"Effectively proved"? What does that mean?
No-one ever claimed the opposite, so I have no idea why you keep flogging that strawman.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Catalogue of blind tests
- Thread starter ahofer
- Start date
"Effectively proved"? What does that mean?
No-one ever claimed the opposite, so I have no idea why you keep flogging that strawman.
MarkS
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2021
- Messages
- 1,225
- Likes
- 1,775
Yes, we fundamentally disagree.
The vast majority of people will hear the sound change (I certainly do) when watching a McGurk effect video. Yet the sound actually does not change.
Our brains are easily fooled. The sound we "hear" has been processed by our brains, which automatically take into account other information, all at an unconscious level. This processing cannot be shut off by conscious effort. Therefore non-auditory inputs simply MUST be eliminated in order to get a valid test of "sound".
Close your eyes, and the McGurk-effect differences go away.
That's all we objectivists are asking for: close your eyes, and use your ears. Only.
MarkS
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2021
- Messages
- 1,225
- Likes
- 1,775
Sure. But the existence of such differences first needs to be demonstrated by showing that they are audible under blind conditions. Otherwise other explanations (unconscious bias) are much more likely to be correct.
Then, once validated by blind testing, we need to ask if the differences can be explained by basic measurements such as frequency response and harmonic distortion. Sometimes, for example, a particular speaker cable can add enough extra resistance to the circuit to slightly alter the frequency response, enough to be audible.
Of course this is not a very interesting audible difference, because it could be replicated in the lower-resistance cable by adding a suitable resistor in series. Furthermore it is the higher-resistance cable that is "distorted". That's why many here do spend a bit extra to get lower-resistance speaker cables (as indicted by the gauge of the wire), as opposed to the cheap 16-gauge lamp cord that I use.
Geoffkait
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2021
- Messages
- 73
- Likes
- 23
Demonstrating something or validating a belief with a blind test is not a foregone conclusion since many things can and do go wrong with any test. So, if the results of a blind test are negative that doesn’t necessarily demonstrate anything or validate anything.
What does have meaning is the accumulation of evidence from tests in many different systems by many different people. Independent validation, so to speak.
What does have meaning is the accumulation of evidence from tests in many different systems by many different people. Independent validation, so to speak.
Last edited:
JustJones
Major Contributor
If you're the Geoffkait of https://www.machinadynamica.com/
you would find a more receptive audience at audiogon unless you're here to troll in which case that'll be addressed at some point.
you would find a more receptive audience at audiogon unless you're here to troll in which case that'll be addressed at some point.
Geoffkait
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2021
- Messages
- 73
- Likes
- 23
So, are you saying people here have closed minds? I certainly hope that’s not the case. But I’m beginning to get a bad feeling. I do wish there were more of me but alas I’m the same person.
Cheers,
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
we do artificial atoms right
Cheers,
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
we do artificial atoms right
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2019
- Messages
- 3,843
- Likes
- 3,819
many people here have minds that welcome data but not speculation
a screen door in a submarine is not what is meant by having an open mind
your post #108 explains why blind testing is never done for new drugs and is ignored by the FDA
a screen door in a submarine is not what is meant by having an open mind
your post #108 explains why blind testing is never done for new drugs and is ignored by the FDA
MarkS
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2021
- Messages
- 1,225
- Likes
- 1,775
Quoting from your site:
"Have you ever wondered why so many CDs sound thin, metallic, dynamically compressed, bland, generic, congealed, uninvolving, whimpy, electronic, analytical, two dimensional, lifeless, distorted, sour, synthetic, rolled off, thuddy, strident, and like paper mache? All of that is about to change.
New Dark Matter NDM, the newest product from Machina Dynamica, is the only audio product that absorbs both visible scattered laser light and invisible scattered light in CD players, thereby improving optical signal to noise ratio, thus improving sound quality."
OK, I'm out. Have a nice life.
"Have you ever wondered why so many CDs sound thin, metallic, dynamically compressed, bland, generic, congealed, uninvolving, whimpy, electronic, analytical, two dimensional, lifeless, distorted, sour, synthetic, rolled off, thuddy, strident, and like paper mache? All of that is about to change.
New Dark Matter NDM, the newest product from Machina Dynamica, is the only audio product that absorbs both visible scattered laser light and invisible scattered light in CD players, thereby improving optical signal to noise ratio, thus improving sound quality."
OK, I'm out. Have a nice life.
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2020
- Messages
- 166
- Likes
- 430
I like this one better:
“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.”
- Albert Einstein
This is all fascinating but I feel there should be follow up studies into why people think they can hear differences when they don't exist. I feel it is all suggestibility. Many years ago there was a segment on a radio 4 magazine program about some guy who claimed he could improve anyones Hi-Fi by doing crazy things in peoples listening rooms. The one I remember most was he looked at some magazines lieing on the coffee table and he counted the pages. If it was an odd number he ripped a page out to make it even. It was clearly insane but the bemused radio guy said it seemed to work and everything sounded better. He said he didn't know if the guy was a magician or a mountibank. The even more crazy thing was it even sounded better to me , listening on the radio. I think humans are incredibly suggestible and there is something about our perception of sound that is incredibly 'wooly', maleable and easily manipulated. If you listen to music on one system and then listen to another on a different one ten or thirty minutes later you are completely relying on your memory of listening to the previous system, and human memory does not work (at all) like a scientific instrument.
It would be fun and instructive to deliberately mislead and influence listeners. I am sure most people would be hopelessly easy to fool.
It would be fun and instructive to deliberately mislead and influence listeners. I am sure most people would be hopelessly easy to fool.
OK, I added Bold numbers so I can address each item.
For #1 The follow up studies would show that people "think" they hear differences because the ear/brain interaction is all over the place. It is not nailed down at all and our hearing perception changes every few minutes. This is due to many influences.
2. Yes, for audio, some of it is suggestibility and other times it is the brain doing what it does, controlling you hearing in many ways.
3. See #2.
4. It is extremely easy to fool our hearing. It is done all the time. Nothing to do with hearing is stable. It is always a moving target.
5. That is very, very true.
6. I have done it. The problem is not that most people are easy to fool. Every single person is easy to fool. No one is exempt.
That is why scientist/engineers like JJ and others on this forum have fits with people spouting so much nonsense. There are some very educated folks on this web site who have knowledge about the true ability of humans to hear. They do not get sucked into arguments as it is tiring having to explain the same things a million times. Every time it is settled, wait ten years and whole new batch of people who don't know anything about audio bring up the same "ideas" about sound, hearing and our interaction with music. Usually 90% of it is wrong. So it starts all over again. It is a never ending process that really does wear people out after 30 to 40 years.
The reason this happens is that probably 85% of audio is snake oil. Almost all manufacturers of audio products get up in the morning and drink a nice hot cup of snake oil. Then for lunch they have ice cold snake oil and for dinner a glass of snake oil with some alcohol mixed in. They perpetuate snake oil and ideas that are proven wrong. Every day across the entire audio spectrum, snake oil is what sells. It is in darn near everything. I have stated MANY times that a lot of our objectivists on this web site believe in "some" snake oil. It is just that they do not know they do it. I point it out every once in awhile. But overall, this website is a great place for anti-snake oil people to hang out in. Thanks to Amir!
Heretic! Jezibel! Witch! You will be burned at the stake for that comment.
I "try" not to be too serious on these forums as thousand of other posters are extremely serious and often times have to break out the ruler to start measuring. I try not to do that, but I'm sure I have mistakenly went down that path at least once. Live and learn. Now I just live and let live, mostly. Ok, till I get riled up. But I do try!
Similar threads
