If you're driving down the street you might not consciously notice a red car with the windows rolled down parked on the left (along with a lot of other stuff), but that doesn't mean you couldn't see it if you were looking for it.
Or are we discussing a theoretical possibility that such things could possibly exist and thus should be tested for?
The point of double-blind testing is to make sure that you're getting goosebumps over something you actually hear, and not something you expect to hear. The whole point is to try to evaluate what you're hearing without knowing whether it's the original or the lossy encode. That shouldn't remove the "emotional" part of it, just make sure that you're reacting based upon something that is really there, and not what you want to hear or what you expect to hear.
I'd like to see Drewfx answer the following question, which I think needs to be answered before his.How do you reliably know that you unconsciously perceive something that you are not conscious of during the test, and possibly never conscious of?
We also have EEG/fMRI and other scans that could show a difference.
So these people aren't necessarily hopeless fools, they are just reporting what they are genuinely perceiving.
I also wouldn't wonder, when a music lover listening to his/her hand-selected high-end system, is able to reach higher levels of musical enjoyment and satisfaction than an objectivist with an ABX-proven conviction, that said system is not distinguishable from his onboard-codec, feeding his China made, plastic T-AMP.
but we have satellites and telescopes that would have shown some proof of flying spaghetti monsters by now.
None of them got there by double-blind testing, but by spending a fortune on ordering stuff (that they had read about in very subjective reviews) and actually extensively testing it in their houses.
None of my friends, who are believing - as I mostly do - that AAC should be enough for everybody, own a system of comparable playback quality. Probably because they just do not share this fetish or mental condition to feel the constant urge to project something into their audio equipment.
I'm somewhat getting tired of those "lets make fun of another fool who doesn't believe in double blind testing"-threads (not this one).
Just my 2 cents. I'm somewhat getting tired of those "lets make fun of another fool who doesn't believe in double blind testing"-threads (not this one).
Hopefully my testimonial illustrates the uselessness of this type of subjective argumentation.
I was getting chills listening to some new music in mp3 format on my crappy PC speakers. I would gladly put my level of enjoyment during that session up against anyone with a high-end system.
Quote from: icstm on 27 March, 2012, 05:41:39 AMWe also have EEG/fMRI and other scans that could show a difference.Given the noise, possible claustrophobia, and reported direct stimulation of nerves by MRI machines, I don't see how it would be a good tool for measuring subliminal sound effects below the threshold that ABX could.
To then fall back on "subconscious perception" is to look in an entirely different place. The strong conscious belief was either due to conscious perception, or placebo. Where sighted test = difference heard, and otherwise identical but double-blind test = no difference heard, we know what was heard in the first test. We don't need to look any further.
Quote from: icstm on 27 March, 2012, 05:41:39 AMbut we have satellites and telescopes that would have shown some proof of flying spaghetti monsters by now.I hope I am not the only one who sees the irony in this.
[We have not tested 5b and if 5b can impact 7 (or indeed (6)) then this is an omission that should be observed, even if we believe it to be insignificant.I am not saying that I think it is significant and that only greynol at al. think otherwise, I am truly saying that I do not think it will radically change our view of these other music formats, however it will surely improve our understanding all 7 stages of the end to end process.
What you are missing is what can,and what can not, be detected at all on the auditory periphery.
I mean where have we done the equivilent of sticking a probe just past the transducer.
Quote from: icstm on 29 March, 2012, 05:15:51 AMI mean where have we done the equivilent of sticking a probe just past the transducer.I can't wait to hear the answer to this one.