[crazyfrenchman27]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS Seriously, the reason it is a DBT forum, I suspect, is to provide a place where people can seek helpful advice about cables, power cords, and other audio tweaks without every thread turning into a discussion about the issues we are discussing now.

To detect a discernible difference between cables, power cords, and audio tweaks in a DBT would justify the expense, thus making the advice that much more helpful. There's no reason why you wouldn't want to DBT gear. I agree that DBT isn't the only way one should experience new gear; however, I think it's pretty ridiculous to denigrate it as a useful way to make comparisons.

If you can't detect a meaningful difference between A and B in a DBT, then why pay twice as much for B?

In addition, just because one can't detect a difference does not mean that there is no difference: not everyone has perfect hearing. If that person can't hear the difference between A and B while others can, why pay more for B?

People who refuse to DBT are making themselves susceptible to powerful placebo effects. However, in this case, ignorance is not only fleecing the wallets of DBT-nay sayers, but those whom they provide "professional" advice to as well.

-Matt

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerius 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.

Yes, as Obi-One would put it: "Only a Sith thinks in absolutes"

 

[Sleestack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyfrenchman27 To detect a discernible difference between cables, power cords, and audio tweaks in a DBT would justify the expense, thus making the advice that much more helpful. There's no reason why you wouldn't want to DBT gear. I agree that DBT isn't the only way one should experience new gear; however, I think it's pretty ridiculous to denigrate it as a useful way to make comparisons. People who refuse to DBT are making themselves susceptible to powerful placebo effects. However, in this case, ignorance is not only fleecing the wallets of DBT-nay sayers, but those whom they provide "professional" advice to as well. -Matt

No offense, but you are being a bit presumptious in assuming that everyone needs to have the same reasons as you for justifying an expense. The only thing I need to justify an expense is the desire to buy and the resources to do so. I certainly never feel the need to go back and make sure I got "my money's worth." I'll live with my own mistakes.

While I have no objections to DBT, I wouldn't want to DBT gear simply b/c I have better things to do than worry about whether or not the item I bought is identifiable in a listening environment I would never subject myself to unless I was doing a DBT. I buy gear b/c I like the way it sounds, the way it looks and because it arouses my compulsion to buy. The fact that I may not be able to distinguish my $1000 Denon PMA2000IVR integrated amp from my $6K EAR/Meridian preamp/amp combo (although I don't think that is the case)does not diminish my satisfaction with the more expensive pieces one bit. All it does is make me happy that my Denon sounds so good.

Ahh yes, but I could have spent my money so much more wisely.... I really don't care. If I get fleeced on interconnects, I'm not losing any sleep over it. I'm not saying that you can't have different prioirites, but to assume that people who refuse to DBT are being ignorant, is just you judging people for not having the same concerns.

If I listen to something and it sounds good to me that's al that matters. IMO it's about enjoying the music, not fretting about the relatively insignificant, evil cable manufacturers of the world. I completely understand why it is important to some people to know that their money is being well spent, however, I can do without the paternalistic audiophiles who feel the need to shove their thrifty ways down my throat. There are many aspects in of my life where I consider myself to be fairly informed and wise.... if I'm being ignorant about audio equipment, it provides a nice balance.

 

[recstar24]

sleestack,

IMO you appear to have a very healthy and positive attitude, and i commend it. I share a very similar attitude as well, however i dont think my wallet is as fearless as yours

 

[recstar24]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra Yes, as Obi-One would put it: "Only a Sith thinks in absolutes"

And as yoda would say: "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate is the path to the darkside."

 

[jude]

What about the fact that this is a DBT-free forum do you guys not understand? You want to argue with me about it? Don't waste your time--it'd fall on deaf ears. (Har har.

)

 

[thefuzzybird]

I've been reading this thread and find it very interesting. I'm new to the subject of high-end equipment and because I have little experience, I couldn't easily justify an opinion on the matter through any other means than common sense. And my concept of common sense isn't always the most accurate, especially when there isn't an easily proven "correct" answer. As a music major, however, I find the violin analogy particularly interesting.


Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ 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).

I am a saxophonist, and while my experience with this instrument may be slightly different because the saxophone lacks the violin's maturity (and because the differences between saxophone makes are more pronounced), I think the principle remains the same. It is true that with any instrument some brands will carry a reputation of excellence, and these brands will often, though not always, justify their reputation through their performance. It is also true that many makes of instrument gain such reputations through years of hype.

With a musical instrument, such factors as intonation can be quantitatively measured. You can take a tuner to a violin and tell if A measures 440, or whether the thing is playing out of tune. This doesn't tell you anything about the quality of the tone, but it does tell you that you're playing it in tune. Sure, you could strangle a cat, and that cat might reproduce the tone A, but it wouldn't sound very good. At the same time, no instrument, however well made, will sound good if played significantly out of tune. I like to think this analogy corresponds well to distortion in the amplification. I don't think the measurements commonly used will quantitatively tell you if the thing is going to sound fanastic or horrible. Ideally, yes, you want them to be perfect. You want to be playing precisely in tune. But a professional player playing just slightly out of tune will sound better than a hack honking away with perfect intonation. I believe that it would be theoretically possible to graph out the sound waves emerging from the instrument and discern why a particular intrument sounds good. It has to sound good for a reason. Are we capable of detecting that reason right now? No, probably not. That's why subjective listening is important. But I can tell you that if I showed up to a wind ensemble rehearsal playing horrendously out of tune, I'd be thrown out just as quickly as someone honking away accurately.


As far as the subjectivity goes, I think I can accurately continue the analogy. I've played dozens, if not hundreds of professional-grade saxophones. Some had better reputations than others, but each had some wacko who would absolutely swear by them. The number of wackos varied based on the hype or the performance of the horn. I can tell you that for a long time, it seemed like half the horns I tested were the best horns I'd ever played. Every time I played something new, I fell in love with something about its sound. I don't think it would have mattered whether I were testing them blind (although that isn't really possible with an instrument, since you can feel the differences). Blind or not, I would have found things about the sound that I liked with each. Yes, I could decide which I liked better, but it seemed like I was second-guessing myself every time I played something new. After playing probably hundreds of these things over the last several years, I've reached the conclusion that there isn't quantatively a best horn for tone quality. Could you say that there is a best instrument for quantitative things like intonation. Oh, definitely. Coincidentally, the saxophones that are reported to have the best intonation and measurable characteristics are also accused of sounding bland and sterile, as solid state amps are accused of sounding harsh.

Could someone listening to a player testing two horns side by side hear a difference? Yeah. And the listener could probably pick out which he liked better. But what's going to happen when you change the player (or to complete the analogy, the recording)? Not every player is going to sound better on one instrument or the other. And between two very well-made instruments, it barely even matters to the audience which is being played, because the quality of the performance is more directly affected by the musician. And I don't think there are too many musicians out there who are going to be drastically affected by a change between two very good instruments. He'll probably prefer one or the other, though.


(Honestly, I think between two well-made instruments, I'd take the one with better intonation. While the instrument is certainly going to affect the tone, the musician is ultimately going to have a greater impact.)


Here's the thing, though. With audio equipment, you're not just producing a tone. You're reproducing a tone. IF your goal is to reproduce the original sound that was recorded, I believe you can quantitatively measure which reproduction is more accurate. Yes, you need to trust your ears, and like a musical instrument, some people will prefer the sound of one system to another. However, if your goal is to reproduce the original sound as accurately as possible, I believe you an objectively decide which reproduction is more accurate. Yes, you'll ultimately decide with your ears. With the proper measuring medium, I don't think this would be a necessity. I don't think we have that medium.

This is a completely different standard from the question of which sounds better. You could design a synthesizer with a violin channel that sounds better than any wooden violin ever made and record a Sonata with it. If your goal was to provide the best musical representation of that Sonata, you'd go with the synthesized performance (factors like musicianship aside).

If your goal is to reproduce a recording of that Sonata accurately, the synthesizer is useless. This is where I feel the difference between judging equipment with more emphasis on scientific measurements comes into play.



Was any of that relevant or sensible? Did anyone even read that, or did I try to go way too far with it?

 

[Publius]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ 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.

I'll leave open the possibility I'm just deaf

I once failed a sighted A/B comparison between a MMF5 and a much, much more expensive turntable, possibly a VPI Super Scout (I forget the exact model, and it's probably not a VPI - it had a really thick greenish plinth). I would not at all be surprised that real audible differences existed between those decks and I'm just not experienced enough to notice.

I was originally just trying to call you out on saying that some objective measurements were completely useless, but I can understand that I was implying between the lines that measurement perfection equates to inaudibility, and I was really trying to avoid that debate in the first place, and I didn't really believe it in the first place. Apologies. I'm just going to drop that argument on the floor and slowly walk away.
Quote:

The point is that people have heard that and haven't waited for measurements to allow them to be sure about their impressions.

I can agree that Strads are superior, but only because of obvious differences that I'm not sure are comparable to the relatively subtle (and often immeasurable!) qualities expressed in many equipment reviews. I haven't listened to a Strad myself, but as I understand it, it would not be entirely uncommon for a trained classical listener to sit down to an quartet or small orchestral performance, not knowing what is being played, and be able to deduce that a Strad is being played without being told.

In any case I can admit that you don't need an objective criterion to conclusively observe a difference. But you do need one to explain why that difference exists, and to replicate that difference consistently. (Which is why so few Strad copies are better than Strads - to consistently beat it, they need to first concretely identify why it's so good.)
Quote:

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.

As a nonpracticing electrical engineer, forgive me if it's harder for me to walk away from such a topic so easily

The exceptional issue about audio is that it was borne out of, and is intertwined with, a lot of science and engineering. Nevertheless I'll agree that science will probably never explain everything about audio. That doesn't stop people like me from trying.

 

[crazyfrenchman27]

The main issue I have with this thread existing in a "DBT-free" forum is that the topic itself is about DBT, if you read the article.

The fact that DBT is directly pertinent to the article really ought to make DBT talk permissible. If you don't like that, why can't we move this back to the forum where it was originally posted so that we can actually talk about the topics presented in the article?

-Matt

 

[ChaosCow]

This whole article was ABOUT double blind testing. I'd really like to discuss the merits of it, because so far, nobody has really defended the actual notion of refusing to do double-blind testing, quite possibly out of respect for this rule. I just don't understand how you can rule out double-blind testing.

I feel like this is SUCH a critical issue to discuss; can't we discuss it SOMEWHERE? This changes the way many would probably think about audio. (It's made me reconsider quite a bit.)

 

[Publius]

Split into a separate reply because this one point got very, very long. In fact I'm tempted to move this to a separate thread, possibly in General. Mods?
Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ 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).

Yeah. I can agree with that. But I don't think they will always lead to that. Let me backtrack a bit, maybe even backpedal a bit, and restate my position. You may not care about thinking about the issue this abstractly, since you mentioned you care more about enjoying the music rather than engaging in such feats of sophistry as this

But I think this is an important point to make, and if I don't keel over from exhaustion from writing this, maybe I'll back it up too.

[size=large]Listening[/size]
Let's say that tomorrow - or, say, July 23rd *wink* - I come across and listen to a state of the art SET amp. And let's say that I hear a difference. Let's say further that I love the sound. I don't have any problem with that! And I don't really have a problem with people not wanting to look any further into audio gear and just enjoy what they have and what they've heard. What I do have a problem with is a lack of an attempt to take what we experience and integrate it into theories that are falsifiable and predictive. Like I said, I can't help but analyze and criticize.

[size=large]What it means to think objectively[/size]
All I'm asserting is two things:

1. If I do hear a difference, either it is in some sense quantifiable, or else it's placebo.
2. If I do measure a difference, the rationale must make more scientific sense than the placebo effect to explain the audible difference. Otherwise, the placebo effect is the more likely hypothesis (although it is not guaranteed to be the correct one).

I can't even say that I even know how to measure the difference - I'm certainly not saying that audio engineering has the answers to everything right now. All I can say is that, unless no difference existed in the first place, right now or some point in the future, a theory will exist that will explain why that amp sounds so good using numeric measurements and analysis. In a more wishy-washy sense, we're smart enough to figure it out. Pretty weak, eh? The second point is there because anybody can find a difference between two different things, even two of the same make and model, but it takes hard proof to say that difference means anything, backed up with logic and experience.

[size=large]Truth and theory[/size]
And it's here where I think we're never going to agree. For every device, there are always going to be any number of parameters and failure modes. Without exception, the audiophile community will attribute differences in sound to every parameter and failure mode of the device!

Thus, interconnects sound different because of different dielectrics, resistances, capacitances, characteristic impedances, electrostatic forces, microphonics, crystalline structures, quantum alignments, conductor widths, conductor lengths, connector types, connector materials, conductor materials, conductor distances, numbers of conductors, solder types, and braid topologies. In other words, according to various audio manufacturers, audiophiles and Head-Fi members, every conceivable difference to a cable changes the sound.

This is not sound science! Or sound engineering for that matter! Occam would roll in his grave if he saw a state of the art engineering theory such as this, practiced by the most famous people in the industry. No, I'm not saying everybody believes every effect is important - but that's an even more complicated situation, because then everybody has their own little theory as to how cables work, and will choose different effects to work towards the same goals.

What does all that mean in the end? Surprisingly, not as much as you'd think I'd say, but still a lot. Even if you attributed audible differences to all those effects, you'd still have a consistent theory of interconnects, and there wouldn't be any evidence I could show you to sway you towards thinking one of those effects didn't matter. You could even build cables based on your theory, and they could sound good, and people would buy them.

It's on the fringes that this sort of thinking breaks down.

1. When some people think a $200 cable sounds as good as a $1000 cable, or a $10,000 cable, that's because the $200 cable got it right and everybody else is overcharging. Or the designers got lucky, or they've tapped into a hitherto-unseen effect.
2. When a cable that takes all these effects into account sounds only as good as those that don't, the other cables got lucky, or they've tapped into a hitherto-unseen effect.
3. When some differences are clear as day sometimes and impossible to detect in others, it is due to emotions/stress in the listener, or a flawed audio system, or a flawed detection system, or a hitherto-unseen effect.
4. When RCA connections still invariably used for even the top of the line gear when the optimum characteristic impedances are obtained with BNC or coax, it's because of the entrenched standard, vendor stupidity, or a hitherto-unseen effect. (Anybody who doubts me on this can show me a 20Ghz switch with RCA inputs.)
5. When 6N copper so highly desired for interconnects, yet the amplifiers themselves use regular copper and (heaven forbid) 66/37 solder, it's because the interconnect can affect the sound independently of the materials inside of the electronics due to some hitherto-unseen effect.
6. When audio salesmen tell you to purchase cables based on a percentage of the total value of the system, rather than how much intrinsic value the cable adds to the system, it's because the cables are always less important to the final sound quality than the other components of the system, regardless of how any of them sound or cost.

Of course you can answer all of these questions. Everybody can. You might be able to answer them better than I have. That's not the point. The point is that to answer them you will almost invariably need to appeal to ad hoc hypotheses. Either here's a flaw somewhere else in a system, or a new effect is discovered, or an existing effect is less important than some other effect. Never is an effect considered completely inaudible based on new evidence, nor is an effect generalized to explain more evidence. Rarely (if ever) does an experiment in a new cable result in a poorer sounding cable. Ever since audiophiledom has started, and people started caring about cables, the theory of their quality has never simplified over time, and it remains a collection of guidelines about how certain parameters of construction affect certain dimensions of listening, without significant predictive power about how not to build a cable beyond what has been already manufactured. Of course I'm singling out cables in particular here but I could repeat this argument for all sorts of other things.

Truth, per se, is not directly a part of the conversation. Everybody can explain the evidence, and if you are comfortable with believing that every effect is audible and everything sounds different I won't be able to convince you otherwise. But if you don't - if you admit that some effects are not audible, that some audible differences may in fact not exist, that we humans are smart enough to agree on what is and is not audible, and that we can program a computer to test for everything that is audible - then everything else must fall into place.

 

[geek707]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ A 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).

You are equating a differences between a Strad and other violins to differences between cables??????????????
ROFL!