Testing audiophile claims and myths

[Solli]

Any1 seen this type of build before?
Pictures
https://imgur.com/ST9Q7im
https://imgur.com/f99zTwi
https://imgur.com/DI8uao3

 

[gregorio]

McAdams and Bregman - (1979) clearly show that our brains need TIME to properly hear and process subtle audio differnces.

That’s a lie or at the very least, a huge misrepresentation, did you even read the title of the paper you cited, let alone its contents? The paper is about “hearing musical streams”, sequences of notes, musical structure, melody etc., it is NOT about detecting a simple difference! There is no “properly hear and process” in an ABX test, ONLY; can someone sense a difference, that’s it, nothing more! How many times are you going to demonstrate that you still don’t even know what an ABX is for?

Bottom line your insistence on rapid ABX ignores plenty of solid science.

Just so we’re clear here. When the ITU BS.1116 states (section 4.2): “Since long- and medium-term memory is unreliable, the test should rely exclusively on short-term memory. This is best done if a near-instantaneous switching method is used …” it “ignores plenty of solid science” does it? Despite the fact that it’s actually been formulated by hundreds of scientists and engineers, in the oldest international scientific/engineering agency in the world and then checked and implemented by thousands more scientists and engineers in other organisations such as the EBU, ATSC, IEEEE. And to counter all this there’s what, a troll consistently making a fool of himself with a scientific paper he’s entirely misrepresenting and apparently no understanding of what an ABX even is?!!

I already covered the rest of your BS. Just repeating it doesn’t suddenly make it relevant or true!

Whatever You going to say, person that is killing other person, is not mentaly healthy. Point.

Are you really suggesting that someone who makes an inadvertent, honest mistake (that anyone could make) which unfortunately results in death/s is necessarily “not mentally healthy”? Jeez, no wonder you don’t understand anything about a complex area like biases, if you can’t even comprehend this simple human situation!!

You can call me ignorant, but it will not change anything.

Yep, as I said, “wilful ignorance”. But in case you somehow don’t understand, wilful ignorance is NOT an acceptable basis for assertions in a science discussion forum!

G

 

[Conan1974]

Well, you have to be more specific next time, I assumed that You were talking about people who were crashing planes because they wanted to.
Did not even thought that You mean mistakes.
Offcours pilots that made a mistake, and plane crashed, are not mentally unstable. Accidents happens, but I still think we should go back to listening room.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

That’s a lie or at the very least, a huge misrepresentation, did you even read the title of the paper you cited, let alone its contents? The paper is about “hearing musical streams”, sequences of notes, musical structure, melody etc., it is NOT about detecting a simple difference! There is no “properly hear and process” in an ABX test, ONLY; can someone sense a difference, that’s it, nothing more! How many times are you going to demonstrate that you still don’t even know what an ABX is for?

Just so we’re clear here. When the ITU BS.1116 states (section 4.2): “Since long- and medium-term memory is unreliable, the test should rely exclusively on short-term memory. This is best done if a near-instantaneous switching method is used …” it “ignores plenty of solid science” does it? Despite the fact that it’s actually been formulated by hundreds of scientists and engineers, in the oldest international scientific/engineering agency in the world and then checked and implemented by thousands more scientists and engineers in other organisations such as the EBU, ATSC, IEEEE. And to counter all this there’s what, a troll consistently making a fool of himself with a scientific paper he’s entirely misrepresenting and apparently no understanding of what an ABX even is?!!

You're completely misundestanding my point and making inaccurate assumptions about what I'm arguing.

First. off, the Mcadams and Bregman study isn't irrelevant just because it focuses on musical streams. The core principle--- that aauditory perception and accurate differentiaton take cognitive processing and time—still applies broadly, including to subtle audio differences-- quick switching doesn't magically bypass cognitive load; it increases it, making reliable detection of subtle differences harder, not easier.

Regarding ITU BS.1116, you're quoting guidelines designed specifically for certain controlled listening tests—primarily focused on detecting immediate differences in sound quality. But this doesn't invalidate extensve evidence from other research contexts, like Berg and Rumsey or Floyd Toole's work, demonstrating the real-world relevance and accuracy of long-term listening tests. Short-term memory is reliable for certain basic tasks, sure, but nuanced differences and listener preferences are clearly better assessed over longer periods.

Finally, it's pretty ironic that you're accusing me of misrepresentation while selectively cherry-picking evidence to dismiss broader scientific insights. Just repeating dismissive comments won't suddenly invalidate legitmate points backed by solid research.

 

[gregorio]

Well, you have to be more specific next time

I stated: “If, as you assert, it’s possible to “just focus” and “switch the bias out” then all the pilots who’ve killed themselves and their passengers due to the effect of biases must have done so because they did not “just focus” and “switch the bias out”. I then stated in a subsequent post: “pilots are relevant because aviation is an area where the effects of bias have been particularly well researched”. And even @danadam stated: “Accidents/crashes are often caused by biases that affect pilots”.
How is it possible to be more specific that I was talking about the effects of biases and not of a pilot committing suicide?

Short-term memory is reliable for certain basic tasks, sure, but nuanced differences and listener preferences are clearly better assessed over longer periods.

Jeeesus, how many times? An ABX test has nothing to do with “nuanced differences and listener preferences”, it ONLY tests if a given difference is detectable, that’s it, why can’t you get that simple fact through your head?

G

 

[FunkyBassMan]

Jeeesus, how many times? An ABX test has nothing to do with “nuanced differences and listener preferences”, it ONLY tests if a given difference is detectable, that’s it, why can’t you get that simple fact through your head?

G

Gregorio seriously, yes an ABX test only measures basic detectability in short-term listening but thats exactly the issue youre ignoring.. Short term tests cant capture nuanced differences or genuine listener preferences that developo over time. Real listeners dont experience audio as brief A/B snippets, they engage with it over extended periods noticing subtleties quick comparisons completly miss. insisting detectability alone defines audio quality is oversimplified shortsighted and demonstrates your abject ignorance about how people actually listen to music.

 

[Conan1974]

@gregorio
Well it looks like I did it again.
Sometimes I start to read something and before I am done reading , I skip the rest and start to reply.
That is what happened here.
So my mistake.

 

[gregorio]

Short term tests cant capture nuanced differences or genuine listener preferences that developo over time.

Holy mother of god, how many times? The ABX test only tests for the audibility of a given difference, not “listener preferences” and not to “capture nuanced differences”! The ITU-R BS.1116 test is a “method for the subjective assessment of small impairments in audio systems” can’t you even get as far as reading the title of these scientific/engineering publications?

G

 

[FunkyBassMan]

Holy mother of god, how many times? The ABX test only tests for the audibility of a given difference, not “listener preferences” and not to “capture nuanced differences”! The ITU-R BS.1116 test is a “method for the subjective assessment of small impairments in audio systems” can’t you even get as far as reading the title of these scientific/engineering publications?

G

Gregorio, take a breath... Yes—everyone understands what ABX tests are officially designed to measure. But you're missing the real point here (again). The issue isn't that people don't "get" what ABX tests do; it's that short-term detectability isn't the whole story when evaluating audio quality. Real listeners care about subtleties, nuances, and even preferences that develop over longer periods of time.

Continuously shouting definitions from technical manuals doesn't change the simple truth that brief tests can't fully capture how listeners experience audio in real life. Relax—no one's disputing the official purpose of ABX. They're just pointing out the obvious limitations that come with it.

 

[gregorio]

The issue isn't that people don't "get" what ABX tests do; it's that short-term detectability isn't the whole story when evaluating audio quality.

It’s just not going to sink in is it? It’s entertaining to watch you make a fool of yourself but rather sad a the same time. An ABX is not for determining “the whole story” only for falsifying the null hypothesis. Eg. Is a given difference really audible? How many times?

G

 

[MrHaelscheir]

Gregorio, take a breath... Yes—everyone understands what ABX tests are officially designed to measure. But you're missing the real point here (again). The issue isn't that people don't "get" what ABX tests do; it's that short-term detectability isn't the whole story when evaluating audio quality. Real listeners care about subtleties, nuances, and even preferences that develop over longer periods of time.

Continuously shouting definitions from technical manuals doesn't change the simple truth that brief tests can't fully capture how listeners experience audio in real life. Relax—no one's disputing the official purpose of ABX. They're just pointing out the obvious limitations that come with it.

I think it's understood that blind listening obviously doesn't capture the full subjective experience of sighted listening. To me, it can tell you simply whether the "subtleties, nuances, and preferences" are due to the electronics or acoustics themselves rather than extra-sonic influences. Maybe I would just need to take the time to look deeper into those papers, but what I'd want to know is whether those "subtleties, nuances, and preferences" purportedly made more detectible through long-term memory blind listening are consistent with the "subtleties, nuances, and preferences" noticed after reintroducing the sighted stimuli, and particularly if this has been demonstrated for DACs, amps, and cables.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

It’s just not going to sink in is it? It’s entertaining to watch you make a fool of yourself but rather sad a the same time. An ABX is not for determining “the whole story” only for falsifying the null hypothesis. Eg. Is a given difference really audible? How many times?

G

Gregorio, serously....everyone already gets what an ABX test does. You're stuck on defintions, but your still completly missing the real point: ABX alone isnt enough to measure real-world listening expereinces. Sure, it checks if a difference is audible in a short-term test—EVERYONE KNOWS—but listeners dont actually live in short-term snippets. They experience audio over time and notice subtle details that short tests wont capture.

acting like anyone pointing this out is clueless or making a "fool" of themselves is just plain arrogant. Step back and realize your arguing semantics instead of acknowledging practical reality.

 

[gregorio]

ABX alone isnt enough to measure real-world listening expereinces.

It’s just not going to get through the concrete is it? We cannot measure “real-world listening experiences” and audio equipment, codecs, etc., do not have any “real-world listening experiences” anyway, how do you not know that?

Sure, it checks if a difference is audible in a short-term test—EVERYONE KNOWS—but listeners dont actually live in short-term snippets.

NO, god almighty, how many times? An ABX test just determines if a given difference is audible, that’s it! If it’s not audible in an ABX test then it won’t be audible if you listen to it for 3 hours or 3 months, unless you badly screwed-up the ABX test.

G

 

[FunkyBassMan]

I think it's understood that blind listening obviously doesn't capture the full subjective experience of sighted listening. To me, it can tell you simply whether the "subtleties, nuances, and preferences" are due to the electronics or acoustics themselves rather than extra-sonic influences. Maybe I would just need to take the time to look deeper into those papers, but what I'd want to know is whether those "subtleties, nuances, and preferences" purportedly made more detectible through long-term memory blind listening are consistent with the "subtleties, nuances, and preferences" noticed after reintroducing the sighted stimuli, and particularly if this has been demonstrated for DACs, amps, and cables.

Great points --you're totally right about the main ppurpose of blind listening being to separate actual sonic differences from outside influences.. Your question about whether subtleties noticed during long-term blind listening match up consistently once sighted listening returns is interesting and would be cool to research.

There's been some interesting work done in related areas, like Toole and Olive’s studies on speaker preference (demonstrate how blind and sighted tests can yield differing results due to listener biases). Still, clear data specifically addressing DACs, amps, and cables isn’t out there much.

iff you were so inclined, you could set up informal listening tests yourself. For instance, you could have someone else randomly swap between two different DACs or cables without telling you which is active, then take notes over several extended sessions on subtle differences you might perceive. Some resources worth checking out might be Floyd Toole's Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms, sean olive’s AES papers, or online tools like ABX comparator plugins. Could be a fun semi-science session…

 

[MrHaelscheir]

Great points --you're totally right about the main ppurpose of blind listening being to separate actual sonic differences from outside influences.. Your question about whether subtleties noticed during long-term blind listening match up consistently once sighted listening returns is interesting and would be cool to research.

There's been some interesting work done in related areas, like Toole and Olive’s studies on speaker preference (demonstrate how blind and sighted tests can yield differing results due to listener biases). Still, clear data specifically addressing DACs, amps, and cables isn’t out there much.

iff you were so inclined, you could set up informal listening tests yourself. For instance, you could have someone else randomly swap between two different DACs or cables without telling you which is active, then take notes over several extended sessions on subtle differences you might perceive. Some resources worth checking out might be Floyd Toole's Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms, sean olive’s AES papers, or online tools like ABX comparator plugins. Could be a fun semi-science session…

Is the belief then that when a null test between two audio chains shows differences below some level, say, 100 dB, though they may be inaudible in the kind of ABX test that gregorio references (i.e. one fails to disprove the null hypothesis that they sound the same under those instant switching or long-term ABX conditions), some other kind of longer-term blind test would potentially make those differences audible? I personally predict that that style of blind listening is bound to subject oneself to cognitive noise, latching upon those "perceived" differences, and a false confidence in real differences that the blind test would reveal to be completely wrong or inconsistent, but I don't have that data yet. As gregorio said, "If it’s not audible in an ABX test then it won’t be audible if you listen to it for 3 hours or 3 months, unless you badly screwed-up the ABX test" is the likely case.