I'm reading 4 pages of analysis paralysis while way in the background, from another room, at fairly low volume my Walsh 4's are filling the air with Leonard Cohen's 'Suzanne'. Hell, that's pleasing, it's emotionally involving. Learn to enjoy the simple things in life.
The Absolute Sound vs Pleasing Sound
I have changed my mind about this over the years. The absolute sound (closest to real live music) just can't be accomplished even though I have heard some spectacular systems that get close on some music. So years ago I changed my system to give me the sound I wanted. I'm much happier now and all my music collection can be enjoyed for what it is: Recorded music.
187 responses Add your response
cleeds, "No, what you’re arguing for isn’t an auditory test, although that’s a common misnomer. Auditory tests are conducted by audiologists." If going for minutia of names, I think you are talking about audiometric testing. It happens that it is also an auditory testing just like anything that involves listening/hearing is auditory. For example, auditory hallucinations. |
But maybe best of all, reads a few papers, and is now "the expert" on acoustics, human hearing, and human perception. My illustration, this time, is the repeated reference to a paper on "law of the first wave front", which is of course not at all a law in the scientific sense, and is really just a perceptual hypothesis rather elementary in its position, but also, as being used by Mahgister, totally ignores the realities of sound reproduction by stereo speakers.You are right in saying that in the very specific sense this law of the first wavefront is an experimental perception hypothesis for sure but all acoustician call it a "law" ....Then reproaching me to use this naming is like usual resorting to your bad faith tactic in discussion... Then accusing me of using the concept of law by ignorance dont work in this case and is only an occasion to use ANY argument against my argument ... Sorry... For sure you resort to "lying" and authority argument, like saying SOMETHING about me i never said, i aknowledge all you said for being true about "imaging" for example but HALF TRUTH....You definition of imaging is uncomplete... This is what i wrote in my post: «" imaging" is FIRST : timing + the law of the first wavefront.. (acoustic) After that you can speak of timing+volume ...(engineering) missing this point is complete reversal and misunderstanding of the phenomena... Acoustic neurophysiology is FIRST, recording engineering come in second for the complete explanation....» You know more than me in many aspects of audio, nobody can contradict that, especially not me, but you dont understand some basic facts, in acoustic and science methodology, and this is reflected in your agenda against all audiophiles here... Anybody can read your posts.... And verify....But like anyone who take pleasure to bash people you dont feel any shame.. For the "timbre experience" my concept come from two recent books of science and in my discussion with you about this, i was with a experienced pro. musician frogman, that confirmed my point of view and you called him a liar... Then any reader of these posts can verify all that... I am ignorant, you are right about that, but me, i try to understand ... You dont need to understand yourself, you know already and dont accept any contradiction even if you were blatently wrong... and you go on insulting all audiophiles for being idiots from the beginning... |
You gotta love Mahgister. Literally makes up his own definition for timbre, then gets all upset when someone else does not use the definition he made up. Then to support his argument, he pulls up a quote that does not recognize the current, generally agreed upon definition of timbre. Then again gets upset that his made up definition does not match that one. However, that is my fault.You accuse me of what you are at fault... I extract the standard definition of bias from wikipedia... This deefinition explicitly characterise "bias" to be innate and/or learned... You said the opposite...Bias are never learned in your post... This is important because the definition of what is a "bias" is the key to define scientifically the range of the blind test methodology... You are in total bad faith.... And any reader here of your posts can verify what i just said... |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
audio2design Show me evidence of a blind test ... That is all you have to do. Don’t make false claims. Show the tests and results ...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. It’s well within forum rules for users here to report their listening experiences. You seem to struggle accepting that. Of course, you are free to submit the results of any tests that you like. |
It’s idiocy is literally grade school level. Speaking idiocy for others....Will you admit your complete erroneous understanding of the concept of "bias" important concept for the understanding the scientific interpretation range of the blind test method itself ? I posted your own definition and the standard one contradicting it and confirming my own use of the word bias... You are mute? He does not know what a "bias" is.... Like demonstrated by his own posts and the standard definition... He use the result of blind test for his agenda, out of their scientific range, for his own goal which is ridiculize audiophiles group.... I just read his post about "imaging" and he reduced it to electronic design and digital processing, they are the fields he knows about, and some true facts indeed about speakers location, BUT ignoring the MAIN acoustical law for room "imaging" : the law of the first wavefront, which is the main factor in the recreation of " depth imaging" in a room which is, first and last, a phenomena coupling acoustic physics with the neurophysiology of perception...Not a phenomena explained first by the coupling of source and speakers or headphones...The law of the first wave front is a law in the acoustical neurophysiology... Even if your source is perfect with all the recorded perfect "cues" you will not gain a great imaging in a bad room.... Any educated audiophile know that... I prove it to myself by creating a device, a "mechanical equalizer" after Helmholtz, that plays with the different timing tresholds in a room for the perception of the first wave front, from late and early reflections and their timing and the creation of the "image"... I am tired to argue with him because he is unable to undertand his own errors....Myself ignorant about all this i proved i could learn creating my own mechanical equalizer... I already proved that he dont understand acoustical timbre phenomenon either for the same reason, ignorance of acoustical phenomena and their reduction to digital engineering only the field he know well... I will go out on my room now... |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
audio2design 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. |
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. |
russ69 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. |
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. |
Joking is not an argument nor an answer to the precise points i just made... Are you able to be truthfull to a line of thinking when thinking and speaking? It is not useful to answer now.... My question dont need an answer now....But only a reflexion... If you dont answer to the argument of my preceding post FIRST and recognizing your defectuous use of the concept "bias", no new answer of you are valuable for the continuity of the discussion... When someone point me wrong, being myself intelligent, i recognize immediately or try hard to understand if it is the case, that i am wrong if i am wrong.... Truth is more valuable than winning a pointless discussion ....And the truth ask for you to say that you wrongly used the concept of "bias" with the wrong definition all along the discussion... Biases are innate OR learned, and for some of them they are also innate AND learned...Not recognizing this fact by a joke will not save your face and ass in this discussion... Gymnastic and logical fallacies are not part of epistemology nor of audio engineering, being it digital or purely acoustical.... Blind test are useful test in a statistic methodological context, or fun and "useful" one with very limited range and scope, BUT not proof of existence or inexistance of phenomena by only themselves in the absolute sense of the word "proof"... "Bias" is an operational concept.... Not an argument you can throw at the head of someone.... Discussion closed..... |
| Post removed |
To my point, biases are not transferable, not in audio, not even in society, even if many share the same biases. There is no way of knowing. However, absolutes are transferable, and yes, there are absolutes.Head coinciding with the location of ass is called gymnastic not epistemology... The important words in your sentences here is the beginning unconscious wording : " To my point.. " which can be translated by : never mind the accepted meaning of " bias", for my agenda the meaning of "bias" is...... The problem is there exist a general definition of the word "bias" I will use wikipedia definition: « Bias is a disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing, usually in a way that is closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. Biases can be innate or learned. People may develop biases for or against an individual, a group, or a belief.[1] In science and engineering, a bias is a systematic error. Statistical bias results from an unfair sampling of a population, or from an estimation process that does not give accurate results on average.[2]» Reading the citation i extracted from your post and the wiki general definition demonstrate clearly that you dont know what is a bias objectively... IT CAN BE "INNATE OR LEARNED"....Contrary to what you explicitly said.... And the 2 at the same time yes... I will add to the uncomplete wiki definition that a bias could also be the 2 at the same times, innate AND learned in specific collective and cultural context.... You said that "biases" are not transferable nor learned but the general accepted definition says like i said myself all the times in all my posts here, to no avail, that they are... Not surprizing that with 2 defiintion of the word "bias", a true one and a false one, the discussion is impossible with you... The only absolute reality transferable for you is the objective reading of a number on a measuring dial... Which is the fallacy of the measuring gear measuring itself without needing a brain to interpret it with his learned biases... Your notion of Science is like the the well known baron lifting itself by his own hairs...This is your "gymnastic"...You called this gymnastic science...I called it technocratic deception or superstition... You reduced "bias" to the partial view of being something impeding with the lecture of your own measuring dial apparatus in digital engineering in ALL your posts...Timbre perception is an audiophile taste only, not a real complex concept in acoustic.... Imaging concept is reducible to physical design of speakers location, specific drivers types etc All that is erroneous and limited narrow views of these deep acoustical concepts... Why is the word " bias" related to a " SYSTEMATIC error" in the general definition? Because a bias is a concept primarily belonging to statistic methodology .... Then using blind test and bias out of a statistical context to prove an agenda about what is real or not, what is subjective and objective or not, in an absolute sense, is an abuse of the scientific methodology...Especially when we called "bias" anything which impede with our own agenda...The confirming bias fallacy here :Blindtest ONLY confirm reality and all that exist really could be confirm to exist by blind test... But you reduced from the beginning "bias" to the partial view of being anything impeding with the lecture of your own measuring dial apparatus in digital engineering...Then audiophiles unable to read and trust only these dials are deceived idiots... The problem is your view of reality is simplistic if not childish, a technological fad and habit.... Guess who is deceived here, and worst, deceiving others? |
Audio is not about scientific testing of one’s hearing or memory, it’s about enjoying the music.His pleasure and goal here seems to be proving that all audiophiles are idiots hypnotized by their biases and unable to read reality: which is first and last a measured dial numbers on an apparatus...They prefer their "illusion" to "reality"....They are deluded... I dont even know why i discuss with him save for the fact that i am in my own way "idiot"....I prefer to think that i am passionate.... But it is my bias no? |
Effectively you are trying to use bias as a positive variable in the reproduction of sound. That is what you are writing, whether you realize it or not.You are right in this sentence and remark for sure ... I NEVER contested that... I contest your AFFIRMATION that ALL what i perceived is ONLY deception... What do you think, that i am NOT conscious of the deceptive powers of any bias? I am and it is for this reason that listening experiments are necessary and blind test also... I repeat that from the beginning...Audiophiles must use their EARS...Biases included....Then how can you affirm that i am not conscious of that? For sure you think i am an idiot...But audiophiles must conduct listening experiments also even blind test if possible for some very small debatable audible change... Why not? You are obsess by your own agenda and unable to read ANY of my post... I never contested the fact that i have biases like all people, and i used them for sure creating my own audio system myself...It is EVIDENT fact.....Biases are not something negative to be elimated always and at all times, sometimes it is a learned useful sum of habits that created a real phenomenon of their own with different meaning for different people but anyway a real phenomenon... My last device a mechanical equalizer is fine tuned by my BIASES and specifically structured EARS only.... Who negate this fact? not me nor anyone with a minimal I.Q. i will never pretend that this tuning will be pure objective optimal perfection for all ears others than mine.... This is precisely the gist and goal and usefulness of this no cost project... Then if i did not contested this point what is the reason for me to argue with you? FIRST- It is precisely the fact , an epistemologically precise one in acoustic science, that some phenomena COULD not be studied with the elimination of ALL biases, save at the cost of erasing the phenomena under study itself, like the timbre musical perception of a playing instrument and his perception by the artist or the listener which are 2 different phenomena which may be and can be connected tough... SECOND- The central epistemological truth is also that you CANNOT conclude after a blind test to a POSITIVE demonstration of inexistance of some phenomena by only the absolute virtue of the blind test itself only.... Blind test are useful for eliminating biases from a tested drug in statistical studies.... NOT IN EMPIRICAL science like acoustic to prove the existence or inexistance of phenomena...The reason is simple some phenomena are discernible and experienced in some context and environment not in others...The biases here are habits in a very definite environment and the habits Are LEARNED way to navigate in this environment... Change the environment and the perceptive habits decline...Change the perceptive habits and the environment is erased... Do you understand this SUBTLE point? Your favorite tactic in discussing is the fallacy which consist in attributing to someone an argument which is NOT his argument but your own accusation disguised... Read that 2 times, spelling it.... I am in favor of blind test, why not? Whose the fool who is not in favor of their use or against them by principle ? I am in favor of their use NOT FOR DECIDING what is real or unreal in objective realm and in subjective realm in the absolute sense tough and this is the CRUX of the matter... Only for investigating the border between these double 2, the real and unreal in objective reality and in subjective reality also, which in acoustic like in many science is not a definite "line" but some country in itself separating the objective and the subjective and created by their interpenetration....I am opposite to their errenous conclusion, not the use of blind test, especially when these conclusions consist to negate the fundamental existence of some reality by reducing it ONLY to material measurable one... Perhaps my thinking is a bit too complex for your "analytical superior power"... Then you may persist and going on with the false accusation that i dont want blind test or negate them.... I negate the false use and propaganda linked to blind test by scientism ... Not the blind test in their own legit range of application.... James Randi is not Einstein... And even a debunker can bunker himself easily.... Epistemological studies are not comic books illustrated by conjuring tricks and optical illusions... |
OP here. Putting an audio system together that is satisfying is the main point of my thread. People buy gear, but it in their system and listen to the results. When things come together (synergy) and work for that system we are moving in the right direction. 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. Over time and with much listening to different music an opinion can be formed. In most cases it's not a question if A is better than B but the question is do I prefer A over B. Audio is not about scientific testing of one's hearing or memory, it's about enjoying the music. |
| Post removed |
Bias is a personal reality. It is not transferableYour ignorance is deafening sorry.... Culture is precisely the ingraining and transfer and "culture" of biases and elimination of differently "chosen" biases in different societies and also even in science....There exist a hierarchy of different biases and of the corresponding experiences... Ernst Cassirer called that symbolic forms...Bias are not "individual" characteristics because individuality can be distinguish from the collective but could not be separated....Bias are not a simple thing we must always eliminate, but something we must be conscious of , even if it is almost impossible or difficult like for the blind spot in vision... Educate yourself....Learn what is culture, which science is itself only a ramification....Unseparable from the tree of culture, the science is only a living branch; but not a separable branch like think some "scientism" who want to sit on a dead branch standing unattached to any biases tree trunk in the sky.... I was advising student about reading in my daily job than i recommend to you Ernst Cassirer... You either eliminate bias or you do not Philosophy of science is not childish game ... Are you serious? 😁 For sure you are.... Everybody favor blindtest even me.... But the reality of some effect is not always decidable automatically after a blind test.... Life is not so easy.... It is morning now.... I wish you the best day possible.... I will mute my speaking "ignorance"....Or my speaking consciousness.... Or my speaking biases .... |
| Post removed |
Stop making excuses. Everyone has biases and yes concerning audio.It not occured to you that EVERYBODY is ok with that part...Bias are unevitable and universal... The wrong attitude is using blind test to prove an agenda about "reality".... In some aspect under study of the acoustical experience, eliminating bias is mandatory for the isolation of all parameters at play for example... In other aspect the bias are the reality itself which must be studied not eliminated... You always use blind test in a one way direction which is reflecting itself a bias: reality is purely physical and material and reducible to dials controls... Is it not simple even for most to understand? Your tactic is accusing others to do what you did on a daily basis, stick to your blind spot bias....Your vision of reality is so tunneling you are in a dead end without even knowing it... Arguing with you is impossible... If i was wiser that i think i am i would be mute save for asking to you precise information about digital processing in audio.... Your knowledge is not refutable by me there nor in electronic engineering because i know nothing almost in these fields.... But i can think a bit by myself.... In philosophy and acoustic you are flawed....Not because of your vast knowledge but because knowledge dont equal understanding and could impede it in some way at some point.... Audiophiles are like any group not all constituted by idiots sorry... If i can recreate a high level of S.Q. with a 500 bucks system in my room with pipes and straws i am perhaps not a complete idiot... |
| Post removed |
The original comment wrt Strads was wrt bias something lost on you likely due to bias.Biases are not born all equals....They cannot be tested the same way to prove their illusory nature or not, like you pretend....Some are grounded in history and constituted not an illusion but contribute to create the experience itself....Proving them illusory erase the experience itself in his reality... It is throwing the baby with the waters bath... Something you do daily with your own "scientist" biases unbeknownst to you... Your vast knowledge in audio, superior in most aspects to mine, is not the same as understanding and often not strictly equal to it , the 2 are ,each one a bias tough, not the same bias at all....Revise your study in acoustic...The grounding of neurophysiology of perception in the room chapters especially.... 😊😁 I propose to the jazz listener the more "jazzy" integral of Bach klavier with classical only means of playing tough by Zuzana Růžičková... It will also be a test about timbre perception on your audio system... If you dont like the sound, beware, it is not the files or the instrument but your system which is at fault...His sound is out of this world but unberable on bad audio system... She plays with an astonishing clarity using register so various in colors that all other interpretations could appear boring soundwise.... Not musically, like for example the great Gustav Leohnardt.... Or one of the more astonishing piece of "classical " jazz: "Visions" by Walt Dickerson on vibraphone and Sun Ra on piano.... The decay clarity of the vibraphone will be a soundwise test on your system... The 2 players are geniuses here in their musical and soundwise means.... And telepathically related in a rare form of musical parapsychology experience which is well known by musicians .... |
| Post removed |
Once again, interesting and with a different result from the audience; no audiophile audio system required to clearly hear the differences: https://www.thestrad.com/video/put-your-ears-to-the-test-can-you-pick-the-stradivarius-violin/4446.a... Interesting reading: https://www.violinist.com/blog/laurie/20175/21158/ |
I wonder why anyone thinks because humans have biases they’re somehow deluded? I imagine if I heard a Stradivarius I would consider it superior then if heard it compared with other violins in a blind test but didn’t pick the Stradivarius I wouldn’t assume I’m deluded or suffering from hallucinations. I’d shrug it off and laugh about how easily we’re influenced by our biases.The simple common sense expressed in your post is inaccessible to anyone who has an agenda or a mission: using blind test to prove that all audiophiles are deceived totally... I know very well that i could detect change in my room and with my gear, with specific files that i would not be able to detect in a blindtest OUT of my usual settings... My power are not super power they are LEARNED habit....Derail, disturb, or upset the habit and his complex specific conditioned environment and associated state of mind, the usual perceiving power is lost... This point is unaccessible to the fanatic.... |
I wonder why anyone thinks because humans have biases they're somehow deluded? I imagine if I heard a Stradivarius I would consider it superior then if heard it compared with other violins in a blind test but didn't pick the Stradivarius I wouldn't assume I'm deluded or suffering from hallucinations. I'd shrug it off and laugh about how easily we're influenced by our biases. |
I wonder why those who denigrate testing for biases seem to think the outcome of such tests will support the position of "measurementists"?You are right blind test can reveal something that contradict the "measure it" only bandwagon... But it is not the main point... Blind test erase biases for statistical useful reason... It is a tool... Not a way to PROVE that all biases are only unfounded bias or only fads or super power pretense... The "measure it only " bandwagon are blinded by their own bias they think is the only true reality and perspective.... They use the test out of his scientifical usefulness to PROVE something no blind test could prove ONLY by itself... They are child or fool , philosophical clown... Epistemology is not for children but for mature mind... James Randi is not Einstein... It is a clown in music hall that debunk easy tricks....Randi do not do SCIENCE... He did the contrary of science which has nothing to do with a circus... |
I wonder about the mental health of those that vomit paragraphs to avoid eliminating bias in testing when the result can only be beneficial.I wonder about the mental health of those that vomit paragraphs to nullify any bias, founded and unfounded, on the same footing with the only goal to prove audiophiles are deluded people... Claiming that a blind test could PROVE that... ERASING BIASES NEVER COULD PROVE SCIENTIFICALLY THEY WERE MEANINGLESS AND UNFOUNDED IN REAL SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.... |
| Post removed |
I wonder why those who denigrate testing for biases seem to think the outcome of such tests will support the position of "measurementists"? Why is it everytime a simple psychological test on bias is reported in an article or paper or book some feel the need to tie themselves in knots trying to explain it away. We all have biases and they affect a lot of things we do or feel that have nothing to do with audio. Seems weird to me. |
What's saddest of all is not accepting Fritz when he acknowledges how his bias influences him. If you know it’s a Strad, you will hear it differently," Fritz says. "And you can’t turn off that effect." I'm not locked in a mindset I simply took Fritz at his word , maybe I'm mistaken and you were saying Fritz is locked in a mindset not me, if so I apologize. What is even sadder, IMO, is to be locked in a mindset that says that reactions are the result of bias and to refuse to be open minded about the possibility that it is not bias at all that is at play. |
| Post removed |
**** You assume the new instrument is easier to play. That’s a false assumption even just for the nature of the instruments tested. You assume they won’t get better on the new instrument as well, again a false assumption. You assume that playing ability can coax a change in the fundamental sonic characteristics which is not guaranteed and again assumes the old instrument must have hidden capability. All instruments were played blind. No one even knew what they were playing. **** As I have encouraged you to do previously, please read my comments more carefully. Your comments and knee jerk contradictions demonstrate a very simplistic and frankly, sophomoric grasp of all this. Not a good thing, especially for someone who claims to be in the business of capturing the sounds that we are talking about. I have performed with what must be literally hundreds of professional string players over the years in various orchestras and other professional ensembles; never mind, other types of instrumentalists. I have spoken at length to many of these on the subject; it is what musicians do, constantly and sometimes to a fault. What I wrote is absolutely true; not in every single case, but often the case. The same principle applies to many other families of instruments. Some professionals do, in fact, prefer the ease of play or other traits of some modern instruments; many do not. Many players seek out the special qualities that some of these old instruments possess and is why they are willing to pay those prices. What is your experience playing an instrument in a professional capacity and how often have you had the opportunity to discuss this issue with accomplished professional players? Opportunity knocks. The OP mentions his wonderful experience listening to Nigel Kennedy perform live. Does anyone think that an artist of this caliber cares more about the cache of playing a rare instrument such as his Guarneri more so than playing the instrument that is best for him and his artistic vision; and, is willing to compromise his artistry (and pocket book) by playing an instrument that is not? Anyone who believes that simply doesn’t understand what musicians do. There is a running joke among players about receiving payment or other renumeration for endorsing and “playing” a particular brand of new instrument while playing his/her vintage instrument when performing. |
That’s one of the ironies about the measurementalists here. They’ll even often refuse to listen to test whether their theories are valid - they have that much faith in their belief system.For sure you are right on the sensible spot..... For example if we read one of this childish fanatic: I do enjoy the mental gymnastics to attempt to wave away bias. Bias exists. Period. Only way to eliminate is to blind test. Take weeks, just do it blind. You don’t have magical powers.He accuse people to refuse to eliminate their own experience, learning, knowledge, because of the blind test.... He does not realize that using blind test can never make all bias equal, founded and unfounded one, the test can erase them in "artificial conditions" useful statistically but meaningless to decide if some bias are meaningful and others not... And THIS is the important point.... He want to prove that all audiophiles perceptions are pure deceptive "taste" unfounded in reality....Then he devise a blind test supposed to reveal that... But no blindtest coud scientifically do that.... Erasing biases they can do it....Proving that ALL biases are meaningless they cannot do it by virtue of being blind choices in "artificial" conditions.... Frogman only insist on that point... But it sems that this distinction ask for too much brain power to be grasped by some.... Audio2design accuse audiophiles to boast their magical power.... It is a straw man argument so big that explaining it, is like explainig philisophy to babies... Anyway... I will explain it shortly: any audiophile like any violin player has a set of subtles acquired perceptives habits that are powerful tool but ONLY in a specfic environment and with some very usual and known parameters...Changing them provoke most of the times the lost of the acquired perceiving knowledge...Stres, unusual conditions, any modifications.... Then erasing bias is science statiscally sound method, using it to PROVE anything is no more science... The strategy of audio2design is childish.... To say the least.... |
Not every opinion is the result of bias.I appreciate your post cleeds but i will make a precision... Every opinion become a bias, but all opinion are not unfounded orientation of the mind or useless and meaningless habit, some opinion and unconscious bias are motivated by learning and listening, or any slow acquisition of knowledge... All biases are prejudices but some prejudices are more meaningful than others.... Call them informed orientation of the subsconcscious and conscious mind... Then pretending using blind test to reveal bias in the sense of unfounded and meaningless habits that oriented our choices is very delicate because there exist also bias that are meaningful and founded on real meaning and knowledge process acquisition... Then the range of application of blind test is only ERASING the presence of ANY bias in a test for small change or for statistical methodology.... Not for proving that the taste for stradivarius is meaningless and non sense habit reflecting only arbitrary bias like the taste of a supposed deluded audiophile.... Erasing biases from an experiment CANNOT prove that the biases eliminated were all non sense choices or deceptives one EVER to begins with....This is science fact.... The other interpretation is cheap scientist ideology .... Blind test are useful not for PROVING anything, it is ONLY a tool to eliminate human choices for statistical reason.... Any other use is childish epistemology.....Or epistemology for fanatic.... Pick you choice.... |
Blind test are valid in their SHORT range of applications, small changes difficult to detect or statistical needs to erase human choices in medical research for example, BUT they are no more valid to decide if the feeling for a stradivarius is ONLY AND MAINLY a BIAS not founded on a real quality herited and learned through history, but instead an arbitrary fad which the test is supposed to reveal.... The reason for that are touch upon in the pots of frogman, i will not repeat that... Biases are universal and in all human choices, nobody could question that in his sane mind... The use of blind test to PROVE that all biases, or preferences are purely arbirary, or deceptive is a use of blind test OUT of their normal range of useful application for the need of an "ideological" perspective, itself an unconscious bias.... |
| Post removed |
audio2design Bias exists. Period.No. Bias can exist. It doesn’t always exist. Not every opinion is the result of bias. Only way to eliminate is to blind test ...That is the logical fallacy of the excluded middle, aka tertium non datur. But I understand that your "one path to truth" approach suits your measurementalist’s belief system. Here’s a simple truth about bias and placebo effect: Neither will cure cancer. No blind test is needed to prove that. |
As I posted the violin link I ought to explain why I thought it was useful - I did only to contribute to the debate whether a concept of “absolute” was conceivable at all. Those newer and older violins sounded more or less pleasing to the listeners - and the age or presumed quality or “signature” sound of the violin seemed to have little influence over that pleasure. The comment I picked out - that knowing it is a Strad is part of the pleasure - was meant to reinforce that. I had the enormous pleasure of sitting a couple of metres from Nigel Kennedy in a small gathering where he played for 3 hours in support of our charity. He played his Guarneri “Lafont” and I know I will never hear anything more pleasing. I’m sure if he had played a £1000 violin it would have sounded magnificent. But knowing something of the history of the instrument actually in front of us undeniably added to the pleasure. What a night that was. |
| Post removed |
