not for lack of trying:I think it might be useful to sticky a thread that compiles blind test studies and results for various electronics.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/catalogue-of-blind-tests.8675/
not for lack of trying:I think it might be useful to sticky a thread that compiles blind test studies and results for various electronics.
Bias has different meanings and Googling turns up very specific examples like McGurk which may or may not often apply to HiFi.
Here we use it much more broadly.
But, to laymen, it is pejorative.
Bias and prejudice are what the other guy has. Good intuition and insight are what I have.
So I agree with Hon that it is not the best term to throw at newbies on their first visit.
Too much Groupthink and Too Little Critical Thinking
The two most obvious characteristics of posts in far too many threads on this forum, with the approaching one thousand posts in this thread being a singularly-good example are:
- A massive concentration of Groupthink. New members are drawn to the group and repeat the group speak even though "G" is small, the group is huge.
The subject of a thread, even where the technology is quite clear, such a cables, is soon taken over by clones who demonstrate little technical knowledge, but parrot what they have read on the thread. They berate anyone unfortunate to offer any questions or alternative opinions. It is hard to see any advantages to boutique cables or similar nonsense, but given the way a large number of members approach this question it is rather embarrassing to agree with the obvious science and be on the same side as these all too numerous individuals.
The continued references to DBT is a painful example of this groupthink combined with ignorance. Valid DBT's of overall audio questions are almost never run, but the single answer to many questions often refers to DBT. It is a way for those who know little to believe they are spouting some universal truth.
IMO Amir has begun his educational video series partly (mainly?) in response to the demonstrated ignorance of a huge huge number of the members here.
- A miniscule quantity of Critical Thinking. Even measuring the critical thinking changes its value.
How would you suggest we go about determining if it's 1 or 2 when someone posts here? I would say that most of those subjectivists jumping into ASR, except for an occasional manufacturer, belong to your truth #2. Does this make a difference? And how would you approach someone from group 2 differently if they come here with an intention of showing to themselves and to others why their beliefs are sacred and can't be questioned? A few do come to learn, but these are often obvious from the first few posts. These are far and few in between, but yes, unfortunately they may also get attacked and turned away as their intentions are misinterpreted. So, how do we determine someone's intent?
Let's be concerned about all three:
Consider TIM -- transient intermodulation distortion. Is it concerning? I encountered it years ago when it was brought to light by Marshall Leach when he published a DIY project for building a "low TIM amplifier" in a popular magazine. Parasound seems to still recognize its potential significance, mentioning it in some amp specs. This article describes it in the context of designers back in the day noting "a lack of correlation between conventional amplifier distortion measurements and listening tests...": Audiophile Review
I asked Google about "perceptual bias." Lots of junk, of course. The only substantial piece I found-- a genuine research project based on the perception of colors--concluded that bias quickly fades or even disappears completely--over a short time. I don't think "bias" is a helpful term to throw around in the context of friendly audiofiley discussions; it's too easily weaponized and has unhappy moral overtones.
Nice! Exactly what I was talking about, but would be nice to have it stickied.
but it annoys me that when interesting counterclaims are made (I very much feel bigguyca's post does that) that they are often not fully considered.
Buster Chestnut said:
And almost to the minute, someone posts something asinine on a ”science” forum implying:
(1) we know and can measure all there is about sound and human hearing
Raistlin65 said
I don't think that's what most of the regular members here think.
We know that sound can be measured.
We don't always know how human physical hearing/the brain will interpret it.
> unfortunately Buster is correct. I can go back and provide specific quotes if necessary but some people have posted that unless you can provide measurements for what you are saying, your posts are basically worthless and not welcome
There's a difference between teasing and lambasting. and I would expect the eagerness of others to join in of a different crowd. Didn't expect it here
Why though? Given we have a mountain of evidence showing what they say is impossible, why should we "fully consider" claims that provide zero evidence other than personal anecdote? You haven't really given a good answer for that, imo.
One interesting technique that we might consider is a "steelman" thread (opposite of Strawman), where we go through what we think are the *highest quality* objections to our approach, instead of piling on low quality objections. It may be revealing of some *actually interesting* ideas, as well as how people behave if the objections are stated in a more qualified way.
But you guys first . Honestly, I don't think I understand the psycho-acoustic research well enough to formulate a good steel man. But I am past the point of having some humility about my abilities, I hope.
I agree with you that in the wild, there are far more people who believe their senses than charlatans trying to scam. I do not know the ratio for those posting here, but I sense there are more of #2.
I think it is a mistake to assume that #2 (sense believers) would not exist unless they had been bamboozled by charlatans.
Our perceptions being influenced by biases caused by previous experiences, stories, tribal beliefs is how life works. We could not function if every judgement we made had to be thought through as if it was the first time we had ever encountered it. The hungry bear would catch us before we had thought things through.
So, assuming that your NAD amp sounds better because of your previous encounters with the brand, the technology, the function first styling etc. is no different from enjoying your wine more because you know its a sought after vintage from a boutique vineyard in France. Somehow it is acceptable to say you think a wine exceptional without someone in a wine forum insisting on a blind test. I wonder what percentage of oenophiles could pass such a test? If they could not, would their enjoyment of wine be improved if from that time forward they drank exclusively the boxed stuff?
I agree with Hon (above) that bias is a loaded word. Kahneman calls it thinking fast. Thinking fast cannot be cured, but our autonomic responses can be changed. Its complicated, we all have a bit of Dunning Kruger I think. A first step may be (to paraphrase a current political figure) treat everyone with respect and do not fast think that you know their motivations until you actually do.
Perhaps this actually extends the analogy, but the chemistry of what we taste is pretty well understood, hence the rise of Frankenwines.The oft-used wine analogy is a poor one. Technical wine evaluation is always done double blind. Any certification requires blind tasting. All significant wine competitions are conducted double blind. Many AOC/DOCG qualifications require a blind tasting. And so on.
When speaking of system "synergies", do you consider these to be chaotic? or are they a predictable sum of the character of the components? I'm surprised at people who think they can predict the sound of a system from their perceptions of the components (derived, in turn, from other system combinations), and even more surprised and suspicious of the 'tone control' approach to purchasing cables and amplifiers suggested by another forum member (who does happen to be a dealer).
I think these two views are contradictory. If we think that components have 'magical' synergies beyond our ability to measure, then it seems unlikely that we also can predict how combinations of components will sound.
Why though? Given we have a mountain of evidence showing what they say is impossible, why should we "fully consider" claims that provide zero evidence other than personal anecdote?......
One interesting technique that we might consider is a "steelman" thread (opposite of Strawman), where we go through what we think are the *highest quality* objections to our approach, instead of piling on low quality objections. It may be revealing of some *actually interesting* ideas, as well as how people behave if the objections are stated in a more qualified way.
But you guys first . Honestly, I don't think I understand the psycho-acoustic research well enough to formulate a good steel man. But I am past the point of having some humility about my abilities, I hope.
Measurements made on this site completely validated my initial claim. It was only the personal attacks , the unwillingness of anyone to even ask to or see a picture of setup , help me work through the steps after I indicated my willingness to do so, and to give many alternate reasons suggesting I was delusional or a complete moron for believing I heard a difference instead of even considering I actually did that surprised me.
The oft-used wine analogy is a poor one. Technical wine evaluation is always done double blind....
I think something along this line could work...
Maybe we can come up with a list of the most common (straw man) arguments we see, and for each of them ask a qualified/willing member to write up the 'Steel Man' response in a way that is not insulting or patronizing, but that allows those who *actually* want answers to get them, without trying to sort through the search history.
We can create a new "Start Here to begin your debunking" forum, with sticky threads for each of the Steelman (science based) positions.
Maybe 8-10 common ones. That would let us point people there, rather than try to figure out new ways to say the same thing that won't bore the shit out of everyone.
Thoughts on some version of that?