I cannot see how epistemology would have anything to do with showing, or not showing, if there is a certain effect on the sound by whatever. It is completely different genre, so to speak. Its topic has nothing to do with "is it here, or is it not here". It is not apples and oranges. It is veterinary reproductive science explaining that the span of the chain bridge over the big river is just right for windy day walks.
- 187 posts total
Putting an audio system together that is satisfying is the main point ... People buy gear, but it in their system and listen to the results ... Long term evaluation is how that is accomplished. You cannot fool yourself for very long if the system is not to your liking. Short term evaluation or short term testing is very unreliable ...Exactly, and that's among the challenges for those trying to conduct scientifically valid listening tests. Those who bleat about expectation bias and placebo effect don't seem to understand that neither can cure cancer, and neither will make a poor sounding audio system sound better.
Those that blather on about listening tests, blind testing, and other things they clearly don't understand and do it repeatedly, reinforcing the evidence of their lack of knowledge, don't seem to get basic premises:
- Blind testing is an auditory test. The only "gear" used to measure is your ears.
- Blind testing is to remove bias. No more. No less.
- There is 0, none, nada requirement that the test be done fast, slow, or otherwise. That is simply the ignorant communicating their ignorance (or bias).
- Most of this testing revolves around detecting differences. Not whether you like something better or not long term, but the simple act of identifying whether a change made an audible difference or not. It may take you a long time to ultimately decide what you like or don't BUT, when it comes to whether doing something actually makes an auditory difference or not, the naysayers will not be able to produce a shred of evidence to support their position they need long term listening tests. However, the opposite is absolutely true, with rapid changes being shown repeatedly to increase the discrimination for detecting changes.
So, stop blathering and produce evidence that long term listening tests (which must be blind obviously) are better at determining whether a change had any impact of not.
Those that blather on about listening tests, blind testing, and other things they clearly don’t understand and do it repeatedly, reinforcing the evidence of their lack of knowledge, don’t seem to get basic premises.Blind testing is an auditory test.No, what you’re arguing for isn’t an auditory test, although that’s a common misnomer. Auditory tests are conducted by audiologists. The listening tests you describe don’t even test the listener - they test the DUT , the device under test.
Blind testing is to remove bias. No more. No less.That’s true as to intent. But the test introduces it’s own complications, which are well documented, e.g. test anxiety. You can’t dismiss them with a wave of the hand while at the same time claiming scientific objectivity.
There is 0, none, nada requirement that the test be done fast, slow, or otherwise.That’s true, there is no such requirement. But as a practical matter, time is often very much a limiting factor in these tests.
Most of this testing revolves around detecting differences ... the naysayers will not be able to produce a shred of evidence to support their position they need long term listening tests.There’s abundant evidence to support the preference for long-term listening tests. Of course, no evidence is needed to justify a preference.
So, stop blathering and produce evidence that long term listening tests (which must be blind obviously) are better at determining whether a change had any impact of not.We’ve been through this before. No one here owes you evidence of anything, ever. This is a hobbyist’s group, not a scientific forum. You seem to struggle accepting that not everyone here embraces your measurementalist’s view of the world, and that’s probably why you’ve been banned here previously under multiple different user names.
To be clear, I’m not one who’s opposed to blind testing. I don’t think such tests have much usefulness to the typical audiophile, in particular because conducting a valid blind test is nowhere near as easy as some of its most vocal advocates suggest. Plus, they are simply tedious and boring. But for those who like them, or those who use them to assist in component design, they surely have their place.
- 187 posts total