[Samuli]

A good blindtest could be something like this:

We'll put two source's (amps, transports, dacs) in two boxes with a mirror-tunnel in front in order for remote commands reach the unit. Boxes would be weight balanced, same ic's coming out from the back and the remotes would be programmable all-in-one type.

There would be no way for the tester to know what is in the boxes, still he could take all the time evaluating them in the comfort of his home in what way he wants to. This cancels out most of the variables that makes blind-testing untrustable.

There was this kind of test in Finnish hifi-magazine with 10 experienced listeners (more than 10 years in hifi) and the results were that in free-listening at their homes they liked more expensive one better, but in controlled ABX-test, with unfamiliar associated equipment not single one of them could distinquish these two amps.

The amps used were around 500$ and the other one at 2000$ if I recall correctly.

 

[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samuli A good blindtest could be something like this: We'll put two source's (amps, transports, dacs) in two boxes with a mirror-tunnel in front in order for remote commands reach the unit. Boxes would be weight balanced, same ic's coming out from the back and the remotes would be programmable all-in-one type. There would be no way for the tester to know what is in the boxes, still he could take all the time evaluating them in the comfort of his home in what way he wants to. This cancels out most of the variables that makes blind-testing untrustable.

Brilliant idea!
This kind of testing rocks.
I have heard some ABX tests that conclude power amplifiers for speakers all sound the same if the damping factor is high enough and no clipping occurs. I find that hard to believe.

 

[Blitzula]

Double blind tests aren't perfect either. You can take components with known and confirmed scientific variability, and I'll wager you'll still have too many people unable to differentiate between them.

 

[wali]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzula Double blind tests aren't perfect either. You can take components with known and confirmed scientific variability, and I'll wager you'll still have too many people unable to differentiate between them.

That merely confirms the unreliability of human hearing not the lack of performance for those scientifically proven equipment.

 

[Samuli]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wali That merely confirms the unreliability of human hearing not the lack of performance for those scientifically proven equipment.

Those equipment are scientifically proven to be on a level where human hearing shouldn't notice differences between any of them..

 

[Blitzula]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wali That merely confirms the unreliability of human hearing not the lack of performance for those scientifically proven equipment.

Well, sure, I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

Yet, I'm not prepared to blindly follow what science says in the area of music. If I hear a clear difference and many other people do also, I don't much care if science says there is none. A great example is the Zu cable with 650...clearly different than stock.

I don't really mind the science people who disagree, until they refuse to listen to the combination and tell me it's placebo, etc. Than I agree with Mark, assuming that science is infallible and that people must be wrong to hear differences is dogmatic and silly. And certainly not intellectual....intellect should be influenced by actual experience. Science is NOT infallible.

 

[darkclouds]

Just because science can't explain something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It only means that there are more to learn and discover.

 

[Samuli]

I think it's not the science behind audio equipment that is lacking, but the science of human hearing and processing of sounds. Before these are fully, or more realistically, enough understood there will remain some 'voodoo' in hi-fi.

There was interesting test few years back where bunch of musicians and studio engineers were asked to evaluate two samples of the same music piece. On the other sample there was some background noise added in (low-level enough not to be heard directly). Most (can't remember the actual percentage) of them found the sample with the noise better, described as more musical by most.

 

[Tomcat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samuli I think it's not the science behind audio equipment that is lacking, but the science of human hearing and processing of sounds. Before these are fully, or more realistically, enough understood there will remain some 'voodoo' in hi-fi.

Samuli,

What's even more disturbing: as long as the science of human hearing is lacking, objectivists will pass off their frighfully limited models of human musical perception as fact. That's what's responsible for the sorry state hi-fi technology is in. Whenever we measure frequency response, phase response, noise, THD, etc. in order to determine the "accuracy" of music reproduction we have - implicitly - accepted that those measurements supply a sufficient model of the original musical event as well. That's like measuring the size of a painting's frame in order to determine the accuracy of its reproduction. Human perception will easily determine a difference, while a ruler may tell us that the reproduction is perfect.

As long as music is intended for human listeners, human listeners will have to judge the accuracy of music reproduction. Any subjective judgement can be erroneous, of course, but any insufficient scientific model is sure to be erroneous. Clinging to it is not a sign of scientifc thirst for knowledge, it's a sign of insecurity. Deafness isn't a scientific virtue.

 

[timo_nyc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomcat As long as music is intended for human listeners, human listeners will have to judge the accuracy of music reproduction. Any subjective judgement can be erroneous, of course, but any insufficient scientific model is sure to be erroneous. Clinging to it is not a sign of scientifc thirst for knowledge, it's a sign of insecurity. Deafness isn't a scientific virtue.

I saw this idea once expressed in a general critique of objectivism, summed up by the quip
Quote:

a model of reality should not be confused with the reality of the model.

 

[tk_suki]

as has been said again and again,

personal preference, we all have different tastes.

I feel there is a law of diminishing returns in EVERY component.

BTFW-IMFO synergy is extremely important.

This is a hobby and a time consuming one. Music, gear and synergy. This can consume more time than most can afford. Nonetheless by in large great fun!

The sound I get out of my Vinyl rig amazes me! But requires a good pressed/condition album. CD similar but good recording. Then again, the DAP is darn convenient.

In conclusion, a personal decision on whether source matters, got a record then TT essential, CD then CDP, DAP etc... Such a question is nice for learning others perspective but in the end the individual has to decide.

Have fun! Music is what it is all about not the hoky poky, well that can be fun too, but music in between all the better.

 

[Tomcat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by timo_nyc a model of reality should not be confused with the reality of the model.

Beautiful quote.

 

[Leporello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomcat Whenever we measure frequency response, phase response, noise, THD, etc. in order to determine the "accuracy" of music reproduction we have - implicitly - accepted that those measurements supply a sufficient model of the original musical event as well.

No, we "objectivists" merely accept the possibility that those measurements correlate with a system's ability to reproduce at least some aspects of the original musical event. Any scientist knows that models and theories do not give a 100% accurate description of reality. No more strawmen, please.

Actually, I have never seen an objectivist claim that measurements "supply a sufficient model of the original musical event". Where have you seen it?

Quote:

Human perception will easily determine a difference, while a ruler may tell us that the reproduction is perfect.

This, of course, is an empirical claim, the accuracy (sorry for the pun

) of which must be studied empirically.


Regards,

L.

 

[wali]

I used words like 'faith', and 'believe' in an elementary form simply to pinpoint the perception of audio equipment and how they sound, I had no intention of turning this discussion into a philosophical debate on to the nature of ‘reality’, which sadly seems to be forwarded by some contributors.


First and foremost Audio equipments are simple 'mechanical' devices which are many folds simpler in design than a home computer... every aspect of these audio devices has been designed and build by engineers and run through many tests and simulations (in the case with quality products). The performance of all quality Audio gear has been thoroughly investigated researched and finally their performance has been empirically benchmarked using the Audio industry's quality control and performance measurements (exotic cables and other snake oil audiophile products excluded).

Now, using common sense (which is not very common), one can conclude that since the device in question has been built using standard mechanical and engineering practice, then why on earth it's performance should be judged using 'faith' and other abstract human perceptions? How can one ignore the whole scientific process which led to the creation of particular device in judging its performance? What on earth, 'reality', or knowledge' in a philosophical sense has got to do with a mechanical device which even an amateur can DIY in his garage?

These are simple questions which any logical mind can comprehend without long periods of reflection...

This is not an objective vs. subjective issue; IMHO, this is objective vs. brainwashed-by-marketing-hype-and-peer-pressure issue.

 

[clarke68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wali First and foremost Audio equipments are simple 'mechanical' devices...every aspect of these audio devices has been designed and build by engineers and run through many tests and simulations (in the case with quality products). The performance of all quality Audio gear has been thoroughly investigated researched and finally their performance has been empirically benchmarked using the Audio industry's quality control and performance measurements....

I don't work for the audio industry, but I'd hedge a bet that most mass-market audio products are are designed with two primary concerns:

1.) cheap to manufacture - testing in this case is along the lines of "what cheaper parts can we get away with using and still have measurements that are passable to the average consumer

2.) safety - make sure the thing won't burst into flames if it's left on for weeks at a time


Quote:

Originally Posted by wali Now, using common sense (which is not very common), one can conclude that since the device in question has been built using standard mechanical and engineering practice, then why on earth it's performance should be judged using 'faith' and other abstract human perceptions?....

That's fine if you accept the industry's standard of mechanical and engineering practice as good enough for your needs. Many engineers do not, and they set to make more unique products that satisfy their own standards and serve a niche market.

Surely in an industry as broad as hi-fi there are scheisters and snake-oil salesman who just want to make a buck (although I can think of easier ways to make a buck than hi-fi), but I believe that most are well-meaning, skilled engineers who are making products that they themselves enjoy more than mainstream products.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wali This is not an objective vs. subjective issue; IMHO, this is objective vs. brainwashed-by-marketing-hype-and-peer-pressure issue.

Are you saying that anyone who spends more than $200 on a CD player is brainwashed by marketing hype and peer pressure?

Just to clarify my own biases: I've never spent more than $200 on a cd player. I absolutely adore my setup. I know full well that there's better gear out there, but at this point in my life (making what I'm making with 2 small kids) its just not worth it to me to take it any higher. I love the fact, however, that there are people out there pushing the envelope, creating and enjoying equipment in the nosebleed section of the price range. I'll likely never join them, but the stuff they do affects me: their research will one day improve the quality of the gear that I can afford, or someday I'll just buy their old stuff on Audiogon!