Side 1 av 2 12 SisteSiste
Resultater 1 til 20 av 30
Abonnér på denne tråden
  1. #1
    Hifi Freak Viking's Avatar
    Ble medlem
    Feb 2002
    Innlegg
    2,690
    Tagget i
    0 Innlegg

    Om blindtester!

    If I can`t hear it, it doesn`t exist...maybe.
    by: Mike Vans Evers

    If I can`t hear it, it doesn`t exist� and if it can`t be "proven" with a Double Blind Test (DBT), it doesnt exist� are prime objectivist declarations. These war cries are used with great vigor to condemn the subjectivist`s observations that different audio system wires and cables "sound" different. Many objectivists go further and reason that because DBTs have been unable to "prove" the existence of sonic wire differences, all those who say they can hear it, must either be lying or are misguided by marketing claims, and have opinions that are the result of the "Placebo Effect." (Let`s dispense with the ones who lie immediately, as they do neither side any good. If you`re lying, you`re lying, and eventually you`ll trip yourself up.)

    Objectivists get frustrated, and often a little angry when, in the face of what they consider a lack of proof, the subjectivists still insist that wires and cables do indeed have a "sound." Of course, the subjectivists also get frustrated, and often a little angry when they point out the flaws in DBTs and the objectivists still insist on the sacred cow status of Double Blind Tests.

    On the surface, the arguments for the need for DBTs can seem to be on solid ground. (However, we shall see shortly that this solidity is an illusion.) In any event, the argument that the lack-of-DBT-proof is itself a "proof" that wires don`t have a sound, is scientifically 100% incorrect. The only valid comment you can make about a Double Blind Test whose goal isn`t proven, is that this particular test wasn`t able to prove the goal, not that the goal is false.

    Using a scientifically false statement as a premise, and then taking logically correct steps from that starting point will always lead you to an incorrect conclusion. (This is just bad science, but some call this sort of mistake pseudo-science�) The lack of DBT "proof" is not a valid premise for saying all those who say they can hear it must be misguided by marketing claims and have opinions that are the result of the "Placebo Effect"�

    Let us continue refuting these objectivist claims by looking at another of their favorite, but equally myth-taken catcalls, the "Placebo Effect." We can visit its fall from stardom (and pedestal transformation from marble to quicksand) in an article found in the Tampa Tribune, May 24, 2001.

    Researchers say the placebo effect is fake
    By Susan Okie of the Washington Post

    Surprising new evidence has called into question the existence of the "placebo effect," the widely accepted principle that people with various illnesses will often improve if given a dummy pill or sham treatment.

    For a half-century, doctors have been taught that this phenomenon is partly responsible for drugs' effectiveness. Researchers have taken it into account when testing new medicines. Biologists and psychologists have searched for its cause. Ethicists have even debated whether doctors could justifiably deceive patients to take advantage of it.

    But in the most comprehensive effort yet to evaluate whether placebos work, Danish researchers conclude that they have little effect after all and should not be used outside research settings.

    Their analysis examined 114 studies of various symptoms or disorders and found that the placebos were no better than no treatment for most of the problems studied.

    Placebos did appear to produce modest benefit in studies of pain and in some other studies where the outcome was similarly subjective.

    (For the sake of continuity, intervening parts of the article have been omitted.)

    ...Among individual conditions, only pain showed evidence of a modest but significant placebo response.

    Even for pain, "I'm very much in doubt" whether the effect is real, Hrobjartsson* said. "The difference between placebo and no treatment could also reflect reporting bias" on the part of the study participants." (* Asbojoern Hrobjartsson of the University of Copenhagen and the Nordic Cochran Centre, the new study's principal author.)

    As a result of this article we see that the use of the "placebo effect" has a �valid counter example,� and has now become a questionable tool for arguing the claims of those who hear cable and wire differences.

    The next datum to absorb is from an article of importance by Dr. Greg Comnes in issue 117 (April/May 1999) of "The Absolute Sound." In part this article discusses the limited usefulness of the Double Blind Test (DBT). It is interesting to note that the results from numbers of traditional clinical double blind trials of the three top antidepressant medicines, each trial lasting 4 to 6 weeks, showed that each drug provided patients relief from depression equally well, i.e. one did not work "better" than another.

    However, the higher number of real world variables found in some other types of tests (not DBTs) have actually made them more important contributors to the "pharmacoeconomics" of treating patients efficiently. (An important factor in a multi-billion dollar industry.) In these tests it was found that patients were actually much more likely to remain on one antidepressant rather than another...one did work "better." A direct contradiction of the Double Blind Test results. The drug company�s conclusion was that while double blind tests are useful, they are hardly the last word--as many would have us believe. (See Mitchell, et al., "Effectiveness and Economic Impact of Antidepressant Medications: A Review," The American Journal of Managed Care Vol. 3, no. 2, February 1997.)

    Now we can objectively discount one of the objectivist�s favorite tools (the double blind test) because it�s been discovered that its inherent and rigidly limited test conditions can produce incorrect results. (Have we been steered in the wrong direction? Have we had the gender wrong all this time? Hamburger anyone?)

    That leaves us with our very first argument, �if I can�t hear it, it doesn�t exist,� to bounce around. Here are a few paragraphs from a book called "Waves and the Ear," (Bergeik, et al., "Science Study Series" from Doubleday, 1960, pages 102-103). They will establish one reason why Joe Schmoe can hear cable differences and Joe Blow can�t.

    "We do not hear instantaneously. Somehow a complicated sound which is a sequence of spectral patterns succeeding one another Arings in our ears@ for a moment after we have heard it. It is during this moment that we can best imitate an unfamiliar sound. Of course, the sound does not truly ring in our ears; it is presumably stored momentarily in the brain B just how is not clear.

    Most of our memories of sounds are of a different sort. They are not transient; they are permanent. We have stored in our heads a host of sound patterns. It is after these that we pattern our speech, and it is with the aid of these that we identify the words that we hear.

    CEC TL3N, WW Platinum starlight AES/EBU og Silver Electra, Verastarr Grand Illusion Statement HC strømkabler og Signature 2 XLR,Trinnov Amethyst, Denafrips Terminator, Audio Insight M1(2,5kva trafo), Audio Insight Ribbon Reference 2.2, Verastarr Signature 2 EVO HT-kabel

  2. #2
    Hifi Freak Viking's Avatar
    Ble medlem
    Feb 2002
    Innlegg
    2,690
    Tagget i
    0 Innlegg

    Re: Om blindtester!

    That these are learned patterns is clear. An Indian from a certain language group may be unable to hear the differences in the English words park : bark, gross : grows, sweet : Swede, fine : vine, pluck : plug . Yet the same Indian, and all others who speak his language and who exhibit this same defect of discrimination, insist that an English speaker's "p's" in "peel" and "pool" are two distinct sounds, and so are the "k's" in "kin" and "skin," and the two "l's" in "lily."

    *Words of an unknown tongue flow into our ears in a largely undifferentiated stream, yet we hear words of our own language with distinctness. Our ability to discriminate in this way grows with learning, but experience shows that such learning is a slow process. It is for this reason that I cannot take seriously simple-minded experiments purporting to show how many pitches or levels of sound we can recognize. It seems that the answer must depend largely on learning over a long period of time.

    The most interesting sounds to us are complex sounds and complex sequences of sounds, and it is about the hearing of such sounds that we know the least. WE KNOW THAT OUR ABILITY TO DISCRIMINATE AMONG SUCH SOUNDS DEPENDS ON TRAINING, but we do not know in any quantitative way how far such training can be carried." (The asterisk and caps are mine-MVE.)

    Musical instruments and nature create the majority of the aforementioned complex sounds that we love to listen to, and find most interesting. Whether it is the sound of a songbird, the wind whistling through the trees, an ensemble of musical instruments, or the sound of an actor investing her lines with emotion, it is the complex nature and the many components of that sound that draws us in. Clear, gritty, forceful, ethereal, strong...these are just a few of the many descriptive words used to describe the sounds that emotionally affect us.

    Many words have been written to try to describe such complex and moving sounds with words that move us in a similar fashion. Many words have also been written to try to describe why one performance lacks certain qualities and nuances thought to define those performances having the last word in quality. It should come as no surprise that music�s special qualities and nuances are very important to many people.

    Training, whether self-taught or schooled creates higher level listening skills, which are literally the result of the building-up and flexing of one�s mental "muscles." In a July 4, 2003 Tampa Tribune newspaper article (NATION/WORLD p.7), Rick Weiss of the Washington Post reports on a new technique to enhance tactile sensitivity in elderly people. This technique was developed at the Ruhr-University Bochum in Germany. Here are a few sentences from this article on the work led by neuroscientist Hubert Dinse, which has been published in the current issue of the journal Science:
    "Studies have shown that repeated exposure to subtle signals�such as barely perceptible changes in musical tones�can improve sensitivity to those signals, a form of sensory enhancement that has been documented in musicians. Research has shown these enhanced abilities are the result of the brain gradually reconfiguring itself to devote larger portions to the task at hand."

    The existence of "Golden eared" people has thus been scientifically verified. These people, with their higher level listening skills, can recognize a particular nuance of a complex sound where another who hasn�t these skills won�t. Why is this important? A good quality instrument�s sound is complex. The addition of even one more instrument raises the resulting level of sonic complexity many times. Then when one or more instruments are played in a physical space, this raises the level of complexity even more, because the sound you hear is a combination of the direct sound from the instrument and the sound that has first reverberated, or bounced off of a wall, ceiling or floor one or more times before reaching your ears.

    If one wished to achieve the lowest possible level of complexity, music would have to be played in an anechoic chamber (no room contribution). Then it would be merely (?) a complex sequence of complex sounds. In real and imagined spaces (because of natural and electronic reverberation) music becomes an interactive complex mix of direct and reflected complex sounds in complex sequences...in other words, music cannot help but to have many qualities, and many, many nuances. It should easily be seen that without some form of training, recognizing all of the qualities and nuances created by the sound of music in real and imagined spaces is NOT a �given.� (Review at * if needed.)

    A wide range of listeners will have a wide range of listening skills. Some listeners will have ears of gold; some will have ears of tin. Some will be able to recognize the subtle differences between the sound of a violin and a viola, or between a Stratocaster and a Les Paul. Some will consider these differences �huge,� and not subtle at all; some will feel the differences to be so minor as to be unimportant, and therefore non-existent.

    It should be clear at this point, that if you can�t recognize some of these nuances in the first place, it would be rather improbable, if not down right impossible for you to be able to perceive changes in these nuances brought about through the comparison of different audio system wires and cables.

    Some will hear differences; some won�t. This is normal. Some people can track animals in the wild; some can�t. Some can win at poker, while others can�t. Listening is a skill, and like any other skill, it can be learned, to one level or another. The choice is up to you.

    In Conclusion:

    In general:

    Reality is composed of an incredibly vast number of simple and complicated processes that interact in far too many ways to naively assert that a single type of test* holds the key to unlock all problems, and answer all questions. (* See: "A new Science," by Stephen Wolfram, pages 6, and 791-792.)

    While we know "a lot," reality is still more complicated than our current understanding of the science behind even the common place events we see around us everyday: see www.ftexploring.com/askdrgalapagos.html. Science is a quest for more knowledge�not a "we already know everything" game.

    In addition, that which "science" ridicules today, may become scientific "fact" tomorrow. The September-October 2002 issue of "American Scientist" shows that a scientific basis exists in the star gazing used by the farmers in the high Andes in Peru and Bolivia to predict the coming rains which in turn determines the best crop planting schedule. Star gazing has been completely disregarded by the scientific community...until now.

    In a comment* about glaciers and why one vanishes and another seems unaffected by today�s warmer weather, Dr. Dan Fagre, a U.S. Geological Survey lead scientist says, "It makes you question what you know, which is the real point of science." The lesson is that reality should make you question what you �know� -- not the other way around. (*See:"Glacier Science Races Time, Heat," The Tampa Tribune, Nov. 30, 2002, NATION/WORLD, p.19.)

    For the objectivist:
    1. Lack of double blind test "proof" is not inherently or automatically the negation of something�s existence.

    Additionally, double blind tests are useful only in a limited sense. Answers found under one set of conditions (strange room, strange music, strange equipment) do NOT imply that the answers found under a different set of conditions (your room, your music, and your equipment) will be the same.

    2. If you want your arguments to carry some scientific weight, you shouldn�t include the �placebo effect� in your reasoning (for any situation outside of a clinical trial...which is, effectively, pretty much never).

    3. If you don't have the ability to hear wire differences, either through a lack of training or inherent skills, the fact that you don't hear a difference has an equally valid scientific basis OTHER than �there isn't a difference.�
    For the Subjectivist:
    1. Your ability to hear differences in the real world is on solid ground, and it�s the �placebo effect� that isn�t.

    2. The "need" for a double-blind-test "proof" has gone poof. Unless the test conditions are the same as your listening conditions, the onus of proving the validity of any such test is actually on their shoulders.

    3. On occasion you may have to listen to pseudo-scientific reasons why you CAN�T hear what you can. However, after you point out a few errors in their reasoning, you shouldn�t have to hear it from the same person twice, unless they�re truly dense.
    For all:

    You can be brainwashed by marketing claims and reviewer endorsements IF:
    A. You listen with your eyes.

    B. You are a semi/un-trained listener, and are too busy, or don�t care enough* to take the time to improve your skills. (See "Ask the Audio Shrink," Fi magazine, December 1996."

    C. You are unsure of your budding listening skills and can be persuaded that a "different" sound equals "better" sound.
    Situations �A� & �B� can be difficult to correct. You will, more than likely, be relatively easy prey to a salesman�s need to preach disenchantment of something you already own so that you will buy something new and "better." You will need trustworthy help to make correct buying decisions...this can, unfortunately, be hard to find. It will often take as much time to find such help as it takes to learn how to listen well enough to wisely make your own decisions.

    Situation �C� can be corrected by going to see and hear live acoustic music and as many other audio systems as you can. Go to a music store and find a guitar teacher who has many different guitars, and pay him or her $20 for a half hour lesson on the sonic differences between the different guitars. You can also go to a University or Community College music department and find an under graduate instructor who would be happy to play a number of different orchestral instruments for a modest fee. This way you could hear each instrument one at a time and really get an idea of what each one sounds like. This same music department will have many cheap ($0 to $5 per person) concerts of acoustic music. Many will have a wide range of concerts, classical, jazz, and vocal, every semester.

    Read reviews and go hear the reviewed equipment. Compare what you hear against what the reviewer says. Over time, if you are passionate and diligent, you�ll begin to be able to predict what components will work well with others. If you harness your passion, one day you might progress so far as to be able to read between the lines of marketing tools like ads, brochures, and most reviews. (Marketing is the ultimate predator in the realm of the penultimate predator.) You�ll then be able to build a truly musical and satisfying audio system without the need to consult anyone else � AND, do it for much less than many would have you believe it takes.

    Rev. 4.2 Copyright 2002, 2003 Mike Vans Evers
    CEC TL3N, WW Platinum starlight AES/EBU og Silver Electra, Verastarr Grand Illusion Statement HC strømkabler og Signature 2 XLR,Trinnov Amethyst, Denafrips Terminator, Audio Insight M1(2,5kva trafo), Audio Insight Ribbon Reference 2.2, Verastarr Signature 2 EVO HT-kabel

  3. #3
    Hifi Freak Viking's Avatar
    Ble medlem
    Feb 2002
    Innlegg
    2,690
    Tagget i
    0 Innlegg

    Re: Om blindtester!

    Dette er noe alle bør lese når blindtester er eneste saliggjørende innen testing av utstyr. Morsomt å tenke på alle LTSerne som snakker om blindtester, blindtester og blindtester.....................
    CEC TL3N, WW Platinum starlight AES/EBU og Silver Electra, Verastarr Grand Illusion Statement HC strømkabler og Signature 2 XLR,Trinnov Amethyst, Denafrips Terminator, Audio Insight M1(2,5kva trafo), Audio Insight Ribbon Reference 2.2, Verastarr Signature 2 EVO HT-kabel

  4. #4
    knutinh
    Guest

    Re: Om blindtester!

    Veldig interessant, spesielt det om placebo. Jeg hang med helt til halvveis når han begynte å bable om hvor fantastisk utrolig avansert hørselen er (som kritikere av blindtester alltid gjør).

    Resultatet av blindtester brukes helt klart for mer enn det er verdt.

    Såvidt jeg kan se, presenteres vi ikke for noe spesielt nytt når det gjelder DBT og hifi. At blindtester bare kan brukes for å bevise en hørbar forskjell, ikke for å bevise fraværet av en slik forskjell er gammelt nytt. At man er følsom for setting, og ikke kan generalisere uten videre likeså. Og var det noen gang noen tvil om at enkelte hører bedre enn andre?

    "For the Subjectivist:
    1. Your ability to hear differences in the real world is on solid ground, and it�s the �placebo effect� that isn�t."
    Har han noe som helst dekning for å hevde dette?

    Det jeg savner er framleis en god, saklig, babbel-fri redegjøring for hvorfor hørselen kan skille "lett" mellom to kabler bare når synet er innkoblet, ikke med bind for øya. All verdens synsing om gullører, musikere, komplekse lyder etc kan ikke fjerne min tvil rundt dette. Hvis jeg samler et panel av antatt musikk-interesserte/lyd-interesserte, screener de for å fjerne de som ikke hører forskjell, og så kjører gjentatte tester på de antatt "beste" kandidatene. Så forventer jeg fremdeles at de ikke kan skille mellom kabler. Men gi dem derimot info om hva de hører...

    Hva er en LTS?

    mvh
    Knut

    BTW, ingenting er som god, saklig debatt rundt dette. Enhver teori eller innspill som ikke tåler saklig kritikk er sannsynligvis ikke verdt papiret/tastaturet den er skrevet på =)

  5. #5
    Overivrig entusiast quad_lars's Avatar
    Ble medlem
    Feb 2002
    Innlegg
    976
    Tagget i
    0 Innlegg

    Re: Om blindtester!

    Hvorfor kopierer du hele teksten? Eller har du skrevet den av? Hvis du har funnet den på nettet, kan du lenke til den så sparer vi litt plass.
    Bono: Did you play that on CD or Vinyl?
    Don van Vliet: Vinyl.
    Bono: There's something about the physical thing of the needle in the groove, it's like sex, and it's like contact sport.

    Shelby Lynne: You can't roll a joint on an iPod - buy vinyl!

    Marit Larsen: Vinyl er best, ingen protest.

    Linn : Lyra : DP : Stax

  6. #6
    Hifi Freak tweakMan's Avatar
    Ble medlem
    Feb 2002
    Innlegg
    6,202
    Tagget i
    0 Innlegg

    Re: Om blindtester!

    Blindtester... og blinde testere...

    Jeg sier det igjen... noen lider av kontrastdøvhet...
    Noen av testerne og...
    ..

  7. #7
    Hifi Freak
    Ble medlem
    Jan 2005
    Innlegg
    3,053
    Tagget i
    0 Innlegg

    Re: Om blindtester!

    Dette er noe alle bør lese når blindtester er eneste saliggjørende innen testing av utstyr. Morsomt å tenke på alle LTSerne som snakker om blindtester, blindtester og blindtester.....................
    Apropos noe annet du skrev i en tråd som ble litt forvirrende, iallefall for meg. "Read it and weep" etc med klar referanse til blant annet nad 208 mm. Et annet sted trakk du frem blant annet Studio blue som et eksempel til etterfølgelse når det gjaldt å få fram forskjeller på lyd, meget forvirrende, spør du meg

    Kan sikkert klare å grave dette fram selv, men du husker sikkert...

    Sikkert gode grunner, kan du dele de med oss?
    Jeg skal ALDRI ALDRI ALDRI fly med Ryan-air!!! Jeg skal ALLTID ALLTID ALLTID kjøpe TINE-produkter!

  8. #8
    Lydtekniker
    Guest

    Re: Om blindtester!

    "For å oppnå virkelig innsikt, må man bryte gjennom kunnskapens hinder"

    Et gullkorn som vil stå som en majestetisk bauta gjennom tidene.

  9. #9
    Hifi Freak LydMekk's Avatar
    Ble medlem
    Aug 2003
    Innlegg
    2,307
    Tagget i
    0 Innlegg

    Re: Om blindtester!

    Ow, Viking, kill point! Var jo som å henge opp et fluepapir dette innlegget!

    Ellers enig med mye av det Evers sier.
    Shit Happenz...

  10. #10
    Bransjeaktør Snickers-is's Avatar
    Ble medlem
    Feb 2004
    Innlegg
    11,098
    Tagget i
    10 Innlegg

    Re: Om blindtester!

    Her er et annet eksempel på hvordan kunnskapen oppfattes som et hinder for enkelte:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...h+ness+capture
    Jeg driver Midgard Audio

    If you do not se the problem, you will not look for a solution.

  11. #11
    Hifi Freak
    Ble medlem
    Jan 2005
    Innlegg
    3,053
    Tagget i
    0 Innlegg

    Re: Om blindtester!

    If I can`t hear it, it doesn`t exist...maybe.
    by: Mike Vans Evers

    Hvis jeg ikke kan høre det, så kan det godt være der for det, men det er bare det at min evne til å høre det akkurat der og da ikke er til stede. Man kan bevise eksistensen av noe, men fraveret av noe derimot....
    Jeg skal ALDRI ALDRI ALDRI fly med Ryan-air!!! Jeg skal ALLTID ALLTID ALLTID kjøpe TINE-produkter!

  12. #12
    Hifi Freak Sleiven's Avatar
    Ble medlem
    Dec 2003
    Innlegg
    2,291
    Tagget i
    0 Innlegg

    Re: Om blindtester!

    Nå orker jeg ikke lese mer halvsaklige anti -blindtest bortforklaringer fra subjektivister.

    Hvorfor skal alle forvirre meg med fakta, når troen min er så hyggelig og grei å ha med å gjøre

    "If you can dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit".

    Det er et paradoks at jo mer kunnskap og utdannelse som er tilgjengelig, desto mer overtroiske blir befolkingen.

    Poenget mitt er at selv om det finnes hørbare forskjeller man ikke kan måle så må man ikke forkaste alle målinger....selv ikke DBT.

    Vel vel, ørene mine forteller meg jeg tror jeg hører forskjell på kabel A og B-men kan ikke måle det. Jeg vet at ubalansen mellom to stk rør hos meg er 0,15dB (målt)-men kan ikke høre det.

    Se under hva Einstein sa
    mvh
    Sleiven

    &quot;Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted&quot; <br />-ALBERT EINSTEIN

  13. #13
    Hifi Freak
    Ble medlem
    Apr 2005
    Innlegg
    4,359
    Tagget i
    0 Innlegg

    Re: Om blindtester!

    Artikkelen har en (psudo)vitenskaplig sjarging og noen referanser men er slett ikke noe annet enn et manifest, og det er endel ting å sette fingeren på:

    1. Først sier han at en blindtest ikke kan bevise at noe ikke er der (som er riktig), og på grunnlag av dette mener han at blindtester bør forkastes. Dette er i virkeligheten et prinsipp som gjelder alle vitenskaplige forsøk, og er så elementært at man lærer det på ex.phil.

    2. Men så trekker han frem en undersøkelse som sier at placeboeffekten ikke er påvist, med den feilaktige overskriften "the placebo effect is fake", og han behandler dette som en sannhet. Og det er jo nettopp den typen slutning som han avviser i 1.

    Denne selektive omgangen med logikkens prinsipper får meg til å tvile på resten av artikkelen.

    Og når han prøver å vinne tyngde ved å sitere "the absolute sound", som har en sterk vridning mot subjektivistisme, "A new science" som er en omdiskutert bok, og en artikkel om "Star gazing" som vel kan vise seg å ikke være riktig, så bekrefter det mine tvil om ærligheten i argumentasjonen.

    Mye annet som kunne kritiseres, men har ikke tid!

  14. #14
    Hifi Freak tweakMan's Avatar
    Ble medlem
    Feb 2002
    Innlegg
    6,202
    Tagget i
    0 Innlegg

    Re: Om blindtester!

    Rick Becker : "Eventually, I resorted to prayer, and that worked..."

    A wise word...
    ..

  15. #15
    Bransjeaktør Snickers-is's Avatar
    Ble medlem
    Feb 2004
    Innlegg
    11,098
    Tagget i
    10 Innlegg

    Re: Om blindtester!

    Sjekk linken i mitt innlegg. Man kan trekke likheter både til blindtesting og kompsirasjonsteorier fra den. Ganske underholdende egentlig.
    Jeg driver Midgard Audio

    If you do not se the problem, you will not look for a solution.

  16. #16
    Hifi Freak Vidar Øierås's Avatar
    Ble medlem
    Jan 2003
    Innlegg
    3,200
    Tagget i
    0 Innlegg
    Album
    1

    Re: Om blindtester!

    Kan vi ikke bare finne opp en dings som ser den hele og fulle sannhet? Eller vil den da i tilfelle bare bli bortforklart eller neglisjert av troende?

    Det for bli neste prosjekt - en passiv komparator som sammenligner komponent A og B i sanntid inn på inngang 1 og 2, hvor uttaket bekrefter likheten/forskjellen. Eller, vi putter en dinosaur inn på den ene inngangen og bibelen inn på den andre inngangen... Tør vi gjette hva som kommer ut av dèt
    Lyset går raskere enn lyden. Det er derfor de fleste mennesker virker opplyste inntil du hører de snakke....

  17. #17
    knutinh
    Guest

    Re: Om blindtester!

    Dette er et uløselig problem. Så lenge subjektivistene overhodet ikke er opptatt av å underbygge sin tro, ob realistene bare godtar underbyggede påstander blir det som om Knut Jørgen Ødegård og paven skulle diskutere det ytre rom...

    -k

  18. #18
    Hifi Freak Viking's Avatar
    Ble medlem
    Feb 2002
    Innlegg
    2,690
    Tagget i
    0 Innlegg

    Re: Om blindtester!

    "For å oppnå virkelig innsikt, må man bryte gjennom kunnskapens hinder"

    Et gullkorn som vil stå som en majestetisk bauta gjennom tidene.
    Hva gjør man ikke for å glede barna?
    CEC TL3N, WW Platinum starlight AES/EBU og Silver Electra, Verastarr Grand Illusion Statement HC strømkabler og Signature 2 XLR,Trinnov Amethyst, Denafrips Terminator, Audio Insight M1(2,5kva trafo), Audio Insight Ribbon Reference 2.2, Verastarr Signature 2 EVO HT-kabel

  19. #19
    Hifi Freak coolbiz's Avatar
    Ble medlem
    Mar 2006
    Sted
    Sydvestlandet
    Innlegg
    7,554
    Tagget i
    0 Innlegg

    Re: Om blindtester!

    Sjekk linken i mitt innlegg. Man kan trekke likheter både til blindtesting og kompsirasjonsteorier fra den. Ganske underholdende egentlig.
    Interessant og tankevekkende video, men vær advart: den er over to timer lang (iflg. google). Jeg orket ikke mer etter 15 min.

    Godt eksempel på at på at mange selv presumptivt intelligente mennesker har et bevisstløst forhold til sin egen opinionsdanning, og på dem nytter det knapt med rasjonelle argumenter. "Jeg kjenner sannheten, så ikke kom her og forvirr meg med fakta." Minner meg om "The Lancome Lady" på MAD-TV. Hun som, når hun hører noe hun ikke liker, stapper fingrene i ørene og nynner "la-la-lala-la".

    OT: Snickers; jeg kunne ikke unngå å legge merke til at du fant videoen mens du egentlig lette etter "loch ness capture". Noe nytt på den fronten?
    "What is important to the eye, is not necessarily important to the ear." -Siegfried Linkwitz (1935-2018 )

  20. #20
    Overivrig entusiast
    Ble medlem
    Dec 2004
    Innlegg
    806
    Tagget i
    0 Innlegg

    Re: Om blindtester!

    [...]
    Denne selektive omgangen med logikkens prinsipper får meg til å tvile på resten av artikkelen.
    100% enig!

    Og kan ikke resultatene av disse medisinske forsøkene hvor pasientene reagerte forskjellig på medisinen når de visste hva de fikk i motsetning til DBT-testene tolkes som bevis for nettopp placebo-effekten og at f.eks. navnet, ryktet og inntrykket pasientene hadde av medisinen før de begynte å ta den har en innvirkning på effekten?

Side 1 av 2 12 SisteSiste

Skrive Tillatelser

  • Du kan ikke starte nye tråder
  • Du kan ikke svare på innlegg
  • Du kan ikke laste opp vedlegg
  • Du kan ikke redigere dine innlegg
  •  


 

Om Hifisentralen

    Hifisentralen er Norges største webside innen high-end hi-fi og musikk, og vi har vært på nett siden år 2001. Velkommen til en god hi-fi diskusjon eller kjøp og salg av utstyr.
   

Følg oss på sosiale medier:

Facebook Twitter RSS Feed