Blind comparisons of speakers, amps, and DACs...

Status
Not open for further replies.
rbbert said:
my point is simple; there is no convincing scientific evidence either supporting nor refuting DBT's for perception involving individual senses.
Click to expand...
There is overwhelming evidence, the tip of iceberg presented in this very thread. Some simply reject science for belief, without evidence.
Quite common today.
 
Why do people who have a disdain for high end audio join audio forums?
 
AJ Soundfield said:
There is overwhelming evidence, the tip of iceberg presented in this very thread. Some simply reject science for belief, without evidence.
Quite common today.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I am a huge proponent of evidence-based medicine, which unfortunately is a position currently taken by only about 40% of practicing physicians. Adopting the principles of evidence-based medicine (and science in general) requires analyzing study design, methodology, data analysis and conclusions. If one follows this well established procedure, very few studies of human perception produce scientifically acceptable evidence (which is actually true in biomedical research and other areas of science as well). That doesn't mean that the conclusions of other studies are necessarily wrong (there are all sorts of examples of the right answer being produced in the "wrong" way), simply that they don't meet the threshold required to be considered evidence.

Rejecting "bad" or inadequate scientific studies is not rejecting science; in fact, it is exactly the opposite.
 
TheOctopus said:
Oh I would but I’ve read they can resonate and interfere with listening sessions that require intense concentration to hear all the new cables and tweaks. No serious audiophile would want to compromise the findings that need to be shared with the rest of the members in various forums. Imagine someone buying a cable based on my faulty interpretation. I would feel really bad
Click to expand...

I don't think you will have to worry about this :woot:
 
mep said:
Why do people who have a disdain for high end audio join audio forums?
Click to expand...

For those that 'truly' have a disdain the answer is simple....... to merely troll. But somehow I don't think your question was sincere.

Then there are others that say, 'hey look at me, I've spent a lot of $$, I'm a high end audiophile' !

I'd like to think that most here are better than that and at least open minded enough to debate / discuss most topics.

There are enough real problems going on in this world right now, we need our music ........
 
AJ Soundfield said:
There is overwhelming evidence, the tip of iceberg presented in this very thread. Some simply reject science for belief, without evidence.
Quite common today.
Click to expand...

AJ, I agree with you. Especially when it comes to "rejecting science for belief." You're right. It is "quite common today." But I'm a relative newb to high end home audio and would like to know what is a good way to evaluate components and systems using technical info as an adjunct to my ears. I can look at some technical info such as charts and studies and know what I'm looking at, but a lot of the technical info presented is beyond my current understanding. Would you have any advice for newbs like me when it comes to integrating technical info with what my ears are hearing? Could you recommend any sources? Thanks in advance.
 
rbbert said:
If one follows this well established procedure, very few studies of human perception produce scientifically acceptable evidence
Click to expand...
Yet your cel phone calls are intelligible. Please provide evidence to support your repeated claims. This thread is about audible human perception.
 
High End Audio does not necessarily have to be obsessing over trivial things that one has to stretch their imagination to hear. It does not have to be about swapping gear every few years, months, weeks and losing tons of money in the process. For those that have deep pockets as well as those for whom those actions hurt the household...

It can be and often is exactly that because of the very forums where group confirmation bias runs strong and folks are afraid of being outside the circle if they don't agree with the latest flavor of the month shiny box or cable... Most often the Emperor does not have clothes when it comes to accessories, tweaks and cables are put to real world test but no one wants to be ostracized as having bad ears or not good enough of a system. So folks will nod in unison THAT new power conditioner, cable, footer, isolator, rack.... was the most "profound change in my system in a decade"...

For crying out loud, science says we can't recall pure tones with accuracy after a few seconds and multiple studies have confirmed it and here are audiophile that remember what a complex song with multiple instruments has sounded over a decade! Give me a break!

How the hobby is enjoyed is up to each individual. Have fun with it but it would be good to at least keep one toe on the ground of reality and not leave the orbit into the outer space of total and blind disillusions fueled by group hysteria... But that of course is YOUR choice, YOUR hobby, YOUR money.

I have zero problem with folks blowing hundreds of thousands of dollars on a high end system and not knowing much music outside perhaps a few dozen audiophile favorites... Folks buy expensive Italian sports cars and have zero clue how to drive a car like that but they look good at the stop light and are whipping their heads around to see who is looking and admiring their expensive toy.... Whatever turns you on...

But when audiophiles start attacking reason and science with their beliefs based on nothing more but group bias, that's where I draw the line of what I can agree with. Problem being that it usually takes "proof" of being able to debunk such things and when audiophiles are REALLY put to the test of blind, double blind, ABX, whatever test, even the experts in the music industry FAIL.... There is nothing more to say on this topic.
 
bluegrassphile said:
AJ, I agree with you. Especially when it comes to "rejecting science for belief." But I'm a relative newb to high end home audio and would like to know what is a good way to evaluate components and systems using technical info as an adjunct to my ears. I can look at some technical info such as charts and studies and know what I'm looking at, but a lot of the technical info presented is beyond my understanding.
Click to expand...
The technical info may, or may not influence the (pardon pun) soundfield in your room impinging your ears. That's the "sound" part. There is a definitive way to determine that, aka, a controlled listening test, which absolutely can determine what sound one prefers.
However, as I have often stated, when you sit at home enjoying your system, the "sound" aka soundfield, is only part of the equation. Your entire experience is affected by many other factors, including looks, price, etc and yes, ones beliefs and preferences. The science is very clear there.
The entirety of that cannot be determined by a controlled aka blinded listening test, because the experience is not.
Trust your own preference to guide you to whatever pleases you most. If you think there is technical information presented that might apply/improve the enjoyment of your system, but you can't understand - ask questions/seek answers from the technically literate, not believers.
Lots of good books, videos, etc out there to help, by qualified, not witch doctors.
 
For anyone who cares to understand the fundamentals, where even an ounce of reason, logic and common sense are to be found on the this particular topic of "comparisons". We need to look at how we form memories and what a "memory" actually is. Specifically that it is not a precise, bit for bit hard drive stored piece of INFO but something entirely different... It becomes much easier to understand how we are very "abstract" in our memories and they are never "accurate" as a scientific instrument. But a scientific instrument is exactly the precision that would be needed for an audiophile to compare/contrast complex sounds with duration and over time!


Watch and give it some thought... It spells out everything we need to know on this topic.



 
AJ Soundfield said:
Yet your cel phone calls are intelligible. Please provide evidence to support your repeated claims. This thread is about audible human perception.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one repeating claims, you are. You might consider going back to some of your "evidence" and re-evaluate it using the (well established) scientific method. Although I am only working part-time at present, what work I do primarily involves evaluating data and evidence; I doubt that is what you do.

Let's look at this in a simple way to start. Start with some of the early, well-known studies looking at hi-res digital vs. CD, e.g., by the Boston Audio Society. The study design and methodology relied on unproven (although generally accepted, which doesn't make them evidence-based) assumptions. Unfortunately, that means that any further data collection and analysis is invalid; GIGO.

It is well known that the more complex the question studied the more difficult it is to come to meaningful, evidence-based conclusions; data analysis in such studies often produces what appear to be statistically significant findings for issues that were not directly addressed by the study design, but most scientists feel these findings are not valid (although perhaps worthy of further directed study). Evaluating something such as the least detectable difference in volume (level) is a relatively simple question that might be addressed by a DBT; as it turns out, though, that least detectable difference varies by frequency and by complexity of the audio signal. Trying to use a complex musical signal to then address differences (other than volume level) in an electronic component or a cable (for example) requires using too many unproven assumptions in the study design. I understand that you may not agree with this, and if you want to convince me (and therefore perhaps others) link a study (complete text, not abstract) examining this and I will be happy to point out where it fails.
 
This one also may very well explain certain aspects of why we think we heard something that may or may not actually be true. FALSE memories through power of suggestion and erroneous information.

I personally believe that preconceived notions play a big role in what we think we heard before as compared to what we are supposed to hear and a new "concept" or "false memory" replaces the previous reality that was our initial memory.

SILVER CABLES are supposed to sound more detailed/airy but can be too lean in some applications while COPPER cables depending on the decimals of purity or 99.99999% oxygen free can be the golden ticket... REALLY?

Watch this video LOL

 
AJ Soundfield said:
The technical info may, or may not influence the (pardon pun) soundfield in your room impinging your ears. That's the "sound" part. There is a definitive way to determine that, aka, a controlled listening test, which absolutely can determine what sound one prefers.
However, as I have often stated, when you sit at home enjoying your system, the "sound" aka soundfield, is only part of the equation. Your entire experience is affected by many other factors, including looks, price, etc and yes, ones beliefs and preferences. The science is very clear there.
The entirety of that cannot be determined by a controlled aka blinded listening test, because the experience is not.
Trust your own preference to guide you to whatever pleases you most. If you think there is technical information presented that might apply/improve the enjoyment of your system, but you can't understand - ask questions/seek answers from the technically literate, not believers.
Lots of good books, videos, etc out there to help, by qualified, not witch doctors.
Click to expand...


Thanks A.J. I appreciate your post.
 
If anyone wants to perform some double-blind codec testing, which is done daily at audio research / codec companies and often frequently at any company making audio encoding choices (e.g. streaming companies), you can check out the webMUSHRA project which is based on the MUSHRA methodology.

The way it works, you should be able to double-blind-test yourself. No need for a separate test administrator.

Note that participating usually involves some initial training by someone else to learn what differences to listen for, before the actual testing. Also people vary in their ability to, and the degree to which, they can reliably identify those differences. The test administrator may choose to discount any participants whose results are not significantly better than chance.
 
a.wayne said:
Serge ,

I Guess your currently running a Memory player...!


:)



Regards
Click to expand...

All I know is that with some of the claims on the forums, of the sharp memory for pitch, dynamics, timbre, duration, that can be recalled at will, so components/cables/tweaks can be compared, we should be able to remember better than what we had for breakfast 5 days ago and what exactly we did that day.... Oops I don't remember the details of all that. That's not how memory works... Rules me out as the golden ear audiophile...
 
NekoAudio said:
If anyone wants to perform some double-blind codec testing, which is done daily at audio research / codec companies and often frequently at any company making audio encoding choices (e.g. streaming companies), you can check out the webMUSHRA project which is based on the MUSHRA methodology.

The way it works, you should be able to double-blind-test yourself. No need for a separate test administrator.

Note that participating usually involves some initial training by someone else to learn what differences to listen for, before the actual testing. Also people vary in their ability to, and the degree to which, they can reliably identify those differences. The test administrator may choose to discount any participants whose results are not significantly better than chance.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting resource about which I was unaware. Note that it is only applicable to different audio codecs, which (given adequate Internet bandwidth and user software) could also include comparisons of PCM at various resolutions and/or DSD similarly. Also note that the fairly rigorous methodology requirements (even for something as relatively simple as differentiating low bit-rate MP3 or MP4 from higher resolution PCM) would probably disqualify nearly all of any studies AJ would care to submit for discussion and analysis.
 
rbbert said:
I'm not the one repeating claims, you are. You might consider going back to some of your "evidence" and re-evaluate it using the (well established) scientific method. Although I am only working part-time at present, what work I do primarily involves evaluating data and evidence; I doubt that is what you do.
Let's look at this in a simple way to start. Start with some of the early, well-known studies looking at hi-res digital vs. CD, e.g., by the Boston Audio Society. The study design and methodology relied on unproven (although generally accepted, which doesn't make them evidence-based) assumptions. Unfortunately, that means that any further data collection and analysis is invalid; GIGO.
It is well known that the more complex the question studied the more difficult it is to come to meaningful, evidence-based conclusions; data analysis in such studies often produces what appear to be statistically significant findings for issues that were not directly addressed by the study design, but most scientists feel these findings are not valid (although perhaps worthy of further directed study). Evaluating something such as the least detectable difference in volume (level) is a relatively simple question that might be addressed by a DBT; as it turns out, though, that least detectable difference varies by frequency and by complexity of the audio signal. Trying to use a complex musical signal to then address differences (other than volume level) in an electronic component or a cable (for example) requires using too many unproven assumptions in the study design. I understand that you may not agree with this, and if you want to convince me (and therefore perhaps others) link a study (complete text, not abstract) examining this and I will be happy to point out where it fails.
Click to expand...
IOW, you have zero evidence to support your claim/belief that human (audio) perception is untestable using the defacto standard of science, blind testing. Just endless hand waving and belief. Ok.
 
rbbert said:
This is an interesting resource about which I was unaware. Note that it is only applicable to different audio codecs, which (given adequate Internet bandwidth and user software) could also include comparisons of PCM at various resolutions and/or DSD similarly. Also note that the fairly rigorous methodology requirements (even for something as relatively simple as differentiating low bit-rate MP3 or MP4 from higher resolution PCM) would probably disqualify nearly all of any studies AJ would care to submit for discussion and analysis.
Click to expand...

Rob-This thread is hopeless as I knew it would be from the OP. We are now reduced again to being told that high end audio is just a waste of money because everyone is deaf and their memories are shot. When threads like this start, they attract certain types of people who love to throw turds in the audiophile punch bowl.
 
I remember watching this video a few years ago and I was not surprised. The part about listening to 3 identical files by professional recording engineers and 40% described hearing distinct differences and even going on to describe them in the most typical ways audiophiles do. If you don't care to watch 30 minutes of miserable fails by professional ears, I don't blame you. The hobby should be about having fun not having to be disappointed as certain illusions built up over decades crumble in the face of any attempt to prove otherwise that our sensitive instruments sticking out both sides of our heads and the brain between them, has a vivid imagination based on the physiological/biological nature of how brain/memory/recall works......

But here is the video anyways..

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top