|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: RE: A Challenge To Measurements & DBT Proponents posted by Todd Krieger on September 22, 2007 at 01:30:25:
This is because in audio, DBT's application has been so abused, in the context of DBT's intended purpose.
I agree 100%. I've said it before and I'll say it again. It is an abuse to perform DBT's where psychiatric evaluations would be far more appropriate. That's been my contention, for intelligent chips, magic jelly beans, green markers, CD grinders and whatnot. DBT's are simply absurd for such matters. That whole Randi Challenge thing would have been a complete circus to begin with.
First, using it to test "listener acuity".... Its proper..
When has it been used for that, in the context of "audiophile" evaluation?
Please cite your reference. A link rather than a "say so" please.
Second, in the event of no difference initially being resolved (or the differences resolved are not yet reliable and/or repeatable), the lack of correspondence to refine and zero-in on the differences thought to be perceived between products or conditions. But instead, the snap judgment questioning the existence of differences. Often with the citation of the listener being "delusional in overestimating his hearing acuity" for claiming to perceive such differences. (As if such citation has ever been constructive.)
And third, in the event of no differences being resolved, jumping to the erroneous conclusion that differences unequivocally don't exist. Where the deduction should be that the test's results were merely inconclusive. A DBT's objective is to resolve perceived differences- Any test that is unsuccessful in meeting that objective does not necessarily mean the differences are not there. There is the possibility that the differences are there, but the test wasn't able to resolve them.
Here is where I disagree. Exactly how did we arrive at the need to perform a DBT in the first place? Because "Golden Ear Audiophile Joe" claimed "I think I might be able to perceive a minute difference in cable, wire, widget X vs Y or Z, but I'm not positive"?
Is this what revisionist history produces? Or is that massive delusion in of itself? Would you care to peruse this very site (Asylum being perhaps the most appropriate name in history) to see what claims are being made? Would you like to pick up this months copy of Stereophool, The Absolute Clown, 6morons, etc. and tell me with a straight face what is being claimed? Barely detected differences eh?
No, DBT's do not tell there was no difference...and "objective" members do not claim this (to my knowledge).
They do tell : since the differences (if they exist at all) were below the threshold of the test, the ridiculous claims of "stunning differences" by the golden ear, that prompted the DBT in the first place are either severe delusion, or at worst, outright lies (take your pick). Sorry if I don't use PC words like "slight embellishment", etc.
So rather than attack DBT's, how about taking a closer look at the claims causing their need in the first place?
Do you see DBT's being performed on things that "sound" indistinguishable? Or audiophile claims of such?
cheers,
AJ
Fermentation may have been a greater discovery than fire
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Agree and disagree - AJinFLA 09/22/0709:01:45 09/22/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
