If so, please report back with the results. |
gdhal ... the onus ought to placed on the person
(Geoff) making such claim, not the one (me) disputing it. Sorry, but no one here is obligated to test anything for your benefit.
|
gdhal... of all those on the forum
who have reported hearing a difference in wire direction over the
years, did any of that evidence involve any kind of blind testing? ... So without the blind test, the listener "evidence" is
meaningless as far as I'm concerned. That's fine, you needn't accept the observations of others. Please feel free to conduct your own blind testing, and to share the results with the forum. |
jetter...The purpose of the double blind
test ... is to determine whether there is really a discernable
difference in sound or its a case of people wanting to believe they are
paying the dues to buy into an elite club.
Please tell us how you can design a double blind test that could determine why a listener might be unable to detect a difference between two items subject to the test. |
gdhal
In my view, it really shouldn’t be all that unreasonable to expect that
this same someone who professes superiority could detect whatever it is
he/she feels is superior in a blind test.
It seems to me that those who are clamoring for blind tests should be the ones conducting the blind tests. |
