advertisement


How do the 'non-subjectivists' choose their hi-fi systems?

In fairness to HG, I think that there's been a lot of condescending comments from both sides in this discussion. I'm putting my own hand up here well, but there is also an aspect of pot/kettle/black from you. Quite frankly I don't understand the purpose or value of this thread anymore.

Your post quoted one of mine, so I assume this comment was directed at me. I was, I confess, a bit taken aback at your 'pot/kettle/black' comment, so I've gone back and reviewed every post I made in this thread. With the exception, perhaps, of a comment or two in the last couple of pages, I completely refute your comment. And even where there has been an element of snark in mine (I'm only human) that has always, always been in response to snark (or worse) from the person I'm responding to.

For the most part, I've tried patiently to a) understand the other side's point (and seek clarification where I had trouble with that) and b) make my own viewpoint as clear as I could, in a non-inflammatory way. I regret that the other side has not always returned the favour. I'm also entirely confident that adamdea's snarky comments in the last couple of pages (about my lack of self-awareness mostly) are without foundation on the basis of this thread and are therefore mostly passive-aggressive, ad-hom thread-crapping.
I do find some of the 'what did science ever do for us' type comments quoting a few instances where science fu$£ed up over the years as quite amusing. They're clearly too 'Life of Brian' to be taken seriously. If you really feel like this I'd recommend you step away from your computer, hand over your mobile phone, switch off the broadband (and anything electric really, so the hifi's gone) and go back to your horse and cart. I hope you enjoy life without any of the comforts of modern life, kindly brought to you by scientists and engineers.

Ok, rant over.
I don't think I did any of this, so I assume that this part of your 'rant' (your term ;)) wasn't directed at me personally, so I won't take it that way, nor will I respond. If you did intend it to apply to my posts, then I'd appreciate knowing which ones.
 
Your post quoted one of mine, so I assume this comment was directed at me. I was, I confess, a bit taken aback at your 'pot/kettle/black' comment, so I've gone back and reviewed every post I made in this thread. With the exception, perhaps, of a comment or two in the last couple of pages, I completely refute your comment. And even where there has been an element of snark in mine (I'm only human) that has always, always been in response to snark (or worse) from the person I'm responding to.

This wasn't particularly aimed at you and was more of a general comment about the state of this thread, but I did find a couple of your earlier comments about blind testing condescending. I do know a fair bit about validation and the statistics behind it and even though the blind testing aspect of it is a fairly minor part, I'd still say that I have more experience than most people on this thread.

Then again I could be totally wrong if you take everybody's comments at face value. In which case we've probably found the highest online density of Pharma validation engineers in the world .

There's others who were/are far more condescending, again on both sides.

The bit about science wasn't aimed at you at all. Just some of the general Luddite comments that have surfaced about mistrust of scientists.
 
In fairness to HG, I think that there's been a lot of condescending comments from both sides in this discussion. I'm putting my own hand up here well, but there is also an aspect of pot/kettle/black from you. Quite frankly I don't understand the purpose or value of this thread anymore.

It's clear that there's two deeply opposing viewpoints on this and neither is prepared to listen to, or show any respect to the other side. Both sides seem to insist that their's is the only sensible viewpoint and anything else is merely subjective/ scientific mumbo jumbo or bordering on a cult.

My own approach, as an engineer, is that I rely a lot upon measurements but believe that there are clearly things that can't be measured. I've worked on many, many problems over the years where I had all the measurements in the world, but they couldn't explain a phenomena that I could clearly see (or maybe hear).

However this doesn't mean that I believe that people can hear a lot of what they think that they can hear. For instance I find it hard to believe, but am open to being proven wrong, that anybody can hear the difference between two different mains cables or fuses (unless one is clearly substandard/ damaged). What seems to be an outright refusal to even engage in blind testing for one simple aspect like this, appears to me to be an admittance that they don't really have any confidence that they could hear any difference either.

I suppose the only consolation is that if you want to spend £1,000 on a mains cable or £250 on a single fuse, without considering how the last 1 meter of cable can really make a difference that the last 20 km back to the substation didn't, then fair enough to you. It's your money and I have no right to get upset or call you names. My only anger around any of this is directed at the people who market such things. As I mentioned, I'd be perfectly happy if somebody could actually prove that it does make a difference and I would consider myself enlightened.

I do think that there are some exceptional products in home audio, but there is also a lot of snake oil. This is the main reason why I tend not to take to a deep an interest in it but dip in when I'm looking to upgrade.The last time I took any real interest in it was when the likes of Messrs Belt and Hughes were around.

I do find some of the 'what did science ever do for us' type comments quoting a few instances where science fu$£ed up over the years as quite amusing. They're clearly too 'Life of Brian' to be taken seriously. If you really feel like this I'd recommend you step away from your computer, hand over your mobile phone, switch off the broadband (and anything electric really, so the hifi's gone) and go back to your horse and cart. I hope you enjoy life without any of the comforts of modern life, kindly brought to you by scientists and engineers.

Ok, rant over.
As an engineer, I thought it clever to make my own mains cable, using in-wall wire and nice plugs, thinking along the lines you pointed out - the last meter and all that. They sounded dreadful.

As for actual topic of discussion, I pointed out serious technical flaws with DBTs as they are commonly executed. Others have done as well over the years. As an aerospace engineer with 35 years of experience and lots of lab time, I know these to be serious issues with test setup, statistical errors and inherent assumptions.

My objective friends response was slow motion hand waving and eye rolling. My conclusion is that perhaps DBT methodology was initially developed as a flawed but necessary way to test items universally recognized to have large sound differences - i.e. transducers.

Today, it devovled into an amateurish field designed to crudely demonstrate to audiophiles that they live in an imaginary world. A gaslighting cudgel to use in Internet fights with no actual value to anyone.
 
Last edited:
Here are some more things to think about if we claim methodological soundness of DBT test protocols:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5265

This classic paper remains largely unanswered to this day, other than by vitriolic attacks on its author.

https://hal-institut-mines-telecom....ile/index/docid/842647/filename/APAC_5172.pdf

Here, researchers show that the standard ABX protocol is the LEAST discriminating among the three they studied.


I expect that my objective friends will deny any problems and continue to maintain the infallibility of their chosen deity.
 


advertisement


Back
Top