Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Testing audiophile claims and myths - Page 104

post #1546 of 2956

I missed the exchange, and I'm not going to seek it out. I haven't picked up on much pointed animosity here though. 

 

Goodvibes - we're both in town, would be good to grab a beer and talk audio some time. :)

post #1547 of 2956

normal_smile%20.gif

post #1548 of 2956
Wow!

There was a guy around here a couple of weeks ago that said he could clearly hear the difference between 24 bit and 16 bit bouncedowns out of ProTools. It turned out he was probably defaulting to a dither that did't work right for his purposes. I was just asking if that was you. No insult intended. I don't understand your response.
post #1549 of 2956

Why don't we just perform one of those "null tests" with cables? That should measure all the sounds, including those that are inaudible.

post #1550 of 2956
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Wow!
There was a guy around here a couple of weeks ago that said he could clearly hear the difference between 24 bit and 16 bit bouncedowns out of ProTools. It turned out he was probably defaulting to a dither that did't work right for his purposes. I was just asking if that was you. No insult intended. I don't understand your response.

Amazing coincidence and I'm not doubting you and will take that at face value. I think that the only other exchange we've had included dither so I was mistaken and caught out. No that wasn't me. I do apologize.

post #1551 of 2956
Quote:
Originally Posted by DayoftheGreek View Post

For some audiophiles, it actually has nothing to do with the "love of sound" and "trusting your ears." It has more to do with having the most expensive system, knowing the least about it, and making outrageous claims about how they have been in the hobby for a long time and they know what sounds best.


I guess everyone needs to feel important and have a midlife crisis (never ending for some) in their own way.
+1
I must admit that I've been learning as I go in this crazy audiophile world and sometimes I feel like I don't have enough experience to truly argue any one point or another. However, about how much time does one have to "be in the hobby" before they can have an opinion? I know what I like and I know what I don't like, which changes occasionally, so why wouldn't me or anyone else be able to express their opinion?
I
post #1552 of 2956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rawdawg3234 View Post

+1
I must admit that I've been learning as I go in this crazy audiophile world and sometimes I feel like I don't have enough experience to truly argue any one point or another. However, about how much time does one have to "be in the hobby" before they can have an opinion? I know what I like and I know what I don't like, which changes occasionally, so why wouldn't me or anyone else be able to express their opinion?
I
It is not so much about experience here in the Sound Science forum. Some of us like to think that backing up our impressions with evidence more scientific than opinions is the ticket here. The High End forum is wide open and opinions and listening impressions are the coin of the realm there. Folks there seek out the impressions of others to help them make decisions.

The link Bigshot posted to Wikipedia's article on Argument From Ignorance will go a long way towards explaining what is going on here, and how the other forums are so different in that respect because they ignore the concepts in the article. Here some of us like to see proof that what was heard was real, and audible, because we want to base our decisions on more than individual hearing and preferences.

We are not stuck up about it. Once we have a neutral system we don't mind tailoring it to sound more pleasing to us (or liking it just the way it is), but we recognize that not starting with accurate reproduction makes it nearly impossible to get to where we want to be. None of this matters if you are talking about having lots of gear as a hobby, but it matters completely as far as listening to music exactly the way you want it to sound.

Personally, I agree with Bigshot that most listeners have never heard a balanced, neutral music reproduction system. I also consider seeking synergy by combining distorting gear with dis-similarly distorting gear a great way to accumulate lots of equipment but the approach least likely of all to end up with great sound.

In a nutshell, a single individual's hearing is so variable depending on mood, environment, expectations, context, over time, everything really, that it is a moving target and not a benchmark. A quest, having great sound reproduction for instance, without a benchmark is random wandering.
Edited by Clarkmc2 - 10/21/12 at 8:05pm
post #1553 of 2956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rawdawg3234 View Post

I must admit that I've been learning as I go in this crazy audiophile world and sometimes I feel like I don't have enough experience to truly argue any one point or another. However, about how much time does one have to "be in the hobby" before they can have an opinion? I know what I like and I know what I don't like, which changes occasionally, so why wouldn't me or anyone else be able to express their opinion?
I

The whole pont of opinions is to run them up the flagpole and see how they fly. If you're wrong about something, that's an opportunity to learn and modify your opinion to fit your new knowledge. That's a lifelong process.
post #1554 of 2956

In a nutshell, a single individual's hearing is so variable depending on mood, environment, expectations, context, over time, everything really, that it is a moving target and not a benchmark. A quest, having great sound reproduction for instance, without a benchmark is random wandering.
Edited by Clarkmc2 - Yesterday at 11:46 am

 

+1

post #1555 of 2956

Any truth to this? I think this guy here mentioned a lot of scientific theory, wonder if it's true:

http://en.goldenears.net/1301

 

Thank God we got the Internet, I have a great time verifying each other's arguments.

post #1556 of 2956
Quote:
Originally Posted by autumnholy View Post

Any truth to this? I think this guy here mentioned a lot of scientific theory, wonder if it's true:

http://en.goldenears.net/1301

 

Thank God we got the Internet, I have a great time verifying each other's arguments.

Not really. While I'm on the cables are different side of this opinion, I'm fully aware that his explanation doesn't hold water. The amount of capacitance, inductance etc needed in modern low impedance circuits to measure anything significant in the audio band is generally not there. Impedance issues and reflections may be but artifacts are generally minor enough in amplitude to be discarded by what we're told is perceivable.

.

He's not doing himself any favors with his technical explanation. It's a rationalization for why he hears a repeatable difference. He's a techie confronted with something he didn't expect and needs that understanding. It's that need for understanding even if it may still be beyond us that drives this never ending discussion. Even if his overall points about electrical characteristics are correct, they are not applicable to his model.

 

And that cable in the pic is a load of crap. The problem is that even if you are on the side that differences exist, manufacturers, more often than not, are using black magic and pseudoscience as marketing for nonsense as many here do. Their technobabble marketing would lead me believe that it's all nonsense but we can't let that bias observation either. There are still some that do their bit deductively and come up with better things, imo, but it's a slippery slope for consumers. Even if different, and this is true for all kit, better may not be universal or be just a band aid. Have all your other ducks in a row before even considering peripherals. Nothing I hate more than costly cables on a cheap kit etc.


Edited by goodvibes - 10/21/12 at 6:54am
post #1557 of 2956
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

Not really. While I'm on the cables are different side of this opinion, I'm fully aware that his explanation doesn't hold water. The amount of capacitance, inductance etc needed in modern low impedance circuits to measure anything significant in the audio band is generally not there. Impedance issues and reflections may be but artifacts are generally minor enough in amplitude to be discarded by what we're told is perceivable.

And on the page:

Quote:
From the perspective of every single manufacturer - excluding the cable makers - cables have no effect whatsoever on the sound. This is a valid observation since the absolute majority of cables have such small capacitance and inductance that the sound is unaffected;

The cable seemed to be an exception, or his mind just played tricks on him (see below).

 

Quote:
He's not doing himself any favors with his technical explanation. It's a rationalization for why he hears a repeatable difference. He's a techie confronted with something he didn't expect and needs that understanding. It's that need for understanding even if it may still be beyond us that drives this never ending discussion. Even if his overall points about electrical characteristics are correct, they are not applicable to his model.

First of all, we know nothing about the setup of those speakers, cables, amps. Secondly, it seems that this was a sighted test and there's no word mentioning repeatability.

 

You're also suggesting that what he hears is "beyond us", but if those differences go away in a blind test, which they usually do, that's clearly not the case. It would be the case if you couldn't measure any differences but hear a difference in a sighted and blind listening test, which afaik hasn't happened before.

post #1558 of 2956

I know many manufacturers that are 'cable careful' but it's counterproductive for them to participate in a debate that may bias consumers towards their product. You are happy to quote unprovable claims as long as they agree with your view yet easily dismiss those that don't.

 

usually is assumptive yet you wouldn't assume repeated testing in something that the techie reviewer didn't expect to be there? OK. I wish I knew everthing and nothing wasn't beyond me.


Edited by goodvibes - 10/23/12 at 6:51am
post #1559 of 2956
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

I know many manufacturers that are 'cable careful' but it's counterproductive for them to participate in a debate that may bias consumers towards their product.

How is it counterproductive if people don't waste their money on expensive cables from some other manufacturer but on the company's products instead?

 

Quote:
You are happy to quote unprovable claims as long as they agree with your view yet easily dismiss those that don't.

Claims are just claims. Even if thousands of people claim they can hear a difference or were abducted by aliens doesn't make it any more true, so it doesn't matter if a claim agrees (or doesn't) with any of my views or beliefs.

 

And I don't uncritically accept unprovable claims/assertions, usually I discard them. What unprovable claim did I agree with in my previous post? All I pointed out is that it's just another anecdote...

 

 

If you want to add something useful to the "cables sound different" myth then please quote/post repeatable tests that show an audible difference between cables. And also post something to support your claim that cable sound is beyond us, or was that an unprovable claim?

 

Btw, if there is no evidence to support a claim what's the most reasonable thing to do? Search harder? What if there's still no evidence showing up? Simply agree with all the crazy claims ... being gullible? Or just the non-crazy ones, but how do you distinguish between the two?

Or simply just don't accept it until evidence shows up ... being open-minded.

 

Quote:
usually is assumptive yet you wouldn't assume repeated testing in something that the techie reviewer didn't expect to be there? OK. I wish I knew everthing and nothing wasn't beyond me.

I don't understand what you wrote above.

 

I would expect reviewers to do comparative tests properly, i.e. if it's about sound quality a (double) blind test, regardless of the reviewers expectations. That's the whole point of doing such a test. Expectations and experiences can change what you hear to a large extent.

 

So back to the anecdote: a salesman telling you that "this shiny cable improves sound, you just have to give it a listen and you'll hear what I'm talking about" does influence what you'll hear. And then there's all the other variables mentioned above such as amps, speakers and their placement etc.

All this makes anecdotes one of the weakest forms of evidence.


Edited by xnor - 10/23/12 at 7:49am
post #1560 of 2956

Wow.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths