# Off topic in Sound Science. the new old moderation.



## castleofargh

https://www.head-fi.org/articles/posting-guidelines.14048/  :


> Respect the OP's (original poster's) intentions and try and keep comments on topic. If you feel a strong need to (continue to) discuss a particular, but off-topic subject in a thread, start your own thread and direct post a link in the thread rather than derail that thread. If it's not a discussion worthy for a thread, consider taking it to private messages.
> If it is a one-off reply, you can also put the reply in a spoiler tag and rename it "Off-topic".


My easy going moderation has resulted in "give them an inch, they'll take a mile". It has to stop for the sake of this very section and anybody who will come seeking answers in those threads. A topic is not your personal chat room. Unless you make a thread for that very purpose.
Please follow the simple guidelines in the above quote. I will actively delete new derailing posts.
OPs have trace amount of authority and responsibility on the flow of their threads. They can and should remember to use that authority to move things in the direction they want. I'll help more if I read something to that effect in the topic, in a report, or even as a PM.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 7, 2020)

I think the users can take care of this themselves by simply dismissing off topic discussions. The only problem is when one of our "special" guests goes off on a monologue, and no rule is going to prevent that. I've come to the conclusion that they can't help it. But it isn't just mods who have to wade through the posts full of repetitive blather and off topic discussion of phonograph cartridges, avant-garde composers of noise music, and the way jet engines perform in a total vacuum. I guess that stuff is more entertaining than the pointless arguments over whether blind testing is bogus and "even my wife can hear the difference".

In general, I'm in favor of laissez faire moderation when it comes to drifting content and draconian moderation when it comes to people who are intentionally argumentative and rude.


----------



## castleofargh

Nothing here will stop posters from discussing what they want. The aim is not censure, but very basic organization for the sake of everybody else.


----------



## bigshot

Disorganized threads are a result of disorganized minds. We have more than our fair share of those!


----------



## WoodyLuvr (Apr 14, 2021)

*Moderately*, I fully concur; let's try to keep this on topic! Even belatedly   

*Objectively*, I beg for clearer more finely defined instructions on how one should post in this here thread... am I replying correctly? Is there a specific reply format template available per chance? Be nice if we had a thread & reply stat pop-up window scoring thread health.

*Subjectively*... so, what do you guys think about them sexy cables that effect the Harman Curve? Oh, and by the way just read that dither & jitter are grossly affecting my analog components and am very concerned that I need to upgrade soonest.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> In general, I'm in favor of laissez faire moderation when it comes to drifting content and *draconian moderation when it comes to people who are intentionally argumentative and rude*.


Agree....


----------



## cirrus101

bigshot said:


> I think the users can take care of this themselves by simply dismissing off topic discussions.  (...)
> 
> In general, I'm in favor of laissez faire moderation when it comes to drifting content


Ah, if only your words had any value when weighted against your actions!


----------



## chef8489

One thing I am noticing just as in the last cable discussion is the cable believers come in to troll to get the discussion shut down and the thread locked as evident of the last one. It should be as like what happens when we mention science in their threads. we get banned from their threads and treated as trolls. When they are truly trolling and it is evident, they should get banned and their posts be deleted . The thread should continue as sometimes people are truly interested in the real scientific answers.


----------



## bigshot

The mods have cleaned up the cable thread a bit.

I wish we could have more discussion of topics and less of people's subjective impressions, but the steady flow of trolling has switched us into reactive mode... we only reply to stupid posts, we don't generate informational posts ourselves.


----------



## chef8489 (Oct 31, 2022)

bigshot said:


> The mods have cleaned up the cable thread a bit.
> 
> I wish we could have more discussion of topics and less of people's subjective impressions, but the steady flow of trolling has switched us into reactive mode... we only reply to stupid posts, we don't generate informational posts ourselves.


Yes but now the thread is locked just as the last troll wanted.


----------



## sander99

I think the thread name "How do I convince people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference" was an unlucky choice. This is a nice oppertunity to think about a good name for a new cable thread. Maybe something like "When is a cable good enough for the job (and when can replacing it by a "better" or more expensive cable not give an audible objective improvement)."
Any other suggestions for a good cable thread name?


----------



## The Jester (Nov 1, 2022)

Maybe “Methods for evaluating audio cables”,
If there can be advice on a relatively simple DIY setup, switchbox ,level balancing etc to at least give some sort of repeatable baseline reference, with cable “A” a basic, good quality item vs cable of choice ..
Then it’s a simple request “how are you making evaluations ?”,
The problem with internet reviews and forums in general is too many try to use them as some sort of comparison to buy unseen (unheard) online, so the proliferation of “what’s the best xxx cable for the money” which in itself is relative, “who’s money” ?, a $50 cable could equate from a nice bottle of wine over dinner to a weeks groceries … 🤔


----------



## castleofargh

chef8489 said:


> One thing I am noticing just as in the last cable discussion is the cable believers come in to troll to get the discussion shut down and the thread locked as evident of the last one. It should be as like what happens when we mention science in their threads. we get banned from their threads and treated as trolls. When they are truly trolling and it is evident, they should get banned and their posts be deleted . The thread should continue as sometimes people are truly interested in the real scientific answers.


What I noticed is that some dude who doesn't know much but has already spent a lot, arrives on a thread. He surely doesn't have much to say that is correct and really won't have much desire to learn about the reasons why his investments were probably a mistake. 
That's the 5.1typical(more than stereotypical) opening scene. 
We know from science that it's a lot of efforts not to antagonize such people, and that anytime we do, we galvanize their original beliefs. 
The way to proceed is usually psychological manipulation and I'm not a big fan of that, provide data without judgement(certainly no judgement about them in particular!), try when possible to make the "subject" think he came up with the new idea. Compliment him when he acknowledges something true... That way, because of our brain we often tend to feel like we were always thinking the new stuff and the old idea pretty much vanishes from the mind. 
It's not simple to do or control, just as being a good educator is not easy. It's even harder when all your efforts get ruined by snarky remarks and absolutism from other posters on the forum.

Now let's think about what happened 3 times in a month with 3 different people: 
You guys kept on pushing a narrative of cables making zero difference(which is at the very least conditional to audibility, and on occasion, very much false). You're almost completely unable to discuss a topic without accusing the one you talk to of something or treating him like an idiot. Sometimes it's hard not to get personal, I know that. But what I saw this last month was an active search for conflict. It's like you couldn't wait for a new random guy to come and spam him until he breaks. 
 Sure trolling isn't welcomed, but personal attacks are also in the terms of service. A few of you did that repeatedly to several people this month in a single thread, should I get you banned to properly enforce moderation?

I blame people from Sound science for turning those 3 different guys in the cable thread into trolls. The 3 of them came with their views and their anecdotes(mostly wrong conclusions) while being polite and not actively antagonistic. They left(by force) angry from constantly being insulted and called a troll. What could they do? Insult you very explicitely and get moderated(first guy), or leave and have you gloating about how well you handled this ugly troll, or use sarcasm as a weapon and indeed become a troll(the most likely outcome for someone with some self control). 
You guys haven't just been feeding them when there is but one rule about trolls and it's to not feed them, you went tit for tat for pages and pages. You pushed them, entertained them, really encouraged them to keep replying and made them into trolls pretty much on your own. I think you got those guys exactly where you wanted!
Because if it's not where you wanted them to go, you dramatically suck at having a proper conversation.

On that one thread I would go to bed and often wake up to find like 4 new pages with 3 to 4 people involved in writing them. You guys kept wishing for them to stop replying, but you never did.  
I did not see much of a moral high ground in that thread. Just people trying to have the last word.

I'm fed up with behaviors that ask to handle a troll and proceed to bang on his cage continuously for hours. It's hypocritical and in case it's not obvious, it makes moderation nightmarish. I'm not paid to do this crap.
I closed the thread because in about a month, it's nearly a hundred posts that got deleted. And a majority of those posts were from you guys. You have been making most of the spam, personal attacks, and force feeding of trolls in that thread. None of those mass deletion made anybody change his behavior. You apparently expect for admins to keep cleaning after you forever and be fine with that.
To you, that other guy is wrong and everything bad in the world is his fault. But what about dancing with him for hours, and saying "science this" without giving him relevant links for information?

From my point of view, there is very little difference in the behaviors, and yes, I'm fed up with it. I closed the thread because I had enough of cleaning after you all.
The first guy got locked out of a topic for a week for insulting others after I asked to stop.
The second one seemed to find us funny and played along a little too hard. An admin put him on the naughty list and his post need to be accepted by an admin to become visible.
The last one, T 1000, Well I could have locked him out of the thread, but as I explained, I'm less and less convinced that it would have changed anything. You'd soon find a new playmate and do the same all over again. I got him in PM and apparently on top of a lack of knowledge about psychology and biases, there's a somewhat problematic language barrier. Things probably won't end well for him as he's also a little spammy. Time will tell.

You're all fed up, I'm fed up, admins came and moderated more in a month than they did in Sound Science over the last year. Things are getting serious and unless some of you make a real effort when it comes to baiting and being baited, insulting and being insulted, I doubt any of the more active posters in this section will survive a stricter moderation. At some point, we're not so much interested in who came first between the chicken and the egg, we're just looking to stop the issue by removing what causes trouble when we're looking at it. Knowing that someone else started it, that's hardly relevant after pages of proving that you're just as willing to fight and cause a mess.
I mean, you guys just hijacked another thread to continue the same BS about cables. And as if to show zero respect for people or rules, you did it for almost 3 pages in one day on my thread about stopping long off topics.
I say, stop blaming "them" for everything and look in a mirror from time to time. 

If you want a cable thread, make one. The last one hardly had 10 pages put together of documented cable facts.


----------



## bfreedma (Nov 1, 2022)

I disagree and know I'm walking a tightrope with the following - I hope this is seen as constructive criticism and an alternative model for solving the problem.  Let the chips fall where they may:

The reason trolls get banged on here is because "the regulars" have come to realize that the moderation in Sound Science has, to be kind, a different threshold for allowing trolls to continue in a thread when compared to the balance of this site.

Should we all do better with limiting responses to trolls?  Absolutely.

Would moderating Sound Science with the same threshold as the rest of Head-Fi eliminate the majority of these discussions?  Absolutely.  And if we regulars can't get in line, then we will be moderated as well.  As it should be.

I'd rather be held to the same standards as the balance of this site than go through the recurring trollfest Sound Science has become over the last few months.

I also suspect that the overall quality of posts would go up without the time and energy being invested in the current crop of trolls.  Any chance we can test that theory?  It should make your job easier as well, @castleofargh


----------



## bigshot (Nov 1, 2022)

It is NOT our fault. We always start polite and informative, and they dismiss us. When there is a break after it gets hot, we go back to giving them the benefit of the doubt and we’re met with disrespect and our sharing is ignored again.

It may be difficult to teach, but it’s impossible to teach someone who refuses to listen. When I was in college, if a student behaved like that and disrupted the learning experience of the whole class, they were quietly ejected and they could think about what they did wrong in the hallway.

Troll whispering won’t work. You’re not asking one person to hold their tongue, you’re asking the whole group. You might as well expect cats to submit to herding. That just won’t work. BFreedma is right. A quiet thread ban for a week whenever  someone disrupts the discussion after being warned in PM is the way to deal with this. When this guy immediately transplanted it to this thread, he should have gotten a week long thread ban here too. Three thread bans concurrently and it should become a 30 day forum ban. That is how I always dealt with this stuff when I was a forum Admin. If I get out of line, feel free to thread ban me for a week. See if it helps. I won’t complain if the bans are applied even handedly. Time outs are constructive. They aren’t necessarily punishment.

The reason for our problem has its root in the ban on ABX and placebo discussion in the rest of Head Fi. Bfreedma is right in saying that there’s a double standard… we are ejected for simply mentioning ABX in the rest of the forum, but everyone else can come in here and crap all over our discussions with anti science blather and “it’s their right because it’s an open forum”. That just isn’t right. Separate but unequal.

If moderation isn’t applied fairly and with the intent of protecting the science theme of this forum, we users are forced to take it into our own hands. We don’t have the ability to ban, but we have the ability to tell someone to shut the youknowwhat up.

This recent guy tempted me to create a thread highlighting all the stupid stuff he says in other threads on Head Fi. He has his profile hidden, but you can use the search function to find all of his posts. I restrained myself from doing that, but if he can repeatedly crap up our forum and grind all of our normal conversation to a halt, I tend to feel justified in humiliating him in the public square.

We have some “unique kinds of people” among the regulars here, but I have no problem with them participating and engaging with them in discussions/arguments. I’m sure the regulars who consider me a “unique kind of person” feel the same way about me, even when I get under their skin. But someone who comes into the forum cold and makes a concerted effort to piss people off and refuses to follow the topic of the forum, doesn’t belong here.

We’ve done our part. Since this banishment group was created, I haven’t posted outside of it in the rest of Head Fi. All of those other forums are safe havens from our kind of logic and facts. We stay in our lane. And Bfreedma is also correct that we contribute a great deal to the site. Go to Google and type in a few keywords or technical questions and you’ll see our posts come up. You can’t buy that kind of organic traffic. It should be appreciated, not disparaged.

If the goal is to get rid of those pesky sound science guys, allowing this kind of thing to continue is an effective way of doing it. But as Bfreedma says, we won’t go quietly. This won’t just go away if we all take a nice nap.


----------



## bigshot

The Jester said:


> Maybe “Methods for evaluating audio cables”,
> If there can be advice on a relatively simple DIY setup, switchbox ,level balancing etc to at least give some sort of repeatable baseline reference, with cable “A” a basic, good quality item vs cable of choice ..


We had a guy who came in here a couple of years ago with a very expensive DAC that he was sure sounded better than his old cheap DAC. He argued for a few days and heard about controlled listening tests. He took it as a challenge and asked how to set up an informal test himself. He went to that effort and found out the truth.

It is possible to learn important things from this forum if the person is willing to make the effort.


----------



## Elegiac

Mmm. I don't know, but I _feel_ as though this forum would be difficult to moderate in the same way as any other portion of the site because of the nature of its content. The fact that there's a forum like this, on what often amounts to a glorified salesroom... it's something of a small miracle. The fact that you can just sit in here, just across the way from where the snakeoil is pedaled, and have the opportunity to spit straight facts. That's going to invite conflict. And it's a niche.

People on the margins have to be tougher and smarter, and know that their lot is harder, but shoulder it in style. You guys seem to have that thousand-post stare. That's probably not a sign of success. But you mostly fight the good fight, and I respect that.


----------



## Daniel Johnston

castleofargh said:


> What I noticed is that some dude who doesn't know much but has already spent a lot, arrives on a thread. He surely doesn't have much to say that is correct and really won't have much desire to learn about the reasons why his investments were probably a mistake.
> That's the 5.1typical(more than stereotypical) opening scene.
> We know from science that it's a lot of efforts not to antagonize such people, and that anytime we do, we galvanize their original beliefs.
> The way to proceed is usually psychological manipulation and I'm not a big fan of that, provide data without judgement(certainly no judgement about them in particular!), try when possible to make the "subject" think he came up with the new idea. Compliment him when he acknowledges something true... That way, because of our brain we often tend to feel like we were always thinking the new stuff and the old idea pretty much vanishes from the mind.
> ...


Thank you.

I’d really like to be more “objectivist”, hence why I lurk thus forum. But I notice the tone (much like another website) turns hostile quick. To the point when I first posted on this forum, I came in a “little hot”. It’s true that many (possibly majority) audiophiles have pre conceptions and biases. I’m sure the heavy posters here tire quickly of the constant “I trust my ears” crowd. 

It’s clear the tactics used to convince the “audiofools” isn’t working. I ignored the member who’s sig is posted below. 






Sorry, but when I see this, I see someone pretty entrenched in their views. People who don’t interpret/view studies the same way are not stupid. We all have preconceptions and biases. I don’t envy you @castleofargh, but I see your responses as the most fair and appreciate your efforts.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 1, 2022)

Clear statements with links to back them up. Obviously this guy never clicked through the links. You'd be hard pressed to view/interpret them any other way. But he's correct that no amount of proof will convince audiophools.

The truth rarely lies halfway between two opposing viewpoints.


----------



## The Jester

bigshot said:


> Clear statements with links to back them up. Obviously this guy never clicked through the links. You'd be hard pressed to view/interpret them any other way. But he's correct that no amount of proof will convince audiophools.
> 
> The truth rarely lies halfway between two opposing viewpoints.


Given the time I try to explore any links available,
This one is an entertaining version of visual stimulus overriding what we hear,


----------



## cinemakinoeye

bigshot said:


> Clear statements with links to back them up. Obviously this guy never clicked through the links. You'd be hard pressed to view/interpret them any other way. But he's correct that no amount of proof will convince audiophools.
> 
> The truth rarely lies halfway between two opposing viewpoints.


I agree that "truth" rarely lies halfway between two opposing viewpoints; however, it certainly does not lie at either extreme of any polarized debate, there are so many factors to consider, and we humans are rarely aware of all of the implications of our ideological stance.

The challenge of having a constructive conversation is that ideologically committed people are motivated to avoid ideologically conflicting information. There are lots of peer-reviewed scientific studies focused on political ideology, I've not found any studies focused on the polarization of subjectivists and objectivists in audio (if you have come across any, I'd like to see them), however, I'd suggest the psychological mechanisms behind divisions in the political arena and the divisions between subjectivist objectivist audiophiles are the same.  Here are three articles that are but a toe dip in the pond of research findings in this area:

A. Minson and Charles A. Dorison (2022). Why is exposure to opposing views aversive? Reconciling three theoretical perspectives. _Current Opinion in Psychology._ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101435
J. Chambers et al. (2013). Ideology and prejudice: The role of value conflicts. _Psychological Science._ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797612447820
G. Echterhoff,  E. T. Higgins, and J. M.. Levine (2009). Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others' inner states about the world. _Perspectives on Psychological Science._ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01161.x


----------



## bigshot (Dec 12, 2022)

The science of sound isn’t an ideology. It’s scientific principles applied for a purpose. I don’t see how politics is comparable at all. We’re dealing with facts, not opinions.

The scientific study that represents the differences between subjectivists and objectivists in sound science is Dunning Kruger.


----------



## gregorio (Dec 18, 2022)

Daniel Johnston said:


> People who don’t interpret/view studies the same way are not stupid.


True but that does not characterise the typical arguments here. Typically, one side of the argument doesn’t know of the existence of any studies or even of the proven science/facts but comes to the sound science forum and denies/dismisses decades or centuries of scientific endeavour with nothing more than what they believe they experienced and audiophile marketing. Now, that IS stupid!

On very rare occasions it is as you say, due to a different interpretation/view of the studies but again, that is commonly due to them not fully understanding the context of the study or of not understanding some vital part of it. Again, that IS stupid, although far more understandably because I’m sure everyone who has read many studies has fallen into that trap at times, I certainly have. There have been extremely few, if any, arguments that I recall in all the years I’ve been here that were based on different, informed interpretations of studies.


cinemakinoeye said:


> I agree that "truth" rarely lies halfway between two opposing viewpoints; however, it certainly does not lie at either extreme of any polarized debate …


Clearly that’s not true. The oft quoted flat earth analogy springs to mind; does the truth lie in the extreme polarised view that the earth is flat, the extreme polarised view that it’s roughly a sphere or somewhere in between these polarised extremes? Anyone with a basic education and the ability to employ basic critical reasoning should know the answer to that question. However, there are clearly some people who can’t correctly answer that question, either because they do not have a basic education or because they are prone to believing conspiracy theories (which defeats the ability to critically reason). The problem in the audiophile world is that audiophiles often do not realise they are analogously arguing that the earth is flat. This is somewhat understandable because in many instances one needs more than just a basic education and “conspiracy theories” (audiophile marketing BS) is pretty much all they are usually exposed to. A tiny group of people in an obscure corner of Head-Fi strongly stating the opposite of the herd mentality are therefore just a bunch of crazies who need it emphatically explained to them that the earth is flat!


cinemakinoeye said:


> I've not found any studies focused on the polarization of subjectivists and objectivists in audio (if you have come across any, I'd like to see them)


And I doubt you will, because scientific audio studies are pretty much always based on the perception of audio phenomena, not on terms invented by audiophile marketers to discredit audio science in order to sell snake oil! The terms “subjectivist” and “objectivist” don’t really exist and are only used in a small corner of the audio world, the audiophile community. They appear to refer to:

Subjectivist - Someone who relies solely on their listening experience (and who believes the audiophile marketing explanations for those experiences, contrary to the science/facts).

Objectivist - Someone who relies on the proven/demonstrated science (and discounts personal listening experience).

In the rest of the audio world (outside the audiophile community) the above distinction almost never exists. I’m sure there are probably some actual objectivists, technicians in the audio equipment manufacturing process or certain audio software programmers for example but certainly those in the content creation side (professional music or sound recording engineers for example) know and/or rely on the proven/demonstrated science but most of their professional decisions are based on their subjective choices and therefore don’t fit into either category.

This made-up/false categorisation and audiophile beliefs/myths *might* be of some interest to some psychology or sociology student but generally I would think they would be more interested in this type of thing in the medical, political, educational or other “worlds”, where such polarisation could have catastrophic consequences rather than in a relatively tiny corner of the audio world, where the only consequences are a bit of handbag waving and a few thousand audiophiles unwittingly and happily wasting their disposable income!

G


----------



## bigshot

When there is a disagreement on interpretation of studies, it's usually cherry picking- focusing on one spurious study and ignoring a large body of work that indicates the opposite.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 19, 2022)

Hopefully T 1000 has been banned now that he admitted he was a troll.That friend that came in with him at the end there was likely a sock puppet. Hopefully the admins are recording IP addresses, because he'll be back. He's been here before under other names. We've been derailed by his antics for weeks now. He should have been shown the door long ago.

Bfreedma (who appears to be MIA) was correct when he pointed out that there is a problem here in this forum that is attracting trolls. If a troll goes into the rest of Head-Fi and talks about placebo and ABX to get a rise out of people, he will be promptly banned. But if that troll comes to Sound Science and outright admits subjectivity and denies both the scientific method and the validity of ABX to get a rise out of us, we are supposed to entertain them because "it's their opinion and they can have a different opinion". Certain members of the forum are unable to stop responding because they see the misinformation as being harmful. It's hard to criticize them for that, but trolls see the lack of moderation and the ease in getting a rise out of us as an invitation to come into Sound Science and run us around the ring like prize ponies.

There are two ways to deal with this. One is for the mods to apply the same standards of moderation to sound science as they do in the rest of Head-Fi... if someone refuses to go along with the theme of the forum, they get bounced out. Warning shots, weeklong bans, thread bans... these would all help discourage trolling greatly.

If that isn't possible because of politics, the only other way to handle it is for users of the forum like me and you to not entertain the nonsense and reject these off topic posters without any respect for "their personal opinions". We should be able to expect new posters to lurk to figure out how things work and not deliberately disrupt the group. As far as I'm concerned, as soon as someone rejects science, ABX or starts talking about the participants of Sound Science as a cabal, they are off topic and the gloves are off. People who flat out refuse to participate with an interest in science flat out don't belong here. If I tell them they are ignorant, off topic or should get lost, I'm not being rude or unwelcoming. I'm stating the obvious.

I've been around the block a while, both in this forum and on the internet going all the way back to before the WWW with usenet. I've moderated problematic forums and brought them back into line, and I know how trolls operate. They are pretty transparent. All you need to do is look at their attitude and how they relate to other posters in the group. If they start being divisive instead of trying to find their own place in the group, they are a problem and should be dealt with. That doesn't mean they can't be surly or a curmudgeon. It just means they can't deliberately bait other people and refer to other posters in an "us and them" way. That attitude leads straight out the door. If you don't want to be a part of a group, you don't belong in the group.

The trolls are easy to identify. They are deliberately targeting Gregorio and me. They try to bait us into listing our resumes by saying we are amateurs. They make proclamations stating that they don't believe in objective testing. They refuse to provide supporting evidence for their claims, instead they just shift to another falsehood quickly to change the subject and never acknowledge that they are wrong. They will restate something Gregorio or I say incorrectly and twist it into a straw man argument to bait us into correcting them in a reply. They'll use the same arguments we make back at us out of context to mock us. They will post in flurries, sometimes three or four posts in the space of minutes, and sometimes replying to the same post multiple times. Their posts will focus more on the other posters than the topic. They are the first to make it personal. Sock puppets with agree with each other and make the same arguments in tandem within the space of an hour. They will ramp up the aggressiveness, carefully modulating it to try to bait the other poster into amplifying it with them. When tapped by the mods they will disappear for a couple of weeks completely to let things cool down, then they will start it all over again. There are certain arguments they all make... thousands of people believe this so it must be true, you can't know about this particular wire unless you've owned it, the differences are so clear I don't need to apply ABX, I can control my bias, sound science isn't scientific enough, appeals to YouTube "authorities" who are shills for companies, and cherry picked evidence ignoring the vast number of papers to the contrary... We've seen it all time and time again. None of this belongs in sound science.

We have a tremendous opportunity here in this group to have informative and useful conversations. We're a small group, but there's a lot of experience and knowledge here. When the whole thing gets shut down by one loudmouth troll who exploits "benefit of the doubt" to derail us just for fun, it's a terrible shame.


----------



## Daniel Johnston

gregorio said:


> True but that does not characterise the typical arguments here. Typically, one side of the argument doesn’t know of the existence of any studies or even of the proven science/facts but comes to the sound science forum and denies/dismisses decades or centuries of scientific endeavour with nothing more than what they believe they experienced and audiophile marketing. Now, that IS stupid!
> 
> On very rare occasions it is as you say, due to a different interpretation/view of the studies but again, that is commonly due to them not fully understanding the context of the study or of not understanding some vital part of it. Again, that IS stupid, although far more understandably because I’m sure everyone who has read many studies has fallen into that trap at times, I certainly have. There have been extremely few, if any, arguments that I recall in all the years I’ve been here that were based on different, informed interpretations of studies.


A fair statement for certain. 

The vast majority of arguments I’ve witnessed here fall into the ignorance (willful ignorance?) category. I still think stupid is harsh and unfairly labels those who question/disagree with the power or validity of the studies. After all, the vast majority of studies in the perception of audio are anecdotal at best. Trolls are a different category. I’ll agree that they are truly stupid. Period.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 19, 2022)

Trolls don't usually admit they're trolls. They only do that when they've been one upped in a unique way. They try to maintain the illusion that they are just ignorant to bait people into replying and dancing to their game. One easy way to tell them apart is a normal ignorant person usually won't dig in and persistently attack a subject over and over and over again. They'll shrug their shoulders and move on. A troll will keep at it, trying to prolong the agony of their stupidity as long as they can sustain it.

But the fact remains that this is the sound science forum. Validity of studies and the scientific method is the topic here. You wouldn't go into a baking forum and talk about how cakes are lousy and it's stupid to make cupcakes. That wouldn't be productive or on topic. Science is the topic here. If someone isn't interested in science, they really don't belong here.

Also the vast majority of studies on perception aren't anecdotal. They are have been conducted with the same rigorous scientific methods as any other field of study for over a century. They just aren't usually connected to home audio forums. They're discussed in medical forums. As they relate to sound reproduction, they were mostly studied and established in the 1920s at Bell Labs.


----------



## Daniel Johnston

bigshot said:


> Also the vast majority of studies on perception aren't anecdotal. They are have been conducted with the same rigorous scientific methods as any other field of study for over a century. They just aren't usually connected to home audio forums. They're discussed in medical forums. As they relate to sound reproduction, they were mostly studied and established in the 1920s at Bell Labs.


This is where we diverge. 

Randomized controlled perception studies are fundamentally challenging if not impossible. You can’t easily randomize the human brain into a control group and test group. You can set up a rigorous scientific test model, but the results are only valid for that specific group of subjects. And yes, that has significance and can suggest a potential scientific fact. It’s is not the same as an actual RCT with a completely randomized, demographically similar test and control group. Besides, even the best RCT can be debunked or disproven when the data parameters or new findings change over time. 

To say “all we know of the perception of audio has been known for the past 100 years is all we ever need to know” is silly and shows no opportunity for further growth and understanding.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 19, 2022)

JDDs (just detectable differences) and thresholds on the major aspects of sound reproduction have been extensively studied, averaged across large test groups and established.

We know that the range of frequency perception is 20Hz to 20kHz. Below that is vibrations not sound, and above that is inaudible. The threshold of perception of pitch is around 40Hz on the bottom and 5kHz on the top end. Detectability of response variations depend on the Q of the deviation and the frequency band, but range from .1dB to .5dB at the very lowest extreme. We know that at around -40dB (1%), non linear distortion disappears. We know that the threshold of pain is at 120-130dB, normal listening loud listening levels are 75-85dB, and the quietest listening room has a room tone of about 30dB. We know that between 500Hz and 8kHz that the threshold for group delay is between 1 and 3 ms. And we know that the audibility of jitter is between 20 and 200 ns (no one has bothered to pin it down any further because it doesn't exist anywhere near these levels even in the cheapest home audio equipment). Most of these thresholds are established using test tones. You can assume that with recorded music, they are significantly more lax.

With these thresholds you can pretty much make an educated guess about most things related to sound fidelity. There are exceptions, but human hearing is finite; and most deviations from the thresholds extends downwards into decreased ability to hear, not upwards into being able to hear beyond the norm.

T1000 is definitely a troll. He's trying to take advantage of Gregorio's helpfulness to troll him. I think that's profoundly rude and disrespects an important member of our community. T1000 doesn't belong in this forum. I encourage the mods to deal with this.


----------



## T 1000 (Dec 19, 2022)

It is an interesting decision that only I am sanctioned from Testing Audiophile Claims, also only me from other threads, although I am attacked by others. that speaks volumes for the moderator and this whole sickness from Sound Science

so, in that way you relate with a different perspective


----------



## bigshot

Keep it up and all of your sock puppets will be banned too.


----------



## Daniel Johnston

bigshot said:


> We know that the range of frequency perception is 20Hz to 20kHz. Below that is vibrations not sound, and above that is inaudible. The threshold of perception of pitch is around 40Hz on the bottom and 5kHz on the top end. Detectability of response variations depend on the Q of the deviation and the frequency band, but range from .1dB to .5dB at the very lowest extreme. We know that at around -40dB (1%), non linear distortion disappears. We know that the threshold of pain is at 120-130dB, normal listening loud listening levels are 75-85dB, and the quietest listening room has a room tone of about 30dB. We know that between 500Hz and 8kHz that the threshold for group delay is between 1 and 3 ms. And we know that the audibility of jitter is between 20 and 200 ns (no one has bothered to pin it down any further because it doesn't exist anywhere near these levels even in the cheapest home audio equipment). Most of these thresholds are established using test tones. You can assume that with recorded music, they are significantly more lax.


Agree. 

However, this doesn't rule out that a person can't hear >20kHz, or can't perceive smaller than average dB differences, etc... Yes, it is highly unlikely, but not impossible. And I agree that a greater majority of those who "perceive" dramatic differences in what statistically should be inaudible, are not actually hearing anything different. Add to that age and environmental induced deterioration of hearing acuity, the chance of hearing minuscule differences becomes even less likely. 

Again, these numbers are statistically derived from population data. You have to agree that transducers are becoming more and more resolving with less distortion. Therefore, fidelity of recorded music is being reproduced with better accuracy. As is the equipment used to drive the transducers. And since truly high fidelity equipment is readily available, more people are able not just to consume music but also critically listen. 

So population selection is important. As an example, a classically trained pianist can tell the tonal and timbre differences between Bosendorfer, Steinway, and Baldwin pianos. However, if you poll the general population, there may be no statistical sonic differences. 

The anecdotal studies I refer to are double blinded ABX testing. There is nothing wrong with anecdotal evidence. Many important medical RCT started with anecdotal studies or case reports. Likewise, many established medical RCT were debunked by anecdotal studies and case reports that lead to an RCT showing something else. I promise you, medically derived studies are not sacred nor absolutely correct. Science is pliable and the need to question established norms is... science. 



bigshot said:


> With these thresholds you can pretty much make an educated guess about most things related to sound fidelity. There are exceptions, but human hearing is finite; and most deviations from the thresholds extends downwards into decreased ability to hear, not upwards into being able to hear beyond the norm.


Key words: Educated Guess

That is not the same as fact. I can tell the difference between the Astell and Kern 240 and iBasso DX320, even though they should all have inaudible distortion and be reproducing music with equal fidelity. The main difference is levels of fatigue. The AK240 invokes listening fatigue pretty quickly, the iBasso does not and reproduces instruments with more natural tonality. Why is that? According to the data, it should be psychoacoustics, sighted bias, etc... 

I'm not trying to convince you of anything or change your opinions. I just disagree that 100 year old studies are anything more than historical reference. Studies like these establish a baseline to start understanding why we hear what we hear. However, people like Mike Moffat, Rob Watts, Bruno Putzeys, Dan Clark, etc... shouldn't be dismissed just because their efforts may contradict established norms.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 19, 2022)

The amount of variation above these specifications is vanishingly small. For instance, the ability to hear above 20kHz... There was a 12 year old girl I heard about who could hear up to 25kHz, but that is just two whole notes on the musical scale above 20kHz, and she could just perceive sound pressure, not anything that would make a lick of difference in recorded music.

It is safe to use the figures I quoted there as worst case scenarios, because most of them were established with test tones. If you tested for the same thresholds with recorded music, they would likely be an order of magnitude or more below this. By the time you're sitting on the couch listening to music in your living room, these specs are massive overkill.

Science is science and ears are ears. Human hearing hasn't evolved in the past century. If anything, we've thought up new ways to degrade it. I'm sure if anyone could prove that these figures are wrong, the relevant scientific community would be very interested in studying it again, but no one has come forward to challenge them in a long time.

You can believe what you want, but I spent a couple of weeks researching thresholds of hearing perception. This is what I found out. Ignore it if it makes you feel better, but the figures I cite there are based on controlled scientific studies with lots of subjects and trials. They aren't anecdotal by any stretch of the imagination. I kinda trust scientists and doctors for information on human perceptual limits rather than designers and manufacturers of boutique high end audio components. (hooo-eee! do I trust them more? oh, yeah!) I would only trust high end audio salesmen for the specs of their particular product (and even then not that sometimes!)

Personally, I think investing ones' ego in having exceptional hearing abilities is remarkably lame. Golden eared audiophiles are the first to start crying when their hearing is put to an actual controlled test. In fact, their hearing is usually no different than anyone else's when it comes to the JDDs.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 19, 2022)

Daniel Johnston said:


> I can tell the difference between the Astell and Kern 240 and iBasso DX320, even though they should all have inaudible distortion and be reproducing music with equal fidelity.


Is that taking line out from the two players and running them through the same amplifier? Or is it using the headphone output? It could be a difference in amp impedance reacting to your headphones. How do those two players sound in a line out, line level matched, direct A/B switched, blind listening test comparing them individually against an iPod Classic? Do either of them match the iPod?

If I determined a difference between two components, the first thing I would do is to start comparing them to other similar components to see if one or the other of them is producing colored sound. If they match, odds are they are both transparent. If they are different, one or both is definitely colored.


----------



## Daniel Johnston

bigshot said:


> Science is science and ears are ears. Human hearing hasn't evolved in the past century. If anything, we've thought up new ways to degrade it. I'm sure if anyone could prove that these figures are wrong, the relevant scientific community would be very interested in studying it again, but no one has come forward to challenge them in a long time.


Or it’s not worth the time and money to revisit these studies because 98% of the population just doesn’t care. Harsh, but realistic. Again, I am not disagreeing with you about the validity of these studies. It seems as though you really want me to disagree with the studies and say I trust my ears. I’m not and I don’t. Hence why I venture here. 



bigshot said:


> You can believe what you want, but I spent a couple of weeks researching thresholds of hearing perception. This is what I found out. Ignore it if it makes you feel better, but the figures I cite there are based on controlled scientific studies with lots of subjects and trials. They aren't anecdotal by any stretch of the imagination. I kinda trust scientists and doctors for information on human perceptual limits rather than designers and manufacturers of boutique high end audio components. (hooo-eee! do I trust them more? oh, yeah!) I would only trust high end audio salesmen for the specs of their particular product (and even then not that sometimes!)


I will most definitely choose to read, understand, and try to digest what the people I mention say. It doesn’t mean i completely agree or buy into their logic. No does it make me any less scientific than you. I can try to understand ideas and theories without drinking the kool-aid. Again, agreeing with you for the mot part. 

What I don’t agree with is the absolute closed mindedness and quick dismissal of anything that challenges pre existing data. 

I’m happy your journey has lead you to where you are happy with your audio equipment and complete understanding of your preferences.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 19, 2022)

Science builds on existing data and it revisits prior studies if the studies built on previous findings indicate that there’s something not following expected conclusions. The AES does many many studies that are based on the thresholds I mentioned. Some of the figures I cited come from the AES. It makes no sense to assume that a study is wrong because no one has gone back and reinvented the wheel with it lately. If these thresholds are incorrect, the error will reveal itself. If these high end audio types can prove they’re wrong, they know how to submit their studies to the AES for peer review.

It’s more logical to assume that the reason these guys haven’t challenged the established JDDs is because they know it wouldn’t stand up to peer review. It’s a lot safer to make spurious claims in a YouTube video with an intended audience of customers. There’s no accountability there. You just delete the comments on your video that disagree with you.

But again, you can believe salesmen if you want. I happen to think the whole industry of high end audio is based on stretched truths, exaggerations and outright lies.


----------



## T 1000 (Dec 20, 2022)

well fine
@castleofargh
Since I can't reply to the thread you addressed me on (then it's a monologue or something else...)
To be honest, I wanted to apologize to everyone for misplacing my experiences (I think I should have backed them up with Scientific evidence), but then I saw your rebuke and realized that even my apology for calling someone ignorant would be one-sided, because how much many times they called what I was saying foolish (with your approval and encouragement). gregorio may have a rule of 42, and others may share their experiences if it fits your propaganda, but my rule of 42 is trolling. I don't understand why you don't support your claims with scientific evidence. I am not alone with what I am sharing, my experiences are identical to many meny other with identical experiences, but then you say that we are all in an illusion, a self-deception. You actually don't have relevant measurements and scientific evidence against any of my claims. You can't even have any because I'm not the only one who experiences what I claim. The truth is a double-edged sword. I see you (you know who I mean) as trolls in Sound Science, because you actually defy every scientific doctrine, and the ironic thing is that you keep referring to science.
I know how you deal with dissenters and how this post will end, but the message has been delivered to your consciousness
I don't care that you are so passionate about your position, but many inexperienced people will not even start research because they blindly believe you, and that bother me
I also know how you will take all this
"you don't want to listen, nor do you want to learn"
Thank you for that, but accepting your teaching would be a major degradation of my audio experience.
I would sincerely like, and I invite you to deny me the opportunity to participate in the whole "Sound Science"
The stupid me always beats the smart me, so despite the obvious, I keep coming back here.
There is no food for the brain here, only rot.


----------



## gregorio

Daniel Johnston said:


> I still think stupid is harsh and unfairly labels those who question/disagree with the power or validity of the studies.


“Stupid” is generally a bit harsh in the context of misunderstanding a study, depending on nature of the misunderstanding but then I personally very rarely use it and would never use it in the given example. I was really just quoting your use of it and along the lines of “even very smart people can occasionally do something stupid or fall into a stupid trap”. 


Daniel Johnston said:


> After all, the vast majority of studies in the perception of audio are anecdotal at best.


Hmmm, not sure I can agree with that. You could *maybe* argue it’s partly true if one stretches the interpretation of the word “anecdotal” to its absolute limit but that would be “anecdotal at worst”, rather than “at best”. Clearly there’s a different level of scientific reliability/validity between a controlled study and an audiophile doing a sighted, uncontrolled test and reporting “even his wife could hear the difference”. Certainly a scientific study never provides absolute proof, however, in the context of a body of evidence (and the lack of reliable opposing evidence), it can provide “near absolute certainty”. For example, the audibility of HD vs 16/44.1; There have been numerous studies on this, of varying reliability/validity, indicating this difference is not audible but taken in context of “the body of evidence” we have near absolute certainty. EG. The only evidence against this conclusion is from purely anecdotal, uncontrolled tests plus a clearly manipulated meta-study. And, despite the obvious significant financial incentive, after quarter of a century or so there’s still no reliable evidence against this conclusion. In addition, everything we know about hearing thresholds dictates that 16/44.1 should be more than enough anyway. Taken with some other factors I haven’t mentioned there’s no rational reason to doubt the conclusion, although this doesn’t rule out the extremely remote possibility that it could never be disproved but it would require some extremely robust evidence to even start down that road. 


Daniel Johnston said:


> To say “all we know of the perception of audio has been known for the past 100 years is all we ever need to know” is silly and shows no opportunity for further growth and understanding.


I’m not sure that’s exactly what he was saying. Certainly the earnest scientific study of audio perception started in the late 1890’s and those findings are just as true/valid today but that doesn’t rule out the possibility of further growth/understanding. An analogy to hopefully explain what I mean: “1+1=2” is very likely one of the oldest scientific/mathematical findings in existence, probably older than 8,000 years. Obviously science/mathematics has moved on massively since the Stone Age but 1+1=2 is still absolutely true. 


bigshot said:


> And we know that the audibility of jitter is between 20 and 200 ns (no one has bothered to pin it down any further because it doesn't exist anywhere near these levels even in the cheapest home audio equipment). Most of these thresholds are established using test tones.


That’s not quite true. As a general rule with musical material, audibility of jitter is between 200-500 ns, although with certain pieces (with specific, rare properties) it has been demonstrated that a few individuals can differentiate down to just under 30 ns. Using test signals (not music), detectability has been demonstrated down to around 3 ns. The Benjamin/Gannon paper (“Theoretical and Audible Effects of Jitter on Digital Audio Quality”) is one of the best/most comprehensive sources. 


Daniel Johnston said:


> However, this doesn't rule out that a person can't hear >20kHz, or can't perceive smaller than average dB differences, etc...


Hmmm, the average threshold for an adult is about 16kHz. Even older teenagers can rarely hear above 17kHz, so 20kHz is already a pathological exception. Plus, the rare exceptions of hearing so high was with test signals (pure tones) at very high playback levels. In the presence of multiple tones this discrimination ability is significantly reduced. And lastly, with musical signals the >20kHz content is virtually always far lower in level than the content below 20kHz. For example, with a violin, only 4% of the energy it produces is above 20kHz. Taken together, with the other factors (air absorption of higher freqs for example), as a whole body of evidence, it does pretty much rule out that an adult can hear >20kHz when listening to the reproduction of music recordings. 


Daniel Johnston said:


> I just disagree that 100 year old studies are anything more than historical reference.


See my 1+1=2 analogy above. Is that nothing more than historical reference or does 1+1 still equal 2? I’m sure some audio perception studies from those times have been superseded but many were surprisingly accurate considering the level of reproduction technology available at the time. 


Daniel Johnston said:


> Studies like these establish a baseline to start understanding why we hear what we hear.


*Why* we hear what we hear is still not fully understood in some cases but what we hear (without the “why”), in terms of most of the thresholds, is fully understood. 


Daniel Johnston said:


> However, people like Mike Moffat, Rob Watts, Bruno Putzeys, Dan Clark, etc... shouldn't be dismissed just because their efforts may contradict established norms.


It depends of course on exactly what/which claims you’re talking about. Certainly some/many of them should absolutely be dismissed. For example, I recall Rob Watts claiming to hear distortions at -300dB, which clearly is ludicrous. One ludicrous claim is enough to warrant a great deal of skepticism of any of his other claims but unfortunately he hasn’t restricted himself to only one ludicrous claim. Of course this doesn’t rule out the possibility that he/they might make a claim that is actually true but if he/they make claims contrary to “established norms” then dismissal is a reasonable default starting point (which *might* in some rare circumstances warrant further enquiry)!

G


----------



## gregorio (Dec 20, 2022)

T 1000 said:


> I don't understand why you don't support your claims with scientific evidence.


Because I’m/we’re not contradicting the scientific evidence! If every factual statement I made had to be backed up with references to the relevant scientific papers, it would take days/weeks to write each post. This is just a sound science discussion forum, not a forum where every assertion has to be fully Harvard Referenced.

So therefore, the question (if there is one) becomes; how do you know that my (or others) assertions do not contradict the scientific evidence? And the obvious answer is that either you already know the scientific evidence (and therefore whether it’s in agreement or not), you ask or you cross-reference it with an encyclopaedia (such as Wikipedia), which is why encyclopaedias exist in the first place. If you can’t find a cross-reference then ask, I or someone else will try to provide you with one. If the cross-reference doesn’t appear to support the claim, then that’s a perfectly good avenue to further the discussion. But this next example isn’t!:


T 1000 said:


> I am not alone with what I am sharing, my experiences are identical to many meny other with identical experiences …


Obviously that is a fallacy! Not being alone with what you are sharing (your experiences/beliefs) is not proof or evidence of anything. Presumably you don’t believe the earth is flat? What if a member of the Flat Earth Society told you the earth was flat, that many others shared that experience/belief (demonstrated by studies/reports and the fact that The Flat Earth Society actually exists), that in fact only a tiny minority of the world’s population had actually experienced the curvature of the earth, so the experience of billions is that the earth is flat. According to your justification, wouldn’t you HAVE to believe the earth is indeed flat?


T 1000 said:


> but then you say that we are all in an illusion, a self-deception.


Of course we do, because science long ago proved the existence of optical and aural illusions, as well as the impact of biases and placebo effect on our perception and roughly a century ago started developing ways to eliminate such biases when testing (double blind testing/ABX, etc.), which demonstrate it IS an illusion! So what have you got to counter these years/decades of scientific evidence, apart from the fallacy mentioned above?


T 1000 said:


> You actually don't have relevant measurements and scientific evidence against any of my claims.


Of course we do, starting with an encyclopaedia, all the references the encyclopaedia quotes, the research completed by the ITU, EBU and AES, scientific/engineering text books, the resultant standards established by national and international bodies, professionals’ organisations, university and industry research departments and more besides. What have you got? Audiophile marketing, reviewers earning rewards/revenue from that audiophile advertising and some testimonials from those suckered by it?


T 1000 said:


> You can't even have any because I'm not the only one who experiences what I claim.


So the earth must be flat then. All vaccines must be bad. Bigfoot, yetis, ghosts, mermaids and aliens abducting humans must exist. Plus numerous other nonsense claims must all be true because they haven’t been seen/experienced by only one person but by numerous people. Just repeating a fallacy doesn’t make it true.


T 1000 said:


> I see you (you know who I mean) as trolls in Sound Science, because you actually defy every scientific doctrine, and the ironic thing is that you keep referring to science.


What scientific doctrines are we defying? Again, bear in mind this isn’t a scientific publication forum this is a discussion forum (of sound science) and even scientific publications/papers cannot reference everything, they have to be largely based on the principle of axioms, otherwise each paper would have to be thousands of pages long and take a lifetime or more to write.


T 1000 said:


> and the ironic thing is that you keep referring to science.


As this is just a discussion forum, we have not broken any scientific doctrines! The only irony here is that you come to a sound science discussion forum and your ONLY reference to science is to deny it based on a fallacy (a shared experience) and audiophile marketing!

The rest of your post is just you playing the victim, indicating that you don’t appear to have even a basic understanding of what science is, let alone an understanding of the specific science you’ve contradicted and then throwing out insults and falsehoods about the lack of knowledge/education of others, of which you yourself are guilty.

You don’t appear capable of realising ANY of the above, so you put your being banned down to some propaganda conspiracy theory, instead of looking at the obvious, actual reason. There’s still probably time, before you get totally banned, for you to actually learn something. For example, for you to stop the insults and false victimhood, cross-reference what’s been stated (with say Wikipedia) and then ask questions rather than make false assertions. Time will tell whether your ego will allow such reasonable behaviour.

G


----------



## The Jester

gregorio said:


> “Stupid” is generally a bit harsh in the context of misunderstanding a study, depending on nature of the misunderstanding but then I personally very rarely use it and would never use it in the given example. I was really just quoting your use of it and along the lines of “even very smart people can occasionally do something stupid or fall into a stupid trap”.
> 
> Hmmm, not sure I can agree with that. You could *maybe* argue it’s partly true if one stretches the interpretation of the word “anecdotal” to its absolute limit but that would be “anecdotal at worst”, rather than “at best”. Clearly there’s a different level of scientific reliability/validity between a controlled study and an audiophile doing a sighted, uncontrolled test and reporting “even his wife could hear the difference”. Certainly a scientific study never provides absolute proof, however, in the context of a body of evidence (and the lack of reliable opposing evidence), it can provide “near absolute certainty”. For example, the audibility of HD vs 16/44.1; There have been numerous studies on this, of varying reliability/validity, indicating this difference is not audible but taken in context of “the body of evidence” we have near absolute certainty. EG. The only evidence against this conclusion is from purely anecdotal, uncontrolled tests plus a clearly manipulated meta-study. And, despite the obvious significant financial incentive, after quarter of a century or so there’s still no reliable evidence against this conclusion. In addition, everything we know about hearing thresholds dictates that 16/44.1 should be more than enough anyway. Taken with some other factors I haven’t mentioned there’s no rational reason to doubt the conclusion, although this doesn’t rule out the extremely remote possibility that it could never be disproved but it would require some extremely robust evidence to even start down that road.
> 
> ...


Wrong example based on someone else’s vague recollections,
Care to share the source where these recollections may have originated ?


----------



## gregorio

The Jester said:


> Wrong example based on someone else’s vague recollections,
> Care to share the source where these recollections may have originated ?


Which example are you referring to?

G


----------



## The Jester

gregorio said:


> Which example are you referring to?
> 
> G


First line in the last paragraph ?


----------



## gregorio

The Jester said:


> First line in the last paragraph ?


I wasn’t referring to a specific example. Just stating that even the best of us have on occasion misunderstood or misinterpreted a study or part of a study. I did it routinely when I first started reading the AES journal.

G


----------



## gregorio

Scratch my previous, I answered for the first line of the first paragraph, my bad. 

The first line of the last paragraph I’m not referring to any example. Just stating that dismissing a claim obviously depends on exactly what the claim is. Even someone who repeatedly makes false claims typically also makes numerous true claims. Same is true of audiophile marketing, even in the worst cases it’s very rare that every single claim/assertion in a bit of marketing is false. Usually it’s mostly true assertions with just a few falsehoods or omissions which invalidate it. The old example of skin effect in analogue audio cables is a typical example, often everything or most of what they state about skin effect is true but it’s all invalidated when they omit the fact it only affects freqs beyond the range of human hearing.

G


----------



## VNandor

T 1000 said:


> It is an interesting decision that only I am sanctioned from Testing Audiophile Claims, also only me from other threads, although I am attacked by others. that speaks volumes for the moderator and this whole sickness from Sound Science
> 
> so, in that way you relate with a different perspective


Back in the day, both bigshot and gregorio were banned from head-fi for an extended period of time. I hope knowing that makes you feel better.


----------



## Daniel Johnston (Dec 20, 2022)

gregorio said:


> “Stupid” is generally a bit harsh in the context of misunderstanding a study, depending on nature of the misunderstanding but then I personally very rarely use it and would never use it in the given example. I was really just quoting your use of it and along the lines of “even very smart people can occasionally do something stupid or fall into a stupid trap”.
> 
> Hmmm, not sure I can agree with that. You could *maybe* argue it’s partly true if one stretches the interpretation of the word “anecdotal” to its absolute limit but that would be “anecdotal at worst”, rather than “at best”. Clearly there’s a different level of scientific reliability/validity between a controlled study and an audiophile doing a sighted, uncontrolled test and reporting “even his wife could hear the difference”. Certainly a scientific study never provides absolute proof, however, in the context of a body of evidence (and the lack of reliable opposing evidence), it can provide “near absolute certainty”. For example, the audibility of HD vs 16/44.1; There have been numerous studies on this, of varying reliability/validity, indicating this difference is not audible but taken in context of “the body of evidence” we have near absolute certainty. EG. The only evidence against this conclusion is from purely anecdotal, uncontrolled tests plus a clearly manipulated meta-study. And, despite the obvious significant financial incentive, after quarter of a century or so there’s still no reliable evidence against this conclusion. In addition, everything we know about hearing thresholds dictates that 16/44.1 should be more than enough anyway. Taken with some other factors I haven’t mentioned there’s no rational reason to doubt the conclusion, although this doesn’t rule out the extremely remote possibility that it could never be disproved but it would require some extremely robust evidence to even start down that road.
> 
> ...


Overall I mostly agree with your observations and reasoning. Thank you for stating your views and points eloquently and non condescending.

My sticking point is what studies are “1+1=2” and what studies could do with an update using modern equipment. I don’t have an answer. I’m still exploring and trying to understand what my ears and brain tell me vs measurements and other objective data.

To clarify, I’m only going on study design. In my profession, a randomized, double blind, demographic matched, case controlled study that is confirmed and reviewed by qualified and credentialed peers is as close to scientific fact as we can get. Even then, when parameters change or technology changes, these “facts” can be disproved or changed. I’ve seen it happen multiple times.

Some science is irrefutable fact (earth is round, 1+1=2, etc…), some is more pliable. Anything dealing with the brain and human senses is particularly difficult to randomize or control for bias or other  factors. For example, if a study subject is stressed or angry the day of the study, this could negatively affect their perceptions.

Lastly, anecdotal evidence isn’t bad, nor weak by any means. It’s evidence that can’t necessarily be exactly reproduced or applicable to a different population, person, or test group. It’s often evidence like this that leads to larger, more powerful studies. I don’t mean to suggest that an an audiophile saying they hear a difference in a sighted, biased ABX vs one who set up a more scientifically sound level matched, blind test are equivalent.


----------



## The Jester

gregorio said:


> Scratch my previous, I answered for the first line of the first paragraph, my bad.
> 
> The first line of the last paragraph I’m not referring to any example. Just stating that dismissing a claim obviously depends on exactly what the claim is. Even someone who repeatedly makes false claims typically also makes numerous true claims. Same is true of audiophile marketing, even in the worst cases it’s very rare that every single claim/assertion in a bit of marketing is false. Usually it’s mostly true assertions with just a few falsehoods or omissions which invalidate it. The old example of skin effect in analogue audio cables is a typical example, often everything or most of what they state about skin effect is true but it’s all invalidated when they omit the fact it only affects freqs beyond the range of human hearing.
> 
> G


Silly me,
It’s a really long time since I learned English grammar, composition and comprehension but if I recall correctly when someone starts a sentence with
“For example”, “ie” or “eg”  what follows is usually an example of something.


----------



## gregorio

Daniel Johnston said:


> My sticking point is what studies are “1+1=2” and what studies could do with an update using modern equipment.





Daniel Johnston said:


> Some science is irrefutable fact (earth is round, 1+1=2, etc…), some is more pliable.


True but this raises an important point, one that is routinely deliberately omitted, misrepresented or dismissed in the audiophile community, because it is so potentially detrimental to the sale of most audiophile products:

Sure, my example of 1+1=2 is an irrefutable fact, while a study of human perception, using a statistical analysis of some sample size never is. At best, all it can provide is some probability <100% of a fact. In many cases though, the issue actually has little or nothing to do with human perception, it’s actually an issue of proven, irrefutable math/physics. Unlike medicine and many other fields of study, electromagnetism was fully described/proven by science many many years ago, long before there even was an audiophile community and audio recording and reproduction technology only exists because science does know. Of course, we could argue that science doesn’t know everything, there maybe more to learn and that’s probably true but we’re not dealing with science or technology that doesn’t yet exist, we’re ONLY dealing with current and past science and technology, which by definition does exist. In other words, we can only record and reproduce what we can measure, if there is something we can’t measure (and there’s no hint that there is), that’s an issue for future technology which cannot affect our current technology. Psychologists or behavioural scientists might be interested but audio science doesn’t care what an audiophile thinks they experience, hear or feel when comparing say two different cables, nor how sure they are about it or how many of them share that experience, if the measurable properties of that signal are the same then the signals are the same and there’s no difference to hear regardless of what anyone thinks they are experiencing. In the case of cables, assuming several conditions which should be obvious, the only connection to perceptual studies is the simple threshold of hearing, done back in the C19th and confirmed daily all over the world by audiologists and sound/music engineers. For “cable believers” to be right, all this wealth of science/data regarding the threshold of audibility doesn’t have to be just a bit out, it has to be wrong by one or two orders of magnitude at least! With certain pathological exceptions, the same is broadly true of all DACs and Amps as well.

In short, much/most of the time, audiophiles are refuting the irrefutable, because it’s basic electromagnetic signal and sound science that has nothing to do with perceptual studies (beyond simple level threshold determination which hasn’t changed in over 120 years). Isn’t it madness to try to refute the irrefutable? Well “yes” but it’s mitigated by the fact that virtually ALL the material to which the audiophile community is exposed is designed to at least imply that the “irrefutable” isn’t irrefutable, it’s just opinion that hasn’t been studied much and isn’t well understood (except by golden-eared audiophiles in their sitting rooms).

G


----------



## gregorio

The Jester said:


> Silly me,
> It’s a really long time since I learned English grammar, composition and comprehension but if I recall correctly when someone starts a sentence with
> “For example”, “ie” or “eg” what follows is usually an example of something.


The first line of the last paragraph that you quoted is: “It depends of course on exactly what/which claims you’re talking about.”, there is no “For example”!

G


----------



## The Jester

gregorio said:


> The first line of the last paragraph that you quoted is: “It depends of course on exactly what/which claims you’re talking about.”, there is no “For example”!
> 
> G


Not the first or second sentence, the first line ….. at the end ….


----------



## T 1000

VNandor said:


> Back in the day, both bigshot and gregorio were banned from head-fi for an extended period of time. I hope knowing that makes you feel better.


Actually no, but I laughed out loud when I read it.


----------



## gregorio (Dec 20, 2022)

The Jester said:


> Not the first or second sentence, the first line ….. at the end ….


The only “For example” in the last paragraph is in the 3rd sentence where I did actually give an example, of a claim made by Rob Watts. And, it’s wasn’t of someone else’s vague recollection but of my own vague recollection of a post by Rob Watts elsewhere on head-fi quite a few years ago and a subsequent thread we had about it in this subforum.

G
EDIT: If it’s not that example, why don’t you just quote the specific part you’re referring to?


----------



## The Jester

That’s the one !


----------



## gregorio

VNandor said:


> Back in the day, both bigshot and gregorio were banned from head-fi for an extended period of time.


Not sure I’ve ever been banned from Head-Fi, maybe a long, long time ago but if so I don’t remember it. I was censored for an extended period a while ago, all my posts were postponed until a mod approved/censored them. I think it was for posting the actual facts/science in another subforum where that’s not allowed or it might have been for posting a troll’s insults back at them, don’t recall exactly.

G


----------



## chef8489

gregorio said:


> Not sure I’ve ever been banned from Head-Fi, maybe a long, long time ago but if so I don’t remember it. I was censored for an extended period a while ago, all my posts were postponed until a mod approved/censored them. I think it was for posting the actual facts/science in another subforum where that’s not allowed or it might have been for posting a troll’s insults back at them, don’t recall exactly.
> 
> G


I was temp banned for posting facts and tests from a cable outside of sound science. They really dont like that. I gave up posting facts outside of sound science after that.


----------



## gregorio

chef8489 said:


> I was temp banned for posting facts and tests from a cable outside of sound science. They really dont like that.


They sure don’t! Presumably because they get a worthwhile revenue from cable advertisements and/or from advertisers/sponsors who also sell audiophile cables. 

It’s a bit surprising they allow it in this subforum but then the people here are only those who aren’t suckered by the marketing BS anyway, plus the occasional troll or two. 😁

G


----------



## T 1000

gregorio said:


> Because I’m/we’re not contradicting the scientific evidence! If every factual statement I made had to be backed up with references to the relevant scientific papers, it would take days/weeks to write each post. This is just a sound science discussion forum, not a forum where every assertion has to be fully Harvard Referenced.
> 
> So therefore, the question (if there is one) becomes; how do you know that my (or others) assertions do not contradict the scientific evidence? And the obvious answer is that either you already know the scientific evidence (and therefore whether it’s in agreement or not), you ask or you cross-reference it with an encyclopaedia (such as Wikipedia), which is why encyclopaedias exist in the first place. If you can’t find a cross-reference then ask, I or someone else will try to provide you with one. If the cross-reference doesn’t appear to support the claim, then that’s a perfectly good avenue to further the discussion. But this next example isn’t!:
> 
> ...


I can accept the first part, but the second part is your recognizable logic, which I have to read 3-4 times to understand the point, and in the end I roll my eyes that I'm even trying.


gregorio said:


> Obviously that is a fallacy! Not being alone with what you are sharing (your experiences/beliefs) is not proof or evidence of anything. Presumably you don’t believe the earth is flat? What if a member of the Flat Earth Society told you the earth was flat, that many others shared that experience/belief (demonstrated by studies/reports and the fact that The Flat Earth Society actually exists), that in fact only a tiny minority of the world’s population had actually experienced the curvature of the earth, so the experience of billions is that the earth is flat. According to your justification, wouldn’t you HAVE to believe the earth is indeed flat?
> 
> 
> 
> G


Logic again, I'm getting nervous.
But I understand that you want to make a point and that you are a little lost.


gregorio said:


> Because I’m/we’re not contradicting the scientific evidence! If every factual statement I made had to be backed up with references to the relevant scientific papers, it would take days/weeks to write each post. This is just a sound science discussion forum, not a forum where every assertion has to be fully Harvard Referenced.
> 
> Of course we do, because science long ago proved the existence of optical and aural illusions, as well as the impact of biases and placebo effect on our perception and roughly a century ago started developing ways to eliminate such biases when testing (double blind testing/ABX, etc.), which demonstrate it IS an illusion! So what have you got to counter these years/decades of scientific evidence, apart from the fallacy mentioned above?
> 
> ...


If we ignore the fact that these changes in the sound are not small, and thus are not subject to illusion, for example, whether I heard it or not, I think I did, we have a more obvious situation that you do not accept, and it is an interesting phenomenon (but I have a partial explanation for it )*. Let me ask you a question, up on the forum, thousands of people are having conversations, exchanging experiences about all the things you claim to be fiction, how do you explain such a massive and fat illusion?
* I have already described the importance of reference equipment for detecting changes. On the same system - headphones A - do not show any changes, - headphones B - you have an accurate view of where the changes occurred.
Another case, On my Marantz HD-DAC I won't detect a change on most of the tested items, but on my carefully built 10K system and with headphones B I will find out if and where I have gained, or taken away from the sound.
These are some elementary knowledge known to many, and real engineers are light years ahead and discover new possibilities.
We live in modern times, the possibilities of sound presentation 50 years ago and today, earth and heaven.


----------



## T 1000 (Dec 20, 2022)

With my carefully assembled 10K system, the sound is starting to get fascinatingly good, and I haven't even scratched the surface of what's out there
The sound stage at the beginning of the construction of the system was 30% of what I hear today. Cables? Am I delusional about the upgraded 70%.
Note- Arbitrarily highlighted for % gain is imprecise and imaginary but most closely reflects progress


----------



## chef8489

T 1000 said:


> I can accept the first part, but the second part is your recognizable logic, which I have to read 3-4 times to understand the point, and in the end I roll my eyes that I'm even trying.
> 
> Logic again, I'm getting nervous.
> But I understand that you want to make a point and that you are a little lost.
> ...


Yet if your 10k system was set up with proper double blind test by someone else other than you and up against other systems properly I bet you could not tell a difference. YOu know when you are using your 10k system thus you have a perceived bias. Of course you will notice a difference. In the real world this is what is called a placebo and is used in just about every industry from the entertainment, music industry and medical industry to the food industry to confuse the consumer.


----------



## T 1000 (Dec 20, 2022)

chef8489 said:


> Yet if your 10k system was set up with proper double blind test by someone else other than you and up against other systems properly I bet you could not tell a difference. YOu know when you are using your 10k system thus you have a perceived bias. Of course you will notice a difference. In the real world this is what is called a placebo and is used in just about every industry from the entertainment, music industry and medical industry to the food industry to confuse the consumer.


I'm not sure what you're telling me, that I shouldn't trust my ears. We're not asking questionable changes in the sound here, but drastic changes.

Your non-acceptance only harms you and some collateral victims who, without real experience, will sniff your suggestions and represent your position.
Nothing will change in the real world


----------



## gregorio (Dec 20, 2022)

T 1000 said:


> Logic again, I'm getting nervous.


I’m not surprised. However, you should try to embrace logic, especially if you’re going to post in a sound science discussion forum and don’t want to appear a fool.


T 1000 said:


> Let me ask you a question, up on the forum, thousands of people are having conversations, exchanging experiences about all the things you claim to be fiction, how do you explain such a massive and fat illusion?


Right back at you, how do you explain the thousands of people exchanging experiences that the earth is flat, the thousands of others discussing bigfoot, still more thousands discussing the lockness monster, yetis, ghosts, alien abduction, homeopathy, the tens of thousands exchanging their experiences of QAnon and countless other fictions/nonsense. Do you believe all of it just because thousands discuss their experiences of it and if not, why not?


T 1000 said:


> Another case, On my Marantz HD-DAC I won't detect a change on most of the tested items, but on my carefully built 10K system and with headphones B I will find out if and where I have gained


Not unless it’s properly setup and you use controlled testing. And from what you’ve described neither is the case. In fact the massive amount of noise/interference you described is indicative of a really terrible system, not worth even $50 let alone $10k!

Again, do you want to try some logic and learn something or do you just want to deal with your nervousness of it by repeating the same fallacies?

G


----------



## T 1000

In the next million posts, we will continue to talk about the same thing, and I will continue to state that I did not succeed in enlightening you.


----------



## T 1000 (Dec 20, 2022)

gregorio said:


> Нисам изненађен. Међутим, требало би да покушате да прихватите логику, посебно ако намеравате да објављујете на добром научном дискусионом форуму и не желите да испаднете будала.
> 
> Право на вас, како објашњавате хиљаде људи који размењују искуства да је земља равна, хиљаде других који расправљају о бигфоот-у, још више хиљада који разговарају о чудовиштима закључавања, јетијима, духовима, отмици ванземаљаца, хомеопатији, десетинама хиљада размењујућих њихова искуства са КАноном и безброј других фикција/бесмислица. Да ли верујете у све то само зато што хиљаде причају о својим искуствима, а ако не, зашто не?
> 
> ...





> fool ? I would be a fool if I accepted your teachings against what I perceive


So, what several of you claim is correct against thousands. A few of you imagine and thousands listen.
Trust me your logic is your worst enemy


----------



## chef8489

T 1000 said:


> I'm not sure what you're telling me, that I shouldn't trust my ears. We're not asking questionable changes in the sound here, but drastic changes.
> 
> Your non-acceptance only harms you and some collateral victims who, without real experience, will sniff your suggestions and represent your position.
> Nothing will change in the real world


Your ears fool you all the time especially when your brain is involved. Its exactly how the entertainment and music industry worls. It is why proper scientific tests have controls set up to reduce and eliminate those. Yet you choose to ignore it. You fall for the marketing and and your brain and ears follow suit because you expect a change.  Again its called placebo. The mind is a very powerful thing. Other than trolling in here you serve no purpose because you have no interest in actually learning about scientific testing and results. You just spout the same old oh my ears hear the difference yet you fail to prove or even attempt to do proper testing to prove that you can actually hear a difference. Guess what. When audiophiles actually submitt to proper testing, they fail the tests. Its why you guys never submit to the real tests with proper controls set in place.


----------



## bigshot

gregorio said:


> I wasn’t referring to a specific example. Just stating that even the best of us have on occasion misunderstood or misinterpreted a study or part of a study. I did it routinely when I first started reading the AES journal.


I've noticed that sometimes the summaries at the top of papers say something quite a bit different than the study itself. I don't know why that is. Maybe the person who writes the summaries doesn't quite understand or is in a hurry.


----------



## Bytor123

Sancho Panza, tilting at windmills. I don't think anyone is saying you can't hear differences, rather you need to provide evidence that you do, and that they're due to the things that you claim they are.


----------



## T 1000

chef8489 said:


> Your ears fool you all the time especially when your brain is involved. Its exactly how the entertainment and music industry worls. It is why proper scientific tests have controls set up to reduce and eliminate those. Yet you choose to ignore it. You fall for the marketing and and your brain and ears follow suit because you expect a change.  Again its called placebo. The mind is a very powerful thing. Other than trolling in here you serve no purpose because you have no interest in actually learning about scientific testing and results. You just spout the same old oh my ears hear the difference yet you fail to prove or even attempt to do proper testing to prove that you can actually hear a difference. Guess what. When audiophiles actually submitt to proper testing, they fail the tests. Its why you guys never submit to the real tests with proper controls set in place.


Using the term trolling only proves that you are limited in providing realistic counter-arguments.
When you can't deal with the situation, then the only thing that comes to your mind is to shout troll troll, and then your dad comes and denies me the right to participate with the explanation - trolling
If it wasn't pathetic, it would be funny.
As I already mentioned - I don't care


----------



## T 1000

Bytor123 said:


> Sancho Panza, tilting at windmills. I don't think anyone is saying you can't hear differences, rather you need to provide evidence that you do, and that they're due to the things that you claim they are.


Sancho Panza? what are you, another specter from the dark. To whom shall I prove?, to you?


----------



## bigshot

VNandor said:


> Back in the day, both bigshot and gregorio were banned from head-fi for an extended period of time. I hope knowing that makes you feel better.


I was banned for posting photos of a teardown of a sound enhancing dongle made and sold by Synergistic Research. It was a metal tube with a male plug on one end and a female plug on the other. Inside the metal tube was a regular wire connecting the two jacks on the ends, and tinfoil wrapped around it with a couple of pinches of gravel inside to add weight. This sound enhancing dongle sold for hundreds of dollars and it was claimed that it improved the sound quality of home audio systems in many ways.

At that time Synergistic Research was an advertiser on the Head-Fi site, and they were quite upset about my review of their product... Soon after this I was banned, along with other people who participated in and commented on the teardown. There was a period of time where Sound Science was a ghost town. That was a prior regime though. Things have gotten better around here since all of the bans were pardoned. We've built back an active community, which I'm proud to be a part of.


----------



## T 1000

We play until dad comes


----------



## T 1000 (Dec 20, 2022)

bigshot said:


> I was banned for posting photos of a teardown of a sound enhancing dongle made and sold by Synergistic Research. It was a metal tube with a male plug on one end and a female plug on the other. Inside the metal tube was a regular wire connecting the two jacks on the ends, and tinfoil wrapped around it with a couple of pinches of gravel inside to add weight. This sound enhancing dongle sold for hundreds of dollars and it was claimed that it improved the sound quality of home audio systems in many ways.
> 
> At that time Synergistic Research was an advertiser on the Head-Fi site, and they were quite upset about my review of their product... Soon after this I was banned, along with other people who participated in and commented on the teardown. There was a period of time where Sound Science was a ghost town. That was a prior regime though. Things have gotten better around here since all of the bans were pardoned. We've built back an active community, which I'm proud to be a part of.


"and they were quite upset about my review of their product"
From your excessive influence on the public, I suppose
 "There was a period of time where Sound Science was a ghost town"
If he didn't have me, he was still there, I raised your attendance (literally)


----------



## bigshot (Dec 20, 2022)

A whole system has dozens of variables. If you want to test and attribute improvement to a specific aspect of the system, you have to isolate that aspect. You can't just attribute it to whatever you choose. And you certainly can't attribute it to how much it cost, because there's no correlation between price and sound quality. There are plenty of cheap systems that sound great, and it is drop dead easy to spend a lot of money and get poor results if you do it wrong.

It seems to me that if your subjective impression is telling you that you can hear beyond established thresholds, the first thing you would do is to try to employ some controls to try to move your subjective impression closer to being an objective observation. You'd do some controlled listening tests, informal measurements, etc... to try to establish that you actually *can* hear something that you shouldn't be able to hear. You would want to have some sort of solid evidence before you start telling other people that the thresholds may be wrong because of your subjective impression.

"Observational experience" includes real world evidence engulfed in a swamp of subjective bias and perceptual error. You can't determine which is evidence and which is the swamp until you drain the swamp and focus your observation only on the parts of the experience that aren't subjective.


----------



## Bytor123

T 1000 said:


> Sancho Panza? what are you, another specter from the dark. To whom shall I prove?, to you?


You're making claims in a sound science forum - an audience of clever folks with experience and understanding of 'sound science' (I don't include myself in that - I'm from a social science background. I'm here to learn), who are sceptical about what you state as fact, that's all. No one disputes your experience, just your claim that it's fact. 
It is dark here, actually.


----------



## T 1000

Bytor123 said:


> You're making claims in a sound science forum - an audience of clever folks with experience and understanding of 'sound science' (I don't include myself in that - I'm from a social science background. I'm here to learn), who are sceptical about what you state as fact, that's all. No one disputes your experience, just your claim that it's fact.
> It is dark here, actually.


OK, keep learning


----------



## T 1000 (Dec 20, 2022)

bigshot said:


> A whole system has dozens of variables. If you want to test and attribute improvement to a specific aspect of the system, you have to isolate that aspect. You can't just attribute it to whatever you choose. And you certainly can't attribute it to how much it cost, because there's no correlation between price and sound quality. There are plenty of cheap systems that sound great, and it is drop dead easy to spend a lot of money and get poor results if you do it wrong.


I had to read it twice, because I agreed with your point at first, and the second time to confirm that I understood correctly.
It's a faint glimmer, but I think there's still hope for you


----------



## chef8489

T 1000 said:


> Using the term trolling only proves that you are limited in providing realistic counter-arguments.
> When you can't deal with the situation, then the only thing that comes to your mind is to shout troll troll, and then your dad comes and denies me the right to participate with the explanation - trolling
> If it wasn't pathetic, it would be funny.
> As I already mentioned - I don't care


When you refuse to accept the rules of sound science such as proper testing and backing up your claims with measurements, then you are trolling. This is the sounds science forum and facts and proper controlled tests are required here. If you can not handle this you are in the wrong area and you are the exact definition of a troll. Just as the regular area does not allow us to talk about double blind testing and facts, if we went there and constantly talked about it and called people out, we would be trolling in there. The only difference is we would be moderated heavily and our posts would be deleted and we would be banned from those threads. The mods here are far more lenient and people get away with far more in sound science.


----------



## T 1000

chef8489 said:


> When you refuse to accept the rules of sound science such as proper testing and backing up your claims with measurements, then you are trolling. This is the sounds science forum and facts and proper controlled tests are required here. If you can not handle this you are in the wrong area and you are the exact definition of a troll. Just as the regular area does not allow us to talk about double blind testing and facts, if we went there and constantly talked about it and called people out, we would be trolling in there. The only difference is we would be moderated heavily and our posts would be deleted and we would be banned from those threads. The mods here are far more lenient and people get away with far more in sound science.


You are stuck in the mud.
Once again you are besieged by trolls


----------



## gregorio

T 1000 said:


> In the next million posts, we will continue to talk about the same thing,


No we won’t, because if you continue spouting that same old nonsense and fallacies, you’ll be treated as a troll and it will eventually end in you being banned. 


T 1000 said:


> and I will continue to state that I did not succeed in enlightening you.


You didn’t answer the question, do you believe the earth is flat and all the other nonsense beliefs, just because thousands of people discuss their experiences of them? Did someone succeed in enlightening you that the earth is flat and if not, then what would it take? I don’t know about you but I’d need some extremely robust, reliable evidence to even start to consider the possibility and someone just repeating that a few thousand (deluded) people believe it so it must be true, doesn’t get anywhere even near to “extremely robust reliable evidence”, it’s just nonsense!

If you want to enlighten anyone here, then you need to start by providing reliable evidence. If you don’t, then all you’ll succeed in demonstrating is that you’re just another deluded audiophile who doesn’t know what an encyclopaedia is or how to use or understand one!

G


----------



## T 1000

Bay, I'm drowning in Nina Simone's voice


----------



## T 1000

gregorio said:


> No we won’t, because if you continue spouting that same old nonsense and fallacies, you’ll be treated as a troll and it will eventually end in you being banned.
> 
> You didn’t answer the question, do you believe the earth is flat and all the other nonsense beliefs, just because thousands of people discuss their experiences of them? Did someone succeed in enlightening you that the earth is flat and if not, then what would it take? I don’t know about you but I’d need some extremely robust, reliable evidence to even start to consider the possibility and someone just repeating that a few thousand (deluded) people believe it so it must be true, doesn’t get anywhere even near to “extremely robust reliable evidence”, it’s just nonsense!
> 
> ...


Nina can wait a few seconds
Yes, the earth is flat, wouldn't you say that it is cubed?


----------



## T 1000

BAY
And don't dream of trolls


----------



## bigshot (Dec 20, 2022)

Sometimes the biggest problem isn't the lack of evidence, it's the lack of a logical thought process. I see a lot of people coming up with a conclusion and then looking for evidence to support it, instead of letting the evidence lead to the conclusion. (i.e. cherry picking, ignoring data to the contrary, etc.) I also see people taking two steps of observation and then making a huge leap to a conclusion that may or may not be due to what they observed. ("This afternoon I noticed a guitar lick in this song I didn't hear before... My new DAC is better than my old one.") There are also belief systems substituting for factual logic (i.e. "I spent more money so it must sound better." or "This guy Watts is very smart so he has to be right.") There's also deliberately vague definitions and lack of attribution that allow one to flat out make stuff up (i.e. "I changed my fuses and my soundstage was improved by 70%!" ...with no definition of what fuses do, what soundstage is, what produces it, and how it can be degraded or improved.)

I personally think that the thought process is more important than the evidence itself, because a logical system of analysis is the process that leads to establishing facts and puts them into their proper context. But when I was growing up, there was debate club where we were taught the proper methods of arguing a point, and logic taught in middle school. I don't think students get that any more.


----------



## gregorio (Dec 20, 2022)

T 1000 said:


> So, what several of you claim is correct against thousands.


That should read: So, what several of you claim is correct with millions of scientists, engineers, universities, text books and scientific papers but against a few thousand audiophiles with nothing but audiophile marketing induced delusions.

Again though, it’s got nothing to do with  the number of believers but the actual facts, go and start with an encyclopaedia!!


T 1000 said:


> Trust me your logic is your worst enemy


Talk about irony! Your only argument is numbers of believers, a few thousand audiophiles against millions of engineers, scientists, university lecturers, etc., over the course of a century or so. So, your logic tells you a few thousand is more than millions and can’t see that it’s not the numbers anyway! Now that’s impressive, am I enlightened yet?

Can’t you see that you’re just digging yourself into deeper hole?

G


----------



## gregorio (Dec 20, 2022)

T 1000 said:


> Yes, the earth is flat, wouldn't you say that it is cubed?


I say the same as what the all the encyclopaedias, universities, scientists, engineers, text books, etc., say on this subject. Do you think they (and therefore I) say the earth is a cube?

That hole just keeps getting deeper!

G


----------



## bfreedma

There would be a lot less trolling here if everyone stopped giving them the attention they crave.

Arguing with trolls is an exercise in futility - they can fabricate any case they like to "support" their claims as facts are irrelevant to them.

Reality check - the current troll is painfully obvious.  Do we really need counter such obviously incorrect posts?  Do you think that anyone who believes the tripe being posted will be convinced by 1000 countering responses (I don't)?


----------



## castleofargh

@T 1000, it's so sweet of you to go out of your way just to prove bigshot right and me wrong. I'm sure he appreciates.

Modo stuff:
I'm locking you out of here too. And yes, it's a conspiracy against you. You know too much...

You've misunderstood pretty much everything I tried to tell you in various threads or in PM, at this point it seems silly to try and convince you that you've done anything wrong, but here's me trying like I'm talking to toddler.
You know how if you want to discuss a *headphone*, you should go in the *Headphones section* of the forum and find the right thread to post in. Then if you later want to write about your *amplifier*, you go in the related appreciation thread in the *Headphone Amps *or* Portable Headphone Amp section* of the forum? Well you've been posting a lot in this *Sound Science* section but almost none of it is related to *science*, and until evidence of the contrary that you will never provide, we can also be skeptical about your posts having much to to do with *sound*.
enough is enough, you here makes as little sense as my mother coming to lecture us about human hearing and audio gears. Go post in the proper sections of the forum and leave the science stuff you don't understand to others.


----------



## whitedragem

T 1000 said:


> You are stuck in the mud.
> Once again you are besieged by trolls


I love this; takes me back to the early eighties and ‘text adventures’.

I pressed the ‘N’ key several times, no luck, seems I can only go SOUTH from here….
Looking to the East for illumination.

pressing ‘i’ to check my present inventory, what am I meant to do with the Crank and Cog.. I have had them since the first chapter and feel I may have missed something.
Where do I get the batteries for the portable music player? I really want to enjoy the journey as much as the destination!


----------



## bigshot (Dec 20, 2022)

Bfreedma, I totally agree with you, but the problem with that is that a dozen or more people have to modify their participation in the group to try to discourage one troublemaker. And Gregorio is a tremendous asset to the group, but this isn't his particular strong point. It's simpler to do what Castle just did and cut off the bad apple.

I agree that he was an obvious troll. I think we've seen him many times before under different accounts. I often see them enter threads continuing arguments from the past that I don't even remember. It's difficult for all of us to all be on the same page as to which idiot is the troll and which ignorant person isn't. I can discern the difference pretty well because I've been on the internet since usenet days, but some of us aren't as good at that. I think it's easiest to just call someone a troll who outright refuses to play by the rules of the forum (i.e. science) and refuses to treat the regular participants in this group respectfully.

It's a difficult problem and I think it's best dealt with quietly behind the scenes by the mods. Thank you Castle. I know it's frustrating. Here is a virtual cake for you.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 20, 2022)

whitedragem said:


> I love this; takes me back to the early eighties and ‘text adventures’.


XYZZY

Now THAT magic word is a very old one! I played "Adventure" on Arpanet in the fifth grade! (1969? 1970?)


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Bfreedma, I totally agree with you, but the problem with that is that a dozen or more people have to modify their participation in the group to try to discourage one troublemaker. And Gregorio is a tremendous asset to the group, but this isn't his particular strong point. It's simpler to do what Castle just did and cut off the bad apple.
> 
> I agree that he was an obvious troll. I think we've seen him many times before under different accounts. I often see them enter threads continuing arguments from the past that I don't even remember. It's difficult for all of us to all be on the same page as to which idiot is the troll and which ignorant person isn't. I can discern the difference pretty well because I've been on the internet since usenet days, but some of us aren't as good at that. I think it's easiest to just call someone a troll who outright refuses to play by the rules of the forum (i.e. science) and refuses to treat the regular participants in this group respectfully.
> 
> It's a difficult problem and I think it's best dealt with quietly behind the scenes by the mods. Thank you Castle. I know it's frustrating. Here is a virtual cake for you.



Or you could just stop responding to trolls, which would likely make Castles job a lot easier while significantly improving the signal to noise ratio in Sound Science.


----------



## bigshot

You missed my point. It isn't just me. We have a whole group of people who need to do that. And that would be like herding cats. The troll needs to be removed. It won't stop by just me not responding.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> You missed my point. It isn't just me. We have a whole group of people who need to do that. And that would be like herding cats. The troll needs to be removed. It won't stop by just me not responding.



We’ve (myself included) have been trying that approach for a decade. It clearly hasn’t worked in reducing the trolling.  How about we try something different for a while - if it doesn’t work, you can always go back to our old model of endlessly engaging with trolls.  A repeated response of “If you have any objective evidence or want to talk about how to gather it, happy to discuss.  If not, you’re in the wrong subforum” would be far less entertaining for trolls than constantly engaging.  After a few posts where no one takes the bait, most will move on.

As for worrying about “herding the cats”, I think we’re all capable of changing our approach without your oversight and find that analogy insulting.  Perhaps a little focus on what you can do rather than what everyone else is capable of would be appropriate.


----------



## bigshot

I don't think you see me at all. You have some image of me you are seeing.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> I don't think you see me at all. You have some image of me you are seeing.



No, I see you quite well.  I see someone taking no personal responsibility and trying to deflect that onto others.

My analysis of the last month of posting here

50% - Trolling
40% - you responding to trolls
 5%.- you complaining about others responding to trolls
 5% - posts with actual content

I examined my posting history, realized I was part of the problem, and adjusted my approach.  Are you really not able to give consideration to being a part of the problem and making adjustments to improve this community?


----------



## bigshot

This has nothing to do with trolling. You changed all of a sudden.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> This has nothing to do with trolling. You changed all of a sudden.



We’re discussing trolls but it has nothing to do with trolling?  Um, ok.

You are correct, I have changed my posting habits and no longer respond to trolls.  Given that, I’ll stop responding to you as well

In all seriousness bigshot, you seem completely unwilling to address your participation and how it contributes to the trolling problem we have here.  You do you, but it’s not a good look IMO.


----------



## bigshot

OK. Whatever you have to do to be happy is fine. I hold no animosity to you at all, in fact I like you. I suspect there's something you aren't saying about why you turned so suddenly, but if you don't want to talk about it, that's fine too. Go forth and have fun.


----------

