[Ghoostknight]

I’ve frequently been surprised by how even highly experienced audiophiles typically listen, which compared to my colleagues appears to be highly chaotic and undisciplined, they usually cannot focus their concentration so intently or precisely. Worse still, they often don’t even seem to know the difference between hearing something and experiencing something, EG. They do not differentiate between what they are hearing and what they are feeling (their emotional response to what they are hearing) when listening to the music.

This is a particular problem for several reasons: Firstly, emotional response is variable, both from person to person and even within the same person, because it is affected by numerous factors that may have absolutely nothing to do with the actual sound we’re hearing. For example, stress can obviously affect our emotional response, so too can our general mental state, our mood, if we’re hungry, tired, relaxed or various other factors. Secondly, it leads to false assertions, for instance, claims of hearing differences when in fact they’re not hearing differences, they’re just experiencing some slightly different emotional response that have nothing to do with what they’re hearing. And thirdly, emotional responses are even more easily influenced by biases than hearing, so that leaves audiophiles more vulnerable to marketing.

because this is one big part of the listening expierence, you (or atleast i) just got this as i was upgrading my Hifi

its one thing to get a random emotional response... but its quite interesting if the emotional response is fairly similar from day to day listening.... thats why people start to bring emotional response into the equation...

some setups just dont get you excited compared to others... its what its

 

[gregorio]

because this is one big part of the listening expierence, you (or atleast i) just got this as i was upgrading my Hifi

It is for the casual listener … you seem to be proving my point!

its one thing to get a random emotional response... but its quite interesting if the emotional response is fairly similar from day to day listening.... thats why people start to bring emotional response into the equation...

It IS quite interesting, which is why composers have been studying it for 700 years or so, it’s why music exists as a commercial product and why we have genres. Also, emotional response IS part of the equation but professional and non-casual listeners are expected to have at least a basic understanding and ability to separate out those parts of the equation, rather than just lumping them all together as the same thing! In a stunning demonstration of irony, audiophiles without that basic understanding and ability will sometimes then claim that those who do possess that understanding and ability have a hearing deficiency and/or seriously inferior audio reproduction equipment!

G

 

[BS5711]

In a stunning demonstration of irony, audiophiles without that basic understanding and ability will sometimes then claim that those who do possess that understanding and ability have a hearing deficiency and/or seriously inferior audio reproduction equipment!

Do you have a look through the general threads here on HF or perhaps other social media groups related to audio with chat between enthusiasts who are essentially all untrained casual listeners ?

I think the use of “sometimes” as I highlighted in your comment above is a dramatic understatement.

In most “normal” audio forums, not Sound Science, this happens a lot if one questions why folks hear differences between equipment or settings etc. Very often rather than sometimes the response is along the lines that hearing abilities differ and your equipment is not sufficiently resolving to hear the differences that are apparently very obvious to them.

Seems to me there is a massive part of consumer audio built around folks not understanding the difference between sound generated at the transducers and the sound they perceive. I don’t believe HF and a lot of social media discussion group could exist in their current form without such lack of understanding across such a large part of the consumer base.

I don’t claim any kind of in depth knowledge on the matter but I know there is a significant difference between real and perceived sound and can therefore be a little more discerning in respect of what difference equipment will or more often won’t make. That is a mindset that simply doesn’t seem to exist in a huge part of the user base here and on other discussion groups, they “believe their ears” and for them that is all that matters, they seem to treat their hearing ability as a finely tuned testing device not a rather easily influenced human sense.

Edited to add: this is so prevalent that I have times when I doubt myself and wonder if these folks are actually onto something that I am completely missing.

 

[Ghoostknight]

but professional and non-casual listeners are expected to have at least a basic understanding and ability to separate out those parts of the equation

i think professionals (or those who can play music in some way) have a completely different view on things when they listen to something compared to casual listeners/non-musicians, and probably also have learned to "dissect" the music better

but i see also where audiophiles come from, music is a "whole package" you get, not just great highs, perfect vocals or whatever and somehow some equipment can raise the emotional factor (a lot), its not just about the source material

In a stunning demonstration of irony, audiophiles without that basic understanding and ability will sometimes then claim that those who do possess that understanding and ability have a hearing deficiency and/or seriously inferior audio reproduction equipment!

well people try to find a reason why they hear a difference and others dont, i also suspect that the setup does matter alot
from a hearing standpoint i think we are all more or less the same, but i think "training" and listening expierence matters alot

i have way less trouble categorizing changes now then i had few years ago as i started out, tho i immediatly heared subtle changes between dacs and cables for example AFTER i switched to Presonus eris e8 studio monitors

as soon i either pick headphones or go for any lower end setup (and the presonus are quite cheap) i also stop hearing differences or they are way more subtle

i still suspect that the AB amplifier in my older presonus are worth it but i havent done much comparisons speaker wise.. i just know the presonus give an incredible sound for the money compared to pretty much anything unless its another good speaker system..

 

[gregorio]

I think the use of “sometimes” as I highlighted in your comment above is a dramatic understatement.

Yes, at the least I was being very conservative!

Edited to add: this is so prevalent that I have times when I doubt myself and wonder if these folks are actually onto something that I am completely missing.

I have a great deal of respect for members of the audiophile community who somehow buck the group think, who arrive at and maintain an accurate/factual/rational view point despite everything they’re hearing from their community. For me it was far easier, I come from a professional music engineer background where I was warned very early on never to reference the audiophile world or risk being treated by experienced professionals as a delusional idiot suckered by ridiculous marketing, so I didn’t have the difficulty of fighting the group think (of my group).

but i see also where audiophiles come from, music is a "whole package" you get, not just great highs, perfect vocals or whatever and somehow some equipment can raise the emotional factor (a lot), its not just about the source material

But audiophiles should have the knowledge that it is a “whole package”, EG. That it’s a number of different things packaged together, not just a single thing. It’s not just “an experience” but a package of the sound reproduced, what one hears and a bunch of biases and resultant perceptions which together create “an experience”.

well people try to find a reason why they hear a difference and others dont …

But they refuse to believe the actual reason and then make-up a whole bunch of ridiculous/nonsense reasons, led by false marketing.

i have way less trouble categorizing changes now then i had few years ago as i started out, tho i immediatly heared subtle changes between dacs and cables for example AFTER i switched to Presonus eris e8 studio monitors

That seems to be a perfect example, did you experience a difference (“subtle changes”) or did you actually hear a difference? Are you capable of differentiating between the two and if so, how?

G

 

[Ghoostknight]

That seems to be a perfect example, did you experience a difference (“subtle changes”) or did you actually hear a difference? Are you capable of differentiating between the two and if so, how?

imo most things "can be heared" reliably but some of it is also expierencing, with your favourite tracks for example... it is what it is, we should accept the fact that sound perception is subject and we should treat it like this.... even if we can make some objective attempt on it, it doesnt mean it tells the whole story imo atleast not yet apparently

 

[bigshot]

The way to objectively measure our perception is by applying controls to the comparison to minimize bias and perceptual error. And the best tool to do that with is the level matched, direct switched blind test with multiple trials averaged. If you don’t do that, you are very likely completely wrong.

 

[gregorio]

imo most things "can be heared" reliably but some of it is also expierencing, with your favourite tracks for example...

So in response to my last question (“That seems to be a perfect example, did you experience a difference or did you actually hear a difference? Are you capable of differentiating between the two and if so, how?”), your answer is effectively “No”.

it is what it is, we should accept the fact that sound perception is subject and we should treat it like this....

We do, it’s called “psychoacoustics”.

even if we can make some objective attempt on it, it doesnt mean it tells the whole story imo atleast not yet apparently

If something is inaudible or even non-existent and can only be “experienced” by some people due to placebo or other perceptual error, how is that not the “whole story”? What part of the “story” still needs to be told?

G

 

[Ghoostknight]

If something is inaudible or even non-existent and can only be “experienced” by some people due to placebo or other perceptual error, how is that not the “whole story”? What part of the “story” still needs to be told?

the part where "placebo" just doesnt fit what hundreds of audiophiles are (consistenly) expierencing,
placebo, while partially definitely a thing, is a nice construct by science to basicly devalue everything that goes around perception and cant be explained directly ... like i said its a thing but i dont think 100% of what is told to be placebo actually is just placebo

your answer is effectively “No”.

No, i told you these are seperate things and to some degree you can differentiate them but since audio perception is a whole subjective rabbit hole its hard to "completely" seperate them, even with a blind test, a blind test will introduce other pros/cons than a sighted listening imo

 

[Whazzzup]

i never liked mondays

 

[gregorio]

the part where "placebo" just doesnt fit what hundreds of audiophiles are (consistenly) expierencing,

Yes it does, or do you mean “doesn’t fit” with what hundreds of audiophiles want to believe?

placebo, while partially definitely a thing, is a nice construct by science to basicly devalue everything that goes around perception and cant be explained directly ...

Firstly, how can it be “definitively a thing” (even partially) and also “a construct by science”, it’s one or the other. Secondly, placebo was not constructed by science, it existed long before science started to investigate it and it certainly was not to “devalue everything”, it was to understand and explain the phenomenon. Why do you have to “devalue everything” that you don’t want to believe?

like i said its a thing but i dont think 100% of what is told to be placebo actually is just placebo

So you’re saying if something is inaudible or doesn’t even exist and yet someone still thinks they actually hear it, then it’s not 100% placebo (or a perceptual error), they do actually hear what doesn’t even exist?

No, i told you these are seperate things and to some degree you can differentiate them

So again, I asked “Are you capable of differentiating between the two and if so, how?” - And you reply “to some degree you can differentiate them”, so that’s a “No” you are not capable of differentiating between the two! Thinking you can partially differentiate sometimes, maybe, is not “Yes” you can differentiate between the two.

but since audio perception is a whole subjective rabbit hole its hard to "completely" seperate them, even with a blind test,

No it’s not hard at all, that’s precisely what blind testing was designed to do and why it has been the “gold standard” of audibility testing for nearly a century. I’ve separated them “completely” countless times with a blind test.

a blind test will introduce other pros/cons than a sighted listening imo

What “other pro/cons than a sighted listening” does it introduce?

G

 

[Ghoostknight]

What “other pro/cons than a sighted listening” does it introduce?

biases just like a sighted test does, everyone who denys this hasnt got what biases are and how they actually apply to everything... even your DBT

you cant just blabber around how DBT are the non plus ultra and any sighted listening test is not valueable and how everything can affect the endresult and expect to DBT be the "perfect" solution without any flaws... its just unlogical imo

 

[Ryokan]

How can you have biases if you can't see what's being plugged in?

 

[gregorio]

biases just like a sighted test does

If a DBT did have “biases just like a sighted test” then obviously it is NOT “introducing other pros/cons than a sighted test”, it’s introducing the same/“just like” biases! And of course, the whole point of DBT is to reduce/eliminate biases, if it introduced “biases just like a sighted test”, then what would be the point of developing DBT in the first place, why are they the “gold standard” and how do you account for the wealth of reliable evidence that they achieve the goal of reducing/eliminating biases?

you cant just blabber around how DBT are the non plus ultra and any sighted listening test is not valueable

Of course I can, what do you think science is and what it’s for?

and expect to DBT be the "perfect" solution without any flaws...

I said DBT was the “gold standard”, I never claimed it was always perfect and cannot have flaws.

its just unlogical imo

But it’s not illogical in your opinion to state that DBT “introduces other pros/cons than sighted tests” because it introduces biases that are just like sighted tests? Is it logical to argue in a science discussion forum when you don’t seem to know what science is? These are just two of many examples, so “it’s just unlogical imo” would seem to be a great reason to believe it in your case, or is that only if your arguments are “unlogical”, not anyone else’s?

G

 

[bigshot]

Everyone experiences bias and placebo. Even scientists. That’s why you apply controls to your comparison to minimize their effect. If you don’t apply controls, you don’t know for sure whether you are correctly judging. 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.

To put it bluntly, if you won’t acknowledge the value of placing controls on listening tests, you don’t belong in this forum. You really should go to the parts of head fi where that kind of intellectual laziness is allowed.