A Brief Guide to Audio for the Skeptical Consumer

[reginalb]

 
I wont tell you what the moderator said about people in SS and their world views then...

 
That it's counter to the "views" (marketing) of the site's sponsors?

 

[RRod]

   
From what I understand from the comments posted, apparently, if a properly controlled ABX test does not show that a difference can be heard, this only proves that the test is flawed.  That is what this discussion has devolved into with regards to double-blind testing.  You'll have to go back to showing how double-blind testing is an important tool to science by removing bias and placebo.  If we cannot even find common ground on this simple premise, there is no need to go any further.

 
My comment was more for the poor innocents who might find this thread and think they can't use their normal listening environment to use ABX to test their own ability to discern differences in that environment.

 

[sonitus mirus]

 
I wont tell you what the moderator said about people in SS and their world views then...

 
For the most part, you just did.  

 

[reginalb]

   
My comment was more for the poor innocents who might find this thread and think they can't use their normal listening environment to use ABX to test their own ability to discern differences in that environment.

 
Well, they can only trust it if they have, at minimum, $100,000 USD invested in to their setup. Otherwise, their ears can't be trusted. 

 

[RRod]

   
Well, they can only trust it if they have, at minimum, $100,000 USD invested in to their setup. Otherwise, their ears can't be trusted. 

 
It's best for audiophiles to think in the log10 scale ^_^

 

[money4me247]

lol dont keep feeding him. just hit ignore.

 

[castleofargh]

   

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

When unbanned I'd like to hear more about that! Truly interested.

ABX testing has been extremely controversial since it was introduced decades ago. It is my hope to put this testing protocol in its final resting place by combining its sad history coupled the difference between how humans perceive sound and how ABX testing actually is applied.
The "X" in the ABX is either A or B, randomly selected, the listener needs to identify whether that "X" is "A" or "B". Unfortunately human beings do not have the ability to compare three sonic events sequentially. One must keep a sonic memory of sample "A" they just listened to so they can compare it to the sample "B" and then listen to "X" and try to decide if it sounds more like "A" or "B". It is the introduction of this third sound that makes it impossible for human beings since we can compare two different sounds as long as we don't wait too long however our sonic memory cannot juggle three no matter how many times one is allowed to go back and forth. Thus ABX tests usually get null results, and cause listening fatigue.
The better way to do this is to play "A" in a relaxed setting for an entire piece of music, at least five minutes and then play the same piece of music with "B" and then ask not if they sound different, but instead which one did you like? This is how most people shop for stereo equipment. Thus, it is not the methodology of ABX tests I object to, but instead their very existence.
Since the introduction of ABX double blind testing protocols many decades ago I have known they were complete and utter frauds and that is one reason I started my print newsletter in the 1980's and later my blog "The Audio Iconoclast" http://audioiconoclast.blogspot.com/
From its purpose statement "The Audio Iconoclast will challenge many deeply held beliefs in both the audio and musical communities. In music and its reproduction explaining what one hears when it is not directly measurable is not easy, the common practice is to dismiss it. This is wrong! In our world of music enjoyment there are subjectivists "music listeners" and objectivists "audio scientists" who try to measure phenomenon. Music listeners believe what they hear with their ears. Audio scientists do not believe what they hear unless they can quantify and measure it. If they cannot measure it, it does not exist and they convince themselves they are not hearing what they hear! My quest is to show the wisdom of enjoying the sound of music and accepting what one hears, even if it cannot be scientifically proven."
For example SACD would have replaced CD by now if not for ABX tests and pseudo-scientific studies in AES papers. Anyone possessing a pair of ears on the sides of their head can clearly hear the huge difference between low and high resolution for themselves however too many of them have been brainwashed not to believe their own ears and instead rely on these pseudo-scientists who over the years with ABX double-blind testing have proven:
1) All amplifiers sound the same.
2) All CD players sound the same.
3) A coat hanger sounds the same as an expensive interconnect.
4) MP3 sounds the same as CD.
5) CD sounds the same as SACD.
6) High resolution PCM sounds the same as DSD.
Remember the infamous 1987 blind listening test conducted by Stereo Review that concluded that a pair of Mark Levinson monoblocks, an output-transformerless tubed amplifier, and a $220 Pioneer receiver were all sonically identical?
Or perhaps you remember the ABX test that was likely the most damaging to these pseudo-scientists, comparing a known audibly defective amplifier to a perfectly working one? All listeners were able not only to hear the defect in the amplifier but able to describe it's distorted sound under normal listening conditions. However using ABX testing protocols none were able to identify the difference between the defective and the working amplifier with any statistical significance, thus proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that ABX testing does not work. In addition I am sure none of the participants would be willing to take home the defective amplifier, I am quite sure they would all want the perfect working one!
ABX double-blind testing should be banned by all intelligent people as the absolute scam it is. If one cannot prove the differences people experience every day of their lives when listening to music they love then any such tests are total and complete failures. But more dangerous than that they are hurting the sales of superior audio equipment, superior recordings and the musical satisfaction of gullible music lovers who believe these tests instead of their own ears because of the scientific garb they are dressed in. It is time for the real motives of the anti-high resolution crowd be revealed and their rhetoric buried forever so the masses can actually listen to high resolution with unbiased ears!
In summery ABX double-blind testing does not prove that everything sounds the same as real sonic differences are easily heard in casual listening. No, instead what ABX double-blind testing proves is that human subjects do not have the ability to compare three sonic events sequentially with any statistically significance, revealing a deficiency in short-term sonic memories of our species.
I believe even the most golden-eared audiophiles would not be able to identify differences with any statistical accuracy between an MP3 music file and a professional master recording using ABX double-blind testing protocols. This does not mean we should all only listen to MP3s on the cheapest stereos we can find, quite the contrary it means that we should enjoy the highest resolution music possible on audio equipment that we have determined to sound the best using our ears in standard casual listening evaluations.
 
____________________________________________________
 
Sound Science is brainwashed...

 

 
you come pretending that ABX tried to prove nonsense claims, then go on showing how it's wrong with even more dubious statements about casual listening that magically enough can apparently prove or disprove anything you fancy without need for proof. congrats for winning against yourself in your own fantasy argument.
AFAIK most of the people in this sub forum who are in favor of ABX, and most of the people responsible for leading those famous tests, know what ABX is actually for. and very much know that it never proves the absence of difference and was never intended to prove it!
so when you write stuff like :

...rely on these pseudo-scientists who over the years with ABX double-blind testing have proven:
1) All amplifiers sound the same.
2) All CD players sound the same.
3) A coat hanger sounds the same as an expensive interconnect.
4) MP3 sounds the same as CD.
5) CD sounds the same as SACD.
6) High resolution PCM sounds the same as DSD.

you are either dishonest on purpose, or you still do not understand ABX or the tests conducted in a proper way.
in either case, you're not fit to pass judgment.
 
ABX is used by somebody to try and prove an audible difference, not the opposite. so no serious test has ever concluded with the claims you pretend they made because then even us would call on the nonsense.(well for 5 and 6 if we limit the claim stricktly to the format itself and not what will be used to replay it, then I would tend to believe it's true, but not because of ABX).
 
 
and as always, it's all nice to talk about what we hear in casual listening, but if you have no way to prove what you heard, then what you have is an opinion, not a proof, not a claim. and certainly not a demonstration that ABX is an inapt testing method. try applying your critics equally to the stuff you preach, and see how they crumble.
 
your farce of a post get me to support those ABX testings simply because the alternative is to side with your nonsense. when in reality, I'm very much for the use of ABX on a personal level only, as an informative tool.

 

[castleofargh]

lol dont keep feeding him. just hit ignore.

you're right I always fall for the bait of bookman V2.0, I'm the idiot here.

 

[Audioholic123]

  you're right I always fall for the bait of bookman V2.0, I'm the idiot here.

Thanks for confirming!

 

[Dobrescu George]

I had not read the entire thread, but I had read that page. I agree with most statements, but now with:
 
 
7. Audiophile higher bit audio formats are not likely to offer audible improvements over compact disc 16 bit/44.1 kHz quality.
 
This is false, mathematically, I am studying in university and it is an advanced research going on about this, and the result is that high bitrate clearly is better than CD quality. How audible it is, is another thing, but in theory the differences are there, and audible. My PhD is based upon this, and it is supported with mathematical and other types of evidence.
 
3. Under normal conditions, virtually all audio amplifiers/receivers sound the same (sans EQ). They do not have their own sonic signature that must be carefully paired with speakers.
 
This is also false. Just tested my laptop vs my smartphone vs my fiio x5 vs my cowon j3 vs sansa clip+ all without EQ. 
 
Every single one of them has a sound of it's own, a totally different signature. No ideea why, this is how they are, without EQ, please do not disninform people. At every possible volume they hold completley different sound, feeding all of my headphones and IEMs (ie8, ie800, ultrasone dj one pro, cheap 45$ sony headphones that came free with my smartphone.) It is almost like the producers of these devices did not even try to make a linear sound out of them. Most realist sound is Fiio x5II while the others are either veiled, or sound fuzzy, unclear, bad. 
 
 
 
Also, about a post above, mp3 does not sound the same as lossless FLAC  / O.O \
Not even in mathematical theory, nor in audible, people who have headphones cheaper than 30$ are keeping lossless rips of their CDs because the differences are audible. 

 

[reginalb]

  I had not read the entire thread, but I had read that page. I agree with most statements, but now with:
 
 
7. Audiophile higher bit audio formats are not likely to offer audible improvements over compact disc 16 bit/44.1 kHz quality.
 
This is false, mathematically, I am studying in university and it is an advanced research going on about this, and the result is that high bitrate clearly is better than CD quality. How audible it is, is another thing, but in theory the differences are there, and audible. My PhD is based upon this, and it is supported with mathematical and other types of evidence.
 
3. Under normal conditions, virtually all audio amplifiers/receivers sound the same (sans EQ). They do not have their own sonic signature that must be carefully paired with speakers.
 
This is also false. Just tested my laptop vs my smartphone vs my fiio x5 vs my cowon j3 vs sansa clip+ all without EQ. 
 
Every single one of them has a sound of it's own, a totally different signature. No ideea why, this is how they are, without EQ, please do not disninform people. At every possible volume they hold completley different sound, feeding all of my headphones and IEMs (ie8, ie800, ultrasone dj one pro, cheap 45$ sony headphones that came free with my smartphone.) It is almost like the producers of these devices did not even try to make a linear sound out of them. Most realist sound is Fiio x5II while the others are either veiled, or sound fuzzy, unclear, bad. 
 
 
 
Also, about a post above, mp3 does not sound the same as lossless FLAC  / O.O \
Not even in mathematical theory, nor in audible, people who have headphones cheaper than 30$ are keeping lossless rips of their CDs because the differences are audible. 

 
Usually number 3 comes with several caveats, most importantly that they each have a flat frequency response. Otherwise, EQ is essentially (and commonly) programmed in. The others are things like reasonably low distortion, they have to be volume matched, etc. It sounds like your amplifiers aren't all exhibiting flat frequency response. I would challenge you to do a blind ABX between the X5 and the Clip + after they are properly level matched (volume makes a big difference). Those two are both pretty flat in their response. 
 
Number 7 is referring to audibility to humans. Of course there are measurable differences, but that doesn't make them audible. And your last statement belies that you haven't looked at much blind testing, where all of those bias induced "differences" quickly disappear. People rip them to lossless mainly because they think there are audible differences, but have never done any blind ABX testing to confirm this. Surely, if you're working on your PhD, you understand the biases introduced by sighted testing. 

 

[sonitus mirus]

   
7. Audiophile higher bit audio formats are not likely to offer audible improvements over compact disc 16 bit/44.1 kHz quality.
 
This is false, mathematically, I am studying in university and it is an advanced research going on about this, and the result is that high bitrate clearly is better than CD quality. How audible it is, is another thing, but in theory the differences are there, and audible. My PhD is based upon this, and it is supported with mathematical and other types of evidence.
 
 

Mathematics and exactly what other types of evidence?  Sighted evaluations are not practical when testing for audio differences, and unless proper steps are used to avoid bias, the data you are gathering may not be valid and could possibly be contributing to actual misinformation that is being spread.  This same premise applies to all of of the testing with regards to amps, DACs, and file types.  
 
You can't just claim that differences exists in an area where it has been shown that bias is rampant.  What are the established thresholds in any measurements that you are using where audible differences can be heard?  How was this determined?  

 

[Dobrescu George]

  Mathematics and exactly what other types of evidence?  Sighted evaluations are not practical when testing for audio differences, and unless proper steps are used to avoid bias, the data you are gathering may not be valid and could possibly be contributing to actual misinformation that is being spread.  This same premise applies to all of of the testing with regards to amps, DACs, and file types.  
 
You can't just claim that differences exists in an area where it has been shown that bias is rampant.  What are the established thresholds in any measurements that you are using where audible differences can be heard?  How was this determined?  

 
Multiple subject blind testing. 
 
In detail, using an above-average reproduction system, and low end, ask more than one people if they hear any difference at all between two versions of the same track, how would they describe and what track sounds and how. 
 
Music that is hi res on internet, but is encoded from the same bad master, will not give these results. I am working at a resampling algorithm. 

   
Usually number 3 comes with several caveats, most importantly that they each have a flat frequency response. Otherwise, EQ is essentially (and commonly) programmed in. The others are things like reasonably low distortion, they have to be volume matched, etc. It sounds like your amplifiers aren't all exhibiting flat frequency response. I would challenge you to do a blind ABX between the X5 and the Clip + after they are properly level matched (volume makes a big difference). Those two are both pretty flat in their response. 
 
Number 7 is referring to audibility to humans. Of course there are measurable differences, but that doesn't make them audible. And your last statement belies that you haven't looked at much blind testing, where all of those bias induced "differences" quickly disappear. People rip them to lossless mainly because they think there are audible differences, but have never done any blind ABX testing to confirm this. Surely, if you're working on your PhD, you understand the biases introduced by sighted testing. 

 
Number 7 and how audible it is to humans is what the project is about. It takes a lot of patience, work and work again to get to know if there really are differences worth of trouble. Especially considering that it needs to be audible with normal equipment. 
 
About 3: Clip+ and x5II have totally different sound, volume matched and everything. I have no ideea why, and was amuzed by this. the differences are audible through all my headphones, even 10$ buds that came with htc820. 

 

[RRod]

   
Multiple subject blind testing. 
 
In detail, using an above-average reproduction system, and low end, ask more than one people if they hear any difference at all between two versions of the same track, how would they describe and what track sounds and how. 
 

 
That's not detail 

 But obviously you can't give up the whole goat on a dissertation until it is done. Still, it would be interesting if you could show us the difference file between two versions of a track where differences were heard.

 

[reginalb]

   
Multiple subject blind testing. 
 
In detail, using an above-average reproduction system, and low end, ask more than one people if they hear any difference at all between two versions of the same track, how would they describe and what track sounds and how. 
 
Music that is hi res on internet, but is encoded from the same bad master, will not give these results. I am working at a resampling algorithm. 
 
Number 7 and how audible it is to humans is what the project is about. It takes a lot of patience, work and work again to get to know if there really are differences worth of trouble. Especially considering that it needs to be audible with normal equipment. 
 
About 3: Clip+ and x5II have totally different sound, volume matched and everything. I have no ideea why, and was amuzed by this. the differences are audible through all my headphones, even 10$ buds that came with htc820. 

 
Look forward to your reporting of results, could be very interesting. Of course, your simply asking people if they heard a difference between 2 tracks after listening to them is probably a simplification of your methodology, hopefully? Regarding 3, have you take any frequency response measurements on the 2? Could be a problem with one, I had a sample X5, and it sounded pretty darn near identical to the Clip+, but there could be a problem with one of yours (or one of mine) that led to differences in results between your testing and mine. And maybe you've got better ears.