3 ms·

> The idea itself is preposterous and insulting. I'm not asking you to make decisions according to my criteria. I can even sympathize with the multisensory ap

> The idea itself is preposterous and insulting. I'm not asking you to make decisions according to my criteria. I can even sympathize with the multisensory approach: I like the tactile experience that CDs offer, for example, and only reluctantly switched to downloaded music in 2013 because I simply couldn't find physical copies of the music I wanted. However, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of "double-blind". It does not mean "blind" in the literal sense. It only means that neither the experimenter nor the subject are consciously aware of which piece of equipment is under test. The reason I like making some choices based on double-blind tests is because I know I have a ton of cognitive distortions. I want to believe that the more expensive amplifier is better, I want to believe that the open-source codec is more transparent, and I want to believe that my gear is better than my friend's gear. Sometimes (not always) I actually want to know the answers to these questions. So, science! I'm all for embracing subjectivity, but if you are selling me a $1,000 or $10,000 audio system, I want some more objective justification that it is worth the cost. Or, put another way, you may want all of your vinyl blessed by the pope, but I'm not going to pay extra for it. > Worse, if a double-blind test tells me option A was 'better' than option 'B', and I change my preference after that, was it even my choice? This is pretty esoteric stuff. I can say that my goals are closer to "I want a decent sound system without paying through the nose", not "I want some kind of existential assurance that I used my free will to make this particular decision." I change my preferences all the time, based on all sorts of internal and external data. Or, put another way, the person that exists five minutes from now may have my name, but he's not me, and I trust him to make his own decisions.

r0h1n 13y ago
> However, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of "double-blind". It does not mean "blind" in the literal sense. It only means that neither the experimenter nor the subject are consciously aware of which piece of equipment is under test. I'm sorry if I wasn't being clear enough. Allow me to restate in somewhat better terms (I hope). I maintain that our choices are uniquely and indivisibly (a) personal, (b) subjective, and (c) the product of all our senses. Take one away, and what's left isn't really a 'choice' any longer. I agree that a double-blind test isn't about literal blinding, but it does blind one or more of your senses. Let me illustrate using two hypothetical examples: - if I do a double-blind test b/w the iPhone 5, 5s and 5c, masking everything else but their screens, are we all so confident that we'd pick the very same model that we picked up in a store or a website? All I've done is to 'blind' you to the exterior appearance of the phone, which means (per the double-blind enthusiasts), you're then judging the phones based on only features like speed, animation smoothness, screen quality etc. etc. Worse, if you end up picking a different model than what you'd done IRL, did that mean Apple tricked you? - say there are two different flavours of ice-cream, both of which look the same and come from the same company. But one of them is 25% more expensive, and contains an additional ingredient that makes it smell 'better' than the other to you. Now what if I design a blind test that blocks your smell and I ask you choose the better ice-cream. Would you still pick the same? I don't know. Because your choice of ice-cream was made using all your senses. Now it's entirely possible that the company is making more profits from the more expensive flavour merely by adding some relatively inexpensive flavour. Should you then change back to the other flavour because that's what your 'objective' test tells you? If you did, are you sure you'd enjoy the ice-cream just as much as you did earlier? I'm not defending snake-oil peddling audiophile equipment makers, just saying that the value of what they (or anyone else, like, heck Bose!) sell is personal and subjective. Like most HN skeptics, I stay clear of them, but I also remain open-minded to the idea that there may be folks who find value in them and that I will never be able to truly understand why. > Or, put another way, you may want all of your vinyl blessed by the pope, but I'm not going to pay extra for it. Totally agree. Sure, do any number of tests and research before making your own choices. But don't expect that others will feel bound to those tests the same way. Which is what the original discussion was about, namely that "advocates of DSD are skeptical of double-blind experiments". They have a right to. And we cannot "prove" them wrong.
- klodolph 13y ago
  > it does blind one or more of your senses Wow, you really don't know what a double-blind study is. It is NOT about the senses. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment) > The terms blind (adjective) or to blind (transitive verb) when used in this sense are figurative extensions of the literal idea of blindfolding someone. Note the word "figurative". Senses are not actually being blinded.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  You're entirely missing the point. The only difference between DSD and CD is the waveform. There are no other factors in the decision of sound quality. Someone claiming that DSD is better does so not because of artist choice, or headphone fit, or lacquered-wood smell. They are claiming that the waveform is more pleasing in some manner. So to test this you must isolate the waveform in an otherwise-ideal environment. Nobody objects to a person preferring a specific device because of other senses. But it's provable whether DSD itself is playing a role in the experience.

r0h1n 13y ago

> However, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of "double-blind". It does not mean "blind" in the literal sense. It only means that neither the experimenter nor the subject are consciously aware of which piece of equipment is under test. I'm sorry if I wasn't being clear enough. Allow me to restate in somewhat better terms (I hope). I maintain that our choices are uniquely and indivisibly (a) personal, (b) subjective, and (c) the product of all our senses. Take one away, and what's left isn't really a 'choice' any longer. I agree that a double-blind test isn't about literal blinding, but it does blind one or more of your senses. Let me illustrate using two hypothetical examples: - if I do a double-blind test b/w the iPhone 5, 5s and 5c, masking everything else but their screens, are we all so confident that we'd pick the very same model that we picked up in a store or a website? All I've done is to 'blind' you to the exterior appearance of the phone, which means (per the double-blind enthusiasts), you're then judging the phones based on only features like speed, animation smoothness, screen quality etc. etc. Worse, if you end up picking a different model than what you'd done IRL, did that mean Apple tricked you? - say there are two different flavours of ice-cream, both of which look the same and come from the same company. But one of them is 25% more expensive, and contains an additional ingredient that makes it smell 'better' than the other to you. Now what if I design a blind test that blocks your smell and I ask you choose the better ice-cream. Would you still pick the same? I don't know. Because your choice of ice-cream was made using all your senses. Now it's entirely possible that the company is making more profits from the more expensive flavour merely by adding some relatively inexpensive flavour. Should you then change back to the other flavour because that's what your 'objective' test tells you? If you did, are you sure you'd enjoy the ice-cream just as much as you did earlier? I'm not defending snake-oil peddling audiophile equipment makers, just saying that the value of what they (or anyone else, like, heck Bose!) sell is personal and subjective. Like most HN skeptics, I stay clear of them, but I also remain open-minded to the idea that there may be folks who find value in them and that I will never be able to truly understand why. > Or, put another way, you may want all of your vinyl blessed by the pope, but I'm not going to pay extra for it. Totally agree. Sure, do any number of tests and research before making your own choices. But don't expect that others will feel bound to those tests the same way. Which is what the original discussion was about, namely that "advocates of DSD are skeptical of double-blind experiments". They have a right to. And we cannot "prove" them wrong.

klodolph 13y ago
> it does blind one or more of your senses Wow, you really don't know what a double-blind study is. It is NOT about the senses. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment) > The terms blind (adjective) or to blind (transitive verb) when used in this sense are figurative extensions of the literal idea of blindfolding someone. Note the word "figurative". Senses are not actually being blinded.
Dylan16807 13y ago
You're entirely missing the point. The only difference between DSD and CD is the waveform. There are no other factors in the decision of sound quality. Someone claiming that DSD is better does so not because of artist choice, or headphone fit, or lacquered-wood smell. They are claiming that the waveform is more pleasing in some manner. So to test this you must isolate the waveform in an otherwise-ideal environment. Nobody objects to a person preferring a specific device because of other senses. But it's provable whether DSD itself is playing a role in the experience.