I agree with Bomarc. The scenario presented is outrageously flawed in its premises. Again, same as Bomarc, to counter each premise of TWL's argument will take all day. However, I just like to add, researchers, particularily statiticians, form their research in a way that their procedures will pass or fail their hypothesis. When they reach a result that supports their hypothesis, the data "passes" but with the understanding that there is a certain degree of error based on sample size and standard deviation.
Sonic Relativism?
It seems that over the last few months there has been alot of contention about whether we can hear differences in the equipment we buy. This point-of-view has been propounded by a small number of amateur psychologists who insist that we are deluding ourselves into thinking that we hear improvements, when actually Double-Blind Testing(in their opinion) would show that we actually cannot discern anything, and that everything sounds the same. To go further into their profundity, just seeing the equipment will lead us to believe which one sounds better. And then we will manufacture that difference in our minds.
I believe that being an Audiophile is, by definition, one who pursues more faithful reproduction of music by using better performing equipment as his means. This requires that there be some differences in capabilities of gear to provide better sonic qualities.
Years ago, there was a group that insisted that specifications meant everything about the capability of the equipment. Once a certain level of low-distortion was attained, they all sounded the same. After that failed, I believe that this same group formed the double-blind study cult, that is simply designed to introduce doubt in people's minds as to whether their perceptions of audio products are valid, or imagined.
This is identifiable, because if a person hears a difference between the items, it is considered to be a "flawed" test or anomaly, and if they do not, it becomes part of the "useful" data. In any case, the data is presented with the obvious goal of introducing doubt in the listener of his own abilities to judge sounds on his own, in absolute terms.
The goal of this activity is the end of the Audiophile. Once absolutes are replaced with subjective relativism, there is no anchor, and everything declines into a morass of subjectivism, with no truths considered valid. Personally, I consider this to be nothing less than an attack on my hobby. It will also be the end of this website forum, since nobody will agree on anything, and thus nobody's advice, tweaks or experiences could be considered valid for anyone else.
If I were to engage in a little "amateur psychology", I would say that these "relativists" are those who cannot hear differences on their own, and who strive to convince others that they, also, cannot hear differences. And they have even manufactured a "pseudo-science" called DBX to advance their activity.
It is my opinion that this is a destabilizing activity to the audiophile community, for whatever reason, and should be looked upon with great suspicion. I see no possible good that can come of it. Ultimately, it would strive to destroy the high-end industry, since, by their methods, they would seek to ridicule anyone who would pay more for a product when there is no difference that wasn't(in their opinion) imagined.
I oppose this movement. I oppose it based on the invalid nature of their precepts and the destructive nature of the inevitable goal(if they were to succeed with the deception).
If they hear no differences between equipment, fine. They can enjoy whatever they are capable of hearing. But, this is not about that. It is about convincing the rest of us that we can't hear. And no amateur psychologist is going to tell me what I can hear. I have had about all I can take of this.
Your comments please.
I believe that being an Audiophile is, by definition, one who pursues more faithful reproduction of music by using better performing equipment as his means. This requires that there be some differences in capabilities of gear to provide better sonic qualities.
Years ago, there was a group that insisted that specifications meant everything about the capability of the equipment. Once a certain level of low-distortion was attained, they all sounded the same. After that failed, I believe that this same group formed the double-blind study cult, that is simply designed to introduce doubt in people's minds as to whether their perceptions of audio products are valid, or imagined.
This is identifiable, because if a person hears a difference between the items, it is considered to be a "flawed" test or anomaly, and if they do not, it becomes part of the "useful" data. In any case, the data is presented with the obvious goal of introducing doubt in the listener of his own abilities to judge sounds on his own, in absolute terms.
The goal of this activity is the end of the Audiophile. Once absolutes are replaced with subjective relativism, there is no anchor, and everything declines into a morass of subjectivism, with no truths considered valid. Personally, I consider this to be nothing less than an attack on my hobby. It will also be the end of this website forum, since nobody will agree on anything, and thus nobody's advice, tweaks or experiences could be considered valid for anyone else.
If I were to engage in a little "amateur psychology", I would say that these "relativists" are those who cannot hear differences on their own, and who strive to convince others that they, also, cannot hear differences. And they have even manufactured a "pseudo-science" called DBX to advance their activity.
It is my opinion that this is a destabilizing activity to the audiophile community, for whatever reason, and should be looked upon with great suspicion. I see no possible good that can come of it. Ultimately, it would strive to destroy the high-end industry, since, by their methods, they would seek to ridicule anyone who would pay more for a product when there is no difference that wasn't(in their opinion) imagined.
I oppose this movement. I oppose it based on the invalid nature of their precepts and the destructive nature of the inevitable goal(if they were to succeed with the deception).
If they hear no differences between equipment, fine. They can enjoy whatever they are capable of hearing. But, this is not about that. It is about convincing the rest of us that we can't hear. And no amateur psychologist is going to tell me what I can hear. I have had about all I can take of this.
Your comments please.