[ThomasHK]

   
You had the courage to test yourself. That's a lot more than the vast majority of audiophiles can say. When confronted with the prospect of testing, typical subjectivist audiophile types usually rationalize their inability to pass (should they actually submit to testing) by making up suppositions that somehow the differences they claim online are "night and day" can only be heard over long periods of time, which (conveniently) cannot be accounted for in an A/B test. Or, far more commonly, they'll refuse to test at all, claiming that they don't need to prove anything to anybody, that the hobby should be about enjoying oneself, etc.
 
They're afraid. They're afraid they'll discover that all the time, all the emotional investment, and, probably most importantly, all the money they've put into this hobby was worthless. The last one must particularly sting, especially when they think about all the things they could have bought instead. And, if you take away most of the back end gear, for many long-time Head-Fi'ers that takes with it a significant chunk of the hobby. For one thing, it brings the ballooning costs of flagship headphones in recent years into sharper focus: when you can no longer convince yourself that the roughness and sibilance you're hearing in your latest generation flagship can be cured (or indeed has been cured) by buying an expensive amp or DAC or cable, it's a lot harder to forgive super expensive headphones for having these flaws in the first place.
 
Being an objectivist often means that the gear aspect of personal listening becomes boring and stagnant. But, to me, that just means I can devote nearly all my time to actually listening to music through my headphones, which is why I got into this stuff in the first place.

 
I hear you on all points
 
I'm just a little mad at myself for having gotten caught up (briefly I might add) in a vicious upgrade cycle, although I obviously understand audio and psychoacoustics quite well. But this silly little box definitely locked things in perspective again.
 
I'm sober again!
 
EDIT: this guy however... http://www.head-fi.org/t/633511/pictures-of-your-portable-rig-part-xvi/22770#post_13244534 
 

 

[VNandor]

  So here's the thing...
 
I'm an industry insider (I work on headphones for different brands... don't ask, I don't tell, it's not why I'm here). 
I have studied sound and acoustics and dsp
I have worked for 6+ now in audio R&D
I consider myself a healthy mix of objectivist (you need measurements) and subjectivist (but you need to listen to it too). 
 
And yet this year I've bought (in order) Shure SE846, Oppo HA-2, O2 amp, Mojo, AK70... over the course of say 4 months.
 
Why?
 
THE HYPE IS REAL 
OUTPUT IMPEDANCE OMG TOO HIGH
BETTER DEPTH AND MORE 3D BECAUSE FPGA > ESS GLARE
OMG SUCH A CUTE LITTLE PLAYER
 
(i.e. Head-Fi...)
 
And then today this little box arrived... 
 

 
Crap... 
 
confirmation bias is a *****!!

1.If you don't hear a difference you are obviously deaf, since my friend/wife/dog/fish heard the improvements from two rooms away.
2.ABX is not a valid form of testing and the results should not be trusted.
3. Unless the switch box costed 10000$, it degrades the signal to the point it masks the differences.
 I could have forgotten some of the best of Head-Fi counter arguments against blind testing.
 
On a more serious note I've done some blind tests using foobar's abx plugin and I failed a lot before I figured out I can tick the keep playback position box. Looking at spectograms to know what to listen to also helped in some cases. Point is, sometimes I missed subtle but nonetheless audible differences. Of course these problems are present in sighted listening tests as well as a whole bunch of others as an added bonus.

 

[HotIce]

The switch-box degrades the signal? Let's AB test that one over a straight connection. That tends to quiet the argument over that, down 

 
As far as knowing what to listen if you want to detect changes, between components ...
A long time ago, back at university. we did an 3 way blind test among one $$$, state of the art, solid state amplifier, vs a $$$ state of the art valve amplifier, vs. a $100 (of todays money) amplifier built off a popular electronics magazine kit.
Amps where SPL volume matched at the listening position, and during the test, the listening room composition (in terms of persons and objects, and their positions) was kept constant.
We invited a lot of people (from friends, to audiophiles, to sound magazines reviewers - of these, only one showed up), and about 50 showed up.
Long story short, test was random, and nobody could reliably tell them apart ... besides an audiophile friend of mine, which had 100% detection on the amplifier we built off the kit.
After much pressure (and wine) on how he did it, it turned out, the ground screw was a bit lose, and was making the amp generate a very minor 50Hz buzz, which was totally undetectable when music was on, but could be heard (if you focused on it) on silence during record changes.

 

[pinnahertz]

 
1.If you don't hear a difference you are obviously deaf, since my friend/wife/dog/fish heard the improvements from two rooms away.

A deaf person has little or no hearing. That definition makes the above fairly inflamatory, don't you think?

2.ABX is not a valid form of testing and the results should not be trusted.  

No kidding? Wow. I'll have to let all scientific researchers, in particularly the medical and drug developers that they've been doing it wrong for 100 years!
 
So, you don't acknowledge perceptual / expectation bias and placebo? Ok then.

3. Unless the switch box costed 10000$, it degrades the signal to the point it masks the differences.

I have this box, it's about 12x17x6, has a bunch of connectors on it and a several switches on the front. It weighs about 100 pounds, and is 24K gold plated. It costs about $10000. Does that mean that regardless of what's inside it can't possibly degrade the signal? Are you not aware that a $2 switch has absolutely no impact on the signal, and in fact, those types of switch contacts are found in just about every piece of audio gear, even the $10,000 stuff?  

 I could have forgotten some of the best of Head-Fi counter arguments against blind testing.

Well, none given so far...

On a more serious note I've done some blind tests using foobar's abx plugin and I failed a lot before I figured out I can tick the keep playback position box. Looking at spectograms to know what to listen to also helped in some cases. Point is, sometimes I missed subtle but nonetheless audible differences. Of course these problems are present in sighted listening tests as well as a whole bunch of others as an added bonus.

You made it a sighted test. And yes, sighted testing is a lot of fun, biased, and therefore invalid. Placebo is real, and why people are "cured" by them every day.  That's all well documented, regardless if one's personal belief system allows for reality or not.

 

[pinnahertz]

  The switch-box degrades the signal? Let's AB test that one over a straight connection. That tends to quiet the argument over that, down 

 
As far as knowing what to listen if you want to detect changes, between components ...
A long time ago, back at university. we did an 3 way blind test among one $$$, state of the art, solid state amplifier, vs a $$$ state of the art valve amplifier, vs. a $100 (of todays money) amplifier built off a popular electronics magazine kit.
Amps where SPL volume matched at the listening position, and during the test, the listening room composition (in terms of persons and objects, and their positions) was kept constant.
We invited a lot of people (from friends, to audiophiles, to sound magazines reviewers - of these, only one showed up), and about 50 showed up.
Long story short, test was random, and nobody could reliably tell them apart ... besides an audiophile friend of mine, which had 100% detection on the amplifier we built off the kit.
After much pressure (and wine) on how he did it, it turned out, the ground screw was a bit lose, and was making the amp generate a very minor 50Hz buzz, which was totally undetectable when music was on, but could be heard (if you focused on it) on silence during record changes.

Doyle Lonnegan: Your boss is quite a card player, Mr. Kelly; how does he do it?

Johnny Hooker: He cheats.

 

[VNandor]

  A deaf person has little or no hearing. That definition makes the above fairly inflamatory, don't you think?
No kidding? Wow. I'll have to let all scientific researchers, in particularly the medical and drug developers that they've been doing it wrong for 100 years!
 
So, you don't acknowledge perceptual / expectation bias and placebo? Ok then.
I have this box, it's about 12x17x6, has a bunch of connectors on it and a several switches on the front. It weighs about 100 pounds, and is 24K gold plated. It costs about $10000. Does that mean that regardless of what's inside it can't possibly degrade the signal? Are you not aware that a $2 switch has absolutely no impact on the signal, and in fact, those types of switch contacts are found in just about every piece of audio gear, even the $10,000 stuff?  
Well, none given so far...

By "best" counter arguments, I've meant the most funny to read.
 
 

  You made it a sighted test. And yes, sighted testing is a lot of fun, biased, and therefore invalid. Placebo is real, and why people are "cured" by them every day.  That's all well documented, regardless if one's personal belief system allows for reality or not.

I think you misunderstood something there. What I've tried to say is that, I tried to ABX some files and I couldn't. Then, I looked at the spectogram of the files, so I could make a rough guess what to listen to. Then after that, I ABXed the files again and passed. It's still a blind test. I didn't test while I was looking at the spectograms and playing music and be like a-ha now I hear a difference. I looked at the spectograms then took the abx test again but with more succes this time.

 

[Ruben123]

A deaf person has little or no hearing. That definition makes the above fairly inflamatory, don't you think?
No kidding? Wow. I'll have to let all scientific researchers, in particularly the medical and drug developers that they've been doing it wrong for 100 years!

So, you don't acknowledge perceptual / expectation bias and placebo? Ok then.
I have this box, it's about 12x17x6, has a bunch of connectors on it and a several switches on the front. It weighs about 100 pounds, and is 24K gold plated. It costs about $10000. Does that mean that regardless of what's inside it can't possibly degrade the signal? Are you not aware that a $2 switch has absolutely no impact on the signal, and in fact, those types of switch contacts are found in just about every piece of audio gear, even the $10,000 stuff?  
Well, none given so far...
You made it a sighted test. And yes, sighted testing is a lot of fun, biased, and therefore invalid. Placebo is real, and why people are "cured" by them every day.  That's all well documented, regardless if one's personal belief system allows for reality or not.

Im sure it was mostly sarcasm

 

[icebear]

Im sure it was mostly sarcasm

He obviously didn't get it as the OP hasn't used any smiley's.

I was so much more fun though seeing people taking it for real and run with it

 

[watchnerd]

  A deaf person has little or no hearing. That definition makes the above fairly inflamatory, don't you think?
No kidding? Wow. I'll have to let all scientific researchers, in particularly the medical and drug developers that they've been doing it wrong for 100 years!
 
So, you don't acknowledge perceptual / expectation bias and placebo? Ok then.
I have this box, it's about 12x17x6, has a bunch of connectors on it and a several switches on the front. It weighs about 100 pounds, and is 24K gold plated. It costs about $10000. Does that mean that regardless of what's inside it can't possibly degrade the signal? Are you not aware that a $2 switch has absolutely no impact on the signal, and in fact, those types of switch contacts are found in just about every piece of audio gear, even the $10,000 stuff?  
Well, none given so far...
You made it a sighted test. And yes, sighted testing is a lot of fun, biased, and therefore invalid. Placebo is real, and why people are "cured" by them every day.  That's all well documented, regardless if one's personal belief system allows for reality or not.

 
I think you need to turn up the knob on your satire detector....

 

[U-3C]

I hear you on all points

I'm just a little mad at myself for having gotten caught up (briefly I might add) in a vicious upgrade cycle, although I obviously understand audio and psychoacoustics quite well. But this silly little box definitely locked things in perspective again.

I'm sober again!

EDIT: this guy however... http://www.head-fi.org/t/633511/pictures-of-your-portable-rig-part-xvi/22770#post_13244534 

It's hard to fight it. You are talking about decade of marketing designed to make the skeptics abandon their critical judgement and for new comers to fall away from credible knowledge.

When I first got my "audiophile" setup, I thought I was insane so I grabbed all the random strangers, all the close friends I can to test. Without telling them it's a 500 USD setup, people have no idea why I purchased all this weird, exotic stuff that can't even do basic things for an enjoyable experience.

"BUT BUT BUT THIS IS A CLEAN AMP WITH SO MUCH POWER AND AN DRIVE XYZ AND-!"

Dude, it's noisier than my phone, less convenient, requires cables and extra charging, and it doesn't sound any different, unless you ignore the considerable noisy output. I got better results with my 10 dollar item with DSP than the focal utopia, which I audited once.



^^Now go say that somewhere else, and look at all the hate you will get, many of which are from people who never tried the headphones and are not even relying on their ears, but blind faith.

 

[Argyris]

I think part of why I was amenable from the onset to the objectivist stance is that, contrary to so many people involved with personal audio, I actually dislike using audio gear. As in, interfacing with the physical devices themselves. I'd love it if we all lived in magical fairy land where we could have HD 600 + sub bass sound piped directly into our ears from the aether, without having to strap cups to or insert little silicone tips into our ears, and without having to deal with cables and separate amplifiers (when our source isn't powerful enough on its own, like my Nexus 5X) or any of the rest of it. I find my current arrangement of HD 600 + FiiO Q1 (the latter when necessary) tolerable, but only because it's as minimal as I can get.
 
When your goal is to have as little as possible chained together to achieve your sonic goal, it makes you skeptical of equipment as a whole, which is a far cry from the enthusiasm many people have for each component. This skepticism has primed me to accept testing that invalidates most of the claims made in the audiophile world.
 
In a way, you might say I'm biased in the opposite direction of the subjectivist, except that I don't think it can ever be a bad thing to be biased in favor of the truth (at least, as best as we can currently understand it). At the very least, it makes things a lot cheaper!

 

[StanD]

Im sure it was mostly sarcasm

I think our friend PinHz has been in one audiophile grudge match too many and requires an objective intervention to recalibrate his sense of sarcasm.

 

[pinnahertz]

 
I think our friend PinHz has been in one audiophile grudge match too many and requires an objective intervention to recalibrate his sense of sarcasm.

Geez, you guys.  All right already, all of you.  
 
I goofed!  I popped into the thread near the end and I admit to not reading all of the 3256 posts ahead of it or, or even the previous 10.  I also needed that intervention just a bit earlier over in the Computer Audio sub-forum (OMG, is it loony in there!).  Hopping from that to this...well, that was stupefying . 
 
But thanks.  Taking...deep breath...and...exhaling....sarcasm sensor recalibrated, troll filter readjusted....moving on. 

 

[U-3C]

Geez, you guys.  All right already, all of you.  

I goofed!  I popped into the thread near the end and I admit to not reading all of the 3256 posts ahead of it or, or even the previous 10.  I also needed that intervention just a bit earlier over in the Computer Audio sub-forum (OMG, is it loony in there!).  Hopping from that to this...well, that was stupefying . 

But thanks.  Taking...deep breath...and...exhaling....sarcasm sensor recalibrated, troll filter readjusted....moving on. 

I see that people are joking with you a bit when you were taking an argument seriously and because of that, I'm worried that the jokes may have upset you.

I do value what you posted and I really don't wish to see anyone upset because of a misunderstanding, so if it is indeed the case, I hope everyone can acknowledge it and stop the jokes.

Please?

 

[Joe Bloggs]

NOOOO! What's life without jokes?