The league of (extra)ordinary gentlemen

[gobble]

hey Gobble, with all due respect, Dawkins is a brilliant scholar and his "the god delusion" book is a must-read for everyone. It is a clear, logical and beautifully argued case for rationalism. I would urge you to read this book and then arrive at your conclusions. Perhaps the website itself is insufficient.

I do agree that he uses a confrontational tone, and that does not do him any favours, but if you set that aside, and concentrate on what he has to say, it's very compelling.

Of course, the parallels between religion and audiophilia are too strong to ignore. Too many 'articles of faith' that the believers are unwilling to put to test by standards of logic, science and reason But like religion, these articles of faith bring joy and happiness to many, so who am I diss them?

maybe ... anyways this conversation has taken a turn I have no interest in continuing further. I suppose we must allow the west to rob other civilizations of the credit they deserve in the name of humility in order to satisfy a few ...

Cheers

 

[square_wave]

once again let me reiterate that i am an agnost, and I have nowhere near enough information or experience to hold a view one way or the other. But I don't see the problem with ABX testing. If something is so much superior to something else, should that not be identifiable blindly? If short pieces of music are not sufficient, then let them test with long pieces, as many number of times, but fundamentally I don't see how an ABX test would not be able to show up a superior component for what it is. Anecdotal evidence (in favour or against) something is not of much use at all. Logic would suggest that if there was a tangible difference between two components, then a properly conducted ABX test would demonstrate it.

I am personally confident I can tell the differences between the various speakers that I heard, in an ABX test. So similarly why can't the people who are confident of the differences offerred by the various cables and tweaks do an ABX test and prove this difference?

What about doing a proper ABX test ourselves? We can get a few people together, in a suitably resolving, high-end system, and ABX between various components. In the absence of a proper switcher, it would be cumbersome, but worth the effort wouldn't you say?

Coming back to the subject under discussion.
Numerous ABX blind tests with correct protocols have been done already on digital and amplification gear and wires. Never has there been any conclusive evidence to suggest that people could hear any differences.
So why another test ?
If one believes in ABX blind tests, one can just go ahead and buy the cheapest possible gear for digital source, amplification and wires. An 200$ amp, 100$ dvd player and a few meters of lamp cord. Isnt it that simple ?

I do not evaluate gear based on ABX. I live with a gear for some time and I know if it works for me or not. There are several factors which contribute to the decision. If these cant be evaluated in an ABX test, then there is something wrong with the test.

I think a better way to find out if ABX is correct or not is this.

System 1
Koryo or LG dvd player
LG amplifier ( Some 200$)
Some 15 rupees/metre electric wire
Avant garde duo or Karma loudspeakers

System2
Full DCS rack
Gamut, Lamm, Halcro, Audionote Ongaku, Shindo etc
Avant garde duo or Karma loudspeakers

Live with both systems for a day. If you know that there is night and day difference between both, then ABX test are a waste of time.

 

[psychotropic]

i just have a simple question. Wouldn't those profound differences be perceptible in a blind test? if not....then why not?

Coming back to the subject under discussion.
Numerous ABX blind tests with correct protocols have been done already on digital and amplification gear and wires. Never has there been any conclusive evidence to suggest that people could hear any differences.
So why another test ?
If one believes in ABX blind tests, one can just go ahead and buy the cheapest possible gear for digital source, amplification and wires. An 200$ amp, 100$ dvd player and a few meters of lamp cord. Isnt it that simple ?

I do not evaluate gear based on ABX. I live with a gear for some time and I know if it works for me or not. There are several factors which contribute to the decision. If these cant be evaluated in an ABX test, then there is something wrong with the test.

I think a better way to find out if ABX is correct or not is this.

System 1
Koryo or LG dvd player
LG amplifier ( Some 200$)
Some 15 rupees/metre electric wire
Avant garde duo or Karma loudspeakers

System2
Full DCS rack
Gamut, Lamm, Halcro, Audionote Ongaku, Shindo etc
Avant garde duo or Karma loudspeakers

Live with both systems for a day. If you know that there is night and day difference between both, then ABX test are a waste of time.

 

[square_wave]

i just have a simple question. Wouldn't those profound differences be perceptible in a blind test? if not....then why not?

Blind test
Suppose you have System B in your home, While you were at office someone replaced the Halcro Amp with a 4000 rupees Ahuja amplifier of similar wattage/gain. You are not aware of the change.
Now if you were to play your favorite music sitting in the sweet spot (Lets say, Beethovens 5th symphony by Karajan on Deutsche Grammophon Label played at concert level), I am sure you will scratching your head to what is wrongThis is my kind of blind test.

I do not know much about ABX test protocols. All I know is that if they cannot differentiate between these in such a test, there is something wrong with the test.

 

[psychotropic]

see that's the thing. There is nothing wrong with a blind test conceptually. In fact, for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post (how our brain uses other sensory information to process sounds, smells, sight and so on), it makes sense to limit the amount of sensory information you receive, while evaluating one particular sensory input like sound.

Therefore, the fact that previous blind tests have not agreed with your views should not stop you from conducting one yourself to test your views.

In the example mentioned by you.....Ahuja for Halcro.....even with a blindfold you should be able to recognise that right? So then why not try it out with a blindfold, what do we lose besides the extraneous influences? Let's forget other people's protocols, tests, methods etc., Let's do a test with methods acceptable to you.

Blind test
Suppose you have System B in your home, While you were at office someone replaced the Halcro Amp with a 4000 rupees Ahuja amplifier of similar wattage/gain. You are not aware of the change.
Now if you were to play your favorite music sitting in the sweet spot (Lets say, Beethovens 5th symphony by Karajan on Deutsche Grammophon Label played at concert level), I am sure you will scratching your head to what is wrongThis is my kind of blind test.

I do not know much about ABX test protocols. All I know is that if they cannot differentiate between these in such a test, there is something wrong with the test.

 

[anm]

like HFE, there are some music info that can only be captured from eyes. Blind test would cut that essential musical info if your eyes are shut or blindfolded in a blind test.
Other explanation is, while blind testing, when you are switching the source/ amp/ speakers, the sound and echo of the first has not yet died down sufficiently, and it colors/ dirties the sound of other candidate. Therefore even the profound difference gets muddied and you can not catch it in blind test. Your only bet is to believe the manufactures as they have people with modified ears with highest grade audiophile materials. They wash their ears very quickly whenever the switch happens, with holy waters from 5 churches.

All above is my imagination, and as much (in)valid as the claims (imagination) of these products.

i just have a simple question. Wouldn't those profound differences be perceptible in a blind test? if not....then why not?

 

[suri]

copied from wikipedia-

Single-blind trials

Single-blind describes experiments where information that could introduce bias or otherwise skew the result is withheld from the participants, but the experimenter will be in full possession of the facts.

In a single-blind experiment, the individual subjects do not know whether they are so-called "test" subjects or members of an "experimental control" group. Single-blind experimental design is used where the experimenters either must know the full facts (for example, when comparing sham to real surgery) and so the experimenters cannot themselves be blind, or where the experimenters will not introduce further bias and so the experimenters need not be blind. However, there is a risk that subjects are influenced by interaction with the researchers known as the experimenter's bias. Single-blind trials are especially risky in psychology and social science research, where the experimenter has an expectation of what the outcome should be, and may consciously or subconsciously influence the behavior of the subject.

A classic example of a single-blind test is the "Pepsi challenge." A marketing person prepares several cups of cola labeled "A" and "B". One set of cups has Pepsi, the others have Coca-Cola. The marketing person knows which soda is in which cup but is not supposed to reveal that information to the subjects. Volunteer subjects are encouraged to try the two cups of soda and polled for which ones they prefer. The problem with a single-blind test like this is the marketing person can give (unintentional or not) subconscious cues which bias the volunteer. In addition it's possible the marketing person could prepare the separate sodas differently (more ice in one cup, push one cup in front of the volunteer, etc.) which can cause a bias. If the marketing person is employeed by the company which is producing the challenge there's always the possibility of a conflict of interests where the marketing person is aware that future income will be based on the results of the test.
[edit] Double-blind trials

Double-blind describes an especially stringent way of conducting an experiment, usually on human subjects, in an attempt to eliminate subjective bias on the part of both experimental subjects and the experimenters. In most cases, double-blind experiments are held to achieve a higher standard of scientific rigor.

In a double-blind experiment, neither the individuals nor the researchers know who belongs to the control group and the experimental group. Only after all the data have been recorded (and in some cases, analyzed) do the researchers learn which individuals are which. Performing an experiment in double-blind fashion is a way to lessen the influence of the prejudices and unintentional physical cues on the results (the placebo effect, observer bias, and experimenter's bias). Random assignment of the subject to the experimental or control group is a critical part of double-blind research design. The key that identifies the subjects and which group they belonged to is kept by a third party and not given to the researchers until the study is over.

Double-blind methods can be applied to any experimental situation where there is the possibility that the results will be affected by conscious or unconscious bias on the part of the experimenter.

Computer-controlled experiments are sometimes also referred to as double-blind experiments, since software should not cause any bias (?). In analogy to the above, the part of the software that provides interaction with the human is the blinded researcher, while the part of the software that defines the key is the third party. An example is the ABX test, where the human subject has to identify an unknown stimulus X as being either A or B.

 

[srramanujam]

The ultimate test is taking shape, even as we contribute to this thread. In this method, called, the double feed method, the listener is fitted with a headphone.

The headphone uses advanced neural networks to create stereophonic effect with one channel feed. So you can test two 2 channel amps simultaneously with this headphone. Using this latest technology, outputs from two test amps (or source or cable or snakes) are fed into the headphone simultaneously, one output in each ear. Advanced sound levelling devices are used to eliminate any aynchronous behaviour between the signals.

The ear that bleeds first has poor hi fi equipment. Often good quality hi fi equipment can cause the respective ear to overflow with honey (and a bit of that undesirable wax).

This technology is so advanced that often even deaf people are known to spot differences between very closely priced hi end equipment.

 

[kaushik]

The ultimate test is taking shape, even as we contribute to this thread. In this method, called, the double feed method, the listener is fitted with a headphone.

The headphone uses advanced neural networks to create stereophonic effect with one channel feed. So you can test two 2 channel amps simultaneously with this headphone. Using this latest technology, outputs from two test amps (or source or cable or snakes) are fed into the headphone simultaneously, one output in each ear. Advanced sound levelling devices are used to eliminate any aynchronous behaviour between the signals.

The ear that bleeds first has poor hi fi equipment. Often good quality hi fi equipment can cause the respective ear to overflow with honey (and a bit of that undesirable wax).

This technology is so advanced that often even deaf people are known to spot differences between very closely priced hi end equipment.

also the ones without any hearing loss can experience deaf
ears ... as "Noise-induced hearing loss can be caused by two types of noise: sudden busts, such as firearms or fireworks, or continuous exposure to loud noise, such as crappy audio systems"

 

[moktan]

hey Gobble, with all due respect, Dawkins is a brilliant scholar and his "the god delusion" book is a must-read for everyone. It is a clear, logical and beautifully argued case for rationalism. I would urge you to read this book and then arrive at your conclusions. Perhaps the website itself is insufficient.

I do agree that he uses a confrontational tone, and that does not do him any favours, but if you set that aside, and concentrate on what he has to say, it's very compelling.

Of course, the parallels between religion and audiophilia are too strong to ignore. Too many 'articles of faith' that the believers are unwilling to put to test by standards of logic, science and reason But like religion, these articles of faith bring joy and happiness to many, so who am I diss them?

hi psychotropic...would just like to share a brilliant Terry Eagleton review of The God Delusion in a LRB issue...of LRB

 

[moktan]

hey Gobble, with all due respect, Dawkins is a brilliant scholar and his "the god delusion" book is a must-read for everyone. It is a clear, logical and beautifully argued case for rationalism. I would urge you to read this book and then arrive at your conclusions. Perhaps the website itself is insufficient.

I do agree that he uses a confrontational tone, and that does not do him any favours, but if you set that aside, and concentrate on what he has to say, it's very compelling.

Of course, the parallels between religion and audiophilia are too strong to ignore. Too many 'articles of faith' that the believers are unwilling to put to test by standards of logic, science and reason But like religion, these articles of faith bring joy and happiness to many, so who am I diss them?

hi psychotropic...would just like to share a brilliant Terry Eagleton review of The God Delusion in a LRB issue...of LRB ? Terry Eagleton: Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

as someone who considers organic evolution more of an ideology than hardcore science, i may have 'wickedly' enjoyed Eagleton's evisceration of the tome..
i have also found the perspective presented in Mary Midgely's 'Evolution as Religion', quite informative and persuasive...
Behe's more technical but no less compelling, 'Darwin's Black box-the biochemical challenge to evolution' could also perhaps be read to get a more holistic grip on the debate...

 

[psychotropic]

he he he, this is a contentious topic on which the two 'sides' are unlikely to reach an agreement ever, which is where Eagleton's critique completely fails to appeal to me. From the get-go his assertions appear (to me personally) to be laughable. Sample this statement from him:

"For mainstream Christianity, reason, argument and honest doubt have always played an integral role in belief."

Now, keeping the merits of this statement aside (I am half Christian, but that's probably irrelevant), a rationalist like me will find such a statement ludicrous. From a rationalist perspective whatever "reason, argument and honest doubt" that any religion can contain, would have a natural limit built-in, where it collides with the fundamental question of whether there exists a supernatural being/beings/phenomena responsible for the 'creation' of the earth, and when it falls at this obstacle, it falls completely, and Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot is the most elegant illustration of this.

On the other hand a believer (like Eagleton appears to be) would consider it equally ludicrous to argue otherwise, as for him this obstacle does not exist and therefore logic and reason are perfectly compatible with his ideas. To him anyone who 'imagines' this incompatibility deserves all the scorn that can be mustered into a book review.

So I guess at the end of the day whether we go with Eagleton or Dawkins would depend entirely on our perspectives on the existence of supernatural/celstial/divine, and none of this impacts our ability to reach/achieve heaven/nirvana through music.

hi psychotropic...would just like to share a brilliant Terry Eagleton review of The God Delusion in a LRB issue...of LRB ? Terry Eagleton: Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

as someone who considers organic evolution more of an ideology than hardcore science, i may have 'wickedly' enjoyed Eagleton's evisceration of the tome..
i have also found the perspective presented in Mary Midgely's 'Evolution as Religion', quite informative and persuasive...
Behe's more technical but no less compelling, 'Darwin's Black box-the biochemical challenge to evolution' could also perhaps be read to get a more holistic grip on the debate...

 

[suri]

"For mainstream Christianity, reason, argument and honest doubt have always played an integral role in belief."

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Jingoist T. Eagleton

 

[psychotropic]

I love those emoticons laughing in unison. I think the synchrony of their laughing is incontrovertible proof of the existence of a supernatural being, since such perfect symmetry could not otherwise have been achieved.

:lol:

Jingoist T. Eagleton

 

[suri]

I love those emoticons laughing in unison. I think the synchrony of their laughing is incontrovertible proof of the existence of a supernatural being, since such perfect symmetry could not otherwise have been achieved.

and then again, i would direct your attention to the fragile beauty of a butterfly's wings, the fearful symmetry of a tiger or the unimaginable splendour of the Aurora Borealis. Shame on the person who doubts that these are all God's creations - sure road to bottomless perdition - burn in hell, sinner

of course, during the Inquisition, humans were actually put on fire! Burn here and then in hell!!:lol:

i have no doubt, though,that every one of us, in that last phase of life before death - when we are not so sure of ourselves (and our control over events),
when all the props we had are lost- will believe in the supernatural.

i like to think of myself as an atheist unwilling to think about silly things such as god, heaven and hell, and hope that i die suddenly without becoming bent and servile!

 

[thevortex]

Of course, the parallels between religion and audiophilia are too strong to ignore. Too many 'articles of faith' that the believers are unwilling to put to test by standards of logic, science and reason But like religion, these articles of faith bring joy and happiness to many, so who am I diss them?

Stepping into this thread at a late stage, I dont know whether this is for real or just for fun, but here goes

Are our standards of logic, science and reason advanced enough to explain any and all natural phenomena - leave alone matters of faith?

Having said that I am nowhere close to religious myself. I just dont think we should overestimate our powers of reasoning. How far do we trust intellect when it cant really even begin to explain instinct among other things?

 

[thevortex]

All that said I do not understand why people would be against blind testing of equipment.

The purpose of blind testing I guess is to take the other senses out of the equation as well as eliminate any preset bias or aversion towards any particular product/brand. In a way it is setting a clean slate.

 

[moktan]

it is quite interesting to note that out of all the issues that Eagleton raises in his essay.. we need to somehow isolate his presumed 'defence' of christianity as the achilles heel of his argument ..and this is i guess where the crux of the matter lies..people like Dawkins are threatened by their idea of what is 'religion'-a cantankerous, and contentious club (much like that of audiophiles) whose members do not seem to agree on the exact nature of the truth and are therefore willing to go to extreme lengths -in plain language they(religionists of course and not harmless purveyors of musical sound) are willing to even kill...
if this matter was something that could be endlessly debated upon...people like Dawkins would have, well endlessly debated ...but the almost missionary zeal with which he (and others of his ilk ..such as Christopher Hitchens)have taken up this issue seems to suggest a heightened sense of urgency..they seem to share the same desperation to save the world as their much derided counterparts on the other side of the theological
fence...
anyway, to look at the larger picture, the point the Eagleton seems to be making is that Dawkins cannot take his expertise on, say , biology as a license to derisively comment on a worldview that he knows little about..especially since he seems to be 'convinced' that religion, God, etc is anyway 'wrong' in the first place...

 

[gobble]

Stepping into this thread at a late stage, I dont know whether this is for real or just for fun, but here goes

Are our standards of logic, science and reason advanced enough to explain any and all natural phenomena - leave alone matters of faith?

Having said that I am nowhere close to religious myself. I just dont think we should overestimate our powers of reasoning. How far do we trust intellect when it cant really even begin to explain instinct among other things?

I am with you on this front. Most people place too much weight on what they believe is "rational" thinking and this is leading people "astray" .. or so I like to believe. I am not the conventional believer in heaven or hell or a human personified god either...

Regards

 

[moktan]

Popper for example tells us that science should not be taken as seriously as people think it should ...
his problem of induction talks about two kinds of 'scientific' theories :
(i) Falsified theories; those that tests proved to be wrong and hence were rejected (Newtonian physics was falsified by relativity and yet it is taught as 'scientific' at a certain level..and yes in the approximate world that we live in, it works)
(ii)theories that have not been proven wrong as of now but are exposed to be proven wrong..
Popper does not consider astrology to be science, because the practioners of it are 'forever changing the goalposts' ...
on the other hand even the most rock solid of the scientific theories could be open to being proved wrong because of the 'black swan' problem...a million sightings of white swans cannot force us to conclude that all swans are white..though a single black swan could forcefully convince us of the truth that 'not all swans are white'...