[JB.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS No, it says nothing about a "preference." That is not in issue yet. I'm just asking for the actual listening experiences of those who are the skeptics. Once we are told what it is, we can decide how to value it.

Arguing anecdotal evidence using anecdotal evidence?

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB. Arguing anecdotal evidence using anecdotal evidence?

Huh?

 

[aerius]

You know what I don't understand? Why do people on both sides of the debate, especially the objectivists, act as if the two viewpoints are mutually exclusive? This is not a black & white issue, it's not "this is what the measurements say, therefore your ears are full of crap" or "this is what I hear, therefore the measurements are full of crap". Thinking in black & white doesn't get you very far, the real world comes in shades of grey.

Fine, so you don't find a correlation between measurements & hearing experiences. So instead of trying to find out what the heck's going on or if you're even measuring the right thing, the 2 sides dedicate all their energy towards smearing the other and hyping their points, real productive there. I'm sure it's a good ego boost, especially when you have an audience, but really, what are you accomplishing? You're not going to sway anyone or gain converts, and you're getting nowhere closer to finding out what's really going on.

Those 2 articles I linked to earlier are a start in the right direction. They gather data and try to find patterns in the measurements which better correlate with actual listening results. It's not the same tired old "let's do a study to prove that my viewpoint is right" crap.

What have we learned from decades of ABX studies? Well, we learned that everything except speakers sounds the same in those tests. What has listening experience told us? Almost everything has a unique sound to it. What has decades of measuring the crap out of gear taught us? Well, we now know how to build stuff that measures really well on the test bench. Does it sound good? Sometimes, sometimes not. So what have we really learned? I'd say we've got a whole bunch of pieces for the puzzle but we've barely begun to put it all together.

To quote Isaac Asimov, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but 'That's funny...'" We've got data that doesn't fit into the current model, people should be going "that's funny...what the heck's going on..?", but instead, it's being tossed away and dismissed. That's not science. That's dogma.

 

[RnB180]

the article is BS,

too bad audio noobs will follow him in droves, since it will convince them that high end audio is cheap.

there is a reason why that article was used as a freebie, He totally goes against every concept of higher end audio and makes the reader think, "wow!, I didn't know this, this is totally different from what Ive been told, this guy must know what he's talking about! Your article will save me loads of cash in the future, I must susbscribe"

If he's attacking snake oil, then he can also be blamed for Shock Jock samplers to pull in subscriptions.

I stopped reading after the cables comparison of a rat shack being no different then a $4000 cable and his statements about tubes sucking.

 

[meat01]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS Interesting contention. So what's your experience with the items referenced in the article, both in terms of long terms use and comparisons between specific equipment or devices?

My experience is basic electronics knowledge, knowing that cables unless broken will sound the same.

I have tested "glass" toslinks and I can hear no difference. I have listened to Kimber Kable, Audioqest cable and Radio Shack cable with no difference.

I admit, I have never painted CDs green, but basic knowledge tells me that CDs are 1s and 0s.

I have listened to my amps and my cables before "burn-in" and after "burn-in" and could not really come to a conclusion of being different. If I did think it was different, it could just be because I am getting more used to the sound, not because the caps are changing the sound.

If someone is a golden ear, they are spending way too much time analyzing the music rather than enjoying it. You could say that about blind testing also, but if I am going to spend $500 on cables, they better sound different, and they don't.

People can barely tell the difference between a well encoded MP3 and a CD.CD vs. MP3 test

I have not jumped out of an airplane either, but basic physics tells me that I will fall at the 9.8 m/s - air resitance. Science has to prevail on this stuff, we are not talking magic here.

 

[RnB180]

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyfrenchman27 This thread was originally in a non-DBT-free forum, so I think it's pretty lame that we can't talk about DBT like adults. The only reason why they don't want to talk about DBT is that they don't want to reach the startling conclusion that some of the things they believe and spend thousands of dollars on are, in fact, untrue. -Matt

actually it was converted to non-DBT because the arguments and heated debates would get out of hand. I read an explaination from one of the mods I think a while back. as you can see this thread getting a bit hot, making it non-DBT keeps some level of composure. Also you'd also have to take into consideration the well-being of the sponsors.

my 2 cents.

 

[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerius What have we learned from decades of ABX studies? Well, we learned that everything except speakers sounds the same in those tests. What has listening experience told us? Almost everything has a unique sound to it. What has decades of measuring the crap out of gear taught us? Well, we now know how to build stuff that measures really well on the test bench. Does it sound good? Sometimes, sometimes not. So what have we really learned? I'd say we've got a whole bunch of pieces for the puzzle but we've barely begun to put it all together.

I thought ABX studies in general showed that speakers, pre-amp and source can make a difference, and power amps and cables do not.

This is a DBT free forum--ha, ha, that's funny--I always forget. Why is that you can only listen with your eyes open but not with your eyes closed?

Anyway I am reminded of a little test we had in neurobiology class. We are shown two similar pictures on screen, and people who see a difference will raise their hands. Sometimes it may take 10 sec-10 min minutes for some people to notice a fairly obvious difference, such as two living rooms with or without a cat beside the couch. It is funny that once you have seen the difference the next time you are shown the same two pictures you immediately see the differnece. Also, if you get instruction for what to look for, you notice the difference much more quickly. Now imagine if we show these two similar pictures in some kind of ABX test. If the viewers are forced to conduct the test quickly, then we may even find that people cannot distinguish the two pictures by statistical analysis, alhtough the few poeple who sucessfully see the difference will testify that the difference is very apparant. This is of course not a very good analogy because auio and visual perception works differently. But I guess it is quite possible minute differences may not be easily easily discernible in ABX tests. On the other hand, familiarity or verbal hints may help people to identify differences. My impression is that people's performance in cognitive tests very much relies on how the test protocol is designed. Perhaps we have not yet found optimized DBT protocols for audio stuff. But if the majority of audiophiles are vehemently opposed to DBT, it is likely that no one will ever invest the neccessary resources to optimize such test protocols.

 

[JB.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerius Fine, so you don't find a correlation between measurements & hearing experiences. So instead of trying to find out what the heck's going on or if you're even measuring the right thing, the 2 sides dedicate all their energy towards smearing the other and hyping their points, real productive there. I'm sure it's a good ego boost, especially when you have an audience, but really, what are you accomplishing? You're not going to sway anyone or gain converts, and you're getting nowhere closer to finding out what's really going on.

Always appreciate mediation, but . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerius What have we learned from decades of ABX studies? Well, we learned that everything except speakers sounds the same in those tests. What has listening experience told us? Almost everything has a unique sound to it. What has decades of measuring the crap out of gear taught us? Well, we now know how to build stuff that measures really well on the test bench. Does it sound good? Sometimes, sometimes not. So what have we really learned? I'd say we've got a whole bunch of pieces for the puzzle but we've barely begun to put it all together.

Decades of ABX studies? Good mediation requires an unbiased mediator, and the implicit viewpoint in your statements is one of “belief.” To accuse others of smearing to create an illusion of unbiased credibility is underhanded.
Comparisons of equipment have been made, peer reviewed, replicated, and repeated. They have been subject to the same procedures used to verify the effectiveness of medications, surgical procedures, auto safety, etc, etc. The only real difference in the experimental designs is how unbelievably easy it is to conduct tests on audio gear.
Nearly every study of audition requires a baseline to be established. Undergrads in sensation/perception research are often required to create research designs that can test audible differences in equipment as a way to introduce them to basic concepts of research. The data produced by well-conducted research provide results that are so clear that statistics are often not required to establish validity. So why the controversy? Because someone invariably takes issue with the data and claims that it is not accounting for “real world” experiences of others, in effect, that “anecdotal evidence” seems to contradict the results. This is so basic a premise that it seems unimaginable that so many intelligent people fail to consider it.

To say, “all that decades of research have taught us is that everything but speakers sounds the same in the tests” is a misrepresentation. Decades of research have only shown that the credulous mind is fertile ground for profiteering and that critical thinking has yet to be seen commonly as something of value.

 

[geek707]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS Based on any practical experience? As many of the threads on this forum and others establish, having or expressing opinions about what things sound like or should sound like is not confined to those who have actually listened to anything.

Chill out Phil. We know where each other stand on this subject. It is fairly clear that no ones mind is going to be changed.
Dana

 

[Beauregard]

Pop quiz for audio oldtimers!

This is from a 1982 review of the ABX Comparator, a piece of equipment that allows blind evaluation of hi-fi equipment. (Order of snippets reversed.)

"The ABX Comparator

Now here's an inspired idea! A device which virtually guarantees the integrity of any comparative component-listening session. ...

... But it has to be used. Few audiophiles would pay $500 for a gadget that might do no more for then than prove they have been deluding themselves all these years. But audio clubs could afford them, and should use them. So can and should every component manufacturer that really wants to find out if its latest product is truly better than the competition. The device could cause more embarrassment in this world than the invention of the rattlefart, but whenever truth and conviction are at odds with one another, embarrassment for some is inevitable, good, and necessary for the advance of knowledge. The losers will be the dissemblers, the frauds, and those most skilled in the art of the autohype. The winners, ultimately, will be music and the rest of us who are interested only in the maximal fidelity of reproduced music."

Question 1. In which audio magazine did the review appear and who was the author?

Question 2. Which audio magazine editor/publishers adopted the device and published reviews based on its use? If they didn't, why didn't they?

Extra credit. Do you agree with the sentiments expressed above? If not, why not?

No cheating, now... We're on the honor system.

The answers to question 1 with full text can be found here.

Who got it right?? Anyone surprised?

Feel free to discuss question 2 etc. in my absence... Time permitting, I'll post my thoughts tomorrow. But now teach has to grade last week's papers and get some sleep.

Best,
Professor Beau

 

[Publius]

I was away from the computer the last few days so here's an ill-timed reply.
Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ No. I'm too lazy to search for AC's statement to this subject, but (theoretically) there's nothing more welcome than a non-distorting amplifier. Nevertheless I don't agree if you equate measured neutrality (= ultra-low distortion) with sonic neutrality. Because obviously we still don't know what makes amps sound different, even those with virtually identical measurings.

Well, I didn't say I equated measured neutrality to anything, so I think we're in agreement to disagree.

Quote:

Now I'm confused. «Headphone/speaker measurements are one of the few areas where there are audible differences.» This your then statement, repeated here in other words, without much need for interpretation. You do exclude electronics (amps and sources) from the devices which can cause sonic differences, don't you?

Right. The point I was trying to make is that people - even pro/academic audio engineers - can look at the frequency/distortion response of a headphone/speaker and make very concrete statements about the sound of the speaker. In fact, there was an AES conference article last year where a guy was able to get excellent predictive power between his speaker response measurements and subjective audio reviews from audiophiles.

Quote:

So does that mean Stradivaris are no better than normal violins? You should know that blind tests don't prove anything. Fact is that Stradivaris have gained enormous respect with a broad public for their beautiful sound and were considered superior to (most) other violins of the same era. I don't know if some of today's violins aren't just as good, but that's not the point.

The point I was making was that your analogy sucks.

Quote:

Not necessarily. Of course, from a scientific point of view it would be ideal, but I don't like the idea of having everything gaplessly explained by science, no white spots on the map, no mysteries waiting for solution... Not that that's my motif for audiophile hallucinations, don't get me wrong! But science and data can never explain the world, so don't give them too much power!

I'll actually agree with you on this one: science has never been able to completely explain the world - even physical science cannot do this for non-audio topics. But I think it's impossible to be either fully complete or fully consistent - either you can't explain everything you observe, or the explanations you come up with are thin.

The key distinguisher - what makes my philosophy being incomplete rather than inconsistent - is that even if you can't explain everything, you can build on top of what you can consistently explain to explain other things. But if your theory is inconsistent, you can't reason past the inconsistentcy. You can be on one side or the other, but the more you try to put on top of it, the weaker the theory becomes.

In terms of a more scientific audio world.... it could work a lot of ways. But the worst case scenario is that people stop caring about their gear and spend more money on music. I don't see a problem with that. Assuming, of course, that we're right.

Quote:

Whatever Mr. Kuhn or anybody else may have to say to the matter, I don't buy it if it means that trusting your senses (with all due self-criticism) equates to belief. That's a typical top-heavy-objectivist attitude rating the intellectual, data-oriented input above all other things. Tell an acrobat to not trust his senses!

Either you assert that you should trust your senses, or you don't assert it. Why is this a particularly objective argument?

 

[PhilS]

I was away from the thread for a few days as well. When I got back, I saw Danamr's response to my request for his practical experience, and the practical experience of other "non-believers," regarding the items and components under discussion. He said I should "chill out" and that neither side will convince the other. Then the following scenario ran through my head:

John to his friend Mary: "You should try this pistachio ice cream. You'll really like it."

Mary: "I know I won't like it."

John: "Just try it. Thousands of people have tried it and they all loved it. They say it's the best pistachio ever."

Mary: "They probably like any kind of ice cream. I don't."

John: "Just taste it; many of people who have tried it and liked it said they never liked pistachio ice cream before and never would, but when they finally tried this kind, they all loved it."

Mary: "That's impossible, all pistachio ice cream tastes the same."

John: "Won't you just try it; this is really different."

Mary: "No I won't try it and nothing you ever say will ever convince me that it tastes different."

John: "I guess you're right. You've convinced yourself in your mind that it can't taste different, and I guess nothing I can SAY will ever convince you, since you won't try it."

John decided that Mary was not being entirely rational, and that there was no point in talking to her anymore about the delicious pistachio ice cream, but they still remained friends.

 

[Sleestack]

All I know is that my brain and whatever subconscious forces are at work, better keep being suceptible to pysyhoacoustic phenomenon, or I'm really going to end up regretting all of the Cardas Golden Reference interconnects and cables I bought for my 2 channlel system.

I've had a number of well-doers on audioholics try to change my mind. Much to their chagrin, I stood firm in my decision.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius Right.

All the more I'm astonished about your then indignation. I find it hard to understand how someone with open and healthy ears can refuse to hear the obvious differences with electronics. Which lets me question what all the technical progress is worth for.


Quote:

The point I was making was that your analogy sucks.

It doesn't suck at all. Stradivari violins are/have been broadly acknowledged to have extraordinarily beautiful tone, superior to all or most other violins. The point is that people have heard that and haven't waited for measurements to allow them to be sure about their impressions. It doesn't matter if (today) there are other competitive violins, the clue is that not all violins sound the same, and you don't have to consult a technician to judge it -- and if you're a musician, you take the instrument whose tone you prefer (and not whose measuring data tell you it's better).


Quote:

I'll actually agree with you on this one: science has never been able to completely explain the world - even physical science cannot do this for non-audio topics. But I think it's impossible to be either fully complete or fully consistent - either you can't explain everything you observe, or the explanations you come up with are thin.

I don't generally question the competence of (natural) science. If you look back at my statement, you'll notice that it just served to show why I prefer not to have everything explained. Many physicists and engineers are prone enough to think they can explain everything in a materialistic and mechanistic way -- but please don't interprete this statement as related to audio.


Quote:

Either you assert that you should trust your senses, or you don't assert it. Why is this a particularly objective argument?

I don't get what you're trying to say. Trusting your senses is a subjective thing, nevertheless can lead to objective, reproduceable results (just like measuring instruments, BTW). Well, an acrobat who doesn't trust his senses will get reproduceable results as well, but I'm not sure if that's what you mean...

Trusting your senses usually is a highly useful attitude, sometimes even essential for survival. Our own existence (as homo sapiens) is based on this attitude, not least when it comes to our hearing. A self-centered, psychically healthy human will trust his senses without questioning if this attitude has something to do with belief. A top-heavy, intellectual or otherwise unsettled person can be brought to the delegation of his self-confidence to authorities in the form of persons, religions, ideologies or data. Of course we're humans and as such capable of erring as well as capable of being aware of our erring -- among other things. All the more we should be proud of what we are and what we're capable of. That's not a belief, just a healthy attitude -- proven to be useful over many eras.

 

[crazyfrenchman27]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS I was away from the thread for a few days as well. When I got back, I saw Danamr's response to my request for his practical experience, and the practical experience of other "non-believers," regarding the items and components under discussion. He said I should "chill out" and that neither side will convince the other. Then the following scenario ran through my head: John to his friend Mary: "You should try this pistachio ice cream. You'll really like it." Mary: "I know I won't like it." John: "Just try it. Thousands of people have tried it and they all loved it. They say it's the best pistachio ever." Mary: "They probably like any kind of ice cream. I don't." John: "Just taste it; many of people who have tried it and liked it said they never liked pistachio ice cream before and never would, but when they finally tried this kind, they all loved it." Mary: "That's impossible, all pistachio ice cream tastes the same." John: "Won't you just try it; this is really different." Mary: "No I won't try it and nothing you ever say will ever convince me that it tastes different." John: "I guess you're right. You've convinced yourself in your mind that it can't taste different, and I guess nothing I can SAY will ever convince you, since you won't try it." John decided that Mary was not being entirely rational, and that there was no point in talking to her anymore about the delicious pistachio ice cream, but they still remained friends.

I suppose the same holds true for DBT.

Why not try it with some hi-fi audio equipment? It's not going to hurt you and it might further illuminate the "differences" that you hear.

And yes, I have DBT high-quality amps and interconnects. That seems like the only reasonable way to test gear without experiencing the "rainbow foil" effect.

I'd love to read these "studies" that show that DBT is completely invalid.

-Matt