Objectivist Audiophilism (1 Viewer)

[RobertR]

There are scientifically valid methodologies which show that subjective experiences sometimes have no objective basis (such as people hearing "differences" when listening to the same thing).

 

[PaulDA]

All science is based on trying to prove or disprove something. A scientist observes phenomena, formulates a hypothesis regarding that phenomena, and sets out, through experiments that can be reproduced, to prove his hypothesis. If successfully repeated by others, it then becomes a theory and such theories form the structural framework for understanding a particular aspect of nature. Every once in a while, a new theory displaces the old (read Thomas Kuhn to find out more). If the experiment fails to confirm the hypothesis, then any self-respecting scientist will formulate a new hypothesis and start over. Wanting to prove or disprove something does not invalidate the effort. Does this mean the scientist has no bias? Of course not. Having bias does not make one unscientific. In an effort to minimize bias, however, the scientist has at his disposal a methodology that is rooted in the notion that anyone else can come along and reproduce his efforts, in order to confirm the results.

DBT is an accepted methodology within the scientific community, as it is a repeatable way of testing a hypothesis about the effects of something, in this case, audio equipment. One can dispute the need for DBT for one's self, but not liking the outcome doesn't invalidate the procedure.

 

[Angelo.M]

Well said, RobertR and PaulDA.


Again, well said. One constructs the best blinded experiment one can in order to control bias and reject (or accept) the null hypothesis. No case-control study is perfect and, in fact, one of the marks of a good case-control manuscript is thorough scrutiny by the experimenter himself/herself of his/her own experimental design and conclusions. The experimenter should disclose his/her bias, explain the weakness of the study design and all confounding variables. I read and review these things every day, and have conducted and written-up several of my own, and there is certainly no "pseudoscience" involved.

With a well-conceived study design, the proper controls, the proper implementation, the proper documentation, the proper analysis of data (i.e., choosing the correct statistical tools) and careful consideration of sample size (how many subjects does one need to demonstrate a result at the proper significance level?), one can certainly do very good science, whether one is interested in the effect of Drug X versus placebo or whether one would like to know if 500 folks can reliably discriminate between Amp A and Amp B. My problem with the DBTs that we read about in audio is that they rarely are rigorously designed and executed, and I have never seen one in which the experimenters determined beforehand the sample size needed in order to know if the data could yield a statistically meaningful conclusion (and determining this is a matter of making some assumptions and doing some relatively simple calculations).

 

[John Beavers]

I'm interested in what someone experiences when they put (insert audio component here) in their rig. Did you feel it brought about an increase in your enjoyment of your audio system. What did it do that you liked, or did it not do anything? These things are not belief, they are your experiences with a product. This I value, as it gives me ideas on what I might like to try in my own rig. Once I have my own experience with that product I'll come to a conclusion about it's worth to me.

What Chu would have me believe, in this one particular case he & I have been going round and round with, is that because a manufacturer cannot prove on paper why there is improvement using his product, the product is not worthy of consideration. Which position then is more about belief, and which is more about fact. I'll take real world experience, over someone casting doubt without doing the work, any day.

 

[Yogi]

Exactly. I know DBTs in medicine is a perfectly valid technique. But they are much more rigorous and carefully designed and executed. For example, show me a DBT in audio which discusses to what significance level is the null hypothesis tested. To me it seems like the goal of DBT in audio is to prove/or disprove the null hypothesis and then establish the significance level accordingly to satisfy the result. For example the famous thread that was discussed about a year ago about a DBT by some numbnut cheesecake by the name of Robert (I might be wrong on the name) that went something like: You have to consistently pick out amp A from amp B in all the outcomes of the test to conclusively determine if amp A sounds different from amp B. Now to all the DBTers out here, I ask: What is wrong with this methodology? care to guess?.

But again well said Angelo.

P.S. I am still waiting to hear from one of you objectivists as to how DBTs for capacitors work if you have to swap out caps in the circuit faster than the human brain can remember sound? Could someone care to elaborate on that one.

 

[Michael R Price]

Proof is not that important in audio.

 

[Chu Gai]

To which I'll add a couple of more things to what Paul and Robert so well stated.
An opinion is just that...an opinion. It requires no proof. An opinion offered as scientific fact is a horse of a different color.

In order for a theory to be a theory, it has as one of its aspects that of falsifiable. In other words, if I can prove the theory wrong, then it's wrong. If during an eclipse, I and others were able to demonstrate that the bending of light was 4x that predicted by Einstein, then there would be some serious shortcomings, wouldn't there?

What a scientist does is both testable and repeatable. Others can verify since the conditions have been spelled out. It relies upon the behavior of the universe not some artificial subset of it. The theories can be used to predict and analyze the consequences of that prediction. As a whole, they can be tested for consistency.

Contrast that with subjective perception. This is utterly untestable, hence the oft spoken words...YMMV, and is based upon the assumption that the person doing the perceiving is unerring. When phrases such as 'there are some things man can never understand' are offered, then we've entered the world of faith. Here there is nothing to verify, nothing that can be repeated, nothing that can be tested. Even examination can't be done and woe be to those who raise the quizical hand.

Now if it is your preference to use isolation devices, your preference to buy Class A amps, your preference to color your CD's, then that is not debatable. What is debatable is when that preference is tranformed into a statement of fact. Look I don't need a kW per channel. I can certainly get by with far less. But that is my preference and on the rare occasion that I mention it, I state it to be so and I further state it appeals to some macho aspect of myself. Sorry, but I'm not big on Men are from Mars and all that.

In summation, all the beliefs in the world won't change how the world really works, what the limitations and constraints of the human auditory system is. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I'd be happy for some that wasn't testimonial based. I really would you know!

Especially when you take PayPal.

 

[RobertR]

No DBT advocate I know says that the listener must correctly identify an amp in all outcomes. But he does need to do so to a statistically significant degree, else he can't contend that he really heard differences.

 

[RobertR]

It has been shown in a number of circumstances that subjective experience is sometimes unrelated to objective reality. Therefore, it's important to use proper protocols to verify that what you subjectively experience corresponds to objective reality.

If your attitude is that you don't WANT to know if your experiences are grounded in objective reality, then that is indeed belief, or...dogma. I'm fascinated by the vehemence wih which some people will defend their audio dogmas in the fact of objective empirical evidence to the contrary.

 

[John Beavers]

Whew! That's a mouthful Hey I'm all for DBTs between friends, I bet it could be a fun exercise. But the truth is we don't listen to music in a "DBT" state of awareness. If our normal state of listening to music promotes discrepencies between that subjective experience and the objective reality, perhaps then the subjective has more validity than the objective.

 

[Yogi]

 

[John Beavers]

To further expand on the subjective vs objective question, let's look at a tweak I purchased that I bet Chu would find has questionable science behind it. It's a disc by Densen Audio called DeMagic. The disc has these generated tones that are said to de-magnetize your gear. I did some research on this via the internet. I could find no conclusive evidence that this was possible or even necessary with non-analog equipment. What I did find were lots of people who had bought the disc and raved about the results. So I tried it, and sure enough it worked. Or did it? The results were repeatable, subjectively, as there was always a "positive" change after using the DeMagic CD. Was this change imagined or real? Could I disprove it with a DBT? Possibly, but then the question would have to be, if it's a subjective reality that stands on it's own time after time, why would you want to disprove it? Because fact must stand for something right, we can't go around beliveing in fantasy can we, it wouldn't be right. Prove it works or it doesn't. Guilty until proven innocent. Dont' let Santa Claus back into the game, we're adults now right

 

[DaveGTP]

I like reading this thread. I'm not an audiophile enough to undestand some of it, but I like the discussion.

I don't believe anything without a scientific test or fact behind it, because human perception is so flawed. I love to see scientific tests of equipment, because they are consistent and reproducable.

I could probably find plenty of people that would testify that they have been kidnapped by aliens, seen ghosts, etc. Just as many, I'm sure, as that would swear that CD demagnetizes their gear and improves the sound.

But until someone has more comprehensive evidence or testing, I believe them no more than the people who insist Bose is the best, a giant spoiler makes their car faster, or eating a pepper a day prevents heart attacks.

Human perception is flawed. Controls need to be in place in order to reach the objective truth. Or risk being ripped off/fooled.

 

[RobertR]

The truth is that one's "state of awareness" is no different in a DBT than it is in an OPEN listening comparison, yet that doesn't keep the likes of Stereophool or The Absolute Confound from printing page after page of flowery prose describing all sorts of "differences" that instantly go "poof" once the labels are hidden.

 

[Yogi]

I throw the rationalization back at him and ask him that if he as an objectivist is so sure that there are no differences between amps then what is he afraid of? That someone will pick out an amp from another to any statistical significance? So you agree not all tests are fair even though they might seem to remove all bias and that tests can be designed for a certain outcome?Rationalization works both ways as they say.

But at least we both agree that RC's test is not scientific by a long shot and its end purpose is something other than what the test was designed for.

On that note, could I buy you a
and some

 

[RobertR]

Thanks, you're making me hungry

 

[Chu Gai]

Now that looks like an inviting beer although the snack portion looks a little stingy

 

[John Beavers]

Yup, in the end, once all the labels are hidden and the flowery prose isn't absorbed as truth, everything actually sounds just like....BOSE

I bow before the mighty truth of the DBT, once I can get some skeptics to come over and blindfold me I can get rid of all my tweaks and expensive gear and get me that Bose Wave Radio, I'll be just as happy don't you think

 

[Chu Gai]

What do you mean the Easter Bunny doesn't exist? This doesn't look real? Cuffs and collars match too


You can use the James Worthy escort service.

 

[Yogi]

Chu I dont know how that plate of buffalo wings got clipped, but it was a full plate when I put it there

I believe in easter bunnies now.