Imagine 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. "Fake News" proclamations abound here. Are you going to believe me or your lying ears? It's getting old. All the best, Nonoise |
This is really going too far. It's like when Romney held out his hand and said "I'll betcha $10K" on whatever it was he was upset about with Rick Perry (take your pick). It's like splashing the pot in poker. This will not end well and won't prove a thing. Stroke one's ego maybe, but beyond that....... All the best, Nonoise |
@gdhal I would think that with something in the nature of designing a product for consumer use, along with the safety implications, preferences for consumption of a product, etc. Double blind tests would be of great value in narrowing down how a consumer chooses. Educators already use it (in a different form) and even in politics, with people unaware as they participate, in group surveys and focus groups (they unwittingly reveal preferences in which way a phrase or word is used). That was an extreme example but it's done all the time. I just resent it that it's always hauled out in these threads as the answer to all differences and does nothing, really, to further discourse and enjoyment. But in the end, like you said, it's all good. 👍 All the best, Nonoise |
@gdhal When a group of people all hear the same thing, at the same time, in the same setting, and under the same circumstances, double blind testing would be entirely redundant. The only testing needed would be to determine why it happened, if they felt compelled to do so, and not at the behest of others. Double blind testing would only serve to dumb down an event which is in it's very nature. I think no one could argue that almost any event can be double blinded down to pure chance. It's like I've said before: a cheap parlor trick. All the best, Nonoise |
Once again, people are glossing over some things here. On another thread, someone posted that Pink Floyd sound engineers built a recording studio and it details what they went through to get it right. About 2/3s of the way down in the article, they tried reversing cables and all of them heard a different, and better direction. It was quite obvious. Then even heard a difference in the grounding cables direction. Why is it that some here only rely on what can be measured and not heard? You're invoking a rather backward way of thinking. One analogy that comes to mind is with our justice system. Any judge will tell you that circumstantial evidence carries every bit of weight as direct evidence. Without circumstantial evidence (like actually hearing) there would be no progress. It leads us to figure out, to backward engineer something so as to fit and validate our observations. To someone thinking outside the box, it's painfully obvious that what is presently being measured isn't fully being measured. Most likely due to the limits of the test equipment. Naysayers should be wearing robes and hold fast to their manual, armed with switches to punish those who'd dare disagree. All the best, Nonoise |
It's already been pointed out (right here in this thread) that those with experienced ears score reliably above average in double blind tests. Somehow, comments like that get glossed over. It's also been shown that listening takes time with a system one is familiar with and quick takes amount to nothing more than a parlor trick. Being easy to fool someone doesn't equate to their being wrong. Not too hard a concept to wrap ones head around. There was someone who pointed out, on another thread, that the whole concept of expectation bias is inherent in those who refuse to believe there is a difference. It's very hard, if not outright impossible, to prove a negative. The naysayer will simply state he/she doesn't hear a difference no matter how obvious. Or eventually, that it's not of any significance. One individual went so far as to say so on another, related thread. People he had invited over heard the difference, he did not, and yet he still said it was all B.S. I think the answer lies somewhere in there. All the best, Nonoise |
