In the course of a Head-Fi thread in which I apparantly played a key part in getting closed, I realized that many/most audiophile subjectivists (and more specifically, those who consider their ears infallible) cannot be persuaded by reason.
Gasp. Well, I guess everybody else here knew it already.
But I also realized something much deeper, that the competing schools of thought of audio look remarkably like paradigms, in the Kuhnian sense. One of the main implications of this is that both sides, objectivist and subjectivist, can explain all observable phenomena in an acceptable manner (to that side). The other big implication is that one school eventually wins out for reasons indirect to the
correctness of that theory - often for social or pragmatic reasons. In other words, we can't reason with subjectivists because our observations already have explanations that are more believable to them, and even if we are in fact right, it doesn't really matter. Therefore, the way to argue objectivism is through other effects.
Since the original thread is closed and I wanted more discussion on the topic, I'm reposting the relevant part of the post here. I hope this will stimulate discussion on how to best persuade people that a fully objective approach to evaluating audio is best.
Anybody can find a difference between two different things, even two of the same make and model, but it takes hard proof to say that difference means anything, backed up with logic and experience. And it's here where I think we're never going to agree. For every device, there are always going to be any number of parameters and failure modes. Without exception, the audiophile community will attribute differences in sound to every parameter and failure mode of the device!
Thus, interconnects sound different because of different dielectrics, resistances, capacitances, characteristic impedances, electrostatic forces, microphonics, crystalline structures, quantum alignments, conductor widths, conductor lengths, connector types, connector materials, conductor materials, conductor distances, numbers of conductors, solder types, and braid topologies. In other words, according to various audio manufacturers, audiophiles and Head-Fi members, every conceivable difference to a cable changes the sound.
This is not sound science! Or sound engineering for that matter! Occam would roll in his grave if he saw a state of the art engineering theory such as this, practiced by the most famous people in the industry. No, I'm not saying everybody believes every effect is important - but that's an even more complicated situation, because then everybody has their own little theory as to how cables work, and will choose different effects to work towards the same goals.
What does all that mean in the end? Surprisingly, not as much as you'd think I'd say, but still a lot. Even if you attributed audible differences to all those effects, you'd still have a consistent theory of interconnects, and there wouldn't be any evidence I could show you to sway you towards thinking one of those effects didn't matter. You could even build cables based on your theory, and they could sound good, and people would buy them.
It's on the fringes that this sort of thinking breaks down.
* When some people think a $200 cable sounds as good as a $1000 cable, or a $10,000 cable, that's because the $200 cable got it right and everybody else is overcharging. Or the designers got lucky, or they've tapped into a hitherto-unseen effect.
* When a cable that takes all these effects into account sounds only as good as those that don't, the other cables got lucky, or they've tapped into a hitherto-unseen effect.
* When some differences are clear as day sometimes and impossible to detect in others, it is due to emotions/stress in the listener, or a flawed audio system, or a flawed detection system, or a hitherto-unseen effect.
* When RCA connections still invariably used for even the top of the line gear when the optimum characteristic impedances are obtained with BNC or coax, it's because of the entrenched standard, vendor stupidity, or a hitherto-unseen effect. (Anybody who doubts me on this can show me a 20Ghz switch with RCA inputs.)
* When 6N copper so highly desired for interconnects, yet the amplifiers themselves use regular copper and (heaven forbid) 66/37 solder, it's because the interconnect can affect the sound independently of the materials inside of the electronics due to some hitherto-unseen effect.
* When audio salesmen tell you to purchase cables based on a percentage of the total value of the system, rather than how much intrinsic value the cable adds to the system, it's because the cables are always less important to the final sound quality than the other components of the system, regardless of how any of them sound or cost.
Of course you can answer all of these questions. Everybody can. You might be able to answer them better than I have. That's not the point. The point is that to answer them you will almost invariably need to appeal to ad hoc hypotheses. Either here's a flaw somewhere else in a system, or a new effect is discovered, or an existing effect is less important than some other effect. Never is an effect considered completely inaudible based on new evidence, nor is an effect generalized to explain more evidence. Rarely (if ever) does an experiment in a new cable result in a poorer sounding cable. Ever since audiophiledom has started, and people started caring about cables, the theory of their quality has never simplified over time, and it remains a collection of guidelines about how certain parameters of construction affect certain dimensions of listening, without significant predictive power about how not to build a cable beyond what has been already manufactured. Of course I'm singling out cables in particular here but I could repeat this argument for all sorts of other things.
Truth, per se, is not directly a part of the conversation. Everybody can explain the evidence, and if you are comfortable with believing that every effect is audible and everything sounds different I won't be able to convince you otherwise. But if you don't - if you admit that some effects are not audible, that some audible differences may in fact not exist, that we humans are smart enough to agree on what is and is not audible, and that we can program a computer to test for everything that is audible - then everything else must fall into place.
Original post here (http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1451256&postcount=131).
I have to respond. The belief that special speaker wire, or cable, makes a difference rocks me. Look inside the amps and see the diameter of the wire feeding these "sound pipes." Sometimes it is slim bell wire. Thank God for the gullible audiophile. He is keeping many of the crooks concentrated in one industry.
Although I consider myself on the objectivists side, I sometimes question why "transparency", i.e. having no audible difference should be the ultimate goal to the audiophile hardware in the future. Who can guarantee that in 20 years people won't be wearing bionic implants that improve their hearing by a hundredfold? Looking at latest news in brain controlled devices (link 1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17434-2003Oct12?language=printer), link 2 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4275245.stm), link 3 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4648139.stm)) I believe such a scenario is very likely. Then are we going to alter the current standards of transparency when $10000 cable indeed sounds better to a person with an implant under ABX test? If we admit so, then we also have to admit that the criterion posed by us the objectivists is by no means an end to this argument.
I have to respond. The belief that special speaker wire, or cable, makes a difference rocks me. Look inside the amps and see the diameter of the wire feeding these "sound pipes." Sometimes it is slim bell wire. Thank God for the gullible audiophile. He is keeping many of the crooks concentrated in one industry.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=313492")
I agree. I think "good" cables can make a difference...to an extent. If it is well built to specifications and conducts properly, then it is doing it's job. What about the wires inside of a speaker, inside of your headphones (some people mod these, ok), the connections to the amp, the speakers inside the amp itself, the binding posts. I could go on and on. If I have a 99.99999% 24k gold cable that cost me $3,000, then the binding posts on the amp, the cables inside the headphones or speakers, the cables inside the amp, etc had better be 99.99999% 24k gold or I just threw $3,000 out the window. Additionally, just because all of this stuff IS 99.99999% 24k gold, that doesn't mean it is going to make an AUDIBLE difference in an ABX test.
IMHO: I'll believe it when I hear it. No sooner...
EDIT: [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=33951]http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=33951[/url]
No one made it passed phase 2. I wonder why....
Also note the very expensive equipment. This was not on a pair of $1 sony headphones people...
I partly agree. I think ABX testing should be done before you conclude that cable/amp/speaker A or whatever actually does sound better than cable/amp/speaker B. However, if you have consitently picked out A as sounding better in a blind test, just because you don't know exactly what component of the amplifier (or other device) is causing it to sound better doesn't mean the difference isn't there.
In other words, one should be wary of placebo, but being unable to determine the cause of a given difference does not mean the difference is just placebo.
I partly agree. I think ABX testing should be done before you conclude that cable/amp/speaker A or whatever actually does sound better than cable/amp/speaker B. However, if you have consitently picked out A as sounding better in a blind test, just because you don't know exactly what component of the amplifier (or other device) is causing it to sound better doesn't mean the difference isn't there.
In other words, one should be wary of placebo, but being unable to determine the cause of a given difference does not mean the difference is just placebo.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313500"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This isn't usually the problem though. The problem is the difference not showing up reliably at all, or simply vanishing when performing some sort of DBT (this is done to establish the existence of the difference apart from user influence). Most audiophiles will make all kinds of excuses for why this happens, most of them lacking in any solid theoretical basis.
If a difference can be reliably discerned, and this can be done in a fashion demonstrating correlation between the supposed effect and the users perception, apart from the users ability to tamper with the results, then I think most of the people around here would grant that they are actually perceiving a difference (that is, a difference with an external physical cause, rather than an internal psychological or psychophysical cause such as with placebo).
The problem comes about when people make these sorts of claims, but then fail to be able to prove or demonstrate them convincingly in any way.
This sort of goes to the original poster's point about paradigms. However, I think it can probably be stated even simpler as a difference in the epistemology that these differing sides seem to subscribe to.
The so-called "objectivists" (not a very good term IMO as this debate moves closer to philosophy) often seem to subscribe to an epistemology that falls somewhere between rationalism and empiricism, with a somewhat realist metaphysics. "Subjectivists" on the other hand, seem to end up much closer to idealist epistemology and antirealist metaphysics (I would not be surprised to find a significantly higher proportion of "subjectivist" audiophiles subscribing to mysticism or other similar types of belief systems common to such a combination). Of course, it can get much more nuanced than that, but the point being: good luck trying to convince either side that the other is correct (as was pointed out already).
The only sorts of arguments that I can formulate in support of my system necessarily rely upon principles of that system that I have already accepted as being correct. I can partition my system and argue for parts of it using other parts, but they can always be questioned in turn. From the outside, this looks like question begging, while from the inside it does not -- at least until someone asks me to support my system without relying on any of it's results
There are possibly always other ways of trying to go about making an argument in support of a certain system, or to develop formal theories about systems in general. Some people do it with very complex and abstract math and formal logic -- although it's doubtful something like this would convince the sort of audiophile (or skeptic in general) that doesn't even accept certain principles of basic physics and signal processing theory or whatever else. At the end of the day nothing you will say will convince the eternal skeptic.
Realizing that, I just kind of accept the fact that some skepticism is in fact wrong, and some people aren't worth bothering to convince Definitely not a satisfying conclusion, but what else can one do?
At the end of the day nothing you will say will convince the eternal skeptic.
One of the fundamental truths of humanity.
And as for the problem of subjectivists using faulty logic, here's a little pearl regarding techno-babble and pseudoscience in general:
"The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit." --
Dr Bill Softky, Redwood Neuroscience Institute.
The so-called "objectivists" (not a very good term IMO as this debate moves closer to philosophy) often seem to subscribe to an epistemology that falls somewhere between rationalism and empiricism, with a somewhat realist metaphysics. "Subjectivists" on the other hand, seem to end up much closer to idealist epistemology and antirealist metaphysics (I would not be surprised to find a significantly higher proportion of "subjectivist" audiophiles subscribing to mysticism or other similar types of belief systems common to such a combination). Of course, it can get much more nuanced than that, but the point being: good luck trying to convince either side that the other is correct (as was pointed out already).
I think the term objectivist is more accurate than you think. In the philosophical realm, objectivism refers to the belief of a objective reality independent of each observer, while subjectivism (aka relativism) involves the notion of a reality that is different for each person. This matches exactly the present debate. When speaking of neutrality and audio quality, one side believes that the optimum is different for each person, and different sources and amplifiers match different peoples' ears and tastes. The other side treats the notion of neutrality and signal quality as a mathematical ideal, and believes that any deviation from the mathematical ideal necessary to "improve" the quality of the signal is either to correct an existing flaw or to introduce euphonic distortion.
I don't think any clean distinctions of epistemology can be made. From the subjective viewpoint, they are the ones who are more closely following their aural observations and positing causes, so they are the more empirical ones.
The claim that a lot of audiophiles are mystics has been made before, and it is highly resented - some would probably say it's a bigoted remark. I was actually in my highest audiophile mode while an EE student with some degree of a skeptical outlook. But I think it would be a fair cop to say that most EEs with a signal processing or audio engineering background are not audiophiles.
Another big issue with the term "objectivism", though, is that it is easily confused with Randism. So maybe a different term should be used.
There are possibly always other ways of trying to go about making an argument in support of a certain system, or to develop formal theories about systems in general. Some people do it with very complex and abstract math and formal logic -- although it's doubtful something like this would convince the sort of audiophile (or skeptic in general) that doesn't even accept certain principles of basic physics and signal processing theory or whatever else. At the end of the day nothing you will say will convince the eternal skeptic.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313514"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, as I alluded to in my original post, there are arguments against "subjectivism" that transcend observation and truth, which are completely valid and are probably more persuasive than giving alternate explanations to things like vinyl and amps and such.
Examples abound in the history of science where one theory wins over another based on social stuff like this. Heliocentricity and the combustion theory didn't really succeed because they were necessarily
more correct. In fact, they were initially much less correct than earth-centricity and phlogiston.
Of course, the audiophile could easily retort by saying that it's subjectivism which is the correct (and newer) theory, and the entire industry will eventually come over to its way of thinking. In the end it's all a matter of how many people believe what makes sense.
An interesting debate. I have come to the following hypothesis, and of course all that follows comes with a massive slice of "in my opinion":
The act of listening to reproduced music comprises two distinct components: (i) the creation of a physical soundfield by means of equipment; (ii) the response inside the listener's ear/brain system to that soundfield.
Now, the second of these components (the listener's response) is not determined by the soundfield alone. External factors, such as the listener's state of health, can genuinely change what they hear. One such factor is knowledge of the equipment being used. Hearing a difference due to such knowledge (when there is no change in the soundfield) should NOT be described as "self-delusion", "lying", or any other kind of negative term. It is a genuine difference in what is heard.
The objectivist and subjectivist camps both seem to draw the wrong conclusions. The subjectivists incorrectly ascribe the difference in what they hear as being due to a difference in the soundfield, refusing to acknowledge that they might be subject to external influence. This is ironically an attempt by them to appear "objective" about their position. Meanwhile, the objectivists incorrectly tell the subjectivists that they aren't actually hearing anything different and are deluding themselves. This is ironically a refusal by these so-called scientists to acknowledge the huge weight of empirical evidence that a difference is perceived.
In the real world of music listening, the equipment in use is known. We can't get away from this. (DBTs are a useful experimental tool, but play no part in listening for pleasure). And so we can't get away from the fact that this knowledge WILL impinge on what we hear. People need to accept that these external factors are a valid part of the listening experience, and to stop thinking that perceiving a difference where none exists in the soundfield is some kind of character flaw.
I'll accept that a lot of what people believe they hear (outside of DBTs) is base on their expectation of what they will here.
However, you'll only believe that the bad $10,000 amplifier sounds better than the good $1,000 amplifier while you believe that it is reasonable to believe this. (!)
If you can come to believe that the $1,000 amp sounds (or should sound) better than the $10,000 amp, then the listener expectation effect will work in reverse, and you can save a lot of money (unless the $1,000 amp really sounds worse, in which case you might realise one day!)
The subjectivists are forced to spend ever more money on ever stranger equipment, because they just can't bring themselves to believe that the $1,000 amplifier really does sound fine. Meanwhile, the objectivist belives that the $1,000 amplifier really does sound fine, and so it sounds better to him than to the subjectivist - in fact the $1,000 amp sounds better to the objectivist than the $10,000 amplifier does to the subjectivist! The subjectivist thinks the objectivist is deaf, but the objectivists gets to hear better sound, enjoy the music more and spend less money!
Cheers,
David.
I understand the idea that both camps can convince themselves that they are correct, in a self-consistent way within their own beliefs. Most of the time.
But how do subjectivists get around the issue of subjectivists (or any one) hearing differences between the same piece of equipment presented twice?
Cheers,
David.
I hope that i understood the arguments right. If yes: why would a DBT stop someone from enjoying subjective criterias? It sounds as if there only can either be objectivism OR subjectivism. I dont understand why. The problem imho is the lack of people being able to differentiate: If you accept that there are objective as well as subjective features in an object, then you can as well enjoy both - here's an example:
We have a 1000$ Amp and a 2000$ Amp. In a DBT, you cannot find a difference between both. However, you still buy the 2000$ Amp because it just looks more nice. Thus, in this example you knowingly spend 1000$ more on an amp just for its subjective features.
So, if i understood the discussion, then it is not a question between objective OR subjective evaluation - instead it is a question of self-discipline and the ability differentiate.
- Lyx
I have to respond. The belief that special speaker wire, or cable, makes a difference rocks me. Look inside the amps and see the diameter of the wire feeding these "sound pipes." Sometimes it is slim bell wire. Thank God for the gullible audiophile. He is keeping many of the crooks concentrated in one industry.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=313492")
I agree. I think "good" cables can make a difference...to an extent. If it is well built to specifications and conducts properly, then it is doing it's job. What about the wires inside of a speaker, inside of your headphones (some people mod these, ok), the connections to the amp, the speakers inside the amp itself, the binding posts. I could go on and on. If I have a 99.99999% 24k gold cable that cost me $3,000, then the binding posts on the amp, the cables inside the headphones or speakers, the cables inside the amp, etc had better be 99.99999% 24k gold or I just threw $3,000 out the window. Additionally, just because all of this stuff IS 99.99999% 24k gold, that doesn't mean it is going to make an AUDIBLE difference in an ABX test.
IMHO: I'll believe it when I hear it. No sooner...
EDIT: [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=33951]http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=33951[/url]
No one made it passed phase 2. I wonder why....
Also note the very expensive equipment. This was not on a pair of $1 sony headphones people...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313496"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just to be picky, you'd have wasted your money anyway, since silver is cheaper and happens to be the best electrical conductor! I agree with your point though :-)
I don't think any clean distinctions of epistemology can be made. From the subjective viewpoint, they are the ones who are more closely following their aural observations and positing causes, so they are the more empirical ones.
I don't really agree with this point, but I'm a bit short on time for posting so I'll have to come back to it.
The claim that a lot of audiophiles are mystics has been made before, and it is highly resented - some would probably say it's a bigoted remark. I was actually in my highest audiophile mode while an EE student with some degree of a skeptical outlook. But I think it would be a fair cop to say that most EEs with a signal processing or audio engineering background are not audiophiles.
I could imagine some people resenting such a statement, but I'd honestly be interested in someone explaining why the two are not similar on many of levels. You have pointed out a lot of characteristics of the way that audiophiles look at the world, and the thresholds that they set for the obtainment of knowledge. I just so happen to think that many of these characteristics are not limited to the sort of subjectivist/pseudo-science you have singled out, but are in fact symptomatic of more general belief patterns and knowledge treatment (i.e. epistemology). Mysticism is just one case I can think that shows similarities. And this is not necessarily meant as an insult -- it's an observation. I have known quite a few mystics myself, some of which I consider to be good friends. I just happen to think they're wrong on some fundamental points about the nature of the world.
Another big issue with the term "objectivism", though, is that it is easily confused with Randism. So maybe a different term should be used.
This was exactly my point. Perhaps I should have stated that more clearly. I understand objectivism and subjectivism with respect to outlooks on the nature of reality (the topic comes up quite often in philosophy). I have already more than once seen "objectivism" as used in the context of audio confused with "objectivism" used in the Randian sense. In fact, I believe that one of the sites Arny mentioned in his recent debate with the Stereophile editor was a case of this exactly.
In the course of a Head-Fi thread in which I apparantly played a key part in getting closed, I realized that many/most audiophile subjectivists (and more specifically, those who consider their ears infallible) cannot be persuaded by reason.
I started some time ago a similar thread with reference to the same article entitled "The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio" which can be found there (http://www.theaudiocritic.com/cwo/Sample_Articles/?id=5) (PDF 115kB, The Audio Critic website) or at Bruce Coppola's website (http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/).
The (long and passionate) discussion in French can be read there (http://forum.hardware.fr/hardwarefr/VideoSon/Le-Topic-Objectivistes-Mensonges-Hi-Fi-sujet-71592-1.htm) and the thread hasn't been closed ( ).
"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
More here.
http://channels.lockergnome.com/windows/ar..._his_will.phtml (http://channels.lockergnome.com/windows/archives/20050627_a_man_convinced_against_his_will.phtml)
Do not confuse me with the facts, I have made up my mind.
I could imagine some people resenting such a statement, but I'd honestly be interested in someone explaining why the two are not similar on many of levels. You have pointed out a lot of characteristics of the way that audiophiles look at the world, and the thresholds that they set for the obtainment of knowledge. I just so happen to think that many of these characteristics are not limited to the sort of subjectivist/pseudo-science you have singled out, but are in fact symptomatic of more general belief patterns and knowledge treatment (i.e. epistemology). Mysticism is just one case I can think that shows similarities. And this is not necessarily meant as an insult -- it's an observation. I have known quite a few mystics myself, some of which I consider to be good friends. I just happen to think they're wrong on some fundamental points about the nature of the world.
A lot of audiophiles have no problems with the modern scientific method, modern medicine, DBTs in medical and consumer fields, and modern psychoacoustics. They are just not convinced that either such methods and examples apply to audio, or they are insufficient to explain what is being observed. Or they may even believe in it but still be influenced by subjectivism to hedge their bets (and purchases). I sort of fall in the latter category. That's quite different from having a purely subjective/mystical worldview. Perfectly rational people can believe in this, and in fact a lot of scientists/engineers are audio subjectivists, and may even apply it in audio engineering. (cf last month's IEEE Spectrum article about the tubed iPod amp, and a smattering of AES submissions which smell strongly of audiophilia.)
More succintly, we're already talking Kuhn, so I don't think we can be talking Randi at the same time.
Another big issue with the term "objectivism", though, is that it is easily confused with Randism. So maybe a different term should be used.
This was exactly my point. Perhaps I should have stated that more clearly. I understand objectivism and subjectivism with respect to outlooks on the nature of reality (the topic comes up quite often in philosophy). I have already more than once seen "objectivism" as used in the context of audio confused with "objectivism" used in the Randian sense. In fact, I believe that one of the sites Arny mentioned in his recent debate with the Stereophile editor was a case of this exactly.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313570"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I used to call it "audio objectivism" to try and make a distinction, but I agree that a better term is needed. I just haven't seen one yet. And "subjectivism" is such an applicable term! "Skepticism" doesn't quite cut it, both because that only represents knowledge acquisition without having an existing philosophy or body of knowledge, and because I think skepticism is internally self-consistent within a subjectivist framework.
What about logical positivism? Much as I disagree with it as a general philosophy, I think it is a good description for what we're aiming towards - strictly materialistic, everything that can't be measured is meaningless, personal preferences exist but are not relevant. It's a rather esoteric term though.
I hope that i understood the arguments right. If yes: why would a DBT stop someone from enjoying subjective criterias? It sounds as if there only can either be objectivism OR subjectivism. I dont understand why. The problem imho is the lack of people being able to differentiate: If you accept that there are objective as well as subjective features in an object, then you can as well enjoy both - here's an example:
We have a 1000$ Amp and a 2000$ Amp. In a DBT, you cannot find a difference between both. However, you still buy the 2000$ Amp because it just looks more nice. Thus, in this example you knowingly spend 1000$ more on an amp just for its subjective features.
So, if i understood the discussion, then it is not a question between objective OR subjective evaluation - instead it is a question of self-discipline and the ability differentiate.
- Lyx
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313564"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When I say "subjectivism", I'm referring to a specific philosophy of audio quality and design: that short of obvious effects such as hearing damage, human hearing is an infallible source of observation and experience and comparison. Therefore, any differences in evaluation between different people - especially regarding neutrality - means that the evaluation itself is not comparable between individuals. In short, different realities for different people.
It's obviously a lot more complicated than that, but most audiophiles share the philosophy to a greater or lesser degree. It's a way for educated people to explain why some people think tube amps sounds better than discrete opamps, and vinyl sounds better than CD, and one cable brand sounds best, while at the same time allowing others to think that solid state and CDs sound better, and a different cable brand is better. It's an internally consistent theory encompassing the observations of audiophiles over the last 25 years.
One point I must emphasize is that hardly anybody
believes everything in this theory. It's sort of in the abstract. Each audiophile has his/her own theory of how audio works, what sounds best, what tweaks work, etc. which differs from what I'm presenting here (I lay this out in my original post). And you're right, a lot of them do take ABXs seriously. But if we had to argue each person's individual theory we'd get nowhere. Moreover, attacking the theory in the abstract is not a strawman argument at all, because rather than being an extreme that "nobody" believes, people tend to pick and choose what they want from it. So refuting it still has great value.
I think your notion of this as self-discipline is pretty correct. As Dibrom points out, a lot of this is about how high to set your threshold of knowledge, and when you start to treat a hypothesis as fact.
I understand the idea that both camps can convince themselves that they are correct, in a self-consistent way within their own beliefs. Most of the time.
But how do subjectivists get around the issue of subjectivists (or any one) hearing differences between the same piece of equipment presented twice?
Cheers,
David.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313551"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Easy. Burn-in. The device is simply not the same as when it was last heard. Or it's differences in temperature changing the circuit parameters. Or two "identical" devices have differences due to their part tolerances. Or you're getting more acclimated to the system, and can better listen to its faults and strengths.
Or it's something new, something nobody's ever seen before.
I'll accept that a lot of what people believe they hear (outside of DBTs) is base on their expectation of what they will here.
However, you'll only believe that the bad $10,000 amplifier sounds better than the good $1,000 amplifier while you believe that it is reasonable to believe this. (!)
If you can come to believe that the $1,000 amp sounds (or should sound) better than the $10,000 amp, then the listener expectation effect will work in reverse, and you can save a lot of money (unless the $1,000 amp really sounds worse, in which case you might realise one day!)
The subjectivists are forced to spend ever more money on ever stranger equipment, because they just can't bring themselves to believe that the $1,000 amplifier really does sound fine. Meanwhile, the objectivist belives that the $1,000 amplifier really does sound fine, and so it sounds better to him than to the subjectivist - in fact the $1,000 amp sounds better to the objectivist than the $10,000 amplifier does to the subjectivist! The subjectivist thinks the objectivist is deaf, but the objectivists gets to hear better sound, enjoy the music more and spend less money!
Cheers,
David.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313550"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is a very persuasive argument - if you believe this, you will still enjoy your music, and you'll be less poor! However, I don't think it's easy to say that the level of satisfaction will be the same. That sort of thing is a very personal experience that can't be generalized.
For example, a lot of audiophiles speak of the visceral joys of buying vinyl, cleaning it and playing it, that exist independently and additionally to actually listening to it. It's hard to say that you'll be just as satisfied listening to CDs because they sound "just as good" when they're getting their kicks from something else too.
Ditto for buying new equipment, tweaking, DIYing and tube rolling.
Also to Dibrom's credit, Mark Levinson's (http://stereophile.com/images/newsletter/705Astph.html) latest foray, the Burwen Bobcat, is doing nothing to reassure me of the ability of audiophiles to disregard pseudoscience.
The Burwen Bobcat, through its use of ultra-high-frequency reverberation and strategic equalization, overcomes the deleterious effects of PCM digital, Levinson claimed. He said he had proven this in tests using the Avatar Biofeedback Testing System. Because he did not have an Avatar system at Red Rose, he offered to test my responses to PCM digital and the Burwen Bobcat on the spot, employing the techniques of applied kinesiology.
Bump. Wow, did I scare everybody off?
Bump. Wow, did I scare everybody off?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=314255"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes. Yes you did.
I think you've pretty much closed the point in Objectivest vs Subjectivest. You think it's better to be objective about everything (probably in life?) which is great, I most of the time share that view. It's also cool to try and persuade people to be objective too, but you get to a point where you either get through all the marketting fluff the past 20 or 30 so years or don't.
So I love your example with speaker wire, how there's _so_ many variables in the construction/parts that retailers find new reasons to overcharge customers. I've seen friends who just invested A LOT of money into cables (HT or auto) and would feel darn silly to be told that a lamp cord from the 50's made with nickel sounds as good as their super high end monster cable. In fact I would say they would be ignorant if you showed them the facts on paper and they'd go defensive saying "skin effect" "magnetic flux tube" etc etc.
I guess you either get through or dont depending on how convincing you can be. Cables though, are by far far far the least important part in a system. I early on found myself buying the hype and investing in monster speaker wire. Now after becoming objective and looking at the facts on how wire works, I feel used.
If i were to be as objective as i can, I'd rank a system in importance in this order
1)Recording quality/mixing
2)Speakers/Headphones
3)Sources
4)Amps
5)Preamps
6)Cables
I believe that order is right, but rating how important each part is is entirely subjective.
-Joe
I understand the idea that both camps can convince themselves that they are correct, in a self-consistent way within their own beliefs. Most of the time.
But how do subjectivists get around the issue of subjectivists (or any one) hearing differences between the same piece of equipment presented twice?
Cheers,
David.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313551"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Easy. Burn-in. The device is simply not the same as when it was last heard. Or it's differences in temperature changing the circuit parameters. Or two "identical" devices have differences due to their part tolerances. Or you're getting more acclimated to the system, and can better listen to its faults and strengths.
Or it's something new, something nobody's ever seen before.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313675"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, if all these effects cause people to "hear" differences between
identical pieces of equipment that are
larger than the differences they "hear" between
different pieces of equipment, only an idiot would suggest that the equipment differences under test are important, or even significant!
Yet that's what people say when blind testing cables. We've had the thread here recently. "I think X=B because B sounds much better than A..." when in fact X=A.
When they make such a mistake, people on planet HydrogenAudio conclude that they must have imagined the difference, since they've implicitly "heard" a difference between two things that were the same, while failing to "hear" a difference between two things that were different! However, people on planet Audiophile couldn't possibly have been mistaken in this way, and so conclude that they're more gifted at hearing things than other people.
Cheers,
David.
planet Audiophile
Sorry for introducing that idea - I don't want to give anyone nightmares!
Cheers,
David.
A lot of audiophiles have no problems with the modern scientific method, modern medicine, DBTs in medical and consumer fields, and modern psychoacoustics. They are just not convinced that either such methods and examples apply to audio, or they are insufficient to explain what is being observed. Or they may even believe in it but still be influenced by subjectivism to hedge their bets (and purchases). I sort of fall in the latter category. That's quite different from having a purely subjective/mystical worldview. Perfectly rational people can believe in this, and in fact a lot of scientists/engineers are audio subjectivists, and may even apply it in audio engineering. (cf last month's IEEE Spectrum article about the tubed iPod amp, and a smattering of AES submissions which smell strongly of audiophilia.)
If the fruits of natural science don't apply to audio, then the logical conclusion is that audio is not "of the natural world" -- i.e., it is "supernatural." This doesn't have to be in the sense of ghosts or UFO's or anything like that, but in the technical sense it means that audio isn't beholden to natural laws. Someone who believes something like this seems to me to have to at some point along the line either become inconsistent in their beliefs (making them not "perfectly rational"), or they were never "rational" to begin with and have a different sort of worldview/epistemology/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, like mysticism.
Now, of course nobody is
absolutely rational in their actions. But I think there's a difference between doing or believing something out of some sort of spontaneous impulse or instinct (thinking something sounds better at a sighted test), and actually trying to defend that action after the fact as somehow being a part of a rational belief system or theory (you were "sure" that it sounded better, without relying on some sort of objective methods, because of <insert some ad hoc explanation here>). I think that audio "subjectivists" tend to do the latter.
More succintly, we're already talking Kuhn, so I don't think we can be talking Randi at the same time.
Randi? Eh... I was referring to confusion about "objectivism" in the sense of Ayn Rand. That's what I meant by how "objectivism" is not a good term to use as the discussion moves closer to philosophy. Sure, "objectivism" in this sense is usually associated with ethical theory, but the proponents of "objectivism" tend to try and justify the theory according to some sort of "objective" world view also (which I think they get completely wrong, but that's beside the point). At any rate, the fact that this confusion has come up (and that "objectivism" mentioned on one of the sites in that debate I mentioned also later went on to discuss "objectivism" in the Ayn Rand sense) just reinforces my belief that it's not a very good term to use, especially when there have been better ones used for very similar debates in philosophy for quite some time.
I used to call it "audio objectivism" to try and make a distinction, but I agree that a better term is needed. I just haven't seen one yet. And "subjectivism" is such an applicable term! "Skepticism" doesn't quite cut it, both because that only represents knowledge acquisition without having an existing philosophy or body of knowledge, and because I think skepticism is internally self-consistent within a subjectivist framework.
I still think that it would be more precisely explained in technical philosophical terminology along the lines of metaphysics, but the problem with that is that it tends to obscure the distinction for those unfamiliar with certain ongoing debates. Not to mention the fact that those terms have their own sets of problems.
"Skepticism" is worse for a number of reasons though, not the least of which being that there many different kinds, and some are quite different from eachother. I think that Humean scepticism is on the right track in many cases, whereas pyrrhonean skepticism is just about completely wrong. That's just the tip of the iceberg though.
What about logical positivism? Much as I disagree with it as a general philosophy, I think it is a good description for what we're aiming towards - strictly materialistic, everything that can't be measured is meaningless, personal preferences exist but are not relevant. It's a rather esoteric term though.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313665"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
On and off I joke with my friends that I'm a logical positivist. I'm not, really, but I do think that on the whole, it got more things right than most competing theories. I'm not so much in agreement with all of the people who contributed to it as a philosophical theory, particularly earlier efforts, and much of the stuff that involved Wittgenstein. I think it would be quite interesting if some of the more damning technical problems with the theory could be re-examined and perhaps "fixed" in some way (doubtful).
At any rate, I don't think it's what most people mean by "objectivism" here. It's too specific. Besides that, most people probably wouldn't agree with it as you stated it -- it'd require quite a more nuanced explanation (not so much that things
unmeasurable are meaningless as things
unverifiable, even theoretically, in either an emperical (synthetic) or analytic (a priori) sense). And in the end, most of the people involved are interested in debating audio -- not philosophy.
strictly materialistic, everything that can't be measured is meaningless, personal preferences exist but are not relevant. It's a rather esoteric term though.
I think this is worded a bit unclear. If one would take the above quote literarily, then history would already have proven it wrong: i.e. when in the old days people believed that the earth is flat, they were missing the knowledge and tech to prove that it is round. Would you today say, that it is meaningless?
It is true that for testing theories and coming to conclusions, we cannot take into account what cannot be observed/measured - but this doesn't mean that what we dont know yet is meaningless. Actually, if one would take the above quote literarily, then it would suggest that there is no need for aspiration - it would mean that any advancement would be useless because we already know everything which is important.
Sure, "objectivism" in this sense is usually associated with ethical theory, but the proponents of "objectivism" tend to try and justify the theory according to some sort of "objective" world view also (which I think they get completely wrong, but that's beside the point).
Sorry for straying off topic, but were you referring to libertarianism? Just curious...
Excellent thread, btw.
Sure, "objectivism" in this sense is usually associated with ethical theory, but the proponents of "objectivism" tend to try and justify the theory according to some sort of "objective" world view also (which I think they get completely wrong, but that's beside the point).
Sorry for straying off topic, but were you referring to libertarianism? Just curious...
Excellent thread, btw.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
(http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=314397")
[a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy]This[/url] is what I was referring to. There is some relation between the two, but I wasn't commenting on libertarianism, only objectivism, just for clarification.
strictly materialistic, everything that can't be measured is meaningless, personal preferences exist but are not relevant. It's a rather esoteric term though.
I think this is worded a bit unclear. If one would take the above quote literarily, then history would already have proven it wrong: i.e. when in the old days people believed that the earth is flat, they were missing the knowledge and tech to prove that it is round. Would you today say, that it is meaningless?
It is true that for testing theories and coming to conclusions, we cannot take into account what cannot be observed/measured - but this doesn't mean that what we dont know yet is meaningless. Actually, if one would take the above quote literarily, then it would suggest that there is no need for aspiration - it would mean that any advancement would be useless because we already know everything which is important.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=314396"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is why I pointed out the distinction of verifiability versus measurability.
You could say the statement "The earth is flat" is meaningful (and false) because it is possible to verify whether in fact it is actually flat or not.
Likewise, unmeasurable variables (that someone has supposed might exist) in an experiment can be said to be meaningful if in fact it is possible (in theory) to verify that they exist by perhaps changing some parameters of the experiment, performing another experiment, etc.
However, in the latter case, if someone were told you that there exist some completely unquantifiable, supernatural, incorporeal, pink elephants that remotely influence some variables in your experiment, you could probably take such a statement as meaningless because how could you possibly verify such a claim? Meaning, according to logical positivism, is tied to verification in this way -- you will know if a claim is meaningful according to whether or not it is possible (in theory) to verify it.
If there is a real problem here (I mean with this case, there are other well known problems with logical positivism such as negative existentials), it is in knowing for sure whether something is meaningful at any given point in time. Back when the earth was flat, it might have been held to be impossible to verify whether it was actually flat or not because people could not have imagined the analytical techniques that we have now that can show us this.
If there is a real problem here (I mean with this case, there are other well known problems with logical positivism such as negative existentials), it is in knowing for sure whether something is meaningful at any given point in time. Back when the earth was flat, it might have been held to be impossible to verify whether it was actually flat or not because people could not have imagined the analytical techniques that we have now that can show us this.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=314403"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Full ACK. I would have explained the same thing with the following words: The asumption is that it is ultimatelly impossible to be perfect and know everything(because the universe is not static). More importantly, mankind currently is aspiring in "layers" - at a given point in time, you have a given amount of knowledge and tech at your disposal - over the course of time, more and more "curtains" are lifted and the amount of things which can be observed/measured increases - but ultimatelly, nothing is for sure. There is no absolute "knowledge", only probabilities - which in turn means, the only way to make decisions and come to conclusions is by only taking those things into account of which you know currently - hypothetically asuming that they are "facts", and building more complex models on them - but with the awareness that nothing is absolutely certain.
People tend to mix up these "hypotetical facts" with "ultimative facts".
But at a given point in time, it doesn't matter that they are hypothetical, because we can only live and think in the world in which we are today, not tomorrow. The only thing to keep in mind is that ultimatelly, we barely know anything at all.
- Lyx
Well, if all these effects cause people to "hear" differences between identical pieces of equipment that are larger than the differences they "hear" between different pieces of equipment, only an idiot would suggest that the equipment differences under test are important, or even significant!
Yet that's what people say when blind testing cables. We've had the thread here recently. "I think X=B because B sounds much better than A..." when in fact X=A.
I think they have different explanations for that sort of thing. Emotional distress, test insensitivity, etc. When you probe them further about what they mean by "major differences" after burn-in, in the context of sighted listening, they usually qualify their statements by saying that they're talking about the "last 5%" or the "last 1%" of the audio quality, something that most people don't normally notice. Leaving aside the fact that they don't really define what 100% really is, this sort of thinking is perfectly logical to judge aural differences between cables and differences between a single cable thru burn-in.
Tolerance issues between "identical" devices are quite measurable. In the case of some DIY amplifier topologies requiring matched transistor pairs, gross errors in tolerance might even be audible. Similarly, as Pio2001 pointed out when he measured different cable resistance after what amounted to heating it up in his hand, the measured parameters of the same device can change over time.
It's all an issue of magnitude. If your ears tell you there's a difference, and the difference can't be measured by any objective means, then "clearly" your ears are more sensitive than your instruments, and therefore things that are measurable must definitely be audible.
When they make such a mistake, people on planet HydrogenAudio conclude that they must have imagined the difference, since they've implicitly "heard" a difference between two things that were the same, while failing to "hear" a difference between two things that were different! However, people on planet Audiophile couldn't possibly have been mistaken in this way, and so conclude that they're more gifted at hearing things than other people.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=314371"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yup. This would be a good time to refer to the original two assertions I made in my Head-Fi post:
- If I do hear a difference, either it is in some sense quantifiable, or else it's placebo.
- If I do measure a difference, the rationale must make more scientific sense than the placebo effect to explain the audible difference. Otherwise, the placebo effect is the more likely hypothesis (although it is not guaranteed to be the correct one).
If the fruits of natural science don't apply to audio, then the logical conclusion is that audio is not "of the natural world" -- i.e., it is "supernatural." This doesn't have to be in the sense of ghosts or UFO's or anything like that, but in the technical sense it means that audio isn't beholden to natural laws. Someone who believes something like this seems to me to have to at some point along the line either become inconsistent in their beliefs (making them not "perfectly rational"), or they were never "rational" to begin with and have a different sort of worldview/epistemology/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, like mysticism.
Now, of course nobody is absolutely rational in their actions. But I think there's a difference between doing or believing something out of some sort of spontaneous impulse or instinct (thinking something sounds better at a sighted test), and actually trying to defend that action after the fact as somehow being a part of a rational belief system or theory (you were "sure" that it sounded better, without relying on some sort of objective methods, because of <insert some ad hoc explanation here>). I think that audio "subjectivists" tend to do the latter.
I think that audiophiles would prefer to say that current scientific explanations are incomplete and/or inconsistent, and rather than wait for it to catch up (or, heaven forbid, contribute meaningfully to them), they will use their own techniques to establish their own hypotheses. In fact that's the gist of what John Atkinson said in the Atkinson/Krueger debate. This is closely related to the argument that objective testing is mind-numbingly infeasible to perform - N=1000 for ABX tests where alpha=0.05 and beta=0.05, etc. And that is a valid criticism of our viewpoint. It is far short of saying that they are abandoning "the fruits of natural science", although it does means that they'll choose which fruits to pick to make their theory consistent. In fact, they will twist natural science to conform to the theory - look at the butchery they make of transmission line theory, for instance, to justify impedance matching for audio frequencies.
If you want to make generalizations about people based on this, you have to admit that very few people on this earth have any sort of skeptical degree to them, and they would not have the means to argue against pseudoscience or astrology or what not if it were presented to them. They just refuse to believe it to stay in the herd, just as they stay in the audiophile camp to stay in the herd. (And, to be sure, a lot of people are in the HA camp to stay in the herd.)
More succintly, we're already talking Kuhn, so I don't think we can be talking Randi at the same time.
Randi? Eh... I was referring to confusion about "objectivism" in the sense of Ayn Rand. That's what I meant by how "objectivism" is not a good term to use as the discussion moves closer to philosophy. Sure, "objectivism" in this sense is usually associated with ethical theory, but the proponents of "objectivism" tend to try and justify the theory according to some sort of "objective" world view also (which I think they get completely wrong, but that's beside the point). At any rate, the fact that this confusion has come up (and that "objectivism" mentioned on one of the sites in that debate I mentioned also later went on to discuss "objectivism" in the Ayn Rand sense) just reinforces my belief that it's not a very good term to use, especially when there have been better ones used for very similar debates in philosophy for quite some time.
Agreed, but I think you didn't quite understand my intent. I was asserting the existence of two conflicting scientific paradigms, while you are asserting a single scientific paradigm and a pseudoscientific "paradigm" that can't be analysed in terms of normal philosophy of science, because well, it's not science to begin with. Ie, a Kuhnian analysis of two competing paradigms vs James Randi fighting off astrologers and psychics.
I fully agree though. We need a new name, and I'm rapidly caring less and less about how esoteric it is. I guess we could just invent a term. I mean, everybody else has done it, why not us?
As long as we don't call ourselves brights. Then I'm liable to smack somebody.
i don't understand... we're not measuring objectively in the philosophical sense; I don't force my ABX results on anyone else. If something is transparent to me, it is transparent. If it is transparent to Guruboolez, it is subjectively transparent for him.
What we DO encourage here is EMPIRICAL subjectivity.
The pop-culture use of the word "subjective" usually means something like "unsubstantiated", which means non-quantifiable. "I believe the Yankees can win this season" is a subjectivist view that is non-quantifiable. Conversely, an "objective" view is something that can be proved/disproved. "The earth is flat," for instance. We're not talking about that on HA.org, but i think some passers-by may think we are.
I propose we stop talking about objectivity and start talking about empirical testing instead... less likely to start flamewars. Audio IS subjective by nature, because we all have different hearing apparatus. that doesn't mean science has to go out the window, however.
It's all an issue of magnitude. If your ears tell you there's a difference, and the difference can't be measured by any objective means, then "clearly" your ears are more sensitive than your instruments, and therefore things that are measurable must definitely be audible.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=314439"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Which is complete junk, as has been proven over and over again, both theoretically and practically.
A century of psychoacoustic experiments reveal countless signals that are measurably different, but which sound the same.
I can understand audiophiles scepticism about hearing vs measurement, but they hold this scepticism due to ignorance. Consider CDs at launch: "Perfect sound forever", "flat frequency response 20Hz-20kHz" and "often sounds awful" were all true, but this does not prove that ears are more sensitive than objective data. All it proves is that the marketing people are shouting about some objective data, and hoping no one will notice the rest which reveals the truth!
What really irritates me is the assumption that improvements in audio reproduction come about by throwing science out of the window and following imagined audible differences. If the industry had been driven by these forces and misconceptions for the last century, we'd still by listening to wax cylinders. Some of the most beloved audiophile madness sounds little better!
Cheers,
David.
What really irritates me is the assumption that improvements in audio reproduction come about by throwing science out of the window and following imagined audible differences.
What equally irritates me is when purveyors of snake oil audio devices use science in clearly mis-representative ways to dupe the gullible audiophile, who can then make the claim of objective empirical evidence to corroborate a subjective claim.
Why not set a double standard by using scientific measurement bordering on fraud to convey the benefits of using a product?
http://www.bedini.com/clarifier.htm (http://www.bedini.com/clarifier.htm)
I think that instead of "audio objectivism", or "empirical subjectivism", the most appropriate word would rather be science. Why use esoteric words ? The methods used by audio objectivist are nothing else than scientific methods.
ABX tests are subjective, because the result of the test is valid for the subject that passed the test and no one else. Frequency response or sonograms are objective. They do not depend on who makes them, but only on the system measured, the "object".
Thus objectivism should be the attitude that consists in judging audio devices without listening to them. Relying only on graphs and numbers. Subjectivism, on the other hand should be the attitude that consists in judging audio quality only with listening tests, and never on graphs. Which, by the way, is exactly what we are doing in this forum !
Back on the topic of scientific argumentation, the main argument for audiophile to backup their claims is that everyone can hear the difference between a common cable and an audiophile one. This is a very strong argument. It is like saying that the sky is blue, because everyone can see it. Fundamentally, there is no difference between the two assumptions.
Both are part of the daily experience of the subject. He can see that the sky is blue as well as he can hear that the cables sound different.
Both are universally accepted by all the technical knowledge that he can access (audiophile magazines, forums, advertisements).
Both are confirmed by the experience of the other people he knows : everyone confirms that the sky is blue and that cables sound different.
Now comes the scientific guy. "Give me a proof that the sky is blue", says he.
-Ha ! Ha !, says the audiophile, wanna have a drink ?
-I'm not joking, says the scientist. There is no formal proof that the sky is blue. Your eyes are playing tricks with you. If you were comparing it to a green sky, you couldn't reliably identify which is which.
-And besides philosophical dissertations, what do you do in real life ? Asks the audiophile.
This is why audiophiles are difficult to convince. One day, I was telling my mother that acupuncture was a parallel medicine, and that there was no proof of its effectiveness, other than through placebo. She answered that I knew nothing, and that every scientist recognized the background of acupuncture, that is was common knowledge !
For audiophile (and I discussed recently the matter of audio cables with a hardcore audiophile), the fact that every cable sounds different is scientifically established, and discussing such an obvious statement is a childish waste of time.
That's why I prefer to attack audio myths through logic.
One of the first arguments was recalled by 2BDecided above : during blind tests, most people pretends to hear differences between the same source presented twice. This is a psychological effect (not placebo, by the way). Since the existence of psychological effects is recognized, they become an alternative explanation to the sound of cables. The fact that people hears a difference is no longer a proof that they sound different, since it can occur even when they sound the same !
Are there proofs in physics knowledge ? For speaker cables, yes (confirmed in ABX), but for interconnect cables, no.
Are there proofs in objective measurments ? No. The distortion is vanishingly small, noise is below the audible threshold, and the frequency response is linear within +/- 0.01 dB
Then we can introduce blind tests, with all the protocol, like in the sticky thread on top of this forum.
Here, we must be aware of two common misconceptions about blind tests.
1-If blind tests were true, all cables, amplifiers and CD Players would have the same sound, which is absurd, then blind tests are worthless.
-> Wrong. If a blind tests doesn't succeed, it doesn't prove that the device under test doesn't work.
2-Blind tests proves nothing. They are not objective.
-> Wrong. If the protocol used guarantees that if the test is double blind, and succeeds, then the difference heard can't come from any psychological effect, nor from chance (with a confidence as high as we want).
In short, a blind listening test can prove that a subjective audible difference can exist, and it can't prove the opposite.
This is not well known at all among audiophiles, and it is always worth the effort to recall it. Actually, we have there another important problem with words. A blind listening test is actually a comparison during which the listeners don't know the nature of the device under test (brand/model). And audiophiles usually perform them just once, in order to eliminate placebo. However, it doesn't eliminate other psychological effects when there is no mathematical confirmation. In a way, audiophiles are right when they say that blind tests prove nothing. Listening to A and B, and saying "A sounds better" proves nothing. Blind tests can only prove something when they are repeated a given number of times, until p is small enough. I don't know how this protocol is called. I used to say "double blind tests with statistical analysis", in www.homecinema-fr.com, but several people corrected me because the calculation of p has nothing to do with statistics. It is a probability calculation, and no statistical conclusion can be drawn from one test run by one listener, however small is p.
Then, there are the usual refutations about blind tests.
Strangely enough, the strongest, and perfectly valid one, is nearly never used by audiophiles : the fact that when a blind test fails, it doesn't prove that the snake oil device is rubbish, it proves nothing ! I ended up fighting both camps in the discussions following the interconnect cables blind tests. I had to tell audiophiles that they were wrong saying that cables sounded different, because the tests showed that there could be other explanations, and I had to tell that they were wrong also when they says that we (objectivists) pretend to know everything without putting efforts in listening to anything, because our tests, when they fail, actually prove nothing !
In conclusion, we have no scientific proof on either side.
It is necessary to keep in mind, when fighting some snake oil devices, that we are in no case proving that they do not work. We can't. We are just showing that the proofs that they work are wrong, which is a completely different thing.
The main proof that they work is empirical : people can hear it.
When I dealt with interconnect cables, my strategy was to invite audiophiles that can easily hear cables sonic differences to demonstrate it in a controlled blind test. They failed. This fact is not useful at all in itself. There can be many explanations :
-The listening setup was not accurate enough
-The listeners were stressed
-The musical content was not appropriate
-The auditive memory in too short to recognize the cable after 30 seconds
-The cables are not burned in, etc.
This is why I considered essential to give the possibility for the listeners either to give null answers, either to give them an unlimited amount of time to give their answers. Otherwise, they can object that their wrong answers are not caused by a psychological effect, but by the obligation to tell something after a limited time. If this obligation doesn't exist, wrong answers can only be explained by psychological effects (or by an unstable listening setup, but this case would show in the first place that the device under test can't have a reliable effect on the system).
Once it has been shown that psychological effects can reproduce the same heard differences as audiophile devices without invoking unknown physical effects hidden to measurment devices, here are the some objections that we can be facing.
-The system under test / musical samples are not accurate enough to show the differences.
Answer : then why did you hear differences ?
-The auditive memory is too short for any blind test to succeed, even if we get rid of psychological effects.
Answer : then it is impossible for anyone to pretend that two cables can sound different, because the comparison is done after the sound of the first cable is forgotten. If the auditive memory is too short during blind tests, then it is too short during sighted tests too.
-The blind test puts the listener under pressure, causing confusion and psychological effects.
Answer : many blind tests have already succeeded (consider MP3, for example). The listener must be allowed to relax and to have control over the listening setup : volume, duration, placement... He must be allowed to train. It is right that passing a blind listening test is more difficult than to hear a difference once, but one can train himself as much as he wants. The test can be run anytime, even if weeks are necessary to prepare it. There is no fundamental limitation that can completely prevent this training, because there is no difference between a blind test and a sighted test other than the knowledge of the device under test. If the difference is heard in a sighted way, then it can be heard in a blind way.
-Blind tests prove nothing. Even if we succeed, you'll find arguments that will dismiss the success.
Answer : if the tests succeeds, psychological effects can only creep in if the test is not double blind, and chance is controlled by the probability calculations. The whole protocol and the conclusions that will be drawn from the result, according to the number of failures, must be clearly exposed, and everyone must agree on them before the test. If the protocol is accepted by both sides, only audible differences are left to explain the result. Psychological effects or chance are ruled out. However, no test is perfect, and a confirmation by an independant team is always welcome.
Other refutations can be made. It is important to familiarize oneself with the concept of blind listening tests in order to be able to give the most appropriate answer. The way audiophiles argue can be very destabilizating.
Always remember that :
-Anyone can prove other people that he can hear a difference, by means of a blind test.
-Blind tests can't directly prove that audiophile devices are rubbish.
-There is no differences between a sighted test and a blind test other than the knowledge of the device under test.
I think that instead of "audio objectivism", or "empirical subjectivism", the most appropriate word would rather be science. Why use esoteric words ? The methods used by audio objectivist are nothing else than scientific methods.
Good idea. I could live with this term. My only concern is that since "science" is such a common and generic term, it could become loaded and confuse people rather than clearly identify the term. Also, while most scientists are on the non-audiophile side of things, not all of them are, and a lot of engineers are audiophiles. Eg - would you consider the Cheever thesis "science"? Especially since it was published from what I'm guessing is a tier 2 university?
More replies as I find the time to make em.
Thus objectivism should be the attitude that consists in judging audio devices without listening to them. ... Subjectivism, on the other hand should be the attitude that consists in judging audio quality only with listening tests, and never on graphs.
This is opposite of the meaning Dibrom and I have been using in our discussions, although I can understand why you'd want to define them that way. Yet another reason for all of us to just stay away from those words.
Now comes the scientific guy. "Give me a proof that the sky is blue", says he.
-Ha ! Ha !, says the audiophile, wanna have a drink ?
-I'm not joking, says the scientist. There is no formal proof that the sky is blue. Your eyes are playing tricks with you. If you were comparing it to a green sky, you couldn't reliably identify which is which.
-And besides philosophical dissertations, what do you do in real life ? Asks the audiophile.
I don't think that is how the discussion would go, at least for the "learned" audiophile. Instead, the audiophile would explain that the different cables are made of different materials, different dielectrics and what not, and each difference means a small change in the signal, which is audible. For example, the difference between a cable made of silver and one made of copper is primarily due to resistance differences, and the silver lends itself a more detailed and brighter presence. This is because an RC lowpass filter exists for every cable, and the lower resistance means that the silver cable's -3db point is higher than that of the copper cable. And he would back all of that up by measurements, and examples of what a lowpass filter does to the sound, and tells you to extrapolate.
From his point of view, it's beyond mere experience and peer evaluation - what he is hearing is backed up by the measurements and the science. This sort of breaks down for things like the Bendini Clarifier, just as it does for acupuncture. But people invent remarkably detailed mechanisms to explain them just the same, and back those up with more experiments and measurements later (in ad hoc fashion).
That's why I prefer to attack audio myths through logic.
What I'm trying to argue, in the previous paragraph and this thread, is that those audio myths are also backed up by logic, so that while your logic is correct as far as we're concerned, your logic is probably ineffective in convincing people. I don't deny that there are misunderstandings and myths on both sides, as you very nicely point out, but as long as the audiophiles hold their ears as axiomatic, they cannot be reasoned with in the usual sense.
That doesn't mean that a lot of people are influenced by such logic. I was. But I think that the influence of such debates is primarily limited to those whose minds aren't made up yet, and especially those who have not listened to a lot of gear.
That in and of itself brings up a major criticism of my original post. If people can be really convinced through logical discussion of the fallacies of audiophiledom, then all my gawking about it being a self-consistent system that can't be attacked from a scientific/objective viewpoint are for naught. More specifically, any paradigm is going to have its dogmatic zealots as well as its neophytes, and the zealots never do change their minds. Instead, for lack of a more politically sensitive term, they die. And thus they no longer influence the debate.
This is all sort of testable by figuring out just who is being persuaded. Pio2001 and 2Bdecided (and perhaps everybody else): Do you have any sort of anecdotal evidence in your forum travels where your arguments have persuaded people to change their buying patterns, or at least their viewpoints? What I am predicting is that those agree and understand the audiophile explainations are not persuaded, although those who have not made their minds up too much can be. While you are arguing that quite a few people in the audiophile camp who know the theory can be persuaded.
This is not sound science! Or sound engineering for that matter! Occam would roll in his grave if he saw a state of the art engineering theory such as this, practiced by the most famous people in the industry.
William of Ockham? Hardly an objectivist!
Do you have any sort of anecdotal evidence in your forum travels where your arguments have persuaded people to change their buying patterns, or at least their viewpoints? What I am predicting is that those agree and understand the audiophile explainations are not persuaded, although those who have not made their minds up too much can be. While you are arguing that quite a few people in the audiophile camp who know the theory can be persuaded.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=314918")
There was no visible thing like this, but it can have happened in a hidden way. Many people were very thankful for the [a href="http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29786006&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=255]blind listening test[/url] about interconnect cables on www.homecinema-fr.com.
I think that one of the effects on that community was that before these tests, "objectivists" (scientists ? blindists ? Proofists ?) were considered as clueless trolls. After the test, there was more background, and skeptic point of views gained a bit of credibility. People who wouldn't have posted may have been encouraged to voice their opinion.
But the main effect of all this work was a slight paradigm shift. Most leaders of that forum now accept as a fact that interconnect cables have a subtle effect on hifi systems, and that "night and day" adjectives should be avoided when reviewing audiophile cables, because they mislead the beginner into thinking that a cable can completely transform his installation.
In the test itself, here's what happened.
Before :
Emmanuel Piat : skeptic, only capacity should affect the sound.
JC07 : interested guy, let's see what will happen
I've heard that Marsupilami aknowledged that cables can sound different.
Patrice : conviced that there a big differences. Ready to accept a failure, but that shouldn't have happened according to him.
Pio2001 : skeptic. No cable should affect the sound, except maybe the 6 meters cheap one with the plastic plugs in the middle.
After :
Emmanuel Piat : very intrigued by the fact that he thought to have heard differences between twice the same cable.
JC07 : could hear the difference neither in sighted way, nor in blind way.
Marsupilami : disturbed by the fact that we could answer "different", when the cables were the same. The test left him troubled. He said that he might give up his expensive cable, and just keep a cheap DIY one instead.
Patrice : rather surprised by the outcome. He accepted that expensive cables were not useful for hifi systems like the one used.
Pio2001 : not surprised at all. I knew that differences would be heard between twice the same cable. I'm relieved that the 5+1 meter cheap cable sounded transparent on a 25,000 € system.
This is all sort of testable by figuring out just who is being persuaded. Pio2001 and 2Bdecided (and perhaps everybody else): Do you have any sort of anecdotal evidence in your forum travels where your arguments have persuaded people to change their buying patterns, or at least their viewpoints? What I am predicting is that those agree and understand the audiophile explainations are not persuaded, although those who have not made their minds up too much can be. While you are arguing that quite a few people in the audiophile camp who know the theory can be persuaded.
In my experience, both parties seem to be more or less firmly rooted in their respective camps, while the undecided seem to more or less not care. I've never really come across any seriously "converted" subjectivists, although I'm sure they are out there.
Coming from an EE background, and having surrounded myself with technically minded folks since my university days, this has always been somewhat of a polarizing topic. Needless to say, those who haven't embraced objectivity and ABX testing (science) tend to be either stereo sales gurus, their followers (customers), and those who generally immerse themselves in the audio "occult" at considerable expense and without a firm grasp of the underlying technology. I generalize, of course.
In a lot of ways, this sort of posturing has a few parallels in the "creationism versus evolution" debate, with one camp firmly rooted in faith, belief and pseudo-science, and the other camp relying solely on observable evidence and the scientific method.
At this point, I'll shy away from expanding on that particular topic...
I've never really come across any seriously "converted" subjectivists, although I'm sure they are out there.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=314930"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Present !
I think that instead of "audio objectivism", or "empirical subjectivism", the most appropriate word would rather be science. Why use esoteric words ?
I guess I was just trying to clarify that although the popular notions of objective = scientific and subjective = witchcraft are in fact not correct, and what we are in fact encouraging is empirical subjectivity.
Audiophiles passing by probably get infuriated by our use of the work "objective" around here, and understandably so, because it is being misused.
Audiophiles passing by probably get infuriated by our use of the work "objective" around here, and understandably so, because it is being misused.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=314934"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It isn't as cut and dry as this because the term "objective" is rather ambiguous out of a given context.
If you are talking about methodology, "objective" means one thing, but if you are talking about something else (say metaphysics and epistemology), then it can mean something different.
Part of the problem with this thread is that some of us are viewing the nature of the problem quite differently. Originally the discussion was on a much more general and abstract level than ABX testing and methodology. Axon brought up a discussion about the comparability of two different systems. I went on to comment about belief systems in general, the accepted criteria for knowledge, and how this might influence the choice of testing methods employed by the different sides of this debate. Talking about "objective" versus "subjective" on this level has a different meaning than "objective" versus "subjective" simply at the level of methodology.
You say that we are encouraging empirical subjectivity, but this is only part of the story. We are encouraging the employment of objective emperical methods in order to quantify subjective perceptual results. But it goes further than this as well. There's a sort of unstated unassumption being made on the part of people who feel that such methods are worthwhile because there is in fact something like an objective reality underlying the perceptions (this is why I mentioned realist metaphysics earlier), and that if we can eliminate enough variables (through the use of well understood empirical methods), then we can begin to approximate the way "things really are," undistorted by flawed perception and bias. Without such an assumption, there's simply no point in ever comparing results.
In the case of something like psychoacoustic audio compression, that doesn't mean we can ever really get hard answers about whether or not something sounds "good," or "bad," or is even imperceptible, but it means that we can begin to uncover trends about what
probably sounds "good," or "bad," or is imperceptible, to most people under some certain condition, etc., etc. This, in turn, leads us to devise certain principles which help to clarify the information we already have and to reapply it in order to uncover more.
This sort of process is used all the time in the various listening tests and discussions around here that lead to refinement and improvement of various codecs and things like that.
So, "objective" isn't necessarily being misused, it simply depends on the context and level of abstraction that you are talking about. In this thread at least, that has happened on a couple of different levels.
But at any rate, I think the term is
too ambiguous and easily misunderstood here and so another should be found. I don't think "science" is necessarily a good substitute either.
In the university of Nice, France, Henri Broch calls it "zététique" (it would be zetetics, in English). He has created a community similar to Hydrogenaudio, although not devoted to audio, in a similar way as the James Randi foundation.
From the Zetetic FAQ ( http://www.zetetique.ldh.org/faq.html (http://www.zetetique.ldh.org/faq.html) ) :
Zetetics comes from the greek word zetein, which means to seek. It was teatched by the greek philosopher Pyrrhon (-365/-275). Reactualized by Henri Broch, science doctor, theoric biophysics teatcher, it is now teatched in the science university of Nice-Sophia Antipolis.
According to Broch's definition, zetetics is "the art of doubt". The zetetic circle adopted this definition. We no not try, of course, to restore Pyrrhon's philosophy as it is ! Zetetics is synonym of "scientific method" and "critical thinking". It is a contribution to the making of an ability of critical appropriation of human knowledge. Zetetics encourages to think by oneself, with rigor and method, one thousand miles away from dogms, prejudices, and preconceived ideas. It is, quoting biologist Jean Rostand, a "preventive hygien of the judgement".
There was no visible thing like this, but it can have happened in a hidden way. Many people were very thankful for the blind listening test (http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29786006&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=255) about interconnect cables on www.homecinema-fr.com.
I think that one of the effects on that community was that before these tests, "objectivists" (scientists ? blindists ? Proofists ?) were considered as clueless trolls. After the test, there was more background, and skeptic point of views gained a bit of credibility. People who wouldn't have posted may have been encouraged to voice their opinion.
But the main effect of all this work was a slight paradigm shift. Most leaders of that forum now accept as a fact that interconnect cables have a subtle effect on hifi systems, and that "night and day" adjectives should be avoided when reviewing audiophile cables, because they mislead the beginner into thinking that a cable can completely transform his installation.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=314928"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is some very good evidence. I find it very impressive that while adding the "null" result does not significantly affect the numeric results or significance, it is extremely important pedagogically. I think that this is enough to convince a lot of audiophiles. Simply demonstrating to them that they can't tell apart one thing from the same thing in a blind test is pretty good.
However, a lot of people can still form ad hoc responses - the point has been raised before that perhaps the very knowledge of what device is under test is required to properly perform a comparison. And, of course, people who completely trust their ears will ignore those results completely, and may invent completely new explanations if need be.
So I guess we're both right? A lot, perhaps a majority, of audiophiles can be persuaded by the properly done blind test and the very satisfactory explanation, but some debates must be made against peoples' very axioms. Which is hard.
Also, Zetetics sounds a lot like Zetatalk.
In the case of something like psychoacoustic audio compression, that doesn't mean we can ever really get hard answers about whether or not something sounds "good," or "bad," or is even imperceptible, but it means that we can begin to uncover trends about what probably sounds "good," or "bad," or is imperceptible, to most people under some certain condition, etc., etc. This, in turn, leads us to devise certain principles which help to clarify the information we already have and to reapply it in order to uncover more.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=314939"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good point. I guess though that by comparing results we are assuming that some level of objectivity exists in the results. Consistancy in results (for instance by way of Roberto's listening tests) supports this position, because the quantified subjective results by different individuals tend to match up.
I guess personally I will just try not to use the word "objective" though, to avoid misunderstandings, and stick to words like "quantifiable".
I guess personally I will just try not to use the word "objective" though, to avoid misunderstandings, and stick to words like "quantifiable".
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=314996"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Might I propose the words 'falsifiable' and 'verifiable' as in the meanings of the words in the scientific method?
That is, as compared to the "faith based" results of the cable fanatic. Note, please, that I am not using the term in any sarcastic fashion at all. To me, it really is falsifiable and testable vs. faith-based reasoning.
I probably shouldn't say more, I tend to rant.
(edited to fix tags)
Zetetics encourages to think by oneself, with rigor and method, one thousand miles away from dogmas, prejudices, and preconceived ideas.
Surely to place any method outside the categories of dogma and preconceived ideas is a prejudice that rigorous thinking will expunge?
Zetetics encourages to think by oneself, with rigor and method, one thousand miles away from dogmas, prejudices, and preconceived ideas.
Surely to place any method outside the categories of dogma and preconceived ideas is a prejudice that rigorous thinking will expunge?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=315001"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
One might (and one will - ed.) ask how one can prove that this "outside" is free of "dogma" and "preconceptions".
One might even extend the argument (as one now does -ed) to the language and concepts involved in thought.
Without some kind of order, there is no meaning. Any placing of order is by definition a kind of preconception.
Given this, it would simply seem to be a case of which preconceptions one trusts, ones that are in fact reinforced by the real world, or ones that appear to be fantasy, emiphera, or imagination.
An interesting debate. I have come to the following hypothesis, and of course all that follows comes with a massive slice of "in my opinion":
The act of listening to reproduced music comprises two distinct components: (i) the creation of a physical soundfield by means of equipment; (ii) the response inside the listener's ear/brain system to that soundfield.
Now, the second of these components (the listener's response) is not determined by the soundfield alone. External factors, such as the listener's state of health, can genuinely change what they hear. One such factor is knowledge of the equipment being used. Hearing a difference due to such knowledge (when there is no change in the soundfield) should NOT be described as "self-delusion", "lying", or any other kind of negative term. It is a genuine difference in what is heard.
Well, it's not 'lying', but claiming that 'what is heard' is due to some real difference in the equipment or the soundfield -- that the 'heard' difference has a soundfield counterpart - smacks either of hubris or dare I say, self-delusion. The fact is that the evidence does not support that conclusion -- or disprove it. 'Hearing' a difference is simply *too easy* to experience, for it to be sufficient evidence for difference.
The objectivist and subjectivist camps both seem to draw the wrong conclusions. The subjectivists incorrectly ascribe the difference in what they hear as being due to a difference in the soundfield, refusing to acknowledge that they might be subject to external influence. This is ironically an attempt by them to appear "objective" about their position. Meanwhile, the objectivists incorrectly tell the subjectivists that they aren't actually hearing anything different and are deluding themselves. This is ironically a refusal by these so-called scientists to acknowledge the huge weight of empirical evidence that a difference is perceived.
No, the *accurate* objectivist tells them that their evidence doesn't support their conclusion --the difference *might* be real, but they haven't *necessarily* heard a real difference at all. And it is not that objectivists fail to acknowledge a huge bolus of empirical (anecdotal) evidence that a difference is percieved. Everyone acknowledged that a difference is likely to be *perceived*. It's that they ALSO acknowledge the huge bolus of empirical (anecdotal AND experimental) evidence that 'perceived' difference is poor prima facie grounds for concluding real difference.
This is not to say that individual 'objectivists' don't ever commit rhetorical or logical gaffes. But I think they'd agree with what I wrote above.
In the real world of music listening, the equipment in use is known. We can't get away from this. (DBTs are a useful experimental tool, but play no part in listening for pleasure). And so we can't get away from the fact that this knowledge WILL impinge on what we hear. People need to accept that these external factors are a valid part of the listening experience, and to stop thinking that perceiving a difference where none exists in the soundfield is some kind of character flaw.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313535"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry, Clive, but this doesn't wash. It's like saying, 'millions of people around the world play the lotto every day. It's time we realized that belief in 'luck' is a valid part of the human experience, and stop thinking that concluding that lucky numbers exist in defiance of the laws of probability, is an expression of ignorance."
Just because people tend to believe and behave in a certain way, doesn't mean that conclusions drawn from those beliefs or behaviours are *valid*. There'd be no need for education, otherwise.
A lot of audiophiles have no problems with the modern scientific method, modern medicine, DBTs in medical and consumer fields, and modern psychoacoustics. They are just not convinced that either such methods and examples apply to audio, or they are insufficient to explain what is being observed.
Indeed. So the question then becomes, what are their grounds for believing that?
What evidence *independent of* sighted listening supports their view that DBTs 'do not apply to audio or that what we know about psychological bias and perception is insufficient to explain the disparity between DBT and sighted results?
Tolerance issues between "identical" devices are quite measurable. In the case of some DIY amplifier topologies requiring matched transistor pairs, gross errors in tolerance might even be audible. Similarly, as Pio2001 pointed out when he measured different cable resistance after what amounted to heating it up in his hand, the measured parameters of the same device can change over time.
You can get a person to 'identify' the SAME COMPONENT as being 'A' or 'B' -- i.e., to make them think it's two components. And it can't be that the component has changed between the two presentations, because it's not subsequently that hard to get the testee to believe what used to be 'A' is now 'B' and vice versa, simply by suggestion...all the time using just the same component.
It's all an issue of magnitude. If your ears tell you there's a difference, and the difference can't be measured by any objective means, then "clearly" your ears are more sensitive than your instruments, and therefore things that are measurable must definitely be audible.
Well, that would be poor reasoning. There are some measurable limits to hearing -- built in S/N of our auditory system , for one. We have the instrumentation to *measure* stuff beyond those limits but we can't natively hear it. Unless you're Superman.
I've never really come across any seriously "converted" subjectivists, although I'm sure they are out there.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=314930"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Present !
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=314932"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Several of the most vigorous 'objectivists' on the audio newsgroups and in the press report having gotten that way after conversion experiences (e.g. Peter Aczel, Tom Nousaine, Stewart Pinkerton).
A lot of audiophiles have no problems with the modern scientific method, modern medicine, DBTs in medical and consumer fields, and modern psychoacoustics. They are just not convinced that either such methods and examples apply to audio, or they are insufficient to explain what is being observed.
Indeed. So the question then becomes, what are their grounds for believing that?
What evidence *independent of* sighted listening supports their view that DBTs 'do not apply to audio or that what we know about psychological bias and perception is insufficient to explain the disparity between DBT and sighted results?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=316939"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think you're begging the question here. In the audiophile's eyes, there IS no evidence besides sighted evidence.
The eventual goal of DBTs is to identify products of a consistently high quality. That is, if you run a DBT between two different sodas, and the test fails, but one soda is still universally regarded as tasting inferior in sighted tests, the strength of the DBT will obviously appear weaker to a lot of people. If what is tested is not what is borne out in "the real world", then people are going to think that the test itself is flawed. Similarly for medicine - treatments that are no better than placebo are occasionally still performed, albeit usually with the alt medicine crowd.
More generally, the DBT can never be an end to itself in evaluation. Even an audio skeptic must admit this. If amp FOO tests the same as amp BAR, but I get consistently more joy out of using FOO instead of BAR, then choosing BAR would be patently stupid (all other things held equal). Eventually something has to give - either the test needs to be strengthened so that the enjoyment can be quantified (either as a placebo or as something important), or I just toss the test out the window and go with FOO. And given the well-founded difficulties in performing blind tests, only somebody with a lot of time on his/her hands will go all the way with the former option. Enjoyment is the ultimate goal, anyways, so some people will just not mess with it.
Most of the times, all other things are not equal. The price of FOO is about one hundred times higher than the price of BAR.
If amp FOO tests the same as amp BAR, but I get consistently more joy out of using FOO instead of BAR, then choosing BAR would be patently stupid (all other things held equal).[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317408"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're confusing a couple of things, I think.
Preference is something that each person gets to have. They can choose to select something from a sighted test, a DBT, or out of a catalog with no information beyond the company's selection of the model on the cover.
Preference does not have to be justified. Your argument about "joy" drives back to preference. You get to have your preference.
When it comes to science, or to making any kind of claim to performance that goes beyond you as an individual, now we are out of the range of preference (beyond your stating yours, of course, you get to do that), and into the realm of externally verifiable issues.
Then we are into DBT's and the like.
It is possible, I suppose, to show that your preference is shared by a group of people in which case your stating your preference might have some reading on that group of people. This is what one might call a "critic" who has worked to determine some external validation. That still remains your preference, you've now established (hypothetically at least) that your preference is sometimes shared by some particular group of people. That means that to those people, your preference may have some meaning.
BUT that is still sharing preference. It's not science, except in that you can use science to determine if your preference is in fact shared or not.
For preference, each person does what they like. Audiopiles will continue to use sighted tests, engage in egregious inadvertant self-deception, and operate on that basis because they PREFER to. There's nothing we can do about that, except to be aware that their input into the scientific process may be very seriously limited. When they make external claims, we can (and should) challenge them, of course. On the other hand, we all know how much fun that is, too.
That makes some sense to me.
I read the first page and didn't have time to read the whole thread, but I wanted to say something about my own opinion (especially since that page was so long!).
I am an amateur audiophile as far as sound goes, but I have an old L/R receiver that wasn't even that expensive to begin with. I play guitar and I can tune my guitars pretty well, and I think that counts for something. My biggest problem (besides the lack of hardware) is that my good ear (lost some high-range in my left ear due to a punctured eardrum a long time ago) has been giving me trouble.
I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that the point of massive cables is to reduce signal degradation between the output and the speakers).
In terms of subjectivity vs. objectivity, I fall heavily on the objective side. However, I think that scientific methods should be used to determine a component or system's "potential". This would be, IMO, done by quantifying the output - of the speakers if it is a system or the simple output for a component, with a nice sample - something you know very well and is dynamic enough to hit some extremes. I tried using a song like this a long time ago to test a component, just by using hearing, and I found it to be useful. I'm sure others have done this too.
I agree with those who believe in an inherent subjectivity of audio. After all, audio sound interacts with the brain through the ears. I think that this process has a slightly different effect in different people. I also think that people develop preferences as to how they like music to sound. I can't document any of this, but it's my opinion.
So I don't think that there is necessarily a schism between subjective results and objective ones - rather, I think they're both part of the whole experience.
"Another country heard from."
A lot of audiophiles have no problems with the modern scientific method, modern medicine, DBTs in medical and consumer fields, and modern psychoacoustics. They are just not convinced that either such methods and examples apply to audio, or they are insufficient to explain what is being observed.
Indeed. So the question then becomes, what are their grounds for believing that?
What evidence *independent of* sighted listening supports their view that DBTs 'do not apply to audio or that what we know about psychological bias and perception is insufficient to explain the disparity between DBT and sighted results?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=316939"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think you're begging the question here. In the audiophile's eyes, there IS no evidence besides sighted evidence.
The eventual goal of DBTs is to identify products of a consistently high quality. That is, if you run a DBT between two different sodas, and the test fails, but one soda is still universally regarded as tasting inferior in sighted tests, the strength of the DBT will obviously appear weaker to a lot of people. If what is tested is not what is borne out in "the real world", then people are going to think that the test itself is flawed. Similarly for medicine - treatments that are no better than placebo are occasionally still performed, albeit usually with the alt medicine crowd.
Yes, and lots of people believe in lucky numbers, astrology, and other superstitions as well. So? Is objective truth simply the application of democracy on beliefs? Or does the quality of evidence count?
Aside from which, there is no soda that is *universally* regarded as inferior tasting in sighted tests, that results in no difference in DBT, that I know of.
More generally, the DBT can never be an end to itself in evaluation. Even an audio skeptic must admit this. If amp FOO tests the same as amp BAR, but I get consistently more joy out of using FOO instead of BAR, then choosing BAR would be patently stupid (all other things held equal).
So would insisting that the *reason* you enjoy FOO versus BAR is because FOO really *sounds* different than BAR. That would be drawing an unwarranted conclusion from what you perceive.
Eventually something has to give - either the test needs to be strengthened so that the enjoyment can be quantified (either as a placebo or as something important), or I just toss the test out the window and go with FOO.
Fine, but do you also toss out the possibility that you prefer FOO for reasons that may in fact have nothing to do with the way FOO and BAR create sound field?
"Audiophiles' tend to either never consider that likelhood , or simply deny it (in contradiction to science).
And given the well-founded difficulties in performing blind tests, only somebody with a lot of time on his/her hands will go all the way with the former option. Enjoyment is the ultimate goal, anyways, so some people will just not mess with it.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317408"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Right, and some people will call them on their unwarrantedly certain conclusions from sighted comparison. Personally, I accept that much stuff I hear 'sighted' is inherently highly suspect. I tend to buy gear based on features and price as a result. I call that being *clear eyed* in terms of sighted listening.
...
Aside from which, there is no soda that is *universally* regarded as inferior tasting in sighted tests, that results in no difference in DBT, that I know of.
...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=318322"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Careful, careful, while I agree with a lot of what you have to say, "inferior" in a soda is a PREFERENCE that any given individual gets to have. There is no right or wrong answer.
To the question: Do these cables make a difference that the human auditory system can actually detect? there is an answer, and there is a right and wrong. (btw, the answer is not be "yes" or "no", the answer is "with such probablity", such is the realm of science, which, unlike some sighted reviewers, lacks absolute certainty)
dang! Wrong button. Sorry!
...
Aside from which, there is no soda that is *universally* regarded as inferior tasting in sighted tests, that results in no difference in DBT, that I know of.
...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=318322"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Careful, careful, while I agree with a lot of what you have to say, "inferior" in a soda is a PREFERENCE that any given individual gets to have. There is no right or wrong answer.
Of course not. Reread the post I was replying to...you'll see that I simply used the same language Axon did. He's the one who stipulated the existence of a soda 'inversally regarded as inferior'.
Reading a scientific magazine today, I came across the term EBM, which means Evidence Based Medicine. That's the medicine based on double blind statistical evaluations.
Why not call audio objectivism EBH ? This would be Evidence Based Hifi
I could post several thousand words on this topic, but since I've been embroiled in these kinds of "debates" over the past 30+ years in various forms (yeah, I'm old), I have just one link that to me epitomizes the most ridiculous and most stupid beliefs that a large majority of those people that think they know good sound when they hear it because they spent <insert insane amount of money here> on something that some magazine said was the best at the time.
So here I present the one item, just one single item, that caused me to literally laugh myself onto the floor the first time I saw it, the first time I read the deceptively ludicrous text describing it, and then the first moment I saw the price:
It's On That Thar Intarweb So It Must Be Good!!! (http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=NOB_C37_C)
If that doesn't sum up the sheer insanity of "high end" stuff, nothing ever will.
Have fun, always...
bb
I went to that link and -- wow. At first I thought it was a joke. Then I went to their forums, and nope. NO joke. A bunch of believers, for sure. Did a quick forum search on some terms: placebo (0 hits), abx (0 hits), snakeoil (0 hits).
Looked at it too...
I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry. /
edit: Look at the price tag. 485 Dollars!!! Now I'm laughing!
Well the audiophiles can have their visceral satisfaction of knowing they spend hundreds of dollars on things they think will make their music sounds better.
I will have my own visceral satisfaction of knowing I did not spend hundreds of dollars on things I know don't make my music sounds better.
Audiophiles are so amusing sometimes, it's amazing how much they suspend disbelief when buying this crap.
That being said, I've got a $5000 air purifier that reduces intermodulation distortion and removes particles from the air that reduce resolution and muddle the high frequencies, which when turned on will give you a much warmer, more dynamic sound.
Reading a scientific magazine today, I came across the term EBM, which means Evidence Based Medicine. That's the medicine based on double blind statistical evaluations.
Why not call audio objectivism EBH ? This would be Evidence Based Hifi
A bit pretentious. I like it!
However the whole debate over EBM (at least from what I quickly wikipedia'd) dovetails nicely with the debate over DBTs in hifi, and almost too nicely. Just like you can't use DBTs for some treatments/surgeries, it's next to impossible to DBT some things, and you have to rely on evidence that is less "strong" in the categorization of things.
I'd also worry that placing any sort of stock on expert opinion or sighted testing would violate TOS8. EBM appears to at least acknowledge both of them although they are less important than RCTs.
I'd order evidence for a perceptual change of something on the following scale:
1 - RCT/DBT shows a clear change
3 - Objective metrics change in a way that exceeds psychoacoustic ATHs
2 - Case/control sighted testing of multiple listeners with all results recorded (no cherry-picking)
4 - Consensus opinion of audio professionals
5 - Sighted test of one listener
And for something to pass HA's muster it must be level 1. This makes it hard to use EBH in more than an academic capacity here if the other 4 levels are meaningless.
5 - Sighted test of one listener
Level 5 -- the best way to ensure that the $10'000 hi-fi setup sounds warm, rich, with great stereo stage separation and good liveliness at low frequency...
Let the pretty Sales Girls set it up for you.
Edit: I suddenly realized how those audiophile guys I know snag their chicks