Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different (Read 114940 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #200
In all cases where I did some sort of blind comparisons I often did sighted comparisons first and always did sighted comparisons after.


A fascinating series of anecdotes.
Could you describe your blind testing methodology and switching equipment in some detail?

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #201
I think it's time for this.


Audio Woo Checklist
(attributed to Sean Adams, founder of SlimDevices)


You claim that an

( ) audible
( ) measurable
( ) hypothetical

improvement in sound quality can be attained by:

( ) upsampling
( ) increasing word size
( ) vibration dampening
( ) bi-wiring
( ) replacing the external power supply
( ) using a different lossless format
( ) decompressing on the server
( ) removing bits of metal from skull
( ) using ethernet instead of wireless
( ) inverting phase
( ) installing bigger connectors
( ) installing Black Gate caps
( ) installing ByBee filters
( ) installing hospital-grade AC jacks
( ) defragmenting the hard disk
( ) running older firmware

Your idea will not work. Specifically, it fails to account for:

( ) the placebo effect
( ) your ears honestly aren't that good
( ) your idea has already been thoroughly disproved
( ) modern DACs upsample anyway
( ) those products are pure snake oil
( ) lossless formats, by definition, are lossless
( ) those measurements are bogus
( ) sound travels much slower than you think
( ) electric signals travel much faster than you think
( ) that's not how binary arithmetic works
( ) that's not how TCP/IP works
( ) the Nyquist theorem
( ) the can't polish a turd theorem
( ) bits are bits

Your subsequent arguments will probably appeal in desperation to such esoterica as:

( ) jitter
( ) EMI
( ) thermal noise
( ) existentialism
( ) cosmic rays

And you will then change the subject to:

( ) theories are not the same as facts
( ) measurements don't tell everything
( ) not everyone is subject to the placebo effect
( ) blind testing is dumb
( ) you can't prove what I can't hear
( ) science isn't everything

Rather than engage in this tired discussion, I suggest exploring the following factors which are more likely to improve sound quality in your situation:

( ) room acoustics
( ) source material
( ) type of speakers
( ) speaker placement
( ) crossover points
( ) equalization
( ) Q-tips

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #202
In all cases where I did some sort of blind comparisons I often did sighted comparisons first and always did sighted comparisons after.


A fascinating series of anecdotes.
Could you describe your blind testing methodology and switching equipment in some detail?



yes they are anecdotes.


details.... the first comparison between the ARC and the Yamaha... single blind technically but the dealer was in the other room switching the cables.  The Hong Kong comparisons were done with me writing down my choices and the shop owner writing down which was A and which was B. We switched up between every trial with a coin flip to determine A and B. what else do you want to know?


Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #204
I believe that you cannot measure anything and conclusive say that "they are equal". You can say that "to within e.g. 1 part per million, or the accuracy of my measurement setup, these two stones have the same weight". For any "sane person", practical engineer or (probably) music-lover that will do in 99.99% of the situations. But that is not to say that those two stones are exactly identical in every aspect down to any level of detail.


If you really understand how the laws of physics work, there are simply never any two different things that are totally identical.  The 1950's educational system ideal that two schools could be separate but equal was thoroughly debunked by the early 1960s, and the same thing goes for everything else.

So whenever an audiophile says "sound different but measure the same", they are merely in their sweet naive way telling us knowlegable folks that they just flunked a basic test about audio knowlege. In fact it is far, far more likely that two things would sound the same but (obviously) still measure differently. Ears and the rest of our sense of hearing wasn't designed to be reliable test equipment. It is designed to allow us to communicate and otherwise stay alive.

Being able to communicate with a relatively high bandwidth of facts and feelings has turned out to be the greatest improvement in survival and comfort that has ever been. True, no matter how frustrating our real world communcation skills actually turn out to be.

As a practial matter, the two channels of anything don't measure identically the same. Furthermore, many parameters are sensitive to temperature changes, and temperatures  constantly fluctuate, so the same thing doesn't even measure the same if you go back and measure it again.

For example I was recently testing 14 nomailly identical 250 watt 1% NI power resistors for testing amplifiers. On the one hand they were pretty stable as compared to many parts that are sold for the purpose. They were gorgeous compared to the ordinary wirewound power resistors used in almost all commercial equipment.

OTOH I could show that they all had not only different resistances but also different temperature coefficients with just a gas stove, a simple mechanical thermometer, and a relatively inexpensive digital multimeter. They were pretty well matched at room temperature but heat them up  as would happen in normal use and they scattered like cockroaches when you turn the lights on in an old house in a bad neighborhood. The differences in tempco were so strong that I sorted the resistors by tempco, and put the realiatively weird ones into the circuit where I had several in parallel and they averaged each other out.

One of the err challenges of my life is that I do live sound in a ca. 1950s church that is badly designed in virtually every acoustical way. In the early 1980s a sound system was installed that I must rely on to this day for economic reasons. While it has its moments, it is only somewhat better than the room it is in.

Our worship director has a PhD in music and is quite musically fearless. I thus end up with a steady stream of technical challenges, doing crazy things like balancing a single French horn played by a high school girl, against 2 trumpets played by college-trained adult musicans. Any knowlegeable conductor will tell you that a resonable balance between trumpets and French Horns is 4 to 6 to one, and in the opposite direction. Because of the design of the room and placement of the main speakers, along with the extreme demends for amplification created by the artistic environment, avoiding feedback is a constant challenge. The good news is that sometimes we go for weeks and even months without audible problems, but I've been doing this for over 8 years so there's quite a history.

Now the interesting thing about acoustic feedback is that it is never the same. I record every service, and detailed analysis of the recordings shows that the actual frequencies that feedback takes place at are *always* different. I have some mics that  rarely move and players that sit in the same chair week after week, etc.. Even so, if there's a problem with feedback and that mic, it is always at a  different frequency.

The acoustics of rooms are actualy quite unstable. The more reverberent and larger that the room is, the more acoustics vary due to conditions like temperature, humidity, and other seemingly trivial changes. This affects listening rooms and this affects performance spaces. Nothing is the same and nothing stays the same excpet perhaps in our perceptions. That we actually hear sounds as being in our minds as being the same is probably more of a wonder than that we would hear many of the differences that are actually there.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #205
So let's break it down.

Blind tests for the ARC equipment.
First one was a careful single blind level matched comparison done at Rogers Sound Lab. It was between the ARC SP 11 and the ARC D115 Mk II vs. My Yamaha 100 watt rack system integrated amp. speakers were Martin Logan CLS's, Sourse was a Sony CD player (don't remember the model) and a Well Tempered TT/arm. I don't remember the cartridge. It was a preference comparison using several different titles from my personal CDs and LPs. I participated in two sessions of five trials. My friend participated in the same. In a total of 20 trials the result was 20 times the ARC equipment was prefered.  I repeated the tests at home with the Martin Logans and the Vandersteen sub. We did five trials each. same results.

In all cases where I did some sort of blind comparisons I often did sighted comparisons first and always did sighted comparisons after.


Thanks for your response. Before we get to the details, I would just like to clarify something in the last statement, where you said that you first did sighted comparisons before the blind. Did you prefer the ARC components sighted vs the Yamaha?
Do you have a model # for the Yamaha? Can we assume that you had the financial resources to purchase the ARC/Soundlabs, etc. at the time you purchased the Yamaha rack (includes Yamaha speakers?), but did so based on non financial reasons? I would imagine there was quite a price differential there.
Btw this Rogers Sound Labs?

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #206
So let's break it down.

Blind tests for the ARC equipment.
First one was a careful single blind level matched comparison done at Rogers Sound Lab. It was between the ARC SP 11 and the ARC D115 Mk II vs. My Yamaha 100 watt rack system integrated amp. speakers were Martin Logan CLS's, Sourse was a Sony CD player (don't remember the model) and a Well Tempered TT/arm. I don't remember the cartridge. It was a preference comparison using several different titles from my personal CDs and LPs. I participated in two sessions of five trials. My friend participated in the same. In a total of 20 trials the result was 20 times the ARC equipment was prefered.  I repeated the tests at home with the Martin Logans and the Vandersteen sub. We did five trials each. same results.

In all cases where I did some sort of blind comparisons I often did sighted comparisons first and always did sighted comparisons after.


Thanks for your response. Before we get to the details, I would just like to clarify something in the last statement, where you said that you first did sighted comparisons before the blind. Did you prefer the ARC components sighted vs the Yamaha?
Do you have a model # for the Yamaha? Can we assume that you had the financial resources to purchase the ARC/Soundlabs, etc. at the time you purchased the Yamaha rack (includes Yamaha speakers?), but did so based on non financial reasons? I would imagine there was quite a price differential there.
Btw this Rogers Sound Labs?

cheers,

AJ


Rather than such ad hoc inquiry, why not just focus on a few points pertaining to all his tests:

1) how was level matching performed?

2) why do scientists prefer double blind to single blind?

but most of all

3) what is the point analog_scott is trying to make in this thread'? He appears to agree that sighted bias exists; he appears to appreciate the need for blind comparison.  I suggest clearing this up before anyone goes down the semantic/philosophical/subjectivist rabbit-hole with him.  It may be you can stop right here:



And you will then change the subject to:

( ) theories are not the same as facts
( ) measurements don't tell everything
( ) not everyone is subject to the placebo effect
( ) blind testing is dumb
(x) you can't prove what I can't hear
( ) science isn't everything

 

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #207
So let's break it down.

Blind tests for the ARC equipment.
First one was a careful single blind level matched comparison done at Rogers Sound Lab. It was between the ARC SP 11 and the ARC D115 Mk II vs. My Yamaha 100 watt rack system integrated amp. speakers were Martin Logan CLS's, Sourse was a Sony CD player (don't remember the model) and a Well Tempered TT/arm. I don't remember the cartridge. It was a preference comparison using several different titles from my personal CDs and LPs. I participated in two sessions of five trials. My friend participated in the same. In a total of 20 trials the result was 20 times the ARC equipment was prefered.  I repeated the tests at home with the Martin Logans and the Vandersteen sub. We did five trials each. same results.

In all cases where I did some sort of blind comparisons I often did sighted comparisons first and always did sighted comparisons after.


Thanks for your response. Before we get to the details, I would just like to clarify something in the last statement, where you said that you first did sighted comparisons before the blind. Did you prefer the ARC components sighted vs the Yamaha?
Do you have a model # for the Yamaha? Can we assume that you had the financial resources to purchase the ARC/Soundlabs, etc. at the time you purchased the Yamaha rack (includes Yamaha speakers?), but did so based on non financial reasons? I would imagine there was quite a price differential there.
Btw this Rogers Sound Labs?

cheers,

AJ



When we did the ARC v. Yamaha comparison I was still quite a hard core objectivist. I expected to hear distortion from tubes. Now when I saw the ARC equipment I have to admit it looked very formidable so that, in and of itself, raised doubt in my expectations. But to answer your question. I did not compare sighted before the blind comparison. I did listen to the MLs with the ARC under sighted conditions on my first visit there but we didn't compare the ARC to anything else. That is the same Rogers Sound Labs. It was a cool little stereo shop and the guys on the floor didn't work on commission. I was there looking to ungrade my system now that I had my first CD player. They had a seperate dealership within Rogers Sound Lab called Upscale Audio. It was an appointment only deal. So I decided to check out what was in the upscale room. That was the only way to hear the best speakers they had there, the MLs. The dealer touted the tubes and the high end turntables. I pretty much rolled my eyes and said let's just hear the speakers.  So after being very very impressed with the speakers I agreed to come back with my Yamaha to do a comparison with the tubed gear. But I insisted that it be blind and level matched. I was very shocked by the results. I kind of figured after the first two trials that I was picking the ARC. There was a pretty distinct difference and the superior sample (The ARC) had all the qualities of my first audition. the inferior sample (trhe Yamaha) was not even what I would call very good.

Of course nothing was quite as dramatic as my first head to head comparison between a CD player and a high end turntable with my CDs and LPs. That was down right traumatic. But it was also sighted.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #208
Blind tests are irrelevant for the original post because the audiophile who I described will never participate in a blind test of anything, and says "I know what I hear".

Almost every "high end" audiophile who does a "blind test" seems to merely compare two components with brand names hidden, with no A-B volume matching, and then says whatever he feels like saying about the components.  That may be blind but it's not a test of anything! 

After reading all the posts in this thread, and considering that "Analog Scott" is as welcome here as I was at The Audio Asylum ... I've come to the conclusion that high-end audiophiles use their expensive stereo systems to reflect their perceived wealth and intelligence.  Similar to a man who wears a very expensive watch -- maybe it looks good, but is the time more accurate than a $20 Timex?  The watch owner doesn't care.

A psychologist friend claims this is all about obsessive-compulsive personalities -- males obsessed with their "equipment".  But then I have a theory that all psychologists are experts in mental problems simply because they have mental problems! 

Thanks for the many contributions to this thread!
.
.
.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #209
@analog scott: All we have here is that the two amplifiers sounded different, and that you preferred the sound of the ARC. It doesn't tell us which was the more accurate, only that the distortion, or lack thereof, of one of the amplifiers was more pleasing to you.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #210
@analog scott: All we have here is that the two amplifiers sounded different, and that you preferred the sound of the ARC. It doesn't tell us which was the more accurate, only that the distortion, or lack thereof, of one of the amplifiers was more pleasing to you.



Yep. I completely agree. And it is anecdotal to boot. Blind protocols in and of themselves do not make a home brewed test scientifically valid.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #211
3) what is the point analog_scott is trying to make in this thread'? He appears to agree that sighted bias exists; he appears to appreciate the need for blind comparison.  I suggest clearing this up before anyone goes down the semantic/philosophical/subjectivist rabbit-hole with him.  It may be you can stop right here:

He seems to be saying that if someone gets enjoyment from their biases, i.e favouring $2000 speaker cables, then they should feed their bias by buying expensive things that double blind tests demonstrate don't work.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #212
Rather than such ad hoc inquiry, why not just focus on a few points pertaining to all his tests:

1) how was level matching performed?

2) why do scientists prefer double blind to single blind?

but most of all

3) what is the point analog_scott is trying to make in this thread'? He appears to agree that sighted bias exists; he appears to appreciate the need for blind comparison.  I suggest clearing this up before anyone goes down the semantic/philosophical/subjectivist rabbit-hole with him.  It may be you can stop right here:



And you will then change the subject to:

( ) theories are not the same as facts
( ) measurements don't tell everything
( ) not everyone is subject to the placebo effect
( ) blind testing is dumb
(x) you can't prove what I can't hear
( ) science isn't everything



My, that is one fine crop of straw men you have lined up for a ritualistic burning.
Let's take your first eroneous assertion of fact.
"(x) you can't prove what I can't hear"
Aside from the ambiguity of the language this is simply something I have not said or infered. i believe that it is possible to prove what can and can not be "heard" by me or any other human being within reasonable certainty. I have a hunch this will be one of many burning straw men I will be extinguishing.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #213
My, that is one fine crop of straw men you have lined up for a ritualistic burning.
Let's take your first eroneous assertion of fact.
"(x) you can't prove what I can't hear"
Aside from the ambiguity of the language this is simply something I have not said or infered.



Well, then, don't ignore the ambiguity of the language, e.g. 'it may be that you can stop here". 


Quote
i believe that it is possible to prove what can and can not be "heard" by me or any other human being within reasonable certainty. I have a hunch this will be one of many burning straw men I will be extinguishing.



And that's it?  You quote the whole post, yet only address the *jokey* part snipped from a satirical list?  What about  part about level matching, about SBT vs DBT, and about what your central point is?  Are they 'a crop of straw men'?  Do tell.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #214
@analog scott: All we have here is that the two amplifiers sounded different, and that you preferred the sound of the ARC. It doesn't tell us which was the more accurate, only that the distortion, or lack thereof, of one of the amplifiers was more pleasing to you.



Yes, what we have is  high-end tube system compared to a Yamaha solid-state; a single blind test in an audio salon, employing level matching of unknown accuracy; and with no bench test data for either unit to corroborate the result  (a 'hardcore objectivist' would want to know, -- though tubes vs SS is not exactly the posterchild matchup for 'all amps should sound the same').  A preference was indicated for the high-end tube gear, because he 'expected to hear distortion from tubes'..but  thinks he didn't.  Though one might say maybe he did, and it was euphonic (pleasant-sounding)  Perhaps more is forthcoming on these matters.

And we have another not-quite-exemplar of the Great Debate in CD/CDP vs LP/turntable.  Yes, they'll probably sound different, in blind or sighted tests.  Quite possibly dramatically so.  Different mastering + euphonic distortion can do that.

What's the point here, again?

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #215
My, that is one fine crop of straw men you have lined up for a ritualistic burning.
Let's take your first eroneous assertion of fact.
"(x) you can't prove what I can't hear"
Aside from the ambiguity of the language this is simply something I have not said or infered.



Well, then, don't ignore the ambiguity of the language, e.g. 'it may be that you can stop here". 


Quote
i believe that it is possible to prove what can and can not be "heard" by me or any other human being within reasonable certainty. I have a hunch this will be one of many burning straw men I will be extinguishing.



And that's it?  You quote the whole post, yet only address the *jokey* part snipped from a satirical list?  What about  part about level matching, about SBT vs DBT, and about what your central point is?  Are they 'a crop of straw men'?  Do tell.



I didn't ignore the ambiguity of the language of your post. I was the one who pointed it out.

Yes that is it. That was the one with the check mark. Looked to me like the rest of the straw men were positioned but not yet asserted.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #216
@analog scott: All we have here is that the two amplifiers sounded different, and that you preferred the sound of the ARC. It doesn't tell us which was the more accurate, only that the distortion, or lack thereof, of one of the amplifiers was more pleasing to you.



Yes, what we have is  high-end tube system compared to a Yamaha solid-state; a single blind test in an audio salon, employing level matching of unknown accuracy; and with no bench test data for either unit to corroborate the result  (a 'hardcore objectivist' would want to know, -- though tubes vs SS is not exactly the posterchild matchup for 'all amps should sound the same').  A preference was indicated for the high-end tube gear, because he 'expected to hear distortion from tubes'..but  thinks he didn't.  Though one might say maybe he did, and it was euphonic (pleasant-sounding)  Perhaps more is forthcoming on these matters.

And we have another not-quite-exemplar of the Great Debate in CD/CDP vs LP/turntable.  Yes, they'll probably sound different, in blind or sighted tests.  Quite possibly dramatically so.  Different mastering + euphonic distortion can do that.

What's the point here, again?



The point was to answer questions asked of me by AJ.


" A preference was indicated for the high-end tube gear, because he 'expected to hear distortion from tubes'..but  thinks he didn't. "

No the preference was based on better tonal balance, much more life like imaging and more life like rendering of instruments and voices. The playback simply created a much better illusion of live music with the ARC. Oh and the level matching was done with a volt meter as per my request.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #217
It really doesn't seem like you've been reading his posts, especially the last ones (or the ones that were binned); or keeping track of the questions and counterpoints that he has evaded in favor of obscuring the issue with useless sophistry.

That we should give him props for stating what is obvious is, well, silly.

As a friendly challenge, please consider relating his distractions to the initial post.

Fair enough - just chiming in that I'm still chewing through all the messages. :F

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #218
When we did the ARC v. Yamaha comparison I was still quite a hard core objectivist.

Yes, I am familiar this type of claim and why it is used. So you assessed yourself to be technically literate and rational (objective) at the time. Ok.
I expected to hear distortion from tubes.

Hmmm. A rational, technically literate person would expect no such thing. Are you still unaware that tube amplification can be implemented with very low (inaudible) levels of distortion (all types)? Are you sure you know what "objective" means?
Now when I saw the ARC equipment I have to admit it looked very formidable so that, in and of itself, raised doubt in my expectations. But to answer your question. I did not compare sighted before the blind comparison.

Bias effects come back into play as soon as you go back to listening under sighted conditions.

I'm a bit confused here. You have stated repeatedly that in the end, one listens normally sighted, not blind, so the preferred (better) sighted component will always be the choice, irregardless. So why not compare sighted first, or even bother with the blind test?
That is the same Rogers Sound Labs.
I repeated the tests at home with the Martin Logans and the Vandersteen sub. We did five trials each. same results.

Yes and I see that there is no way to get any technical details of the test from the staff, or even verify that it happened.
Now about these home trials, can you give some details on level matching and switching?
Did you ever measure (as a hard core objectivist of course) the output of your loudspeaker with the different amplifiers connected to see if it was merely some equalization to the FR that you prefer? Having done just this single comparison 20yrs(?) ago, how do you know that you would not prefer the sound of a current Yamaha (or SS amp X) integrated to your ARC's?

Turntable/Phono Stage:  Forsell Air Reference with flywheel, Koetsu Rosewood Signature cartridge
I did a series of single blind comparisons in Hong Kong between the Forsell, The Rockport Sirius III, and the Clearaudio Master reference all mounted with matching top of the line Clear Audio cartridriges. The system was The Top of the line Rockport speakers and MBL SS amplification. Over the course of about five hours four of us participated in 5 trials between the Rockport and the Forsell, five trials between the Forsell and the Clear Audio and 5 trials between the Rockport and the Clearaudio. However I was the only one who did mine blind. I picked the Forsell every time in both trials with the Forsell. I picked the Rockport 4 times in the comparison with the Clearaudio. Afterwards I did some comaprisons sighted. Same results. Interestingly the other three, under sighted conditions all picked the Rockport every time.

Switching and level matching details?

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #219
When we did the ARC v. Yamaha comparison I was still quite a hard core objectivist.


I don't think so. I think that you were a hard core believer in a lot of subjectivist audio myths. Objectivism is about cutting through the myths to the reliable truth.

Quote
I expected to hear distortion from tubes.


That would be an example of yet another subjectivist audiophile myth. Tubed equipment doesn't necessary sound different. The performance of amplifiers is based on how they are made, not the exact things that they are made out of. It has been long known and shown reliably that tubes and solid state are in some sense interchangable. Tubed amps can be made that sound transparent, like their sources, like straight wires with gain, and so can solid state amps. SS amps can be made that sound like bad (non-transparent) tubed amps, and vice-versa.

Quote
Now when I saw the ARC equipment I have to admit it looked very formidable so that, in and of itself, raised doubt in my expectations.


Boy Scott, you're full of those subjectivist audio myths today, aren't you?

The appearance of audio equipment is irrelevant to how it sounds, pure and simple. Even looking inside the boxes does not necessarily give any relaible clues. Even knowing what you see still doesn't necessarily help. What matters is how it works.

Furthermore, a much needed clue about technology. If you see two boxes, one that looks every high tech, and one that looks more plain, it is likely that the plain box has the far higher technology in it. High tech generally looks very ordinary because it is so refined and sophisticated that it need not look exceptional or high tech. If a designer is very confident of his technology, then he puts the good stuff on the inside and leaves it to the performance to impress.

Quote
But I insisted that it be blind and level matched. I was very shocked by the results. I kind of figured after the first two trials that I was picking the ARC. There was a pretty distinct difference and the superior sample (The ARC) had all the qualities of my first audition. the inferior sample (trhe Yamaha) was not even what I would call very good.


Yet another subjectivist audiophile myth. Blind tests where someone in the room or is otherwise perceivable in real time are totally worthless. Back in the early 1800s there was a "Talking Horse" named Clever Hans who could also do simple arithmetic. Look the name "Clever Hans" and you will find that this is a well known historical story. It evolved that Clever Hans was just like most other animals that are somewhat trainable to do very simple things, and are pretty good at picking up non-verbal clues from other animals including humans. The horse used non-verbal clues from the humans who were present at the demonstrations in order to provide the desired answers. People can be even better than horses at picking up non-verbal clues.

Bottom line Scott, don't you dare ever call yourself an objectivist in my presence again.  You're not even a pale imitation of the real thing. ;-)

In all seriousness Scott, you are simply badly informed.


Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #220
I think you might have scared Scott away Arnold.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #221
Scott has returned, but is afraid of my presence here, because I know he decided to make up blind test tales (his area of expertise).
Note how you claim here to have done these tests 10+ years ago, when RSL was still open. Yet you make no mention of it your first few years on AA. As a matter of fact here is what you said there Never done blind tests before '02. Of course, you will now claim you meant double blind. Strange how you forgot to mention your single blind until around '05 or so huh?
Plenty of time to "make up" stuff in between eh? 
Let's pretend you actually did a blind test or two Scotty. Look at this persons commentary and tell us what you think
On Scott's home brew blind tests
On the viability of Scott's amateur, "Peer" less review
Nice
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #222
Scott has returned, but is afraid of my presence here, because I know he decided to make up blind test tales (his area of expertise).
Note how you claim here to have done these tests 10+ years ago, when RSL was still open. Yet you make no mention of it your first few years on AA. As a matter of fact here is what you said there Never done blind tests before '02. Of course, you will now claim you meant double blind. Strange how you forgot to mention your single blind until around '05 or so huh?
Plenty of time to "make up" stuff in between eh? 
Let's pretend you actually did a blind test or two Scotty. Look at this persons commentary and tell us what you think
On Scott's home brew blind tests
On the viability of Scott's amateur, "Peer" less review
Nice



Clearly you invested hours of research into my posts on various audio forums. I am both flattered and a bit creeped out by that. But what isn't clear is what you think you have discovered that is evidence of me "making up" my reports of my blind comparisons as you now allege. Is it that I am a "makeup artist" and you are simply amused by the pun? What is it that you think you have uncovered?

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #223
Just to chime in on this continuing dialog, can we please stop throwing out audiophiles buying $2000 cables?  Sure, there are guys that do that, but they are not the norm.  Also, I don't think I have ever met an audiophile who would object to a controlled, double blind test.  I certainly wouldn't, but they are difficult to stage reasonably, so we all do the best we can to improve our audio. 

I would agree that room acoustics are something requiring much more focus, and I wish there was more written about how to do it well.

Sorry for the interuption, I just had to get that off my chest!

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #224
Also, I don't think I have ever met an audiophile who would object to a controlled, double blind test.
Lucky you. You're living in a different universe. I'd stay there if I was you. Sounds more sane than this one!

Cheers,
David.