[RRod]

Analogies,
Ok
There is a well known old Chinese herbal mix , a (re) vitalizer.
I contains pasturized squrrel dung.
FDA band it.

Moral
If it exists with some at least valid evidentury support, try it.

Dunno what that has to do with error rates, but ok.

 

[skwoodwiva]

Dunno what that has to do with error rates, but ok.

All about what evidence you let effect your judgment

 

[RRod]

All about what evidence you let effect your judgment

I can come up with testimonials for getting kicked in the testes. Personally I want some modicum of control from the results I let drive my actions.

 

[skwoodwiva]

I can come up with testimonials for getting kicked in the testes. Personally I want some modicum of control from the results I let drive my actions.

This!
It is a medical fact a cayanne pepper blast does no harm & can improve eye sight. That is much afterword.

 

[bigshot]

I agree. But debunking audio falsehoods is practical matter which is similar to, but not quite the same as, scientifically and impartially trying to figure out what's true in the audio world. I think the former can overextend itself and fall prey to bias due to setting the filter such that too many false negatives are generated in the process of trying to limit false positives - there's usually a tradeoff involved here.

There can't be more false negatives than the horse poop that gets shoveled on a regular basis in the audio business. Just go around to various audiophile websites and start trying to verify the claims there. You'll find that out pronto. The proof of the pudding for false negatives is simply asking for one verifiable example of a positive result. I have a standing request for one single example of an amp that is properly manufactured and designed that sounds different than any other amp. So far... crickets. By the way, we aren't in a science lab where we investigate general science. We're talking about the science behind home audio. It's important to keep that in mind or you lose track of the context.

 

[skwoodwiva]

There can't be more false negatives than the horse poop that gets shoveled on a regular basis in the audio business. Just go around to various audiophile websites and start trying to verify the claims there. You'll find that out pronto. The proof of the pudding for false negatives is simply asking for one verifiable example of a positive result. I have a standing request for one single example of an amp that is properly manufactured and designed that sounds different than any other amp. So far... crickets. By the way, we aren't in a science lab where we investigate general science. We're talking about the science behind home audio. It's important to keep that in mind or you lose track of the context.

I must respond,
So you think a vast or at least some
(please clarify how much of HF is a problem? )
part of the forum here, outside of SS. Is poop?
That seems to be what you are are saying. Please clarify if I take you wrong.

 

[KeithEmo]

Interesting question.....
And I guess the answer always comes down to a combination of evaluating the current level of scientific understanding, my own personal experience, and anecdotal claims (partly based on the credentials of who is making those claims).

For example, the scientific data about cables, what they do, and their electrical characteristics, is pretty well known.
That evidence also agrees quite well with my own extensive experience.
The evidence suggests that, in the vast majority of situations, differences between the electrical characteristics of interconnect cables will probably be inaudible.
It also describes, quite precisely, what conditions are likely to pose an exception to that statement (one of which is interactions between device outputs with very high impedances and cables with very high levels of capacitance).
My experience on the subject, which is quite extensive, has shown BOTH of those predictions, based on the model of the situation defined by my understanding of it, to be correct.
(When you connect cables with high levels of capacitance to tube preamps and passive preamps with unusually high output impedances, they both measure and sound quite different; but, when connected to more typical equipment they do not.)

However, when we come to examine "possible audible differences between DACs", the situation is somewhat different.
There are several characteristics of DACs which affect factors other than frequency response, THD, and S/N.
Many of these factors are easily visible on an oscilloscope and easily measured in other ways (filter response is the most well-known one).
Furthermore, as far as I know, nobody has actually done any significant peer-reviewed research on this particular subject.
(And the idea that the results of some poorly conducted tests, on characteristics which are only somewhat related to the one in question, does not seem at all compelling to me.)
Although, however, several commercial companies, including Dolby Labs, have done more specific research which tends to support the claim that differences are audible.
My own personal anecdotal experience, as well as that of several people I consider credible, also seems to support this possibility.
On the other side of the coin, some other folks, based on their anecdotal evidence, and on a very specific interpretation of some scientific data which is not directly relevant, are quite convinced that it cannot possibly be true.
(I'm noting here that nobody has presented any records of a full scale properly conducted study on this question showing any results one way or the other.)

As it sits, if someone were to presents me with evidence, collected via a properly designed and conducted test, that I am incorrect, then I'd be happy to concede the point.
Unfortunately, such evidence does not exists, and we have no results to provide actual evidence either way.
And, LACKING THAT, I'm inclined to assign some reasonable credibility to my current anecdotal results.

And, yes, if the inhabitants of some obscure island were to tell me that "for centuries, when they've gotten a headache, their ancestors have eaten a specific type of monkey poop, and their headaches went away", I would be willing to expend a little effort to either confirm or deny whether there just might be something in that monkey poop that cures headaches. The fact that I may feel that it sounds silly doesn't exclude the fact that, at least part of the time, large amounts of anecdotal evidence often lead to some sort of useful information. And, yes, if a significant number of people claim to hear the same sort of difference, then that does pose justification for turning that information into a hypothesis which can be tested, and then testing it. And, yes, it WOULD make me very unhappy if I missed an important scientific discovery because someone convinced me "not to bother to check the facts" because "it was obviously silly".

If this thread is really about "debunking audiophile myths" rather than "discussing" or "testing" them, then we need to both stop talking about whether differences exist between DACs,
AND STOP CLAIMING THAT SUCH DIFFERENCES DO NOT EXIST, until and unless someone produces some actual test results to support EITHER claim.

where do you draw the line? for one anecdote that ends up having some partial significance, how many BS will you waste your life looking into because some guy didn't bother testing things properly before running his mouth?
as I hinted in a previous post, we're usually discussing small variations, which is mostly the reason why people disagree on hearing them or them being significant in the first place. nobody needs a blind test to tell a red car apart from a dark cat. but if testimony of change is meant to become a fact for the community, I'll want some sort of evidence first and as much specification as possible in case replication is available to me. in this section it seems pretty natural IMO. we're not trying to discover the next miracle drug, we're here to try and reduce the amount of urban legends in audio circles. so again IMO, rejecting empty handed claims and random anecdotes seems perfectly adequate for that specific job.
and yes it means rejecting a number of relevant anecdotes, and a massive number of almost correct claims, like hearing the right stuff but attributing it to the wrong cause, or having the right measurable effect but only thinking we're hearing it because we know it's there... I'm personally very fine with this sacrifice. I'd rather dismiss some correct observations than accept false ones as factual. even more so when outside of this section, it's empty claim paradise. so people can take interest in the craziest feedbacks over their if they so wish and investigate to their hearts' content. it's not like I'm killing discoveries, we're not even a research section. I'm just trying to have a place a little more focused on evidence based discussions.

 

[Phronesis]

There can't be more false negatives than the horse poop that gets shoveled on a regular basis in the audio business. Just go around to various audiophile websites and start trying to verify the claims there. You'll find that out pronto. The proof of the pudding for false negatives is simply asking for one verifiable example of a positive result. I have a standing request for one single example of an amp that is properly manufactured and designed that sounds different than any other amp. So far... crickets. By the way, we aren't in a science lab where we investigate general science. We're talking about the science behind home audio. It's important to keep that in mind or you lose track of the context.

I think you may be missing the distinction between false negatives and false positives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positives_and_false_negatives. In audio, a false positive would be a conclusion that A and B sound different when they actually don't (or sound more different than they actually do). A false negative would be conclusion that they don't sound different when they actually do. The issue you're referring to is the likely high rate of false positives in audio marketing and forum babble (which I agree with). I'm also concerned with prematurely reaching conclusions which result in too many false negatives. But we can each set our filter on this according to our judgment and the decisions we're making.

 

[Phronesis]

You really do seem to have an agenda to disprove ABX testing in audio. Most of the measurements are orders of magnitude below what is considered to be audible in most modern audio equipment. What parameters are you concerned about that would require more stringent standardization? ABX is still going to be the better option when listening for a difference. Most sighted judgement has zero merit without measurements and a basic attempt to remove bias.

My only agenda is to improve my understanding of these issues. My participation in the discussions amounts to thinking out loud, and my views have evolved in the short time since I joined this forum. My views may be different next week ...

 

[skwoodwiva]

@Phronesis ,
I wish I had included such a qualifier
"In audio, a false positive would be a conclusion that A and B sound different when they actually don't (or sound more different than they actually do). A false negative would be conclusion that they don't sound different when they actually do. The issue you're referring to is the likely high rate of false positives in audio marketing and forum babble (which I agree with).
" to BigShot. Thanks

 

[Zapp_Fan]

I think we are all in agreement that false positives are a much bigger problem in audiophilia than false negatives, that's basically why this section exists.

However, I am with @KeithEmo in the feeling that false negatives (when some improvement is possible but dismissed on shaky theoretical grounds) are a real shame. What we really need is better testing of these things. There's no mystery as to why audio companies don't stand to gain much by advancing the average level of knowledge on audio quality. But there would be quite a bit of benefit to generating new *public* research on some of these topics.

Maybe a crowdfunding campaign could raise the funds to put to bed some myths once and for all.

 

[Malfunkt]

That is the Chesky demo disc. I've heard that and the forward back thing only works when it is a few inches from your head, and even then it keeps snapping back and forth between front and back. In short, it sucks. That same Chesky disc has a jazz combo that sounds like it was recorded in a men's room at grand central station. Just about every binaural recording I've heard sucks. The only one I ever heard that sounded decent was a Japanese classical record, but the binaural effect was so minimal, it could just as well have been mono.

If anyone knows any really effective binaural recordings of acoustic music, please let me know. I'm not interested in electronic simulations because that sort of Pink Floyd stuff can be done without all the trappings of head dummies with microphones in the ears.

I can see where the discussion went obtuse earlier with prescribing that binaural should be a preferred way of recording but it is pretty easy to hear. Close your eyes and listen to any of these. This is just a casual search... so music and recordings may not be the best.

Whether or not one likes it is a matter of taste, or head-shape, or inner-ear wax...

Personally, I recognize the limitations of using only 2-mics. They can only pick up (attenuate) a limited range of dynamics. If we had mics as sensitive as our ears..well then binaural would be much different. Well maybe we will one day (same argument goes for camera lens/sensors). Recording arts are only a bit over a century old.

(Shostakovich)


BBC1...






What was the particular myth or claim about binaural again? Whether it was effective or commercially viable?

 

[castleofargh]

I must respond,
So you think a vast or at least some
(please clarify how much of HF is a problem? )
part of the forum here, outside of SS. Is poop?
That seems to be what you are are saying. Please clarify if I take you wrong.

let's not mix up everything . the only way to have impressions is to have them. the only way to measure something is to measure it. the only way for people to make sure that something is real, is to set up a way for them to verify that it happened, or when possible let them replicate the event. just "dude trust me" is not how we demonstrate the reality of anything.
people enjoying their gears casually will have opinions on them and some of those opinions have obvious value for other consumers wondering if they'll be interested in those products. for that the various sections about impressions are clearly of value.
but if what we want is a specific fact on a specific subject, and we want solid evidence so that we can put our full confidence into the idea that the information is reliable, then we obviously need some means to verify that information. anecdotal feedback and empty claims do not offer any tool to verify anything. so for that specific objective, yes anecdotal impressions from sighted tests are mostly useless. and a great deal of them are just plain false. simply because when you have no mean to verify if something is true, you get no incentive to wonder if you're wrong.

because humans lie all the time. because humans are wrong all the time. because our memory is very far from the ideal storage area that most people think it is. because we tend to assume that our feelings of reality is reality despite having demonstrated the great many flaws in that way of thinking. because we have a very fast heuristic way to solve questions that is mostly good at being fast more than it is at being right. because we want to be right and always instinctively look for the fastest easiest way out of a problem. for all those reasons, considering that most people say false stuff is not an insult. it's more like an obvious depiction of reality.
the scientific method was developed to provide guidance against several of those human limitations and instincts. deciding that one of the best way to confirm that something is true, is to try our best to disprove it. to put controls between the event and us, to have blind tests so that our biases can't interfere as much as they usually do. but also guidelines on how and when we should draw a conclusion. and if you take those guidelines and go see how close you get with a typical audiophile feedback, I don't know how you wouldn't become highly skeptical of what is said on a daily basis.

most people talk about experiences that wouldn't even qualify as an experiment, then they take that malpractice of an experience and try to draw conclusions about many things. often people will draw general conclusions from that one anecdote. something the scientific method would never let you do for good reason. so yes when strictly looking for proper demonstration and evidence based data, most audiophile feedback is poop as far as proven material is concerned. for the same reason that me discussing foreign politic at lunch doesn't qualify as facts about foreign politic and will be seen as poop by most diplomats informed on the situation I'd discuss. it's not an insult to recognize that we don't know much and aren't qualified to claim stuff on certain subjects. any guy with ears and a bunch of gears tries to pass as an audio expert and tell others how everything is based on his first hand experience at never setting up one proper listening test. that's really not far from poop. most audiophiles have very little care for facts, very limited knowledge about most aspects of sound, electricity, psychoacoustic, or simply knowledge on how to set up a valid listening test for whatever they're trying to find out. yet many audiophiles will have something to say about any subject and will make claims about anything. so my personal method is to reject everything until the person comes with some sort of evidence. then I'm usually willing to listen and discuss. I wouldn't and do not behave that way in most of my other hobbies. but audiophiles are so full of crap and so pretentious that they made me a skeptic.

There can't be more false negatives than the horse poop that gets shoveled on a regular basis in the audio business. Just go around to various audiophile websites and start trying to verify the claims there. You'll find that out pronto. The proof of the pudding for false negatives is simply asking for one verifiable example of a positive result. I have a standing request for one single example of an amp that is properly manufactured and designed that sounds different than any other amp. So far... crickets. By the way, we aren't in a science lab where we investigate general science. We're talking about the science behind home audio. It's important to keep that in mind or you lose track of the context.

you have to very clearly define the conditions for this. otherwise I can make an example right now where I can identify 2 of my amps with my hd650 with some concentration, and can identify them without even having to think about it if you let me pick my IEM. I can also just use a test track with very low signal amplitude and demonstrate a difference by pushing the noise floor. plenty of ways to meet your request because it's an all inclusive nonsense request. and most people reading it will think you're out of your mind, just because you didn't bother with testing conditions and a range of specs for the amps.

even for DACs this idea can't stand if you keep saying it without very clear conditions.

 

[skwoodwiva]

let's not mix up everything . the only way to have impressions is to have them. the only way to measure something is to measure it. the only way for people to make sure that something is real, is to set up a way for them to verify that it happened, or when possible let them replicate the event. just "dude trust me" is not how we demonstrate the reality of anything.
people enjoying their gears casually will have opinions on them and some of those opinions have obvious value for other consumers wondering if they'll be interested in those products. for that the various sections about impressions are clearly of value.
but if what we want is a specific fact on a specific subject, and we want solid evidence so that we can put our full confidence into the idea that the information is reliable, then we obviously need some means to verify that information. anecdotal feedback and empty claims do not offer any tool to verify anything. so for that specific objective, yes anecdotal impressions from sighted tests are mostly useless. and a great deal of them are just plain false. simply because when you have no mean to verify if something is true, you get no incentive to wonder if you're wrong.

because humans lie all the time. because humans are wrong all the time. because our memory is very far from the ideal storage area that most people think it is. because we tend to assume that our feelings of reality is reality despite having demonstrated the great many flaws in that way of thinking. because we have a very fast heuristic way to solve questions that is mostly good at being fast more than it is at being right. because we want to be right and always instinctively look for the fastest easiest way out of a problem. for all those reasons, considering that most people say false stuff is not an insult. it's more like an obvious depiction of reality.
the scientific method was developed to provide guidance against several of those human limitations and instincts. deciding that one of the best way to confirm that something is true, is to try our best to disprove it. to put controls between the event and us, to have blind tests so that our biases can't interfere as much as they usually do. but also guidelines on how and when we should draw a conclusion. and if you take those guidelines and go see how close you get with a typical audiophile feedback, I don't know how you wouldn't become highly skeptical of what is said on a daily basis.

most people talk about experiences that wouldn't even qualify as an experiment, then they take that malpractice of an experience and try to draw conclusions about many things. often people will draw general conclusions from that one anecdote. something the scientific method would never let you do for good reason. so yes when strictly looking for proper demonstration and evidence based data, most audiophile feedback is poop as far as proven material is concerned. for the same reason that me discussing foreign politic at lunch doesn't qualify as facts about foreign politic and will be seen as poop by most diplomats informed on the situation I'd discuss. it's not an insult to recognize that we don't know much and aren't qualified to claim stuff on certain subjects. any guy with ears and a bunch of gears tries to pass as an audio expert and tell others how everything is based on his first hand experience at never setting up one proper listening test. that's really not far from poop. most audiophiles have very little care for facts, very limited knowledge about most aspects of sound, electricity, psychoacoustic, or simply knowledge on how to set up a valid listening test for whatever they're trying to find out. yet many audiophiles will have something to say about any subject and will make claims about anything. so my personal method is to reject everything until the person comes with some sort of evidence. then I'm usually willing to listen and discuss. I wouldn't and do not behave that way in most of my other hobbies. but audiophiles are so full of crap and so pretentious that they made me a skeptic.



you have to very clearly define the conditions for this. otherwise I can make an example right now where I can identify 2 of my amps with my hd650 with some concentration, and can identify them without even having to think about it if you let me pick my IEM. I can also just use a test track with very low signal amplitude and demonstrate a difference by pushing the noise floor. plenty of ways to meet your request because it's an all inclusive nonsense request. and most people reading it will think you're out of your mind, just because you didn't bother with testing conditions and a range of specs for the amps.

even for DACs this idea can't stand if you keep saying it without very clear conditions.

Ever wonder why he is the Mod?

Sometimes waiting or formulating but the Mod! He is.

 

[castleofargh]

Interesting question.....
And I guess the answer always comes down to a combination of evaluating the current level of scientific understanding, my own personal experience, and anecdotal claims (partly based on the credentials of who is making those claims).

For example, the scientific data about cables, what they do, and their electrical characteristics, is pretty well known.
That evidence also agrees quite well with my own extensive experience.
The evidence suggests that, in the vast majority of situations, differences between the electrical characteristics of interconnect cables will probably be inaudible.
It also describes, quite precisely, what conditions are likely to pose an exception to that statement (one of which is interactions between device outputs with very high impedances and cables with very high levels of capacitance).
My experience on the subject, which is quite extensive, has shown BOTH of those predictions, based on the model of the situation defined by my understanding of it, to be correct.
(When you connect cables with high levels of capacitance to tube preamps and passive preamps with unusually high output impedances, they both measure and sound quite different; but, when connected to more typical equipment they do not.)

However, when we come to examine "possible audible differences between DACs", the situation is somewhat different.
There are several characteristics of DACs which affect factors other than frequency response, THD, and S/N.
Many of these factors are easily visible on an oscilloscope and easily measured in other ways (filter response is the most well-known one).
Furthermore, as far as I know, nobody has actually done any significant peer-reviewed research on this particular subject.
(And the idea that the results of some poorly conducted tests, on characteristics which are only somewhat related to the one in question, does not seem at all compelling to me.)
Although, however, several commercial companies, including Dolby Labs, have done more specific research which tends to support the claim that differences are audible.
My own personal anecdotal experience, as well as that of several people I consider credible, also seems to support this possibility.
On the other side of the coin, some other folks, based on their anecdotal evidence, and on a very specific interpretation of some scientific data which is not directly relevant, are quite convinced that it cannot possibly be true.
(I'm noting here that nobody has presented any records of a full scale properly conducted study on this question showing any results one way or the other.)

As it sits, if someone were to presents me with evidence, collected via a properly designed and conducted test, that I am incorrect, then I'd be happy to concede the point.
Unfortunately, such evidence does not exists, and we have no results to provide actual evidence either way.
And, LACKING THAT, I'm inclined to assign some reasonable credibility to my current anecdotal results.

And, yes, if the inhabitants of some obscure island were to tell me that "for centuries, when they've gotten a headache, their ancestors have eaten a specific type of monkey poop, and their headaches went away", I would be willing to expend a little effort to either confirm or deny whether there just might be something in that monkey poop that cures headaches. The fact that I may feel that it sounds silly doesn't exclude the fact that, at least part of the time, large amounts of anecdotal evidence often lead to some sort of useful information. And, yes, if a significant number of people claim to hear the same sort of difference, then that does pose justification for turning that information into a hypothesis which can be tested, and then testing it. And, yes, it WOULD make me very unhappy if I missed an important scientific discovery because someone convinced me "not to bother to check the facts" because "it was obviously silly".

If this thread is really about "debunking audiophile myths" rather than "discussing" or "testing" them, then we need to both stop talking about whether differences exist between DACs,
AND STOP CLAIMING THAT SUCH DIFFERENCES DO NOT EXIST, until and unless someone produces some actual test results to support EITHER claim.

oh I'm absolutely for not claiming that differences can't occur in general. on that we're absolutely in agreement. in fact, I'm overall against claims. I'd be a happy camper if we could actually discuss things like the scientists do, with degrees of confidence, something more probable than something else, and experiences that suggest something.
it would make discussing topics so much easier(and probably more interesting).
I observed the same things about cables, it's in fact pretty easy to manufacture situations where cable specs can make a noticeable difference in sound. they're just not situations we are likely to meet or should try to achieve.
I have a harder time with DACs but it's still very much possible if we put our mind to it.
I would not eat monkey poop for my headache and would instead go get a drug from my doctor. if he and the medical community come to the conclusion that monkey poop is the crap for headaches, then give me some. but I wouldn't go for it on my own and wouldn't research it because I'm not a doctor. I get what you're saying, and yes in many instances, where there is smoke there is fire. but as this section isn't a research group, I'd rather let the researchers do what they do best, and have us focus on the serious tests resulting from their efforts. that way even if the results are not very clear, or the testings were not done on enough people to draw conclusions, at least we're discussing evidence based data and we're learning something we can count as being knowledge. even if that something is about not being able to draw any conclusions just yet.

I get that you and a few others are way past general consumer knowledge in your respective disciplines. but our ambitions here need to be more modest.
perhaps I'm wrong and many members would love to go beyond typical knowledge to investigate stuff, but realistically it can be challenging to get someone to setup a simple A/B test with volume matched and not give up after 15 trials. most audiophiles on the forum probably never participated in a double blind listening test and never learned how to measure stuff on their gears. so I believe our role is closer to audio for noobs, trying to centralize existing knowledge, than it is to being the crew of the starship USS Enterprise of audio.