[Ghoostknight]

If you argue against those controls, it’s more than just not knowing. You don’t want to know. I think you know you’re wrong and just don’t want to admit it. You’re arguing too hard in the wrong direction to be genuine.

i mean, its the only tool science got so far that works to some degree, does it make it the perfect "absolute treshhold telling" method? i dont think so, you guys are free to believe so and also that all audiophiles are imagine things imo there are more logical conclusions that can be drawn here

 

[bigshot]

No one has said that any tool is perfect. It’s just a lot better than the alternative.

Blind test, or your impression doesn’t count.

 

[gregorio]

i mean, its the only tool science got so far that works to some degree,

You mean apart from digital and analogue audio?

does it make it the perfect "absolute treshhold telling" method? i dont think so, you guys are free to believe so and also that all audiophiles are imagine things

Firstly, that’s a strawman argument as you’ve already been told twice that DBT is not necessarily perfect. Secondly, of course we believe all audiophiles are imagining things; aren’t they listening to music, aren’t they perceiving the stereo effect?

imo there are more logical conclusions that can be drawn here

How is believing nonsense you just made up a “more logical conclusion” than the actual well established, proven and demonstrated facts? Don’t you know what “logical” means?

G

 

[Ghoostknight]

No one has said that any tool is perfect. It’s just a lot better than the alternative.

Blind test, or your impression doesn’t count.

well apparently not or we wouldnt have this discussion here

 

[Ryokan]

It's like a movie clip where a girl says to a guy he's got 1 chance in a million at a date and he replies - 'so there is a chance!'.

 

[bigshot]

We’re having this discussion because you keep grasping at straws in a vain attempt at validating your misconceptions. If you were a little less Dunning Kruger, there wouldn’t be a discussion at all.

 

[castleofargh]

i mean, its the only tool science got so far that works to some degree, does it make it the perfect "absolute treshhold telling" method? i dont think so, you guys are free to believe so and also that all audiophiles are imagine things imo there are more logical conclusions that can be drawn here

Instead of that false logic/excuse, let’s look at the facts:
Humans can get to feel sound differences when there is none. It happens, it has been and can be demonstrated.
Knowing that, it becomes self evident that when dealing with what we can hear, we need a way to confirm if we made it up or if we actually heard something. Those are the only 2 options that can lead to us feeling a change in sound.
Your solution to check if you perhaps fooled yourself, is a very popular one, you tell yourself you didn’t and conclude you're right.

Cool.

 

[Ghoostknight]

Humans can get to feel sound differences when there is none. It happens

Yea and this fact get nicely thrown around by all objectivists to invalidate everything that doesnt fit in their worldview... indeed nice one

 

[bigshot]

It gets thrown around when people make claims when they’ve made absolutely no effort to avoid bias and perceptual error.

 

[castleofargh]

Yea and this fact get nicely thrown around by all objectivists to invalidate everything that doesnt fit in their worldview... indeed nice one

It is one possibility. As such, it should remain among the probable answers so long as we have not run a test strongly suggesting otherwise. You and most people don't do that, instead you cherry-pick the answer that you wish to be true, out of an experience full of known flaws.
If someone doesn't consider the possibility of an audible difference and says you imagined it, that person is doing exactly what you do! You just happened to have cherry-picked a different answer.

Maybe it's not obvious, but I don't endorse everything everybody else is saying in the forum, I talk for myself and that's enough responsibility for me.

 

[bfreedma]

well apparently not or we wouldnt have this discussion here

Other than the reality that blind testing doesn’t support crackpot ideas, what reasons do you have to make this statement? Please be specific.

 

[Ryokan]