[Headphone Workshop]

Some other classic examples outside of audio...
 

Riedel wine glasses (they make wine taste better, but only if the subject knows that it's a Riedel glass--people can't tell the difference in a blind taste test).  

 
Of course, the Pepsi Challenge...When people blind tested Coke and Pepsi in the "Pepsi challenge," 57% chose Pepsi, yet they only had 4% of the soft drink market while Coke had 18%. When they knew which one was Coke, they overwhelmingly chose Coke.  It wasn't about the taste, and it still isn't, it's all about the brand.  And there are examples in every product category.  
 
If you're interested in this effect from a marketing perspective, check out All Marketers are Liers (bad name, good book).
 
It's interesting if you think about it...your brain ends up making the brand's claims true, subjectively.

 

[dalethorn]

Some other classic examples outside of audio...
 

Riedel wine glasses (they make wine taste better, but only if the subject knows that it's a Riedel glass--people can't tell the difference in a blind taste test).  

 
Of course, the Pepsi Challenge...When people blind tested Coke and Pepsi in the "Pepsi challenge," 57% chose Pepsi, yet they only had 4% of the soft drink market while Coke had 18%. When they knew which one was Coke, they overwhelmingly chose Coke.  It wasn't about the taste, and it still isn't, it's all about the brand.  And there are examples in every product category.  
 
If you're interested in this effect from a marketing perspective, check out All Marketers are Liers (bad name, good book).
 
It's interesting if you think about it...your brain ends up making the brand's claims true, subjectively.

I don't drink Coke or Pepsi, and would recommend against it for anyone who cares about their health. Same reason I recommend good hi-fi gear for listening to those CD's or whatever. Better for your mental/spiritual health. And good hi-fi gear does sound better than the typical K-Mart stereo offerings, no matter what the taste testers conclude.

 

[rroseperry]

Quote:

I don't drink Coke or Pepsi, and would recommend against it for anyone who cares about their health. Same reason I recommend good hi-fi gear for listening to those CD's or whatever. Better for your mental/spiritual health. And good hi-fi gear does sound better than the typical K-Mart stereo offerings, no matter what the taste testers conclude.

But this is completely disingenuous. No one is making the argument that there's no difference between a boom-box from Wal-mart and a good set up.  It's whether there's real value in some highly marketed pieces of that set up.

 

[b0ck3n]

I think most people around here really do hear a difference, as long as they're not blindfolded when listening the difference is actually there. The human mind is a funny thing. Take the McGurk effect - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0 - an audiophile who's listening to his recabled LCD-2, plugged into a state-of-the-art DAC and amp, will hear a ton of difference because he expects to.

 

[dalethorn]

But this is completely disingenuous. No one is making the argument that there's no difference between a boom-box from Wal-mart and a good set up.  It's whether there's real value in some highly marketed pieces of that set up.

Not disingenuous at all! I don't think you can draw such a distinct line between the "classes" of gear or their aficionados. Besides, forums like this run on the advertising, and all those advertisers' products surely fall into that "highly marketed" audiophile class. So what's the story? Are we saying the hi-fi items advertised here have dubious merit?

 

[curtain]

 
Quote:

Lots of good commentary here, and some hand-waving dismissals.  Indeed, have we come to the point where complex electronic products all sound the same, even when tubes/valves are used?  I have heard that tests have been done asking subjects to listen to CD tracks and then 192k MP3's from those tracks, where the majority of subjects said the MP3's sounded better.  So much for testing.
 
When I tell people that I found a good CD ripper plugin in 2005 (CyberLink MP3), and I can rip most tracks at 128k and they're mostly indistinguishable from the CD, they gasp in horror.  OTOH I have no trouble spotting 1 db variations in most of the frequency spectrum with headphones, comparing to a Senn.800 for reference.  I suppose it depends on what you tune in to.
 
When a test is done, how do you tell the subjects what to listen for, if they aren't experienced in hi-fi listening?  If all you tell them is to listen for *any* difference, then how would they identify the "better" component?
 
In the Full Size headphones section of this forum, there is a tremendous push on headphone amps - seems like half or more of the million posts there.  So is that a bad thing, when I see (my opinion) that most of those amps aren't necessary or even an improvement in the sound?  Or is it just good business, since we're in the business of buying this stuff?

 
I think the discussion of a lossy file being indistinguishable from a lossless one for a group of people is valid for them certainly, however it's drawing a long bow to use that as an argument as to what is valuable for everyone else.
 
People are adult enough to make a judgement about what they are hearing (or not hearing) and choose one listening experience over another and direct their purchasing power accordingly. All this is toward the enjoyment of their hobby if not their bank account.
 

 

[macbob713]

Way back in the day of early Hi-Fi reviews and journalism, one of the very first professional engineers who was also a reviewer for Stereo Review published a number of ground breaking stories, two of which apply here. In comparing amps, Julian Hirsch found that there was no audible difference between comparable amplifiers and recievers  if they both measured low in distortion. He went on to say that most hi-fi gear at that time (the early 70's) was of such uniform quality a person would be hard pressed to hear any real difference. After the Compact Disc Player was introduced, Mr. Hirsch compared a number of models in different price ranges, and made the technical argument that again he found no audible evidence of any difference in sound quality between them. Each article included his technical anaylsis and the basis for his findings. Of course he was roundly attacked by the part of the audiophile community opposed to blind testing and who regards subjective opinions of their reviewers as gospel, hence virtually every new product reviewed is always pronounced a new breakthrough. 
In the 80's, StereoReview did a landmark cover story on speaker cables, using controlled blind listening panels, and again found that time and again no one could consistently hear any difference in sound, from cheap lamp cord to expensive exotic cables. You can google Julian Hirsch and read more about his groundbreaking career.

 

[rroseperry]

 
Quote:

Quote:

But this is completely disingenuous. No one is making the argument that there's no difference between a boom-box from Wal-mart and a good set up.  It's whether there's real value in some highly marketed pieces of that set up.

Not disingenuous at all! I don't think you can draw such a distinct line between the "classes" of gear or their aficionados. Besides, forums like this run on the advertising, and all those advertisers' products surely fall into that "highly marketed" audiophile class. So what's the story? Are we saying the hi-fi items advertised here have dubious merit?

 
 To be clear, when I wrote Wal-mart, I wanted to indicate cost and quality of the equipment, nothing about any person who might buy one.
 
The theme of this thread has been whether audiophile (however defined) claims about differences among different elements exist. This can be looked at in two basic ways. First, is the gear competent? Second, once we're over the competent hurdle, do differences in construction, design, material, etc, make differences to the sound quality. A boombox doesn't pass the competence test, insofar as it can't be said to do a good job of audio reproduction. In that most basic way it's inferior to many of mp3 players, not to mention someone's desktop setup.
 
Do some of the advertised products on here have dubious merit? Could be. I don't really see what that has to do with anything. Advertisers market to people most likely to buy their stuff. Do they believe their products have merit? I'd guess so.  Do they? Maybe, maybe not. Are you saying their mere presence is some guarantee of worth?
 
 

 

[Mkubota1]

Quote:

Hey, I still want a turntable even though I know full well how disappointed I will be with it, I gave up vinyl in 1984 for all the rational reasons, but still cannot wholly shake the desire to get a TT again...
 

When we went from records to CDs, I missed watching the platter spin and the arm magically float over the vinyl as I listened to music.  And now that we're moving away from physical media entirely, I miss the days when I could open a jewel case, place the disc in the tray, and click the play button and watch the fluorescent display tick away the seconds.  The iTunes Visualizer just annoys me. 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

The reason why this thread came about was because I wanted to start DIYing cables, with half a thought on expanding to sell some and make a small profit. I bought various cables and connections off ebay and soldering kit off ebay. Amazon and from a hardware shop and taught myself to solder using videos off You Tube. I called myself  'Out of this World Audio' and gave each cable a space themed name. (I even stuck a couple of posts on this forum's Head Gear section section and I have responses. They now get directed to the same cables I made, which can be bought now on ebay by people who have gone ahead to sell their cables).
 
I sent my cables to members of another forum (What Hifi) and even a manufacturer and got favourable reviews. But, during this time I was swapping cables left right and centre and felt that really, there was no difference at all between mine and other audiophile and stock cables I already had.
 
So I googled cable testing and quickly found blind tests and realised that there is a lot of blind tests out there, and not just cables. Having participated in many a cable debate on another forum as a pro cable believer, I was overwhelmed by the evidence that blind testing showed, there is no audible difference between cables.
 
With regards to other parts of the hifi chain, I remember a big debate about how amps could sound the same, if equalised, which I thought was a ridiculous thing to do. But finding that the difference between amps is there, but it is usually minimal was also quite a revelation. The same was true of codecs and bit rates. I have not bothered with codec/bit rate blind tests as there are so many on the internet. But one thing is clear, people can tell between the extremes, but often prefer the 'poor quality' sounding MP3 or low bit rate. What! They should prefer the high quality Ogg Vorbis and lossless bit rates! But it just goes to show what happens when you just listen. The brain takes over and hifi is no longer what you would expect it to be, according to audiophiles anyway.
 
So, after all of that my cable enterprise came to a halt. It cost me £70 in total, including the soldering kit, and I can now solder, have my own wonderful cables (that sound better than any other cable has ever sounded and my knowledge of electronics has improved, so it was not a waste.
 
I decided to put together all of the blind tests that I had found into a thread and share. There are so many cable debate threads that go in circles because people ask for proof, but debate who should provide it rather than just going out and finding it. Well, I had found it and I could not find another example on a forum of such a thread. So I put it together and published on the What Hifi Forum. Within about an hour it had been deleted! The b*****ds had deleted the whole thing and I was referred to their vague house rules with no change of an appeal!
 
So, I put the whole thing together again and posted it here as at least in Sound Science you are allowed to debate such issues. But only Sound Science mind, there is no asking for proof or mentioning tests elsewhere on the forum so as not to upset intolerant audiophiles.
 
It was nice to see a similar list has appeared on Hydrogenaudio forum courtesy of a member here Pia2000, from which I have added to here. At least such will make life easier for those who do want to see the evidence.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

This came up in another thread and is relevant here. Years ago an audio engineer Bob Carver conducted two challenges that he could make cheap amps sound the same as far more expensive ones. Audio Critic and Stereophile took up the challenge and both failed. Carver showed how all amps can sound the same. Here is the Wikipedia summary;
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver#Amplifier_modeling

 

[EthanWiner]

Quote:

Audio Critic and Stereophile took up the challenge and both failed.

LOL, that's great. I loved this:
 
   "The Stereophile employees failed to pass a single blind test with their own
   equipment, and in their own listening room."
 
Yet the people who write for Stereophile today don't seem to have learned anything from that experience. They still argue the same nonsense.
 
It's also worth mentioning that The Audio Critic is (was) on the side of science in such debates.
 
--Ethan

 

[BlackbeardBen]

If you read the original Stereophile article, it's not clear that they did any blind testing at all:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge
 
They mention it as the final step if they think they can hear differences and Bob thought he had duplicated the amp well enough.  But... they never say they did so - only stating that they certainly didn't do any DBTs, and that if anything they should have been biased to hear a difference.
 
On page three they say this:
 
Quote:

We made no effort to do A/B testing, since we feel it does not replicate normal listening conditions, and there is still insubstantial evidence that A/B testing reveals small differences as well as does prolonged listening to each unit under test. In our tests, one amplifier would be wired into the system and auditioned as long as we wanted, using a wide variety of program material that always, however, included the material listed above. Notes were made of anything we heard that we thought different from the other amplifier, and those specific points were checked again when we went back to the other amplifier.

 
Presumably they mean they did not try blind A/B/X testing, because what they describe is exactly sighted A/B testing.  Funny how they say they'll try it in the beginning, but then wouldn't even attempt it...  the conclusion notwithstanding.

 

[estreeter]

Quote:

This came up in another thread and is relevant here. Years ago an audio engineer Bob Carver conducted two challenges that he could make cheap amps sound the same as far more expensive ones. Audio Critic and Stereophile took up the challenge and both failed. Carver showed how all amps can sound the same. Here is the Wikipedia summary;
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver#Amplifier_modeling

 
 I dont have a problem with anything written in your post - all I want is to be able to buy a Carver headphone amp for $199. Thats it, Bob - get to it.
 
 

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

 
 I dont have a problem with anything written in your post - all I want is to be able to buy a Carver headphone amp for $199. Thats it, Bob - get to it.
 
 

Go buy a Carver C-1 or C-11 preamp then!  If you don't think it does well with your headphones, well, you've only spent about $125 and you still have an awesome preamp.  It's as good as any out there (tons of input/output and a pretty good phono amp), and the Sonic Holography is at least fun to play with.