Steven said

Which does not make the conclusions drawn any more tenable...all it means
is that both reviewer and consumer tend to evaluate the sound of a
component in a manner that is unlikely to be particularly
reliable or accurate. But it does make them feel good.



I said


Which is the bottom line in any hobby.


Steven said


In butterfly collecting, one wants to know the
*actual* facts of the creature's taxonomy, life cycle,
geographical distribution, etc....not a collection of
comforting communal beliefs.

How on earth do you know what all butterfly collectors want?

Steven said

One may *want* to believe
that a Luna moth is a rare species, when one has one in
a collection -- they are quite pretty, after all --
or that it's life cycle is peculiar, but in fact it's not
and it isn't. Lepidopterists accept these facts with
no complaint or cavilling about the small-mindedness
of entomologists. They don't indulge in special pleading
that 'maybe science just doesn't know' or 'science
can't measure everything'.

What is your point? Are you saying that audiophiles have unrealistic ideas
about the rarity of their music or equipment? I would like to point out however
that science does take an interest in the biology of butterflies. It has become
quite evident that no such interest exists for audiophilia.

Steven said


In most hobbies, claims of difference are based on
incontrovertibly visual evidence.

OSAF.

Steven said


Indeed. But these 'subjective reviews' you talk about do *not* confine
themselves purely to statemenst such as, "I liked this one", "I didn't
like
that one"; "This one made me feel good", or the like. They instead often
*do* involve comparisons (often to the reviewer's 'reference system')
and they *do* make *specific claims* about one 'throwing a better
soundstage'

or 'sounding less harsh' or 'clarifying the bass'. Under thy typical
review conditions there is a distinct possibility that these
impressions are NOT the result of
actual sonic differences, but are *entirely* psychological in origin -- a

likelihood that science tells us cannot be confidently dismissed without
more
controlled comparison.

I said


All true and all a possible reaction that any given consumer may have to
such a
new piece of equipment. Just because the reviewer is more detailed in
describing their impressions of a given piece of equipment doesn't make
their
impression any less real or any less like the sort of impressions that any
consumer may also have.

Steven said


And it doesn't make these 'impressions' any closer to *true*.

It does for the person having those impressions.

Steven said

In the
case where in fact there is *NO DIFFERENCE*, isn't it absurd to talk of the
impressions being 'real'?

No. Not if you understand what an impression is.

Steven said

They are only 'real' in the trivial sense that
a false statement remains 'really' a statement.


No. They are real in that the person who has a given impression indeed does
have that impression.

Steven said


Your line of reasoning ends up having to assert that the audiophile hobby
isn't particularly concerned with what's true.

Audiophilia is very much about personal aesthetic experiences for many
audiophiles. Why this is so difficult for some to understand seems to be a
reflection of those people's limmited scope of understanding aesthetic
experiences.

Steven said


Reviewers pretend this isn't the case.


I said


The disclaimer says enough IMO. It is clear that the editor of Stereophile
does
not hold the subjective opinions of the reviewers as definitive. I haven't
seen
any reviewer specifically claim that thier subjective impressions are
universally infalable.

Steven said


What disclaimer?

I already answered this.

Steven said

Have you seen any reviewer claim that their impressions
could in fact be entirely spurious?

Not entirely. But it would be pretty absurd to think their impressions are
"entirely spurious" IMO.

Steven said

Have you seen any admit that,
absent controls for bias, level matching, etc, the likelihood that
impressions
about cable or amp or CD 'sound' are *entirely* spurious, cannot be
dismissed?

I have seen no laundry lists of all the possible caveats that any review may be
subject to. I think the general disclaimer suggesting that people listen and
decide for themselves covers it. But I already told you this.

Steven said


Yes, the community of belief is a strong component of the hobby. But is
the
belief
warranted by the facts? At what point does the hobby become more
'faith based' than fact-based?

I said


At the point where people draw their conclusions based on what they are
told
rather than what they experience. You cannot blame a magazine that tells
it's
readers to not use subjective reviews as definitive claims of performance
and
to audition equipment for themselves before purchasing equipment for some
audiophiles acting on faith.

Steven said


But 'audition for yourselves' is not a sufficiently detailed piece of
advice, Scott, as regards *verifying audible difference*,
any more than 'trust your ears' is.

Why does the advice need to be detailed? Are you suggesting that reviewers are
obligated to give detailed instructions on how to audition equipment?

Steven said

It's little more
than slogan or mantra, unless accompanied by information about factors
that can produce false impressions during those auditions.


I disagree. It is IMO a simple disclaimer that points out the reader may not
agree with the reviewer's findings.

Steven said


Do these disclaimers -- where are they printed , btw, in the current
issues
of the usual audio journals? -- further recommend that the personal
auditions
be
carried out in a scientifically reliable manner? Repeating the error of
the
reviewer yourself isn't going to get you closer to reliable.


I said


They do not suggest how people audition equipment for themslves. Just that
they
do so.

Steven said


Exactly. Which makes these disclaimers no more useful as truth-finding
advice about the 'sound' , than the reviews themselves. The same
essential flaws in the methodology apply.

Balony. They let the readers know that the reviews are not to be taken as
dogma. That is very useful information for the highly impressionable readers
you seem to be so concerned about.

I said


I believe these disclaimers can be found in the introduction to every
recomended components list. It is your opinion that a reviewer or a
consumer is
in error if they do not use scientifically valid methods for testing thier
subjective impressions. But then *all* of the advocates of DBTs on RAO
clearly
chose the one component that they believe matters most in the same
unreliable
manner. The bottom line how a hobbyist feels about his or her participation
in
the hobby.

Steven said


For the hundredth time...

People choose components for lots of reasons, not all of which involve the
sound: looks, budget, features. Visual differences are easy to verify.
Sonic ones often aren't. But journals don't confine themselves only
to reviewing the looks and features , do they?

No. If you have a problem with it don't support any of the journals that offer
subjective reviews of equipment. That would be all of them by the way.

Steven said


DBT advocates differe from others only in their willingnes to
*admit* that without DBT, their impression of the 'sound' of
cables and amps stands a strong chance of being entirely wrong.
Or else they differ in their willingness to actually perform such
comparisons.

This is just plain funny given the fact that those same advocates seem to be
quite cetain thier impressions are quite right. Maybe you could cite a DBT
advocate who believes thier "impressions" of the sound of any cable or amp
"stands a strong chance of being entirely wrong." I will say though, plenty of
people I know who don't rely on DBTs are quite aware that their impressions may
be in some part wrong and is not entirely reliable. I include myslef in this
group.

Steven said


It's also rather schizophrenic of journals to display test measurement
results, but then perform their reviews sighted.

Since they all do this and you seem to think it is crazy. Maybe you should
start a journal that does all it's subjective listening double blind.

Steven said

Why make a nod
to some science, but ignore other science?

Reporting bench tests is no more a nod to science than reading a clock or a
thermometer.

Steven said

Clearly the journals want
to present *some* sort of semblance of technical accuracy.


Yeah. So?

Steven said



I'll never understand why you think telling me that *lots* of journals
have poor standards of objective proof for their claims, is any sort of
argument *for* sighted comparison.

I said


I agree that it is unlikely you will ever understand. I suggest you give
careful thought as to why skeptics spend their time on bigfoot UFOs and
holistic medicine and not hobbies like audio and photography.


Steven said


The answer is that far more of the public at large cares about Bigfoot
and UFOs and holistic medicine, than about the folklore of audiophiles.
And what controversies in photography are analogous to 'cable sound' or
'green pens', Scott?

Lense quality is a hotly debated subjective issue.

Steven said

Are there treatments or devices that claim to
induce *visible* differences in photographic results, that require
a blind comparison for verification?


Interesting question. It seems the lines drawn in photography never beg for
blind verification. I suspect a blind verification would remove the possibility
of sighted bias.

Steven said



What sorts of products are you thinking of?

I said


Toys for grownups.

Steven said


And because they're 'toys', it's acceptable for the hobby to be pervaded by
child-like, magical thinking about how those toys work? How odd.
Usually children grow out of such beliefs about their toys.

Usually truly objective people don't burn so many straw men.