Out of Control

Pbb, I have a question for you. You claim to be a skeptic and have thrown down the double blind testing guantlet to refute the claims of posters to this thread. Have you performed any of these double blind tests yourself? It is very easy to be a skeptic. It simply requires a willingness to disbelieve anything without "proof". And it even sounds reasonable - especially when science and mathematics are waved about like a talisman to ward off the evil of opposing views. But skepticism without a willingness to investigate all sides of the issue is no better than the blind faith you seek to debunk. It is also easy to forget that measurements and statistics are meaningless without interpretation; and are only as good as the instruments used to collect them. Even supposing that the measurements are perfect the interpretation of their meaning is not. You have only to recall that Aristotle, using accepted "scientific" methods, claimed that Earth was at the center of the universe. His interpretation of the data was incorrect. At least Aristotle was willing to expend effort in explanation, measurement, and reasoning to refute claims he did not believe to be true. If you have indeed conducted double blind tests let us know the results. And don't forget to include your testing methods and conditions.

I'll disclose now that I have not myself conducted any such tests. I might in the future - but at the moment my satisfication with this hobby doesn't require it.

Sonrisa, your Christmas wishes may have been directed to Pbb but I'll wish you a Merry Christmas just the same. I plan on enjoying the music of this season and I hope you do to.

Pbb, I would be interested in knowing what kind of evaluation you perform when choosing between components. My post wasn't meant as a defense for either side of the issue. But too often the spectre of double-blind testing, and science in general, is used like a trump card to "win" an argument. The problem is that most who use such don't bother to practice what they preach or to provide any "real" evidence. You have broached a sensitive subject and in retrospect my comments were probably too harsh. What I want to know is what you propose as an evaluation method that is rigourous enough to remove at least some of our tendency toward suggestion. I would even be willing to try it out.

Pbb, I find your last post interesting in light of your previous ones (yes, I did go back and read them). You have some good suggestions. But, I am at a loss as to how all of this applies to the "...decent standards in judging a component's performance through the use of human hearing" you mention in a previous post. Your original commentary was clearly opposed to very expensive equipment on the grounds that the differences couldn't possibly justify the cost: "Hearing an irrationally priced piece of equipment is tantamount to going to the Gypsy woman to get your fortune read, even if you don't believe in it, it plays on your mind." But your thoughts in this last post don't seem to support this view. In fact, if I followed your advice I could conceivably find that that "irrationally priced" piece of equipment is indeed the best and worth every cent. So, I am still wondering how you came to your conclusions. Did you use these methods to audition equipment and find that very expensive equipment just wasn't that much better? What equipment have you reviewed?

You also suggest double-blind testing: "Gregm, I have three words for you, which will forever and a day relegate me to the level of the great unwashed tin-eared mid-fi legions: "double blind testing". I'm sorry, I am a sceptic." How does this fit into your method? The point I was trying to make in my original post was that you shouldn't suggest double-blind testing as a refutation of someone's views if you don't plan to use, or have ever used, it yourself.

I was truly interested in the "decent standards" you hinted at. Your reference to double-blind testing led me to believe that you at least had some idea of what they should be. I'll use your own words to apologize if I seem a bit harsh, "Sorry if this looks like the Great Inquisition...."

I agree with your assessment that "HUGE" is used too often to describe subtle changes. Though, in fairness, since I haven't actually auditioned many of the components that garner such "praise" I can't be 100% certain. However, I still believe that a willingness to pay for these "HUGE" differences is a personal decision. In addition, I don't think that such decisions should be ridiculed. Are there children starving in Somalia? Yes. Is there vast unemployment in parts of Africa? Yes. Could that $75,000 for a pair of speakers be used to lend a helping hand instead? Yes. But it is not up to me to decide whether or not someone else's money should go to such worthy causes. And that at least was the crux of my disagreement with your statements concerning exorbitant prices for components. Value isn't always determined by cost alone - and in fact can be subjective rather than objective. There is gross excess in this country. But just what is considered excess is often relative not fixed.

I will admit that I confused your call for more rigid standards in reviewing components as a defense that the perceived differences between inexpensive and astronomically priced components are not justifiable in so far as price is concerned. I now understand, I think, that your argument was for better reviewing methods in determining the magnitude of the differences - more objectivity as opposed to subjective measurements. I'll agree to that.

My major issue with these types of discussions is the certainty with which people argue a point without having actually auditioned the equipment; this is especially true for discussions involving expensive cables. A healthy dose of skepticism is good. But skepiticism without the facts to back it up or at least the willingness to investigate the facts is no better than blind faith (as I have stated before). What is often brought forth by skeptics as a trump card is double-blind testing. The problem is that most of us have never actually conducted a proper double-blind test, or any scientific test for that matter. It is my belief, again, as I have stated before, that you had better be willing to provide detailed results if you use that trump card.

Your call for more rigid reviewing methods to quantify actual differences with an eye toward saner pricing is admirable; I might even go so far as to say necessary. But your own reviewing methods don't seem to incorporate this idea. My point has been that you seem to be a skeptic with no plan to implement your own suggestions. I'm not trying to be personal, just honest.