Oh dear
..
Newman, you could’ve produced a perfectly reasonable comment on blind testing. But instead you can’t resist turning it into an undisguised broadside against my posts.
And so, as predictable as death and taxes , it is bloated with the usual strawman and hand waving.
We rely on expert professionally conducted experimental listening tests, interpreted and analysed by expert professionals, written into high-grade papers and tested by fire among the peer group. The Science.
We don't rely on home listening of whatever construction, to test the findings of The Science, as if The Science is under review in such manner.
We don't conclude that The Science is a bit iffy, lacks nuance, or needs further work, based on our home tests not confirming The Science.
Nobody here is suggesting their personal blind tests have contributed to “The Science”
nor challenged “The Science” - and quite obviously not me.
Starting off by lobbing out a Big Fat Strawman is the sign you are not engaging in good faith.
We for goodness sake don't strut about on science discussion forums, throwing smokescreens all over statements of others that accurately reflect The Science, even going chesties with the actual scientists who wrote some of The Science and who adorn the forum with their presence, because we reckon that their summary statements on the trustworthiness of sighted listening are not right,
Not
THEIR summaries.
With which my arguments are compatible.
YOUR summaries, in which you extend scepticism to the point of incoherence (and which routinely strawman my views).
and all because our personal blind-ish
“blind-ish”
The last Blind Testing results I presented on the forum had the tube and solid state preamps in a separate room from the listener, sound levels matched (reconfirmed with a voltmeter at the speaker terminals), switching randomized using a random number generator.
Would you like to explain how you know this is merely “blind-ish” instead of “blinded” listening? Why not try honest analysis in place of smirky rhetorical neologisms?
I followed Amir’s recommendations for proper blind testing, and my post explaining my methodology and results were given a thumbs up by Amir as well.
Amir and others encourage members to do blind testing, and most members really appreciate people doing so and presenting the results. Except of course if the test results comes from the diabolical MattHooper, in which case of course the results have to be undermined and belittled, in your
constant dishonest attempt to paint me as ignorant or naïve on the subject of sighted bias.
and non-blind tests suggest (to ourselves at least) that we have managed to 'calibrate' our personal sighted listening to the actual sound waves.
What in the world is wrong with deciding to TEST if one’s sighted listening impressions are accurate by using blind testing??
That’s literally the kind of stuff we encourage here!
It was because I knew I couldn’t be sure I wasn’t imagining a sonic difference that I engaged in the blind test in the first place (as well as plenty of other blind tests I’ve performed). That’s what intellectual honesty looks like.
And did I, as you imply, leverage that to suggesting “ therefore all my sighted listening impressions are entirely accurate?”
Of course not. I haven’t been able to do a blind test with my tube power amps, and when discussing them here I constantly acknowledgeI can’t be certain that my impressions aren’t due to sighted biases!
And because now we don't even do the blind tests any more because we can use our 'calibrated' sighted listening to make direct observations about the sound waves themselves. LOL I mean spot the error, and maybe roll out a few synonyms for overconfidence.
The error is easily spotted: your furious production of strawmen.
As I’ve argued: if you want to have high confidence levels, you want to use scientific controls no matter what gear you are testing!
But on a pragmatic level, in which we often don’t have such controls available, we have to have pragmatic justifications.
As I pointed out here and which you have not refuted.
As Dr Toole agrees, scientific controls are always better, but that doesn’t mean sighted listening is useless.
Therefore, any claims of our fallible perception is going to have to include and account for successes as well - where our sighted inferences are not useless.
And I have given plenty of examples that you failed to address.
1. Take someone like Erin from Erin’s audio corner. He listens to loudspeaker first, taking note of the characteristics in sighted listening conditions and then measures. His sighted listening impressions have been most often confirmed to be accurate “ hearing the actual sound waves.” When he identifies for instance, an emphasis in the highs, a scoop out in the lower mid range, an emphasis in the midbass, Narrow or wider dispersion, etc, it typically shows up in the measurements. And he often identifies the correct specific frequency range as well.
Please explain to us, if sighted listening is so totally untrustworthy, how this could be?
And why, if you have routinely demonstrated an ability to accurately identify real sonic characteristics this way, you couldn’t be justified in presuming your next sighted listening speaker evaluation is
“ likely correct” (With the caveat it hasn’t been confirmed yet)?
2. This skill is hardly a novel one. If you’d had any experience in the professional sound world, you would’ve seen how experienced music and post production sound mixers are quite adept, under their usual “ sighted working conditions,” at quickly identifying Sonic issues, and quickly applying EQ To those frequencies to fix the issue or manipulate the sound.
How exactly would this work, under your hyper sceptical view of the untrustworthiness of sighted listening?
3. Consider Floyd Toole’s recommendation for the use of tone controls. He suggests having them handy to compensate for poor mastering or mixing (for instance adding some base to a thin master) or to adapt to personal preference.
Now, do you think that Dr Toole is suggesting these tools are to be used to
“ adjust imaginary sounds?”
Of course not. The recommendation are clearly aimed at REAL sonic characteristics “real sound waves” that we will identify in the normal course of our sighted listening while at home. It necessarily grants some credence to justifying that we are identifying real Sonic differences, and fixing those differences, in the context of sighted listening.
If this weren’t the case, and sighted listening was so insufferably unreliable,
it would be like recommending to a blind person “
your TV should have colour controls in the case that you find your TVs image to be too red or green tinted.”
At some point, you have to come back to the real world and start making sense as to how far you can push your scepticism. Ignoring these issues and constantly retreating to slogans about sighted listening being untrustworthy is a failure to grapple with inconvenient realities.
We do rely on the same process as the first paragraph to bring new expert insights, ie advances, to The Science. And if such advances are not forthcoming, we shrug our shoulders and move on to areas where advances are being made: we don't get all frustrated about it and start pumping smoke into the room.
The only “ smoke” being constantly pumped into this room comes from your furious torching of strawman.
Simply making bald pronouncements to the crowd, misrepresenting and maligning someones viewpoint, is not taking the highroad.
To do so would be a disservice to everyone in the room, from neophyte to luminary.
cheers
It does not serve neophytes or luminaries or anyone else on the forum to constantly engage in bad faith rhetoric, such as your post here, not to mention so many other posts.
Newman, as I have often said, I value many of your posts on the forum. You make some terrific contributions. I agree with so much of what you write. But for some reason, your commitment to truth seems to falter when interacting with what I write.
If at some point you want to engage in a reality-based discussion, which includes caring about the truth of what people actually write and addressing their real arguments, I’m sure I’m not the only one who would be grateful for this.
