DBT Is Flawed Because Bob Stuart Says So, Split from Topic ID #11442 Options

[greynol]

window <- comprehension of science

This post has been edited by greynol: Aug 13 2012, 16:39

[dhromed]

I can hear things while I'm blinded, things I can remember. I don't have to see what might be causing them to be able to remember that I heard them. So because I can remember them, I cannot always avoid being biased by them.

That doesn't make a sighted test more reliable than a blind test. It's not an answer to my question, either.

can now still hear the detail. Why? Simple. It's because my memory is telling me that B sounded subjectively better, and that that's what the music should sound like. As a direct result from this, my brain now automatically fills in the missing detail where it previously couldn't. It previously could not, because the information required for that had previously not even been stored in my memory yet.

So your point is that due to this phantom detail, the ABX will show that A and B are equal, which would be wrong, since hypothetically, B is better. The blind test has failed.

Let's take that to its logical extreme: I play A, and there's nothing but silence. Then B, which contains music. Then I switch back to A, and because I've already heard B, my brain subconsciously superimposes the memory of the music onto the silence. I then falsely judge that A and B sound the same.

Obviously, you're not arguing that. So it becomes a question of magnitude. How tiny would a detail have to be before it can be superimposed on music without your conscious consent; before it messes up blind tests? If a detail is clearly audible, we can detect its absence when knowing it should be there; if it is not, then we hear nothing in either case.

It is a kind of defeatist stance: believing that objective methods are unreliable because the brain makes your perceive things that are not there. But the same goes for subjective methods! I've mentioned it before: it seems to come down to a crazy notion that things cannot be known and that knowledge can not be had.

This post has been edited by dhromed: Aug 13 2012, 16:50

[audioclaudio]

Cite the law that says people taking ABX tests are not allowed to practice beforehand in any fashion they choose (e.g.: sighted, blind, standing on their head worshipping the flying spaghetti monster).

I was referring to the actual test itself, NOT the practicing beforehand.

...and that's the point! If you can demonstrate your bias while blinded then congratulations, you passed.

By saying this, you are agreeing with me on the fact that, due to this bias, double blinded tests are indeed flawed.

Your continued (and lately childish) arguing from authority, doesn't paint you as all that smart either.

So far, the "authority" (please note the parentheses) has failed to provide objective evidence to support the theory which claims double blinded tests are NOT flawed. Ironically, on top of this, many of the people here who believe in this theory are consistently and childishly demanding objective evidence to support the theory which claims double blinded tests ARE flawed.

Do you want a medal? I doubt Wombat's post was intended solely for you. While you're the latest uneducated opponent of objective testing, this thread is not about you. In fact, it isn't even about the debate you are trying to have (albeit incompetently).

You fail to understand that I am NOT an opponent of objective testing. I am only trying to point out that double blinded testing is flawed, and why.

This post has been edited by audioclaudio: Aug 13 2012, 17:17

[pdq]

So, audioclaudio, do you notice that you are the only one here arguing against the applicability of ABX testing in proving that a difference is audible? Did you wonder why that is?

Is it A: Everyone else here is so biased that we would discount any evidence presented to us that would counter that belief?

Or is it B: We have been waiting more than a decade for someone to present such evidence, and instead all we have gotten is folks like yourself with lots of theories and conjecture and passing along of everybody else's theories and conjectures?

:cough: It's probably C: Everyone else NOT here has been waiting more than a decade for someone to present evidence to support YOUR theories and conjectures? :cough:

You know, for awhile I thought you might be just someone that needed to overcome his ignorance on a subject in which he badly needed educating. Now it has become quit evident that you are nothing but a troll, and not worth my attention.

[db1989]

Your continued (and lately childish) arguing from authority, doesn't paint you as all that smart either.

So far, the "authority" (please note the parentheses) has failed to provide objective evidence to support the theory which claims double blinded tests are NOT flawed. Ironically, on top of this, many of the people here who believe in this theory are consistently and childishly demanding objective evidence to support the theory which claims double blinded tests ARE flawed.

I . . . What?

Have you ever heard anyone talk about a ‘burden of proof’?

Also:


""
Those are quotation marks.

()
Those are parentheses.

[greynol]

Once again, audioclaudio, you are confusing religion with science.

Regarding what I'm agreeing to, I'm trying to take what you're saying literally. If you hear someing with one sample that you don't hear in the other and that correlates with the actual samples then congratulations. If you're talking about some real difference that has now ghosted itself onto both samples then the results are going to indicate that you can't demonstate a difference. Take a break, do the test over if you must. I hope your grasping at straws doesn't now lead you to say the difference is now permanent; otherwise, how will you ever going to distinguish the difference again?!?

Have you ever had this ghosting happen to you? Did it go away? What do you think caused it to go away? If it did go away and you think you know the reason, why can't an ABX test be used to confirm it?

How exactly is a sighted test going to be more reliable?

This post has been edited by greynol: Aug 13 2012, 17:49

[drewfx]

If past listening experiences bias our future listening, then it does so for sighted testing as well as for ABX testing.

IOW it's not a flaw in ABX, it's a flaw in our brain's ability to determine what's real. Which is the main reason for doing ABX in the first place.

I suggest that you might want to just drop this particular line of your argument.

This post has been edited by drewfx: Aug 13 2012, 17:57

[greynol]

He has no argument.

He's simply regurgitating something said by someone else (in whom he has put his blind faith) who is trying to justify why people should buy his expensive technology without having to demonstrate tangible benefit in a scientifically acceptable fashion.

This post has been edited by greynol: Aug 13 2012, 18:03

[2Bdecided]

window <- comprehension of science

Where's the HA "like" button?

[2Bdecided]

So far, the "authority" (please note the parentheses) has failed to provide objective evidence to support the theory which claims double blinded tests are NOT flawed. Ironically, on top of this, many of the people here who believe in this theory are consistently and childishly demanding objective evidence to support the theory which claims double blinded tests ARE flawed.

The flaws, such as you have presented them, are "flaws" with human beings. They are present equally in sighted and blind tests.

There are other flaws that are only present in sighted tests, but removed by blind tests.


There are flaws that are more present in blind tests if you choose to do them in a certain way. Fine. Do them in a different way.


We can't rebut your argument further because, having taken these points into consideration, you have no argument left.


If you feel there is some other problem with double blind testing that it not present in sighted testing, and cannot be removed from blind testing, please explain it.


We already know the way in which blind testing beats sighted testing: it removes placebo / expectation bias. There are objective studies showing this - let google deliver the objective evidence for this superiority to your screen

Cheers,
David.

This post has been edited by 2Bdecided: Aug 13 2012, 18:34

[drewfx]

He has no argument.

I consider it a purely hypothetical argument that we get here every few months - IF there are some kind of tiny differences that are real and audible but somehow still manage to evade detection under ABX testing, then it follows that ABX is flawed.

Of course no one ever manages to provide any actual evidence whatsoever that such stealth differences exist and are audible.

So we are left with the supposition that they conceivably somehow might exist and are therefore EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.

But personally I don't find purely hypothetical arguments particularly compelling.

[audioclaudio]

I can hear things while I'm blinded, things I can remember. I don't have to see what might be causing them to be able to remember that I heard them. So because I can remember them, I cannot always avoid being biased by them.

That doesn't make a sighted test more reliable than a blind test. It's not an answer to my question, either.

I agree. It only shows that both sighted and double blind tests can be, but not necessarily always are, unreliable. If there can be no reliable way to show that a test is indeed reliable, logically we must accept the possibility that it's not. The test being blinded or sighted does not change this fact. In answer to your question, here is the link to another article about this subject. As you can see, it has been debated over to great length.
http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listen...lawed-editorial

So your point is that due to this phantom detail, the ABX will show that A and B are equal, which would be wrong, since hypothetically, B is better. The blind test has failed.

Let's take that to its logical extreme: I play A, and there's nothing but silence. Then B, which contains music. Then I switch back to A, and because I've already heard B, my brain subconsciously superimposes the memory of the music onto the silence. I then falsely judge that A and B sound the same.

Obviously, you're not arguing that. So it becomes a question of magnitude. How tiny would a detail have to be before it can be superimposed on music without your conscious consent; before it messes up blind tests? If a detail is clearly audible, we can detect its absence when knowing it should be there; if it is not, then we hear nothing in either case.

It is a kind of defeatist stance: believing that objective methods are unreliable because the brain makes your perceive things that are not there. But the same goes for subjective methods! I've mentioned it before: it seems to come down to a crazy notion that things cannot be known and that knowledge can not be had.

Well, yes. It IMO is not a crazy notion at all, though. Take neuroscience for example, it's not an exact science. In fact, if all knowledge could always be had then perhaps we wouldn't be needing science in the first place. After all, the goal of science is not only to obtain knowledge, but to at least TRY and obtain knowledge, so here's yet another lovely anecdote. One cannot prove the existence of the Higgs boson until one actually DOES find it. But then, how are people supposed to find the little bugger if they all just refuse to even keep looking?

[Wombat]

As a matter of fact I'm a registered user on CA forum too, albeit under a different nick. I've had some public discussions with Julf in the past.

This doesn´t make any of your statements more valid, maybe even more the other way around.
One thing i may add to this discussion is that here on Hydrogenaudio we have several people that stumbled across audible probs while doing no abx tests and surprise, surprise are able to reproduce these in proper abx sessions. Now guess what i think about the claims of people that are not able to stand an abx test?

[Nick.C]

One cannot prove the existence of the Higgs boson until one actually DOES find it. But then, how are people supposed to find the little bugger if they all just refuse to even keep looking?

The search for the Higg's Boson has continued because its existence would "fit" with current particle theory. On the other hand, proof of its existence would be subjected to a 5 sigma test - objectively, repeatably.

[greynol]

So we are left with the supposition that they conceivably somehow might exist and are therefore EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.

Also, we somehow lose this "argument" because we, "cannot prove that they don't exist and that they aren't important."

[drewfx]

So we are left with the supposition that they conceivably somehow might exist and are therefore EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.

Also, we somehow lose this "argument" because we, "cannot prove that they don't exist and that they aren't important."

What if we can prove it hypothetically? Does that count?

[greynol]

But then, how are people supposed to find the little bugger if they all just refuse to even keep looking?

Again, how does a requirement for objective evidence keep people from being curious?

Where has anyone in this discussion discouraged research into the unknown?

Let pioneers pioneer! Just don't expect the scientific community to accept their untested theories on faith, because they may be untestable; especially if they fly in the face of theories that are testable and are supported by the results of these tests.

This post has been edited by greynol: Aug 13 2012, 19:01

[dhromed]

In answer to your question, here is the link to another article about this subject. As you can see, it has been debated over to great length.
http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listen...lawed-editorial

Well, if nothing else, I am now convinced that you are convinced.

if they all just refuse to even keep looking?

Who is refusing?

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

Cite the law that says people taking ABX tests are not allowed to practice beforehand in any fashion they choose (e.g.: sighted, blind, standing on their head worshipping the flying spaghetti monster).

I was referring to the actual test itself, NOT the practicing beforehand.

The above shows how thoroughly you misunderstand ABX: ABX allows practicing during the test because you have the option of comparing clearly identified A versus clearly identified B at any time during the test that you wish.

That's aside from the fact that your hearing model is refuted by modern science...

Two strikes!

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

In answer to your question, here is the link to another article about this subject. As you can see, it has been debated over to great length.
http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listen...lawed-editorial

Interesting that you cite that article. What you find there is not an open honest debate of the topic, but rather a sham discussion where many critical comments were censured out of existence.

[greynol]

You mean censored.

Speaking of the ability to audition samples during a test, some interfaces (like that in foobar2000) allow the participant to audition the known samples A and B in addition to the unknown samples, X and Y. There are no limitations on how often these samples can be auditioned or how long one can take before committing to an answer.

This post has been edited by greynol: Aug 13 2012, 19:49

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

Speaking of the ability to audition samples during a test, some interfaces (like that in foobar2000) allow the participant to audition the known samples A and B in addition to the unknown samples, X and Y. There are no limitations on how often these samples can be auditioned or how long one can take before committing to an answer.

Since when is there a Y sample in an ABX test? ;-)

Nevertheless, I agree with you about auditioning A and B at any time.

I have to admit that I smiled the first time I used that feature after I put it in. It made things soooo much easier!

[greynol]

It kinda puts a monkey wrench into the ghosting excuse, no?

...of course this will be ignored with the rest of the inconvenient points/questions raised by myself and others.

This post has been edited by greynol: Aug 13 2012, 19:59

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

One cannot prove the existence of the Higgs boson until one actually DOES find it. But then, how are people supposed to find the little bugger if they all just refuse to even keep looking?

Straw man argument. This discussion is not about no longer looking. It is about the terms and conditions for verifying that it has actually been found.

Also, lets say that you somehow manage to find, as opposed to imagine, fatal flaws in ABX. What about all the other forms of DBTs that might apply but are in fact different tests? Since they are different tests, you would need to also find fatal flaws in them or accept their validity...

One of the confirmations of ABX is the fact that we have numerous ways of confirming or denying the audibility of as wide range of defects. Some are related, others come at the question in different ways. In some cases the means of verification are as different as could be imagined. In general they all agree about the threshold of audibility for any defect that is studied that way, including ABX.

We have numerous audible defects whose intensity we can control at will. We can and have established the conditions under which they are heard by most people, a few people, and nobody. We have done this in some cases by various independent means. The independent means, including ABX, agree.

This contrasts with sighted evaluations which generally have positive results for just about everything that rides somebody's hobby horse.

This post has been edited by Arnold B. Krueger: Aug 13 2012, 20:03

[dhromed]

Interesting that you cite that article. What you find there is not an open honest debate of the topic, but rather a sham discussion where many critical comments were censured out of existence.

Well, this very sane incoming letter from one Lawrence S. Makow was included, at least— by Robert Harley himself, even.