I need some help explaining an audiophile husband to his non-audiophile wife.
His audio spending is causing much friction with his wife.
I know this subject may be more about human psychology than about audio, but this isn't the first time I've known an audiophile whose spending on his hobby is excessive compared with his family income.
I'm a music collector who typically spends $2 on used CDs and has an inexpensive stereo that sounds fine to me, while the "real audiophile" thinks nothing of spending $1,000 or $2,000 for "better" speaker wires.
How can I explain the illusion that every new audio component or wire changes the sound, and usually seems to make the sound quality better, to a non-audiophile who doesn't notice any changes?
Is this nothing more than male adults having fun with new toys?
To my ears, this audiophile's stereo has a problem with an echo off a very high ceiling. No component upgrade changes that. The stereo almost never creates the illusion of a band playing in the room no matter how much money is spent on it.
Meanwhile, the audiophile's wife is having a serious problem with all the money that "disappears" into the stereo system.
What's the psychology behind the audiophile "everything sounds different belief?
.
.
.
I think that what you're asking about isn't specific to audiophiles. People do the same kinds of upgrades to cars, computers, sporting equipment, and so on, and perceive that their investment results in improvement of whatever it is they're putting their money in. Maybe it improves things, maybe it doesn't. The only way to know: testing.
This sentence that you wrote is interesting:
How can I explain the illusion that every new audio component or wire changes the sound, and usually seems to make the sound quality better, to a non-audiophile who doesn't notice any changes?
I would suspect that if your 'audiophile' friend actually did rigorous testing of some of these upgrades, he may come to the same conclusion as the non-audiophile: there's no difference. The downside to that is the knowledge that money was spent on something and nothing really was received in return -- expect perhaps for a nasty case of post-purchase dissonance.
This topic is almost invariably going to devolve into stereotypes on this forum, so I'll do my best to back up what I say with how I felt when I was more engaged in such pursuits.
What's the psychology behind the audiophile "everything sounds different belief?
There is a presumption being made here of the primacy of personal perception. That is, one's sensory experiences/emotions - good or bad - are being directly interpreted as "knowledge". So, if one perceives a sound or emotion which appears different than what happened before, the "logical" conclusion that is reached is that something
is different, and that whatever changes were made in the process were the cause of the difference in perception.
Obviously the whole skeptical interpretation of sensory perception as being fundamentally fallible makes this whole house of cards fall down, but
that is not what audiophilia is all about, really. Most random people on the street would probably identify more expensive gear as better in a sighted listening test, but that doesn't make them audiophiles.
More speculatively, I would imagine (extrapolating from personal experience) that there is a very strong feeling of meaning and satisfaction from the "knowledge" gained by having invested and listened to various rigs. That is, once one goes along with the idea of subjective listening experiences as more or less not fallible, and that other audiophiles are more "knowledgable" than oneself, there is a natural urge to "learn" this missing "knowledge". In audiophile culture, one's own experiences are limited by the limitations in one's own components, so this learning is in the form of experience with different components. Hence, the constant desire to upgrade/sidegrade - and in fact, the lack of any other allowable way to learn or advance in the "field". This desire to "learn" is what separates audiophiles from random people on the street, who could generally care less what they may or may not be "missing out" on.
In all honesty, this has quite a bit to do with
male psychology specifically, particularly regarding knowledge as a sort of totem pole. Like zipr said, there isn't a huge amount of difference between this hobby and others, and this desire to advance/learn in a hobby is pretty common, I think. High-end audio happens to be special because of its particularly strong disconnection from mainstream science/reality and its wildly skewed market dynamics.
I don't understand the psychology. Why do some women spend too much money on shoes? Why do I lust for a Ferrari?
The real issue here is family relationships and family budget priorities. It's not that important if some expensive new speaker cables really sound better or not. The important thing is if he can afford them, and if he and his wife can agree on some monthly audio budget, or some amount that they can afford to "blow".
In most good-healthy marriages, there is some amount of money that each partner is "allowed" to spend without consulting the other. Of course if money is really tight, he shouldn't be buying any stereo equipment (or anything else unnecessary) without consulting his wife.
I would suspect that if your 'audiophile' friend actually did rigorous testing of some of these upgrades, he may come to the same conclusion as the non-audiophile: there's no difference.
No, he would just conclude that the test was flawed because he "knows" that there is a difference.
His audio spending is causing much friction with his wife.
I think that what you're asking about isn't specific to audiophiles. People do the same kinds of upgrades to cars, computers, sporting equipment, and so on, and perceive that their investment results in improvement of whatever it is they're putting their money in.
I don't understand the psychology. Why do some women spend too much money on shoes? Why do I lust for a Ferrari?
A lot of "popular science" books touch on the psychology (in the context of human evolution) behind these compulsions / obsessions. I wish I knew of such a book that concentrated on the subject - it would make a good "self help" book!
I think when obsessions become a problem, it is a symptom of unhappiness in work / relationship / lifestyle. Could you talk him into spending the money on taking his wife to live music events instead? It might satisfy him AND involve her at the same time.
The fact that all the major magazines that deal with our hobby echo the "everything is different" party line might have something to do with it. Since they get their revenues from advertisers who want their readers to buy their particular product they are presumably under at least some pressure in that direction.
We're all human, and susceptible to having our perceptions influenced by external factors. In addition, expectation tends to be self-fulfilling. As a result, in a sighted comparison, pretty much everybody perceives differences where none actually exist.
The thing that distinguishes audiophiles is the peculiar belief that they are immune to this. When they hear a difference, they refuse to acknowledge the possibility - nay, the liklihood - that it is nothing to do with any change in the actual soundfield.
The thing that distinguishes audiophiles is the peculiar belief that they are immune to this. When they hear a difference, they refuse to acknowledge the possibility - nay, the liklihood - that it is nothing to do with any change in the actual soundfield.
And like I said, there seems to be something peculiarly
male about that behavior... speaking as a stereotypically behaving member of the gender, of course.
Going back to the OP:
How can I explain the illusion that every new audio component or wire changes the sound, and usually seems to make the sound quality better, to a non-audiophile who doesn't notice any changes?
One (potentially impolitic) example you could cite could be more everyday activities and buying decisions which tend not to be well rooted in science or reproducible reality. Explain how the culinary/vinologic notion of
terroir is ludicrously less substantiated by blind taste testing than expert opinion (and chemical analysis!) might have one believe. Or how organic foods generally don't taste any better and generally aren't any healthier than conventional foods on virtually every scientific metric currently available.
In the more general cases you can tie the whole thing to other major targets of skepticism which may help the wife relate the emotions involved in audiophilia to somebody involved with such practices (either herself or somebody else she knows). eg, explain how astrology claims to have a completely scientifically justified basis, tends to be nonfalsifiable, etc - similar to how one may analyze some aspects of audio. Bonus points if the wife actually believes in astrology.
The term is quite simple. It's called "The placebo effect". It's a biased illusion that something is better, based on ones preference. It origins from sugar-pills (or other pills with no effect) given to people that believes they suffer a certain condition, while it's all in their head.
If you know that you are playing an mp3 you might already believe it sounds bad or lacks "ambience" (or other vague terms that you can't define properly), compared to a CD. Such people often refrain from performing proper ABX tests of fear that they would fail and then have a problem explaining all the expensive equipment
Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Because it probably does to audiophile believers. Sound perception is affected by more than the sound impinging on the ears and so changes in other relevant factors will change the perceived sound.
Here is an example of a strong believer perceiving differences during a blind test and having the grace to discuss it (post #37):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread....1184&page=2 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=941184&page=2)
Why people work themselves up into a state where luxury goods trigger these responses I lack the knowledge to say. But I would agree with an earlier poster that it is likely to be a symptom of a problem elsewhere and tackling the problem rather than symptom is probably the wisest course.
Having been there, it's a belief system...
I read something about this in a forum on AVGuide (The Absolute Sounds' website) Blind Listening Tests are Flawed (page 2) (http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial?page=2). I quote:
"That foundational belief in audio is that "all things can influence sound". That is held a priori. Anything from there - whether what we hear has a correlate with measurement, the robustness of our perception mechanisms, the amount those mechanisms can be biased and the relative merits of particular testing methodologies – is contingent upon that a priori statement."
This was from the editor of Hi-Fi Plus, apparently. Just what we need... yet another bloody philosopher. Still, it gets around having to rely on real-world evidence, I suppose.
To use his own words, the problem is one of naïve belief in "the robustness of our perception mechanisms" and no understanding of "the amount those mechanisms can be biased". Reinforced by their peers, their dealers and the magazines that support the audiophile belief system, audiophiles constantly strive to find improvements where no improvements can be found. This means they deceive themselves into thinking B is better than A and that B makes a profound improvement over A, and in its own right. That deception will ultimately fail over time, but fortunately by then yet another review of yet another sensational improvement in performance has been printed. The hapless audiophile visits their dealer who agrees with the reviewer and sells the audiophile C (which everyone has deceived themselves is better than B and makes a profound improvement over B, and in its own right). More money changes hands and the audiophile goes away happy... for a while. So it goes on, and on.
I suspect in most cases, the deception process occurs at all ends of the chain. The guy who spends his life making cables thinks he's making a difference. He then explains this difference to the reviewer who takes those differences at face value, and finds their own listening (magically) confirms the suggestions of the guy who made the cable. The dealer reads what the reviewer says and what the cable guy says and when its their turn to listen, they (magically) believe what the other guys said. That gets passed on to the end user. Every now and again, someone begins to doubt this and they leave the audiophile club.
The echo you mention is one of the true indicators of audio nonsense. Audio magazines pay lip service to room acoustics, preferring to recommend people spend thousands on new audio gear (an advertising-friendly recommendation) than hundreds on room treatment (or even less if you make them yourself). If you read a magazine that has a Q&A section, you'll rarely read anything about treating the room (which would likely solve the bulk of the problems), but you'll read plenty of fairy stories about how "cable X will damp down that brightness" or "amplifier Y will warm up the sound of those speakers".
The difficulty is, I don't see how it can be any different now. Let's say this editor of Hi-Fi Plus - who later said "All that being said, perhaps it is time to start investigating the robustness of the foundational belief once again..." - did more than a bit of navel gazing and came to the conclusion that what we hear does have "a correlate with measurement", that our perception mechanisms aren't all that robust and can easily be biased after all, and the best testing methodology to determine real changes in performance was considerably more forensic than we might come to expect from an audiophile magazine. What then? Would he continue to be editor if he stuck to his guns and said there is no sonic difference between a cable costing tens of thousands and the one given away free in the box? How long would he last if he said that multi-box Krell pre/power offered no real sonic benefits over a cheap Harman/Kardon receiver? Would these statements, backed up by objective tests, be well-received by readers happy that they were not being ripped off any longer? Or would his readership, his advertisers and his publishers have him removed from office immediately?
Unfortunately, it sounds like your friend has got it bad. There's no easy way to get around that 'foundational belief'. It works so well that if shown through a series of ABX tests that what they think they can hear is in fact nothing of the sort, they will be more likely to reject the ABX tests in the light of the 'evidence' from a single, sighted AB test. You can show him the dots and the pencil, but he has to join them up.
[Rant mode disengaged]
Here's an excerpt from a review of the latest Beatles remasters (link to full review below):
However, it does depend somewhat on what you intend to do with them. If your plan is to buy the CD, scan it into your computer and upload it on your iPod, you're going to be compressing the file and losing a lot of that sonic face-lift you just paid for.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09252/996422-388.stm (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09252/996422-388.stm)
Now, I think that excerpt does a considerable disservice to the digital music community. We have EAC/XLD lossless rips, with considerable knowledge about drive offsets, limiting, etc. To imply that listening to the plastic disc vs. listening to digital files through a high-end system is better - that is wrong. It's ALL digital, as long as you're comparing lossless codecs. Now, a comparison of analog vs. digital could be made, but that's not what we're discussing here.
Having said that, I am not an audiophile. I do rip my music at a higher bitrate than others - not obsessively, just 192kbps VBR AAC whereas my friends rip 128kbps MP3 and think nothing of it. I can tell easily tell a difference between 192 and 128 bitrates. Can I tell a difference between 192 and 256? No - but some people can, especially in classical music. As far as that goes, what someone considers their point of "transparency" is personal.
I think beyond a certain point, it is a placebo effect. But up TO that point, basics such as bitrates, ripping, soundcards (on the computer side) and cables/equipment/headphones/speakers (on the playback side) do go a long way. Just have to be reasonable about it.
Also, arguments have also been made about SACD/DVD Audio. Some say the differences are night-and-day, and others say the differences are beyond what the human ear is capable of hearing. Who's right? Most people concur that a lot of the difference is in the mastering process. It all depends on the individual.
Jesus that Robert Harley guy's name keeps popping up in these threads.
Anyway, it's one thing that the audiophilia deludes some people into spending money they can afford to spend, but if it's affecting a (supposedly) loved one then more than rationality and logic, that person might need a smacking around instead.
Hobbies are hobbies and are contingent on there being some point in the hobby.
If everybody accepted the conclusions typically drawn from blind testing and objective measurements audio would be a dull hobby with no real point.
So there is certainly good reason to reject any statement of "People cannot tell differences between eqiupment in blind testing." Only if you reject this statement does the audio hobby hold any interest.
As already stated, it's not really any different from people who upgrade their computer parts every 6 months and claim great "improvements" when benchmarks show only minor tangible improvement.
As for the comment about woman's shoes, I'd just like to point out that plenty of women curse and complain about the "fact" that women are expected to have a much wider variety of clothing than men. Yet, plenty of these women delight in buying another pair of shoes, finding a skirt to match a shirt, etc. Whether they accept it or not, clothing is a hobby for them. There are women who have rejected this social mindset and approach clothing like men do.
Companies seem to be trying to get men into this mindset as well with this new idea of "Metrosexual." The goal, ultimately, is to make men crazy about clothes and sell a lot of stuff. I guess in some ways this will justify women's interest in clothes (and the nagging to dress well some men get from their spouses) as well.
One could argue that companies should be more honest but the world economy now runs on creating and selling stuff, even worthless and junk stuff.
Maybe people should adopt hobbies that actually have valuable differences such as painting, learning about science, inventing, helping the poor, fixing houses, etc. But it's a lot easier to compare two pairs of shoes or talk about differences in amplifiers. There is little money to be made with selling a physics book to a customer who will take 2 years to get through it. There's a lot more money in selling amplifiers!
What's the psychology behind the audiophile "everything sounds different belief?
Where's JJ?
odyssey nailed it - placebo effect. And when you prove it's just placebo with a blind test, the believers attack blind testing as flawed. You can't win.
JJ and I are presenting a workshop at the AES show in New York next month on exactly this topic:
Audio Myths - Defining What Affects Audio Reproduction (http://www.aes.org/events/127/workshops/session.cfm?ID=2127)
--Ethan
The term is quite simple. It's called "The placebo effect". It's a biased illusion that something is better, based on ones preference.
You're correct that it's the Placebo effect. However, note that the Placebo effect is a weird and wonderful thing with quite deep implications and often misunderstood. For example, the placebo effect doesn't make you *think* stuff sounds better, it will actually make it sound better to you. Just as, for certain medical conditions, it won't just make you *think* you feel better, it will actually make you feel better. Also interesting is the term 'nocebo' which is when your expectations (about e.g. digital or lossy encoding) make something worse rather than better.
The finding I found fascinating was a recent result where insomniacs where given a sugar pill and told it would keep them awake. Because they blamed the pill for keeping them awake, rather than their own circular thought processes they actually fell asleep easier by being given an inert pill that they were specifically told would make their problem worse. Truly bizarre.
It's also relevant to this discussion that more expensive things seem to trigger more of a placebo effect. This has been demonstrated in medicine and seems pretty clear in audiophiles.
As to the original poster, is the wife actually caring whether the money is spent on real improvements? Even if the improvements are real, by what measure can you gauge ROI or value for money? I'd guess it's the money being spent that's the problem and challenging his beliefs is probably only going to make a bad situation worse. Put him on an appropriate budget and let him spend that on whatever he wants. Maybe he'll be more open to evaluating his equipment properly if he can't just buy anything he takes a passing fancy to.
"That foundational belief in audio is that "all things can influence sound". That is held a priori. Anything from there - whether what we hear has a correlate with measurement, the robustness of our perception mechanisms, the amount those mechanisms can be biased and the relative merits of particular testing methodologies – is contingent upon that a priori statement."
OK, that is about as imprecise and pretentious as the English language can get, but I'm an old English major and a long-time writer, I
can deconstruct it and determine what it actually means. That would be:
We believe this, therefore it is true, regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary.There is no counter argument. I guess we have to let them believe what they believe, throwing their money away in the process. There is absolutely no point in trying to talk any sense into them. Thanks for posting that. It solves a lot of problems.
Tim
If everybody accepted the conclusions typically drawn from blind testing and objective measurements audio would be a dull hobby with no real point.
So, what is the real point of this hobby?
Most of the examples saying that it's just like other hobbies doesn't looks fit to me. IMO, clothing isn't a hobby for women, it's their nature.
--------------
I agree with Gag, there's nothing you could do for your friend..
Well, you could tell your friend's wife to make him addict to some cheep, illegal drugs. It should work and might save some money (or not.. )
Whatever being an audiophile is or isn't, for this specific person it sounds like a serious addiction...
...and one that's hurting his marriage.
So even if the audible benefits were real and measurable, he should still stop.
e.g. Drinking alcohol has a real and measurable effect - it's no placebo - but people who can't stop, even when it threatens their marriage, are in need of help. They need to find a way to stop. Same here.
Cheers,
David.
You're correct that it's the Placebo effect. However, note that the Placebo effect is a weird and wonderful thing with quite deep implications and often misunderstood. For example, the placebo effect doesn't make you *think* stuff sounds better, it will actually make it sound better to you.
I'm not ready to credit only the placebo effect. In my own experiences as an audiophile,
I've found that if I listen to a song twice, it never sounds exactly the same to me even if no audio components changed!
For example, listening to a new song in the morning, compared with listening to the same song after eight hours at work -- the song doesn't sound exactly the same to me, probably because my ears were exposed to noises over the day, which affects my hearing, and/or my mood couldn't possibly have been as good after work, as it was first thing in the morning!
For another example, listening to a new song the first time I tend to focus on the vocals. The next time I play that song, even if I play it twice in a row, I will tend to focus more on the band, and less on the vocals -- so the song sounds different the second time because of what instruments/voice I focus on. The audio equipment hasn't changed. The volume hasn't changed. ... If the audio equipment was changed, AND I listened to the same song twice in a row to compare two audio components, I suspect they would sound "different" simply because I'm not perfectly consistent when listening to music (the sound quality will change with my mood, and what instruments in the song I chose to focus on, which could change several times during a song!)
So that's another explanation (in addition to the Placebo Effect) of why I think "everything sounds different" to audiophiles. In addition, different components will play music at slightly different volumes, which could be audible and thought to be something else!
So, what is the real point of this hobby?
Most of the examples saying that it's just like other hobbies doesn't looks fit to me. IMO, clothing isn't a hobby for women, it's their nature.
It's probably important to differentiate between audio science and audio as a hobby. There's plenty of stuff to be explored as far as psychoacoustics, electronics, programming codecs, etc and that is science. Buying amplifiers and comparing them in uncontrolled tests is what I would define as a hobby.
If clothing is part of women's "nature" then I propose craziness for gadgets is mans "nature." Perhaps this partly explains the craziness for hearing differences between audio eqiupment.
The thing that distinguishes audiophiles is the peculiar belief that they are immune to this. When they hear a difference, they refuse to acknowledge the possibility - nay, the liklihood - that it is nothing to do with any change in the actual soundfield.
And like I said, there seems to be something peculiarly male about that behavior... speaking as a stereotypically behaving member of the gender, of course.
Peculiarly, but not exclusively...I remember a peculiar character named Enid Lumley who used to write for The Absolute Sound. IIRC one of her recommendations was that no metal objects be allowed in the listening room. At the time I wondered if 'she' was a parody, but apparently not; she passed away in 2008.
Hobbies are hobbies and are contingent on there being some point in the hobby.
If everybody accepted the conclusions typically drawn from blind testing and objective measurements audio would be a dull hobby with no real point.
There is a plenty of interesting exploration space in the hobby even after you factor out the woo, because loudspeaker performance and room acoustics are not only still problematic to get 'right', they are usually the least-attended-to parts of an 'audiophile's' setup.
And then there's the whole realm of multichannel (>2 channel) reproduction, which is the future of home audio whether 2channel purists like it or not.
You're correct that it's the Placebo effect. However, note that the Placebo effect is a weird and wonderful thing with quite deep implications and often misunderstood. For example, the placebo effect doesn't make you *think* stuff sounds better, it will actually make it sound better to you.
I don't know if many people misunderstand the placebo effect as much as they are shocked by the responses to it. Let's say we have a large group of people who believe in audible differences between similarly measuring amplifiers. We then tell them "The differences you hear are from volume differences are placebo." You will get
at least these 3 responses.
1. Really? That's good to know. I can save my wallet.
2. Nonsense. Your tests are flawed. I know what I hear.
3. So What? Even if it is placebo I'm going to use the more expensive stuff because it improves my experience.
Why are 2 and 3 there? For the consumer (as opposed to the seller who stands to make money), it seems like this information would be welcome. It's like finding out the store (generic) brand product is exactly the same as the luxury brand and spending that extra money is pointless.
Some people privilege their senses and personal evaluations over controlled tests. Why? Is it ego? Is it a attachment to audio eqiupment as a hobby?
I guess we have to let them believe what they believe, throwing their money away in the process. There is absolutely no point in trying to talk any sense into them. Thanks for posting that. It solves a lot of problems.
I'm sure many people (me included) don't care at all what certain people do with their money. Expensive DACs, expensive watches, expensive toilet seats...
The problem comes when their purchasing decisions and reviews start influencing the market for everybody else, including the jobs and lives of engineers who build the stuff. When the price of a "top tier" headphone jumps from $300 to $1000, that may effect the availability and pricing of the products available for everybody else.
"That foundational belief in audio is that "all things can influence sound". That is held a priori. Anything from there - whether what we hear has a correlate with measurement, the robustness of our perception mechanisms, the amount those mechanisms can be biased and the relative merits of particular testing methodologies – is contingent upon that a priori statement."
OK, that is about as imprecise and pretentious as the English language can get, but I'm an old English major and a long-time writer, I can deconstruct it and determine what it actually means. That would be:
We believe this, therefore it is true, regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary.
There is no counter argument. I guess we have to let them believe what they believe, throwing their money away in the process. There is absolutely no point in trying to talk any sense into them. Thanks for posting that. It solves a lot of problems.
Tim
Yes, I thought pretty much the same thing. This is the problem when you bring a philosopher to a science-fight!
What's the psychology behind the audiophile "everything sounds different belief?
Where's JJ?
odyssey nailed it - placebo effect. And when you prove it's just placebo with a blind test, the believers attack blind testing as flawed. You can't win.
JJ and I are presenting a workshop at the AES show in New York next month on exactly this topic:
Audio Myths - Defining What Affects Audio Reproduction (http://www.aes.org/events/127/workshops/session.cfm?ID=2127)
--Ethan
Hmm, between Axon, you, and JJ, it looks like I 'know' a few AES presenters this year -- and it's in my hometown too. Too bad registration is ~$400 for nonmembers/nonstudents. Do you guys get comps?
Whatever being an audiophile is or isn't, for this specific person it sounds like a serious addiction...
...and one that's hurting his marriage.
I could not agree more.
But in an attempt to prevent a forum argument over the definition of "addiction" let us agree on this:
Any behavior rises to the level of "problem" when it is continued beyond the point at which severe negative consequences arise as a direct result of said behavior.*
That's why I agree with where I
think 2Bdecided is going with this:
Blah blah blah audiophile blah blah blah.
The one and only point is that it appears the husband's behavior has crossed the line to problem behavior and professional help should be sought. Treating this like it has
anything to do with being an audiophile is missing the bigger picture.
EDIT:
* - Marital discord is in and of itself a negative consequence.
I'm not ready to credit only the placebo effect. In my own experiences as an audiophile,
I've found that if I listen to a song twice, it never sounds exactly the same to me even if no audio components changed!
The measurement device (you) has changed! This happens constantly in life and with every person. But the music has not changed at all. So any perceived differences are a psychological differences, not a physical ones (unless you ears are sensitive from hearing loud sounds all day). It seems like many audiophiles have a hard time accepting they change more than their eqiupment does.
As for your friends' married life - if you look at many argument on forums you'll find that many people are fairly resistant to any idea that maybe spending all that money is a waste and offers no improvement other than by placebo.
Some people have been swayed by asking themselves "What is perfect?
What is perfect sound? What sound am I looking for?
What sound will make me happy and satisfied? Where do I want to go with this? What else could I spend this money on? Where is this attachment to this hobby coming from?" These are larger philosophical questions but they serve as a "reality check" as far as aligning our expectations and what we really get. A number of audio eqiupment "addicts" seem to have changed their mind about spending money on audio eqiupment after thinking about these things.
Might I suggest couples or individual counseling? It's cheaper than cables and will probably give a greater sonic improvement!
Any behavior rises to the level of "problem" when it is continued beyond the point at which severe negative consequences arise as a direct result of said behavior.
That's a great definition and is a version of what many psychologists use to define a pathology or problem.
I don't care how you cut it, spending $2000 on cables is always problem behaviour. There are a lot of untreated individuals out there...
Edit: based on the negative-consequences criterion above, there are two: inappropriate use of resources, and hallucination of things that are not there.
Well, it sounds (no pun intended) to me that, whatever the problems this guy and his wife are having, setting him on the Harmonious (the pun was intentional that time) Path To Responsible Audio Equipment Purchasing isn't necessarily going to fix them. This doesn't seem a "dude doesn't get the placebo effect" problem so much as a "dude and dudette need to work out their different attitudes toward money management and/or hobbies that one of them doesn't share and/or excessive or compulsive spending on luxury items" problem.
JJ and I are presenting a workshop at the AES show in New York next month on exactly this topic:
Audio Myths - Defining What Affects Audio Reproduction (http://www.aes.org/events/127/workshops/session.cfm?ID=2127)
The AES must hate me, because they scheduled your workshop to the same time as the loudness war workshop.
Hmm, between Axon, you, and JJ, it looks like I 'know' a few AES presenters this year -- and it's in my hometown too. Too bad registration is ~$400 for nonmembers/nonstudents. Do you guys get comps?
I'm getting comped for jack sh*t. This is all on vacation time and personal money.
Suck it up and register
The AES must hate me, because they scheduled your workshop to the same time as the loudness war workshop.
A *clear* case of divide and conquer....
Well, it sounds (no pun intended) to me that, whatever the problems this guy and his wife are having, setting him on the Harmonious (the pun was intentional that time) Path To Responsible Audio Equipment Purchasing isn't necessarily going to fix them. This doesn't seem a "dude doesn't get the placebo effect" problem so much as a "dude and dudette need to work out their different attitudes toward money management and/or hobbies that one of them doesn't share and/or excessive or compulsive spending on luxury items" problem.
Seconded. Though, with a more objective/skeptical worldview, there are actual limits to how much investment is worthwhile. You can still blow a chunk of change, but it's less likely that you will, say, take all the money one has to spend on audio, and plow it into a CD player or a power cable.
That said, that is somewhat of a straw man - hifi people will far more commonly recommend investing in each particular component as a percentage of total budget. But even with a 100% skeptical worldview, with the numerous imperfections in transducers, it is entirely possible to spend more than $100K on a system and not achieve perceptual transparency. And if somebody is in an environment where that is the goal, I guess one could fall into the same trap.
Speaking along the lines of this being more of a sociological issue than a placebo issue, a lot of audio forums (*cough*Head-Fi*cough) provide ample social reinforcement for spendy behavior. Peers do matter here.
Peculiarly, but not exclusively...I remember a peculiar character named Enid Lumley who used to write for The Absolute Sound. IIRC one of her recommendations was that no metal objects be allowed in the listening room. At the time I wondered if 'she' was a parody, but apparently not; she passed away in 2008.
Well, sure. I can also rattle off Teresa Goodwin and May Belt on that list. My point (clarified I guess) is that such women are
extremely rare, and I very strongly believe that such gender imbalances mean something from a personality point of view. (Not trying to pass judgement when I say that - I'm just positing that there's a psychological reason behind the imbalance.)
I don't care how you cut it, spending $2000 on cables is always problem behaviour. There are a lot of untreated individuals out there...
Edit: based on the negative-consequences criterion above, there are two: inappropriate use of resources, and hallucination of things that are not there.
I dunno about hallucination. I'm all for psychology/psychiatry but when it comes to perceptual defects I kinda like the Szaszian viewpoint - it's not necessarily something that should get somebody involuntarily committed over.
Instead I'd generalize the "inappropriate use of resources" point to encompass the all-too-common situation of a consumer who, while possibly making an appropriate use of his funds for audio purposes, makes spectacularly bad upgrade investments, so that the real flaws are being ignored for imagined ones.
Of course, when you really start to generalize all of this the whole concept of "real' and "imagined" starts to break down. Very little of this conversation will be agreeable to the average Audio Asylum reader - from the opposing viewpoint, it is our perception of reality which is flawed. It's a hard nut to crack.
There's a more fundamental point to be made here about how one should derive pleasure and satisfaction from one's belongings and one's experiences, and how there is a
wrong way to do so, in which the pleasure is rooted in either a transient, unknowable phenomenon, or an unattainable goal.
You're correct that it's the Placebo effect. However, note that the Placebo effect is a weird and wonderful thing with quite deep implications and often misunderstood. For example, the placebo effect doesn't make you *think* stuff sounds better, it will actually make it sound better to you.
I'm not ready to credit only the placebo effect. In my own experiences as an audiophile,
I've found that if I listen to a song twice, it never sounds exactly the same to me even if no audio components changed!
I experience the same thing, and I think it demonstrates that skeptics tend to perceive exactly the same things that anti-DBT audiophiles do - improved/worsened sound quality in various listening situations. But skeptics do not share the same interpretation of perception.
A *clear* case of divide and conquer....
Or a clear case of "have a few beers with Ethan and jj afterwards to catch up on what I missed out on"
I fear there is going to be a lot of woo running around at the loudness war workshop and it's going to be a damn shame that jj cannot attend it.
We sometimes read about "wife acceptance factor" on audio/home theater forums. This acceptance factor can relate not only to the cost of a piece of equipment but also it's effect on room design. It all boils down to agreement between the husband and wife in regard to a purchase. Your friend's wife appears to care about the disappearing money, which tells me the husband is making major purchases behind her back. Maybe you can ask him if he cares about his marriage instead of taking the audiophile approach. As others have already mentioned, this person may have a problem with uncontrollable spending, but at the same time maybe he can afford it and his wife is just against it for whatever reason. They both need to come to an agreement if they value their marriage.
Hmm, between Axon, you, and JJ, it looks like I 'know' a few AES presenters this year -- and it's in my hometown too. Too bad registration is ~$400 for nonmembers/nonstudents. Do you guys get comps?
I'm getting comped for jack sh*t. This is all on vacation time and personal money.
Suck it up and register
Tell you what... I'll meet you and Ethan and jj at the bar
after your talks, and you can fill me in. First round's on me.
I dunno about hallucination. I'm all for psychology/psychiatry but when it comes to perceptual defects I kinda like the Szaszian viewpoint - it's not necessarily something that should get somebody involuntarily committed over.
Like often I'm just using hyperbole to make a point. The Audio Asylumers can think what they will; as far as I'm concerned, it's still just a hallucination. There are many mental disorders that people can still function well with, and some very sane people I know enjoy inducing hallucinations in themselves from time to time. As usual, you tread a clear path of rationality through my flailing fields of polemics.
JJ and I are presenting a workshop at the AES show in New York next month on exactly this topic:
Audio Myths - Defining What Affects Audio Reproduction (http://www.aes.org/events/127/workshops/session.cfm?ID=2127)
The AES must hate me, because they scheduled your workshop to the same time as the loudness war workshop.
So, do you expect Harley and Atkinson to show up? ;-)
How can I explain the illusion that every new audio component or wire changes the sound, and usually seems to make the sound quality better, to a non-audiophile who doesn't notice any changes?
The idea that every new component no matter how trivial its technical changes the sound is not limited to audiophiles. For example, there are many anecdotes where audiophiles say things like "The difference was so great that my wife heard it in the kitchen while washing dishes". I believe that these stores may be true.
I think it is pretty well known that humans are prone to having false positive reactions, especially to sound. As the story goes, the cost for hearing a sound that does not exist is far lower than *not* hearing a sound that does exist, when the sound may be due to an impending attack by an enemy.
Another seemingly odd thing about audiophiles is that they tend to interpret most changes as improvements. I believe that this is also natural, merely being optimism or ego-centrism.
Of course there is a very large and often profitable business in encouraging this kind of behavior, and also selling equipment whose perceived need is based on it.
In short, a tendency towards audiophilism is the natural state of man, and a rational, scientific view of audio is unnatural.
It would be rude of me to publish my deck before the presentation, I suppose. I'll try to get it up on the section website afterwards, I promise.
In short, a tendency towards audiophilism is the natural state of man, and a rational, scientific view of audio is unnatural.
I think a rational, scientific view of
anything is unnatural. That's why science usually needs to eliminate individual human experience from its experiments, and why it took millennia for humans to hone it in, and it even took some accidental discoveries to smack some sense into people.
What's more intriguing to me is this view that everything "natural" is better, or even "moral", as opposed to "unnatural" things. You can see this in all kinds of pseudoscience, especially related to medicine and food, and it's probably the prime excuse for people to discriminate against homosexuals (who in any case are not unnatural at all). I'm not sure if this line of thinking is "natural", it's probably cultural baggage.
I believe that audiophiles think everything sounds different because they desire it to sound different -- nothing more. I have been an audiophile for a couple years now, but I am definitely a skeptic and a realist, and I am happy to admit the following:
- I expect a certain level of sound quality, but beyond that, it doesn't matter to me.
- I don't care that much about the music - it is merely incidental and I'll listen to anything (minimize country music please).
- I spend on equipment because I love the gadgets, the looks, the status and the build quality. I don't care much about tiny sound improvements, only sound impediments.
- I concur with the notion that a low cost system can sonically compete with ultra-high cost systems and I won't argue to the contrary.
- I don't believe in the claims that tweaks (deadeners, isolation products, exotic cables, dampeners etc.) improve sound very much (perhaps only marginally).
- I do buy tweaking products because they look good and it gives me another thing to do in my hobby. It's enjoyable to buy new products related to my hobby.
- I periodically change equipment, always striving for more prestigious gear, because it adds value to my system and allows me to try new devices.
- I do believe that a room's acoustic properties will obviously affect sound, but I only invest the bare minimum to achieve decent sound, because it's no fun -- I'd rather get new gear.
- I love DBT and ABX experiments, and I enjoy the truths that these tests reveal.
- I think of my system as a sculpture or fine art, and I always am looking for ways to make it more visually pleasing and precisely organized.
- Finally, I enjoy quality things that are built to last a lifetime, and I dislike anything that is cheaply constructed, tacky-looking, or lacks originality.
Anyone else share my beliefs?
Do you guys get comps?
I already used my one extra vendor pass for a friend who will hopefully not be kicked out when he sets up his pro video recording stuff. If they let him stay, you'll all get to see it soon after on YouTube.
--Ethan
they scheduled your workshop to the same time as the loudness war workshop.
The "Loudness War" is boring and old news. Snore. Much better to watch middle-aged men and a nice looking lady explain why everything you know about audio is wrong.
--Ethan
So, do you expect Harley and Atkinson to show up? ;-)
I truly hope so!
So, do you expect Harley and Atkinson to show up? ;-)
I truly hope so!
What about prof. Kunchur ?
they scheduled your workshop to the same time as the loudness war workshop.
The "Loudness War" is boring and old news. Snore. Much better to watch middle-aged men and a nice looking lady explain why everything everybody else in the room knows about audio is wrong.
Fixed.
Seriously, Fremer got a
much better time slot. (You're going to that, right? )
As usual, you tread a clear path of rationality through my flailing fields of polemics.
Heh. To be completely honest... if my wife saw that quote, she would probably think you were not describing me.
I believe that audiophiles think everything sounds different because they desire it to sound different -- nothing more. I have been an audiophile for a couple years now, but I am definitely a skeptic and a realist, and I am happy to admit the following:
- I expect a certain level of sound quality, but beyond that, it doesn't matter to me.
- I don't care that much about the music - it is merely incidental and I'll listen to anything (minimize country music please).
- I spend on equipment because I love the gadgets, the looks, the status and the build quality. I don't care much about tiny sound improvements, only sound impediments.
- I concur with the notion that a low cost system can sonically compete with ultra-high cost systems and I won't argue to the contrary.
- I don't believe in the claims that tweaks (deadeners, isolation products, exotic cables, dampeners etc.) improve sound very much (perhaps only marginally).
- I do buy tweaking products because they look good and it gives me another thing to do in my hobby. It's enjoyable to buy new products related to my hobby.
- I periodically change equipment, always striving for more prestigious gear, because it adds value to my system and allows me to try new devices.
- I do believe that a room's acoustic properties will obviously affect sound, but I only invest the bare minimum to achieve decent sound, because it's no fun -- I'd rather get new gear.
- I love DBT and ABX experiments, and I enjoy the truths that these tests reveal.
- I think of my system as a sculpture or fine art, and I always am looking for ways to make it more visually pleasing and precisely organized.
- Finally, I enjoy quality things that are built to last a lifetime, and I dislike anything that is cheaply constructed, tacky-looking, or lacks originality.
Anyone else share my beliefs?
I can see some in common with my beliefs, although I have much less money to work with, and my personal preferences with music obviously differ, so that changes a lot.
I've grown to believe that high-end audio as a hobby is only really objectionable to skeptical-minded people when it collides with science, and besides that, it's very similar to many many other hobbies, and A-OK. Your description sounds similar to what I was envisioning - it's just that all the audiophiles one typically encounters require a wooectomy
Hmm, trying to test for a negative (that there is no difference) is very difficult if not impossible.
Maybe instead if someone would study this from the other side...
Instead of trying to detect a difference using blind listening tests, turn the question upside down and study the psychological side of it? Have sighted listening tests with extremely expensive gear hidden in horribly dull ugly or deceitful cases. With average but decent home audio gear tarted up to look expensive or like something it isn't. Then just invite a bunch of audiophiles to come for the test and record the results. Let them choose the gear to listen to using an A/B/C switch or whatever...
Might be interesting. Has anyone done a study like that before?
I can see some in common with my beliefs, although I have much less money to work with, and my personal preferences with music obviously differ, so that changes a lot.
I've grown to believe that high-end audio as a hobby is only really objectionable to skeptical-minded people when it collides with science, and besides that, it's very similar to many many other hobbies, and A-OK. Your description sounds similar to what I was envisioning - it's just that all the audiophiles one typically encounters require a wooectomy
Yep, you can probably count me in among this subset too. It's a pity there aren't more... ideally one sensible writer in the press would be good. That'll never happen though!
Hmm, trying to test for a negative (that there is no difference) is very difficult if not impossible.
Maybe instead if someone would study this from the other side...
Instead of trying to detect a difference using blind listening tests, turn the question upside down and study the psychological side of it? Have sighted listening tests with extremely expensive gear hidden in horribly dull ugly or deceitful cases. With average but decent home audio gear tarted up to look expensive or like something it isn't. Then just invite a bunch of audiophiles to come for the test and record the results. Let them choose the gear to listen to using an A/B/C switch or whatever...
Might be interesting. Has anyone done a study like that before?
It''s actually been done, at least informally. I recall a report from one of the audio gear conventions where one of the vendors made it look like he was running fat pricey cabling (i think it was power cord) , when in fact he was just running a standard hardware store cord. And audiophiles swooned over the 'difference'.
Seriously, Fremer got a much better time slot. (You're going to that, right? )
Michael J. Fremer got a time slot? Where? Yeow!
Michael J. Fremer got a time slot? Where? Yeow!
http://www.aes.org/events/127/workshops/session.cfm?code=W13 (http://www.aes.org/events/127/workshops/session.cfm?code=W13)
OK, OK, so Mikey is "just" the chair, but if the abstract at all represents the tone of the roundtable, this is going to be a fun 90 minutes.
Saturday, October 10, 4:30 pm — 6:00 pm
W13 - 1080p and MP3: We Got the Picture. What Happened to the Sound?
Chair: Michael Fremer
Panelists:
John Atkinson, Stereophile
Steve Berkowitz, Sony/BMG
Greg Calbi, Sterling Sound
Alan Douches, West West Side Music - New Windsor, NY, USA
Randy Ezratty
Bob Ludwig, Gateway Mastering & DVD - Portland, ME, USA
EveAnna Manley, Manley Audio Labs
Abstract:
Over the past decade, video has gone from 480i 4:3 to 1080p 16:9—the bigger the screen, the better. Audio? Not so much! The bigger the audio system, the more you are mocked for hearing quality that supposedly doesn't exist. The "mainstream" audio standard has degraded from 44.1 K/16 bit (arguably insufficient to begin with) to low bit rate MP3, now considered "more than adequate" by mainstream listeners. As a consequence, people "hear" music while engaging in other activities. Actively listening to music (to the exclusion of all other activities) once commonplace, is almost unheard of (pun intended) in 21st Century life. This has had terrible consequences for both professional and consumer audio and the engineers working in both areas. Most consumers have never heard their favorite music on a good audio system and because of "big box" retailing can't even experience high quality 5.1 soundtrack sound on a good home theater system when they shop. How does the industry reconnect consumers to good sound? And why are young people snapping up vinyl records when they can download MP3s cheaply or for free?
And look at what it's up against on the schedule. And he got Saturday night as opposed to Monday night.
You two got
robbed.
What's the psychology behind the audiophile "everything sounds different belief?
Taste is something you can endlessly refine in all domains.
For instance, if you like gastronomy, you will compare each things you eat, and pay attention to most subtle change of taste. You will say for instance that chocolate X is better than Y.
Now you might from time to time reach the limit of your perceptions, and make erroneous comparisons . Call it placebo , or whatever.
That doesn't mean that all comparisons are always wrong, so don't make general assumptions by telling it's always placebo.
In other hand if I would spend 2000$ in better wire speaker , I would be 100% convinced
that it would sound better. You know why ? Because , it would be too hard for me to admit that I'm quite stupid for spending an insane amount of cash in something that make no changes.
I think the more money you spend, the more feel forced to say "it's better".
Not a placebo effect , but kind of "psychological pressure".
Hmm, trying to test for a negative (that there is no difference) is very difficult if not impossible.
Maybe instead if someone would study this from the other side...
Instead of trying to detect a difference using blind listening tests, turn the question upside down and study the psychological side of it? Have sighted listening tests with extremely expensive gear hidden in horribly dull ugly or deceitful cases. With average but decent home audio gear tarted up to look expensive or like something it isn't. Then just invite a bunch of audiophiles to come for the test and record the results. Let them choose the gear to listen to using an A/B/C switch or whatever...
Might be interesting. Has anyone done a study like that before?
I love that idea! If I were one of the test subjects, I would for sure go with the "tarted up" gear. Although, one could argue that it needs to LOOK good outside and inside to be effective.
Saturday, October 10, 4:30 pm — 6:00 pm
W13 - 1080p and MP3: We Got the Picture. What Happened to the Sound?
Chair: Michael Fremer
Panelists:
John Atkinson, Stereophile
Steve Berkowitz, Sony/BMG
Greg Calbi, Sterling Sound
Alan Douches, West West Side Music - New Windsor, NY, USA
Randy Ezratty
Bob Ludwig, Gateway Mastering & DVD - Portland, ME, USA
EveAnna Manley, Manley Audio Labs
Abstract:
Over the past decade, video has gone from 480i 4:3 to 1080p 16:9—the bigger the screen, the better. Audio? Not so much! The bigger the audio system, the more you are mocked for hearing quality that supposedly doesn't exist. The "mainstream" audio standard has degraded from 44.1 K/16 bit (arguably insufficient to begin with) to low bit rate MP3, now considered "more than adequate" by mainstream listeners. As a consequence, people "hear" music while engaging in other activities. Actively listening to music (to the exclusion of all other activities) once commonplace, is almost unheard of (pun intended) in 21st Century life. This has had terrible consequences for both professional and consumer audio and the engineers working in both areas. Most consumers have never heard their favorite music on a good audio system and because of "big box" retailing can't even experience high quality 5.1 soundtrack sound on a good home theater system when they shop. How does the industry reconnect consumers to good sound? And why are young people snapping up vinyl records when they can download MP3s cheaply or for free?
Is low bitrate mp3 really the "mainstream" audio standard? In 2009?
And note the quick elision of 'degraded' sound with the 'consequence' that 'people hear music while engaging in other activities'. This of course leaves out the middle step: it's a reduction in SIZE, and thus the increase in PORTABILITY, that produced that consequence, not sonic degradation per se. Indeed people aren't listening to mp3
because they sound worse, they're doing it because it's
more convenient, just as they did with cassette tapes and the walkman back in the early 80s. And they're getting considerably better sound out of their portable media now than they were back then, to say the least.
Leaving aside that a good mp3 ('high bitrate' CBR, or good VBR encoding) can very often be perceived as transparent to source (and you can bet Fremer, Atkinson et al won't risk embarrassment by demonstrating THEIR prowess at mp3 detection in a proper test), the kids buying vinyl could get excellent sound over their setups , using lossless digital sources..if artists, producers, and mastering engineers would give it to them in the first place.
Btw, anyone notice THIS from a session earlier the same day?
P8-7 Subjective Evaluation of mp3 Compression for Different Musical Genres—Amandine Pras, Rachel Zimmerman, Daniel Levitin, Catherine Guastavino, McGill University - Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Mp3 compression is commonly used to reduce the size of digital music files but introduces a number of artifacts, especially at low bit rates. We investigated whether listeners prefer CD quality to mp3 files at various bit rates (96 kb/s to 320 kb/s), and whether this preference is affected by musical genre. Thirteen trained listeners completed an AB comparison task judging CD quality and compressed. Listeners significantly preferred CD quality to mp3 files up to 192 kb/s for all musical genres. In addition, we observed a significant effect or expertise (sound engineers vs. musicians) and musical genres (electric vs. acoustic music).
Convention Paper 7879
and finally, one has to marvel at the curious schedule overlap between Bob Katz et al's loudness wars talk, and this one:
W21 - Pimp Your Mix
Panelists:
Bob Brockmann
Ryan West
Abstract:
Grammy winning mixers Bassy Bob Brockmann (Christina Aguilera, Babyface, Fugees) and Ryan West (Rihanna, Kanye, John Legend) bring a popular feature of their Elements of Mixing seminar, Pimp your Mix, to the AES. Ryan and Bassy take a production that has already been mixed by an upcoming producer and tear it apart and put it back together using state of the art and vintage analog gear and some of their fave plug-ins to add luster, drama, impact, and clarity to the mix. Ryan and Bassy demonstrate some of their tips on how to make the vocal shine, how to organize the bass frequencies, and how to use balancing , eq, and reverb to create a sense of space and clarity in the mix. Attendees are encouraged to ask questions during the makeover process, and Ryan and Bassy will do a Q and A about the mix after the print.
Was someone trying to be funny?
I don't care how you cut it, spending $2000 on cables is always problem behaviour. There are a lot of untreated individuals out there...
Edit: based on the negative-consequences criterion above, there are two: inappropriate use of resources, and hallucination of things that are not there.
I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying that 2,000 dollar cables don't exist and audiophiles are just imagining them? What is the "treatment" for buying 2,000 dollar cables? (that may or may not exist???). Where exactly is the "rule book" on appropriate and inapporpraite use of any individual's personal reseources?
I dunno about hallucination. I'm all for psychology/psychiatry but when it comes to perceptual defects I kinda like the Szaszian viewpoint - it's not necessarily something that should get somebody involuntarily committed over.
Like often I'm just using hyperbole to make a point. The Audio Asylumers can think what they will; as far as I'm concerned, it's still just a hallucination. There are many mental disorders that people can still function well with, and some very sane people I know enjoy inducing hallucinations in themselves from time to time. As usual, you tread a clear path of rationality through my flailing fields of polemics.
Seriously? You think bias effects are the same as hallucinations? OK...so let's talk about you. When you listen to your system under sighted conditions aka NORMAL conditions are you A. Hallucinating or B listening without the effects of bias? Or....C "oops I goofed. Bias effects are not the same thing as hallucinations and I am affected by them just as much as any other audiophile when I am listening for pleasure to my system in my home." (hint the answer is C and only C)
Bias effects are only distinguishable from hallucination by degree. Besides that, C) all the way.
None of the above, analog scott.
If you have something constructive to contribute to this community, I suggest you do so. I have seen nothing but poor trolling from you since you've started posting here, and I'm really starting to tire of it, as are the other moderators.
$2,000 cables are just stupid. They will not improve sound beyond the hallucinatory effects of bias.
$2,000 cables are just stupid. They will not improve sound beyond the hallucinatory effects of bias.
Implicit in this is the assumption that sound is the dominant function of audiophile equipment for audiophiles. I can see little evidence to support this. People tend to purchase overly expensive luxury goods for reasons that are not directly related to their technical function. If, for example, the purchase of $2000 cables brings a sense of well being and prestige within the audiophile's peer group then, from the viewpoint of the audiophile, they would not be stupid.
$2,000 cables are just stupid. They will not improve sound beyond the hallucinatory effects of bias.
Implicit in this is the assumption that sound is the dominant function of audiophile equipment for audiophiles. I can see little evidence to support this. People tend to purchase overly expensive luxury goods for reasons that are not directly related to their technical function. If, for example, the purchase of $2000 cables brings a sense of well being and prestige within the audiophile's peer group then, from the viewpoint of the audiophile, they would not be stupid.
I kind of wonder if the barely-warmed-over corpse of what used to be our economies will have an effect on this? The economic downturn has caused real problems for golf clubs and yacht builders. OTOH, some luxury car manufacturers have said they are having no worries.
I'd be really surprised if the discretionary purchase of a $2,000 cable was not affected by the changes in the economy. Especially if all it offers is bragging rights.
I kind of wonder if the barely-warmed-over corpse of what used to be our economies will have an effect on this?
Ya think>??? ;-)
The economic downturn has caused real problems for golf clubs and yacht builders. OTOH, some luxury car manufacturers have said they are having no worries.
The more basically rational a market segment is, the more likely it is to be affected by economic trends unless it is one of those non-negotiables like emergency acute health care for life-threatening situatations. The dentists are suffering.
Crazy is by definition independent of the economy.
I'd be really surprised if the discretionary purchase of a $2,000 cable was not affected by the changes in the economy. Especially if all it offers is bragging rights.
FWIW, I rencently pocketed nearly a $grand obtained by liquidating some high end cable and a high end power amp that fell into my hands and the hands of some associates. The prices we obtained for the used equipment were not diminished by the economy, but we may have found more people in the used equipment market because of the economy.
I don't care how you cut it, spending $2000 on cables is always problem behaviour. There are a lot of untreated individuals out there...
Edit: based on the negative-consequences criterion above, there are two: inappropriate use of resources, and hallucination of things that are not there.
I'm a bit confused here.
Yeah, right.
Are you saying that 2,000 dollar cables don't exist and audiophiles are just imagining them? What is the "treatment" for buying 2,000 dollar cables? (that may or may not exist???). Where exactly is the "rule book" on appropriate and inapporpraite use of any individual's personal reseources?
The 'treatment' for a belief in an unlikely audible difference is a good bias-controlled listening test. But that's bitter medicine to the sort of audiophile who actually buys $2000 cables.
Seriously, Fremer got a much better time slot. (You're going to that, right? )
Michael J. Fremer got a time slot? Where? Yeow!
Everyone loves a freak show! ;-)
$2,000 cables are just stupid. They will not improve sound beyond the hallucinatory effects of bias.
I got to get you guys trained. Sighted bias is an illusion, not a delusion or hallucination. ;-)
Sighted bias is a very common experience among people who are normal by any reasonable standard. If buying $2,000 cables is pathological, the pathology is not in the perception, but rather the pathology is in the *response* to the perception.
Smelling smoke and perceiving the threat of a fire is not pathological. Running blindly headlong into a crowd of people and seriously injuring people by trampling on them to escape the perceived threat is pathological.
It is normal to experience sighted bias - which is one reason why we are willing to work to hard to avoid sighted bias when the deciion really matters.
I got to get you guys trained. Sighted bias is an illusion, not a delusion or hallucination. ;-)
We're kind of splitting hairs. I agree that "illusion" is also a fine term for what we're describing, but the connotations of "hallucination" are why I use it!
- Main Entry: hal·lu·ci·na·tion
- Pronunciation: \h?-?lü-s?-?n?-sh?n\
- Function: noun
- Date: 1629
1 a : perception of objects with no reality usually arising from disorder of the nervous system or in response to drugs (as LSD) b : the object so perceived
2 : an unfounded or mistaken impression or notion : delusion (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion)
[/url]
$2,000 cables are just stupid. They will not improve sound beyond the hallucinatory effects of bias.
This depends on who is purchasing the cables, yes? If a person is buying them because they really and truly believe they "are a huge improvement in sound accuracy", then I'd gather that they are indeed hallucinating (or have come to believe in an illusion). However, if another person (such as me), confesses that he or she is buying the cables because they are prestigious, have awe-inspiring looks, and add value to their hi-fi system, then I'd say they are being true to themselves and care not what other's think about their decision.
The luxury automobile, a fine wristwatch, exotic building materials selected in one's home, a $2K bottle of Bordeaux or cognac are all good examples of this. It follows, if I buy a $6K Rolex watch which actually has poor time-keeping accuracy, but has remarkable build quality, adds prestige and strokes my ego, have I been stupid? I could have bought a $50 Casio which keeps superior time.
Therein lies the magic of luxury goods and services -- consumers obtain/use these things because of how it makes them feel . I think they should state this as the reason for buying though.
So perhaps it is only the person's reason for buying the item that is being scrutinized, not the purchase itself?
I got to get you guys trained. Sighted bias is an illusion, not a delusion or hallucination. ;-)
We're kind of splitting hairs. I agree that "illusion" is also a fine term for what we're describing, but the connotations of "hallucination" are why I use it!
Well, call it what you like, but don't forget that stereo sound is only possible at all because of what you are calling a "hallucination". When you hear that nicely centered image of your favourite singer hanging in space between your two front speakers you are, under your definition, hallucinating. There is no singer and no sound at that location. The sound is coming from two entirely separate speakers. Even if you have a center speaker there is still normally sound coming from the side front speakers anyway, and the fact that you hear only one singer is, again, what you call a hallucination. Dammed useful hallucination, though.
The introduction of the luxury goods analogy tends to suggest that some rich audiophiles are basically exhibiting conspicuous consumption habits and it's not *really* about the music at all.
And also those other luxury goods usually don't come with astoundingly egregious claims about their capabilities. Bentley won't tell you that their two-ton (or whatever) cars are faster than a Lancer Evolution X.
Yes, but a Bentley's performance is *measurable*....
Are you saying that's the reason that Bentley can't get away with such egregious claims as cable makers do? I think cable differences, at least the ones based in reality are measurable too. Well, you can't measure "danceability", but you can measure for the most part.
The introduction of the luxury goods analogy tends to suggest that some rich audiophiles are basically exhibiting conspicuous consumption habits and it's not *really* about the music at all.
If you spend some time on typical "night and day difference between cables" forums you'll find that there are a thousand things going on that have nothing to do with music. There is a love of gadgets, a desire for newness, and most certainly people love to consume audio gear. Why would somebody need 20 pairs of headphones 10 amplifiers if they are just listening to music?
Honestly, that's fine. Consume all you want as it's your money and hobbies have no requirement to be sane. If only top of the line eqiupment makes you happy, buy away. But when it's always masked under "I can hear a difference between fuses" and "blind tests are flawed" then people are just deceiving themselves as others as well as to why they buy so much stuff.
Try to find a question like "Who thinks pianist X plays Piano sonata 5 too fast?" Good luck with that.
But measurements don't describe how cables sound!
I got to get you guys trained. Sighted bias is an illusion, not a delusion or hallucination. ;-)
We're kind of splitting hairs. I agree that "illusion" is also a fine term for what we're describing, but the connotations of "hallucination" are why I use it!
Well, call it what you like, but don't forget that stereo sound is only possible at all because of what you are calling a "hallucination". When you hear that nicely centered image of your favourite singer hanging in space between your two front speakers you are, under your definition, hallucinating. There is no singer and no sound at that location. The sound is coming from two entirely separate speakers. Even if you have a center speaker there is still normally sound coming from the side front speakers anyway, and the fact that you hear only one singer is, again, what you call a hallucination. Dammed useful hallucination, though.
The word is "illusion".
Not hallucination.
Fremer got a much better time slot. (You're going to that, right? )
Yeah, how lame they give a guy who is
not even an audio professional prime time exposure, and the stuff that actually matters is relegated to the back of the bus.
--Ethan
if I buy a $6K Rolex watch which actually has poor time-keeping accuracy, but has remarkable build quality, adds prestige and strokes my ego, have I been stupid?
Yes! Even if it kept time flawlessly that's a crazy purchase IMO. If I had $1 Billion dollars I
still would never buy anything that falls under the category of expensive jewelry.
--Ethan
http://www.aes.org/events/127/workshops/session.cfm?code=W13 (http://www.aes.org/events/127/workshops/session.cfm?code=W13)
OK, OK, so Mikey is "just" the chair, but if the abstract at all represents the tone of the roundtable, this is going to be a fun 90 minutes.
LOL! This whole situation reminds me of an old article that's one of the funniest pieces of writing about audio I've ever read. It's by Peter Aczel, called "The 91st Audio Engineering Society Convention; or, The Invasion of the Credibility Snatchers". The article is in this PDF file (http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_17_r.pdf).
- Main Entry: hal·lu·ci·na·tion
- Pronunciation: \hə-ˌlü-sə-ˈnā-shən\
- Function: noun
- Date: 1629
1 a : perception of objects with no reality usually arising from disorder of the nervous system or in response to drugs (as LSD) b : the object so perceived
2 : an unfounded or mistaken impression or notion : delusion (http://"http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion")
Does not apply to sighted bias either way.
(1) False positives are normal, not necessarily due to disorders or drugs.
(2) The impression or notion has a foundation, it is just that the foundation is not as relevant as the listener perceives to the conclusion. and also unreliable. Making mistakes is normal human behaviour.
Making mistakes is such normal behavior that we had to invent science to bring it under control.
The word is "illusion".
Not hallucination.
Well, that's pretty much the point I was making, apparently too subtly for some...
Fremer got a much better time slot. (You're going to that, right? )
Yeah, how lame they give a guy who is not even an audio professional prime time exposure, and the stuff that actually matters is relegated to the back of the bus.
--Ethan
And still the few loudmouth Birther-like kooks on Stereophile forums claim that the AES is an anti-subjectivist conspiracy.
What's the psychology behind the audiophile "everything sounds different belief?
Where's JJ?
odyssey nailed it - placebo effect. And when you prove it's just placebo with a blind test, the believers attack blind testing as flawed. You can't win.
JJ and I are presenting a workshop at the AES show in New York next month on exactly this topic:
Audio Myths - Defining What Affects Audio Reproduction (http://www.aes.org/events/127/workshops/session.cfm?ID=2127)
--Ethan
For those of us that live on another continent - will you possibly be publishing the results of the workshop on the web?
You're correct that it's the Placebo effect. However, note that the Placebo effect is a weird and wonderful thing with quite deep implications and often misunderstood. For example, the placebo effect doesn't make you *think* stuff sounds better, it will actually make it sound better to you.
I'm not ready to credit only the placebo effect. In my own experiences as an audiophile,
I've found that if I listen to a song twice, it never sounds exactly the same to me even if no audio components changed!
For example, listening to a new song in the morning, compared with listening to the same song after eight hours at work -- the song doesn't sound exactly the same to me, probably because my ears were exposed to noises over the day, which affects my hearing, and/or my mood couldn't possibly have been as good after work, as it was first thing in the morning!
For another example, listening to a new song the first time I tend to focus on the vocals. The next time I play that song, even if I play it twice in a row, I will tend to focus more on the band, and less on the vocals -- so the song sounds different the second time because of what instruments/voice I focus on. The audio equipment hasn't changed. The volume hasn't changed. ... If the audio equipment was changed, AND I listened to the same song twice in a row to compare two audio components, I suspect they would sound "different" simply because I'm not perfectly consistent when listening to music (the sound quality will change with my mood, and what instruments in the song I chose to focus on, which could change several times during a song!)
So that's another explanation (in addition to the Placebo Effect) of why I think "everything sounds different" to audiophiles. In addition, different components will play music at slightly different volumes, which could be audible and thought to be something else!
Also remember that (if we agree that the room accoustics means a lot) if you move your head just an inch to either side (or even back or forth) you will not receive the same sound waves from the same recording due to changes in reflections in your room. Whenever you move your listening position your ears listen to different data.
Your point about focusing on different parts are also very true. It is common knowledge from meditation that in addition to focusing your eyes, you can actually focus your ears. For the benefit of meditation this is used to focus on the sound of your breath, focusing on some sound far away, or even de-focusing and trying to take in any sound. Take a second to listen for your breath, and you will almost immediately be able to hear it. The sound is with you 24 hours a day, but most of the time you never really register it or hear it, because you don't focus on that sound. A side effect of this is that you will almost certainly take deeper breaths when you do this. Could be a nice excercise to calm down before a listening session.
This focus will of course have a large impact on what you hear from a sound system as well.
The introduction of the luxury goods analogy tends to suggest that some rich audiophiles are basically exhibiting conspicuous consumption habits and it's not *really* about the music at all.
That's true about most expensive hobbies, isn't it?
I've got friends who buy ten times as expensive cameras and lenses as me, while I take ten times as many photos as they do - and others who spend a small fortune on a dozen other hobbies that they rarely have time to actually spend any TIME on.
And your average rapper probably doesn't buy a bentley because of his genuine interest in english cars.
Seems to me this is a relic from the stone age. The male hunter-gatherer gene combined with "Look I have shiny item, I will make a better mate than my neighbor"
if I buy a $6K Rolex watch which actually has poor time-keeping accuracy, but has remarkable build quality, adds prestige and strokes my ego, have I been stupid?
Yes! Even if it kept time flawlessly that's a crazy purchase IMO. If I had $1 Billion dollars I still would never buy anything that falls under the category of expensive jewelry.
--Ethan
My watch only costs $2k, but it is still less accurate than a $5 digital watch. But I'm told by the sales person that it will LAST longer. So in 2040 I will still be able to tell you the time (give or take a few minutes) from this very watch, while most other guys would probably have had to spend another 5$ at least one or two times to get new watches. Hah!
But seriously, there's something special about owning items of quality and craftmanship. It lets you share a little bit of the pride of the original watchmaker (or loudspeaker builder). It has nothing to do with keeping time, and only partly about high end sound.
That's true about most expensive hobbies, isn't it?
I've got friends who buy ten times as expensive cameras and lenses as me, while I take ten times as many photos as they do - and others who spend a small fortune on a dozen other hobbies that they rarely have time to actually spend any TIME on.
And your average rapper probably doesn't buy a bentley because of his genuine interest in english cars.
Seems to me this is a relic from the stone age. The male hunter-gatherer gene combined with "Look I have shiny item, I will make a better mate than my neighbor"
Absolutely, but when the requirement for the shiny item is justified by saying that is "obviously makes the sound better" I have a problem. Shiny for the sake of shiny - no problem, people are free to spend their money on what they want to. Dubious unsubstantiated statements regarding perceived improvement to audio quality as a justification for buying the shiny item - big problem.
Absolutely, but when the requirement for the shiny item is justified by saying that is "obviously makes the sound better" I have a problem. Shiny for the sake of shiny - no problem, people are free to spend their money on what they want to. Dubious unsubstantiated statements regarding perceived improvement to audio quality as a justification for buying the shiny item - big problem.
I don't think a lot of people even really think about why they buy or need so much audio eqiupment. There are people on these forums who readily admit they have almost bankrupted themselves audio eqiupment purchases, but offer no explanation as to why they would want to do this over audio eqiupment other than a search for audio "perfection."
I don't think there is any serious self reflection from a lot of people in audio land. So even if they are just looking for a shiny new toy or bragging rights, they may not be aware of it.
I don't think it's any different from a friend of mine who always ended (with a ton of excuses, none of which he could ever see as his fault) romantic relationships when the relationship grew strong enough that he had to think about the future of that relationship. He only ever felt strongly (mourned the breakup for months) about a girl who left him we he started show some attachment to her. They were together for a month!
It took the stubborn insistence of his best friend to make him realize the pattern he was in. He didn't even realize what he was doing.
Are many audiophiles any different?
LOL! This whole situation reminds me of an old article that's one of the funniest pieces of writing about audio I've ever read. It's by Peter Aczel, called "The 91st Audio Engineering Society Convention; or, The Invasion of the Credibility Snatchers".
Excellent! I loved his word "antiverificationists."
--Ethan
there's something special about owning items of quality and craftmanship. It lets you share a little bit of the pride of the original watchmaker (or loudspeaker builder). It has nothing to do with keeping time, and only partly about high end sound.
I agree, but to me $100
is an expensive watch!
--Ethan
there's something special about owning items of quality and craftmanship. It lets you share a little bit of the pride of the original watchmaker (or loudspeaker builder). It has nothing to do with keeping time, and only partly about high end sound.
I agree, but to me $100 is an expensive watch!
--Ethan
That may be so, but a $100 watch doesn't have the craftmanship of a watchmaker in it, it is mass produced by chinese children. It's that feeling of quality that is what you're after if you buy a rolex, a B&W loudspeaker or a BMW. The Casio, Yamaha and Toyota probably does the basic job just as well, but that's slightly besides the point.
Yes, but a Rolex is something of a status symbol - not just a timepiece. The fact that a $5 digital watch can keep as good time makes the expenditure on a Rolex unimaginable to someone of limited means.
Yes, but a Rolex is something of a status symbol - not just a timepiece. The fact that a $5 digital watch can keep as good time makes the expenditure on a Rolex unimaginable to someone of limited means.
Yes of course. I'm not exactly sure what we're discussing anymore, but anyway I still think the analogy applies.
If you don't have a lot of money you can buy decent hifi equipment and a decent watch at a low price.
If you got tons of money you may buy an expensive watch or expensive hifi equipment that doesn't always outperform the cheaper alternatives. Why would you do that? Could be a number of reasons, one would almost certainly be the joy of owning (and possibly showing off) high quality and expensive gadgets.
When it comes to audiophiles you can also add the religious belief that the more expensive stuff really is a lot better. So I guess that's the main difference. Most people have a fair grasp of the fact that expensive watches doesn't necessarily perform better. Cars on the other hand will to some extent offer more bang for your buck if you buy more expensive versions.
I guess something like photography may be a better analogy, as the differences between different equipment may be subtle, and not always matter in practice for an amateur photographer.
Fremer got a much better time slot. (You're going to that, right? )
Yeah, how lame they give a guy who is not even an audio professional prime time exposure, and the stuff that actually matters is relegated to the back of the bus.
Mikey's credentials as a musican are in far better shape (as limited as they are) than his credentials as either a recordist, production staff or live sound mixer. OK we've seen that he knows how to make pretty nice needle drops, but that hardly qualifies him as an audio professional.
there's something special about owning items of quality and craftmanship. It lets you share a little bit of the pride of the original watchmaker (or loudspeaker builder). It has nothing to do with keeping time, and only partly about high end sound.
I agree, but to me $100 is an expensive watch!
Ethan, inflation and age may make people like us raise our numerical standards. The last watch I bought, a Timex good to 100 meters, cost me nearly $50 in a discount store. I paid extra to get larger numerals. I'd pay even more for larger numbers - my arm is not long enough for me to readily read the enlarged numbers on the current one. ;-)
LOL! This whole situation reminds me of an old article that's one of the funniest pieces of writing about audio I've ever read. It's by Peter Aczel, called "The 91st Audio Engineering Society Convention; or, The Invasion of the Credibility Snatchers".
Excellent! I loved his word "antiverificationists."
I hope somebody with a satirical bent will be there to document this soon-to-be-historic occasion .
I don't care how you cut it, spending $2000 on cables is always problem behaviour. There are a lot of untreated individuals out there...
Edit: based on the negative-consequences criterion above, there are two: inappropriate use of resources, and hallucination of things that are not there.
I'm a bit confused here.
Yeah, right.
Are you saying that 2,000 dollar cables don't exist and audiophiles are just imagining them? What is the "treatment" for buying 2,000 dollar cables? (that may or may not exist???). Where exactly is the "rule book" on appropriate and inapporpraite use of any individual's personal reseources?
The 'treatment' for a belief in an unlikely audible difference is a good bias-controlled listening test. But that's bitter medicine to the sort of audiophile who actually buys $2000 cables.
There in lies the great objectivist myth. Bias controlled listening tests do not "cure" bias effects. They eliminate them for that test *if* they are actually being done well to begin with. Bias effects come back into play as soon as you go back to listening under sighted conditions. There is no cure. It is not an illness. It is a fact of life.
The introduction of the luxury goods analogy tends to suggest that some rich audiophiles are basically exhibiting conspicuous consumption habits and it's not *really* about the music at all.
Of course it isn't about music. Someone who collects music spends as little as possible on audio hardware, they just want something that they are happy with, what they actually collect is music, CDs, LPs etc.
For Audiophiles the object that they collect is audio hardware, and they are never happy with what they have, they always think if they get new speakers, or a new amp, or a new CD transport that it will sound better than what they have. Musicphiles are always thinking that if they get one more album that they will have a more fulfilling collection, but getting one album often just leads them to another album, and another album.
None of the above, analog scott.
If you have something constructive to contribute to this community, I suggest you do so. I have seen nothing but poor trolling from you since you've started posting here, and I'm really starting to tire of it, as are the other moderators.
$2,000 cables are just stupid. They will not improve sound beyond the hallucinatory effects of bias.
Something constructive like "2,000 dollar cables are just stupid?" Funny that you would call *me* the troll. If you do not get anything out of buying 2,000 dollar cables then don't buy them but telling others that they are stupid for enjoying such things is...well... just stupid. asserting that bias effects is some sort of mental condition that needs treatment is really stupid. It is a fact of life and you are just as subject to them as anyone who finds pleasure in 2,000 dollar cables. What is the point in calling anyone or anything stupid? I have used your words on you to show you that it is not constructive. It seems that you find this lack of constructiveness a problem with my posts. I suggest you consider your own posts when leveling such criticism against others. If you can't understand the constructive point that bias effects are not something unique to those who find pleasure in 2,000 dollar cables and that one hobbyist calling another hobbyist stupid for how they enjoy their hobby is ironically stupid...oh well. sorry I don't tow the party line around here but it does seem that a little perspective is in much need. In that I am being quite constructive.
There in lies the great objectivist myth. Bias controlled listening tests do not "cure" bias effects. They eliminate them for that test *if* they are actually being done well to begin with. Bias effects come back into play as soon as you go back to listening under sighted conditions. There is no cure. It is not an illness. It is a fact of life.
But the test has determined whether or not there is a real difference, or if the difference is bias! If the only difference is bias, then the test has proved that there actually is no difference. If a person continues to feel that there is a difference, then they are literally just deluding themselves.
If you can't understand the constructive point that bias effects are not something unique to those who find pleasure in 2,000 dollar cables and that one hobbyist calling another hobbyist stupid for how they enjoy their hobby is ironically stupid...
But they aren't enjoying actually getting enjoyment from $2000 cables, they are getting enjoyment from a false belief, they are getting enjoyment from the fact their perceptual system sometimes encourages them believe things that are untrue.
Bias is not a fact of life. You can train yourself to be resilient to it. I haven't claimed I heard a difference when none existed in years, basically since I discovered the methodologies described by the people here. There are cases where I am unsure, definitely. In those cases, I switch to proper blind testing and can be certain to within some confidence interval. There are also cases where I am certain, and I have not been wrong about those assessments in years.
Bias is not a fact of life if you're the sort of person who cares enough about getting accurate results to train yourself to be resistant to it. Again, bias effects are a mental condition that can be treated to some degree, at least in my own experience. Easy solution: err on the side of caution. Of course, then you trade false positives for missed true positives, but claiming that it cannot be treated is a fallacy. Now admittedly, blind testing will only give you an arbitrarily low probability that you are guessing, but that's simply the mathematical reality of the situation.
It's not a matter of toeing (not tow, BTW) the party line, it's a matter of the fact that your underlying assumptions about the way audio works are wrong. However, you deftly avoid making any claims that would allow us to take action against those assumptions, and instead insist on spreading the nonsense implications of that faulty worldview. Your loss, not ours...
Bias is not a fact of life. You can train yourself to be resilient to it.
Interesting that you would use that argument. A variation of this argument is often used on the subjectivist side. It goes something like, "bias can be eliminated by training, therefore bias-controlled tests are unnecessary".
Bias is not a fact of life. You can train yourself to be resilient to it.
That sounds like a bias!
There in lies the great objectivist myth. Bias controlled listening tests do not "cure" bias effects. They eliminate them for that test *if* they are actually being done well to begin with. Bias effects come back into play as soon as you go back to listening under sighted conditions. There is no cure. It is not an illness. It is a fact of life.
But the test has determined whether or not there is a real difference, or if the difference is bias! If the only difference is bias, then the test has proved that there actually is no difference. If a person continues to feel that there is a difference, then they are literally just deluding themselves.
How do you prove that there is no audible advantage in crazy audiophile gadgets? How do you disprove God?
Life as a sceptic can seem gray compared to the fantastic world of true believers.
-k
I hope somebody with a satirical bent will be there to document this soon-to-be-historic occasion .
I plan to bring an HD camcorder, and a friend who's a pro videographer will run it. I was told not to let the union goons see us though. I'll also have a Zoom H2 portable recorder on the dais with me, which I'll use for the audio track. But I was told not to put it up publicly on YouTube etc since the AES sells audio recordings of these events. At the minimum, you're all welcome to visit me a week after the show for drinks and laughs while we watch.
--Ethan
How do you prove that there is no audible advantage in crazy audiophile gadgets? How do you disprove God?
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
However, continuing absence of proof increases the probability of likely absence.
I hope somebody with a satirical bent will be there to document this soon-to-be-historic occasion .
I plan to bring an HD camcorder, and a friend who's a pro videographer will run it. I was told not to let the union goons see us though. I'll also have a Zoom H2 portable recorder on the dais with me, which I'll use for the audio track. But I was told not to put it up publicly on YouTube etc since the AES sells audio recordings of these events. At the minimum, you're all welcome to visit me a week after the show for drinks and laughs while we watch.
How about RMAF? Will you be there? I see RealTraps on the exhibitor list but I wasn't sure if you'd be there personally. I live in the area, so I got a 1-day ticket.
It''s actually been done, at least informally. I recall a report from one of the audio gear conventions where one of the vendors made it look like he was running fat pricey cabling (i think it was power cord) , when in fact he was just running a standard hardware store cord. And audiophiles swooned over the 'difference'.
Might be Quad.
The story goes that they forgot the speaker cables. A guy rushed out and bought some power cords at a DIY shop. He returned with a bunch of
orange Black&Decker power cables.
The real issue here is family relationships and family budget priorities
when obsessions become a problem, it is a symptom of unhappiness in work / relationship / lifestyle
There are many mental disorders that people can still function well with, and some very sane people I know enjoy inducing hallucinations in themselves from time to time.
Bias is not a fact of life.
I’m glad I joined a fact based forum, none of these Freudian nonsense here
There in lies the great objectivist myth. Bias controlled listening tests do not "cure" bias effects. They eliminate them for that test *if* they are actually being done well to begin with. Bias effects come back into play as soon as you go back to listening under sighted conditions. There is no cure. It is not an illness. It is a fact of life.
But the test has determined whether or not there is a real difference, or if the difference is bias! If the only difference is bias, then the test has proved that there actually is no difference. If a person continues to feel that there is a difference, then they are literally just deluding themselves.
But it does happen. and it does happen to completely normal human beings with no need for any treatment. It is a part of being human. We can not seperate ourselves from bias. Even when we know bias is in play. You should know that your biases are in play when you listen to your system under sighted conditions. Does that mean you are delluding yourself? I would think anyone worried about things being "real" would avoid audio altogether and just go to live performances.
Bias is not a fact of life. You can train yourself to be resilient to it. I haven't claimed I heard a difference when none existed in years, basically since I discovered the methodologies described by the people here. There are cases where I am unsure, definitely. In those cases, I switch to proper blind testing and can be certain to within some confidence interval. There are also cases where I am certain, and I have not been wrong about those assessments in years.
Bias is not a fact of life if you're the sort of person who cares enough about getting accurate results to train yourself to be resistant to it. Again, bias effects are a mental condition that can be treated to some degree, at least in my own experience. Easy solution: err on the side of caution. Of course, then you trade false positives for missed true positives, but claiming that it cannot be treated is a fallacy. Now admittedly, blind testing will only give you an arbitrarily low probability that you are guessing, but that's simply the mathematical reality of the situation.
It's not a matter of toeing (not tow, BTW) the party line, it's a matter of the fact that your underlying assumptions about the way audio works are wrong. However, you deftly avoid making any claims that would allow us to take action against those assumptions, and instead insist on spreading the nonsense implications of that faulty worldview. Your loss, not ours...
"Bias is not a fact of life?" I do think the body of research on psychoacoustics runs contrary to your belief on this matter. I wonder what JJ or Sean Olive would have to say about your assertion. You actually think you can train yourself to be resistant to bias effects? Hmmm. that puts you in some pretty interesting company. Thank you for correcting my misuse of the word tow. However I think that is the only think you got right. I am curious though, what claims did I deftly avoid making? what sort of "action" were you looking to take that I so deftly avoided? I do find it ironic that the so called nonsense I am spreading is actually supported by science while your assertions are supported by those who believe in Belt tweaks and the like.
There in lies the great objectivist myth. Bias controlled listening tests do not "cure" bias effects. They eliminate them for that test *if* they are actually being done well to begin with. Bias effects come back into play as soon as you go back to listening under sighted conditions. There is no cure. It is not an illness. It is a fact of life.
But the test has determined whether or not there is a real difference, or if the difference is bias! If the only difference is bias, then the test has proved that there actually is no difference. If a person continues to feel that there is a difference, then they are literally just deluding themselves.
How do you prove that there is no audible advantage in crazy audiophile gadgets? How do you disprove God?
Life as a sceptic can seem gray compared to the fantastic world of true believers.
-k
That is easy. Bias controlled tests. I think the question you may have meant to ask is how do you prove there is no "perceptual" advantage to such gadgets? In actuality one can prove that there are actual advantages in positive bias effects. It is only logical that if one makes a change in their system that offers no "audible " difference but does offer a "percptual" advantage that one has actually improved the percieved performance of their system and at no cost to the "actual" performance of that system. Ironically one can actually do harm to the actual audible and percieved quality of their system's performance when making changes that do in fact make an audible difference with the belief that such a fact renders the need for bias controlled auditions needless. Biases can be that powerful. If ever there is a use for bias controls in audio it is when there *is* an audible difference. That way one does not take a step back in "actual audible" performance because they were affected by their biases.
Thing is, when you're taking an objectivist perspective and looking for differences, as soon as you think you hear a difference, you can easily verify to arbitrary accuracy using blind-testing. Subjectivists have no such procedure. They assume that as soon as they hear a difference, that's the end of the process.
Since 2002, I've repeatedly first heard a difference (in lossy audio compression, usually by hearing an artifact), then verified that perception, then remedied that perception on countless occasions. My internal bias mitigation was intended to allow me to identify problem samples without the need for a blind testing environment. That being said, I don't know that it's not bias until I blind test, which I always do. I've run into many different samples where I've slightly tweaked my collection to be properly transparent. Out of the last, say, 20 problem samples, not a single one has been a false positive. There were some in the first year or two.
The cost is that there may be samples that I could differentiate that are slipping by me, but as I don't hear them anyhow, who cares?
You can mock me all you like for this. The fact is that it works great for me.
The bottom-line is this: Use objective feedback techniques to teach yourself about your own biases. Learn the thresholds at which differences are personally perceptible to you. Verify every supposed difference. Err on the side of caution.
It is only logical that if one makes a change in their system that offers no "audible " difference but does offer a "percptual" advantage that one has actually improved the percieved performance of their system and at no cost to the "actual" performance of that system.
the only way to know for sure if the difference is only perceptible, thus proving your statement true, is by performing a controlled test to prove there is no audible difference. however, once you prove there is no audible difference, you then have no reason to perceive a difference.
Thing is, when you're taking an objectivist perspective and looking for differences, as soon as you think you hear a difference, you can easily verify to arbitrary accuracy using blind-testing.
I'm not sure what you mean by arbitrary accuracy but yeah, one can do personal DBTs and they may even do or good job of it...or not, and that may or may not tell them if biases were the cause of the percieved difference. That is something one can do....if they wish to do so.
Subjectivists have no such procedure. They assume that as soon as they hear a difference, that's the end of the process.
I am a subjectivist. I frequently use blind protocols in my auditions and I don't make the assumptions you claim subjectivists make. At best you paint subjectivists with an overly broad brush. *At best.*
Since 2002, I've repeatedly first heard a difference (in lossy audio compression, usually by hearing an artifact), then verified that perception, then remedied that perception on countless occasions. My internal bias mitigation was intended to allow me to identify problem samples without the need for a blind testing environment. That being said, I don't know that it's not bias until I blind test, which I always do. I've run into many different samples where I've slightly tweaked my collection to be properly transparent. Out of the last, say, 20 problem samples, not a single one has been a false positive. There were some in the first year or two.
And you know this simply isn't a case of aligning your biases with your likely test results how?
The cost is that there may be samples that I could differentiate that are slipping by me, but as I don't hear them anyhow, who cares?
How do you know you don't actually hear them? ABX does nothing to prevent a same sound bias from affecting your results in the case where you know what A and B are but don't know which is a and which is B. But to answer your question. You apparently don;t care but some others clearly do. It is a personal choice to care or not to care.
You can mock me all you like for this. The fact is that it works great for me.
it is not my intention to mock but since this is supposed to be a science based forum I think it is fare to point out that many of your beliefs run contrary to science and run ironically parallel to the assertions of subjectivists who either deny bias effects or believe they can control them by will and experience alone. You will find many a Beltian who will tell you their methodologies work great for them just as you have claimed for yourself. What makes you right and them wrong? In my book whatever works great for you does indeed work great....for *you.* I would no more question how "effectively" you enjoy the hobby of audio than I would question a Beltian. OTOH when a Beltian asserts that the reason the Belt tweaks work is due to "friendly relaxed energy patterns" (not making this up) then one can question and even test that sort of assertion. Likewise, when you make assertions about biases being a condition that is treatable that is also subject to the same scrutiny and testability. Fact is it has been tested and found to be quite untrue. Even if it works for you.
The bottom-line is this: Use objective feedback techniques to teach yourself about your own biases. Learn the thresholds at which differences are personally perceptible to you. Verify every supposed difference. Err on the side of caution.
That may be your bottom line but it is not an objective bottom line. It is a subjective bottom line. It may be very helpful for many objectivists to know and understand when things really are subjective and why. Preferences and priorities are subjective. Perceptions under normal conditions are very subjective.
It is only logical that if one makes a change in their system that offers no "audible " difference but does offer a "percptual" advantage that one has actually improved the percieved performance of their system and at no cost to the "actual" performance of that system.
the only way to know for sure if the difference is only perceptible, thus proving your statement true, is by performing a controlled test to prove there is no audible difference. however, once you prove there is no audible difference, you then have no reason to perceive a difference.
Sure you do. Bias effects is a reason. there are other possible reasons.Thngs related to state of mind and body.
Sure you do. Bias effects is a reason. there are other possible reasons.Thngs related to state of mind and body.
but once you know there is no difference, your bias is gone.
EDIT
another thing: if you can still perceive a difference even with the knowledge that the change you made had no audible effect, then your perception does not rely on making changes to the system. if you can improve your perceived quality of your system at will, then you have no need to upgrade any part of your system, ever.
I tend to agree with both Scott and Canar here. Unconscious factors exist in all aspects of human perception which are simply not logical and cannot be proven to accurately match physical reality in all situations. But those factors, being subjective, are clearly not consistent across individuals (or even the same individual at different times). Moreover, the biases are not really separable from each other - one's biases and do feed back on themselves, what one reads, what one's peers say, etc.
Scott is correct in saying that Canar's claim of his personal DBTs matching his subjective evaluations is fundamentally a claim that cannot be backed up objectively, and that such situations are by no means common. But to a certain degree... that's kind of the point. There is always a personal choice to be made here as to what worldview to adopt as one's own.
When we take a step back from a purely skeptical/objective/positivist viewpoint and look at the world of high-end audio - just looking at it from a sociological perspective - we see a world which is a) very internally logical and consistent, b) at odds with large parts of mainstream science, c) bereft of significant contributions or influence to modern culture that it can truthfully call its own, and d) very expensive. That the whole principle of skepticism in audio came about after the predominance of sighted listening tests (and roughly around the time high-end cabling started getting sold) strongly reflects that it was, and is, a normative - that is, subjective - judgement on what was going on in audio engineering at the time. It does not spring forth in isolation.
If one presumes some "ideal" goal that is to be reached in a particular domain - an optimum in sound quality - objective measurement and bias-controlled testing is clearly and obviously the most efficient way to get there, as the history of science has richly documented. In fact, much of the objections I hear about such tests seem to me more like a challenge of the very premise of progress and advancement in audio engineering. There's not necessarily any reason to believe that such an optimum exists, but history tells us that the knowledge gained in attaining such a goal is extraordinarily useful nonetheless. I see the abandonment of bias-controlled and double-blind tests in the high-end world as essentially working against such progress. Judging from the current state of the industry, such a claim seems to match the facts on the ground.
(EDIT: Massive rewrite.)
Audiophiles, high end audio, golden ear people, they are all the same and their products are all snake oil. If they could hear a difference in cables then why are they not taking up the 1 million dollar prize that is being offered?
Sure you do. Bias effects is a reason. there are other possible reasons.Thngs related to state of mind and body.
but once you know there is no difference, your bias is gone.
EDIT
another thing: if you can still perceive a difference even with the knowledge that the change you made had no audible effect, then your perception does not rely on making changes to the system. if you can improve your perceived quality of your system at will, then you have no need to upgrade any part of your system, ever.
No. it is not gone. it *may* be altered but it is not gone. You as a human being will always be strapped with your biases whatever they may be at the time. that's life. oh and yes some folks actually do just what you are saying. if you check with the Belts they fully acknoweledge that their tweaks don't affect the actual sound of any system. They claim their products create some sort of "relaxing friendly energy pattern" that affects the listener. It seems that they are almost admitting that their products work by bias effects without calling it bias effects. and yet it seems to work for them quite effectively.
in other words, some people have turned music listening into a religion.
Obviously, any anecdotal statements I make about my own experiences are, at best, completely and totally subjective. My point was that I have trained myself to provide objectively-validated results through simple subjective analysis, nothing more. Extending this beyond identifying lossy tracks (which was the focus) would be a bit of a fallacy. I'm training my ear to hear with scientific accuracy in certain applications. That's obviously wildly subjective, but
it is providing quantitative, objective results that cannot be argued with. I am verifying my subjective experiences objectively. It's like learning to measure an object by looking at it. With practice, your estimates eventually reflect reality. However, if I can do this in one domain, I can do it in another.
I am not claiming that my subjective experience is a replacement for objective analysis, as you misinterpret what I am writing to read. It is simply a useful technique to assist my objective analyses.
I'm not sure what you mean by arbitrary accuracy
DBT results provide, at best, a probability that you are not guessing. That is what I mean by "arbitrary accuracy", I can get that probability arbitrarily low.
many of your beliefs run contrary to science
Point 'em out. Be precise, rather than this ambiguous hand-waving you're doing right now.
How do you know you don't actually hear them?
Can one "hear" a sound but not be consciously aware he heard it? If I am never consciously aware I heard a thing, could I be said to have heard it at all? I'm not consciously aware of it, so I haven't heard it.
in other words, some people have turned music listening into a religion.
While I think you might be saying this as a criticism I think you may be onto something here. It does seem that "spirituality" or more accurately a sense of spirituality does have a physiological manifestation in our brains. I certainly feel this more so with music and art than any other stimulus. Maybe it is, in a way, religion for many devoted audiophile/music lovers. There may be some similar roots to all the baggage that goes with religion and audiophilia.
in other words, some people have turned music listening into a religion.
While I think you might be saying this as a criticism I think you may be onto something here. It does seem that "spirituality" or more accurately a sense of spirituality does have a physiological manifestation in our brains. I certainly feel this more so with music and art than any other stimulus. Maybe it is, in a way, religion for many devoted audiophile/music lovers. There may be some similar roots to all the baggage that goes with religion and audiophilia.
it mostly definitely is a criticism. the baggage is delusion, irrational belief, and if i may be frank, stupidity. these things get in the way of science, truth and progress.
I think religion is probably not the right word to use here. All joking aside, there are few sacred cows or shrines involved.
I'm specifically thinking more along the lines of esotericism, obscurantism, or even gnosticism... that there is hidden knowledge, powerful knowledge - about music and audio - which can only be obtained through the proper means, and is not something which is advanced by science. The intensely subjective knowledge of sighted listening fulfills the role here of "hidden knowledge". And those who do not engage in such listening do not have such knowledge, and therefore are not qualified to discuss audio matters.
I think religion is probably not the right word to use here. All joking aside, there are few sacred cows or shrines involved.
I'm specifically thinking more along the lines of esotericism, obscurantism, or even gnosticism... that there is hidden knowledge, powerful knowledge - about music and audio - which can only be obtained through the proper means, and is not something which is advanced by science. The intensely subjective knowledge of sighted listening fulfills the role here of "hidden knowledge". And those who do not engage in such listening do not have such knowledge, and therefore are not qualified to discuss audio matters.
your second paragraph is rather befitting of the word religion.
And those who do not engage in such listening do not have such knowledge, and therefore are not qualified to discuss audio matters.
to be fair, the exploration of "hidden, powerful" knowledge doesn't really have to do with audio matters so much as introspection, with audio being the catalyst in this case. tripping on acid does not give one authoritative knowledge of chemistry.
It seems that they are almost admitting that their products work by bias effects without calling it bias effects. and yet it seems to work for them quite effectively.
Sorta. jj quite adroitly hung Frog by his own petard on the Stereophile forums by mentioning how a lot of Beltist thinking revolves around morphic fields, a concept absolutely unrelated to the biases we are talking about. (In fact, the concept is pure snake oil.)
I will say that subjective factors that influence bias should not be entirely ignored, insofar as they often represent real influences on perception and emotion. (Just like a hospital that faithfully followed all evidence-based medicine without paying any attention to bedside manner would kinda suck.) But insofar as those biases are subjective, and not necessarily reflective of an objective reality or a common truth among people, the means to manipulate such factors is similarly subjective. It is entirely reasonable to do like Canar (and I) do and just try to minimize its existence as much as possible. But clearly one's personality influences this sort of thing.
Such discussions, I suppose, are not discussed here, but ought to be perfectly allowable, as long as people are careful to describe their perceptions in such a way that does not illogically assume that perceptual differences are attributable to differences in the physical world.
There in lies the great objectivist myth. Bias controlled listening tests do not "cure" bias effects. They eliminate them for that test *if* they are actually being done well to begin with. Bias effects come back into play as soon as you go back to listening under sighted conditions. There is no cure. It is not an illness. It is a fact of life.
'Treatment doesn't mean 'cure', and the illness, btw, is not bias, it's the unquestioned *belief* in one's subjective 'truth' , unmoored from any consideration of bias. In such case, the treatment leaves the patient with sobering evidence of its power, and that their subjective 'truth' might be false. Healthy recalibration of priorities -- and new caution about making truth claims from sighted comporisons --may ensue. Or, in the case of the more hopeless branch of audiophilia, what ensues is defensive retreat further into denial and concoction of ever-more-contrived reasons why "blind tests don't work".
Didn't read most of the thread so I'm responding to the OP
The answer is pretty simple, really.
He's become obsessed with the machine. When you're obsessed with something, be it a sound machine, a phone, a watch, a computer, bicycles, etc, you enter into a little world where there is a "god" (the manuf's of the devices) which makes things simple. For computers, the warring gods are AMD and intel, for phones it's motorola and apple, bicycles it's shimano and sram, etc.
The process of shopping and upgrading is as enjoyable for him as is the actual practice of listening to music. B/c, truth be told, a $5 quartz watch can keep time just as well as a $25k Swiss watch, a netbook often is just as good as a Macbook pro for tasks actually done, and for me, the zune and the zune v2 earbuds provide the best sound I've ever heard (and enjoyment too, since music really is about a melody in your head, not the minute details of a trumphet) but a lot of the fun is derived from maintaining the machine. To my eyes, clothes from low-end retailers is just as good as clothes from brand names. Some of the best shirts I have were bought for under $10 from walmart. Yet, to my fashionista female friend, the designer stuff "has better stitching" even though to me, it's all made in the same factory.
So to conclude, it's an obsession, plain and simple, one that makes life simple, b/c the shopping process is fun. New things to change the world, which otherwise is sorta dreary and uneventful, no?
Obviously, any anecdotal statements I make about my own experiences are, at best, completely and totally subjective. My point was that I have trained myself to provide objectively-validated results through simple subjective analysis, nothing more. Extending this beyond identifying lossy tracks (which was the focus) would be a bit of a fallacy. I'm training my ear to hear with scientific accuracy in certain applications. That's obviously wildly subjective, but it is providing quantitative, objective results that cannot be argued with. I am verifying my subjective experiences objectively. It's like learning to measure an object by looking at it. With practice, your estimates eventually reflect reality. However, if I can do this in one domain, I can do it in another.
I am not claiming that my subjective experience is a replacement for objective analysis, as you misinterpret what I am writing to read. It is simply a useful technique to assist my objective analyses.
I'm not sure what you mean by arbitrary accuracy
DBT results provide, at best, a probability that you are not guessing. That is what I mean by "arbitrary accuracy", I can get that probability arbitrarily low.
many of your beliefs run contrary to science
Point 'em out. Be precise, rather than this ambiguous hand-waving you're doing right now.
How do you know you don't actually hear them?
Can one "hear" a sound but not be consciously aware he heard it? If I am never consciously aware I heard a thing, could I be said to have heard it at all? I'm not consciously aware of it, so I haven't heard it.
"Point em out. be precise."
"Bias is not a fact of life. You can train yourself to be resilient to it."
"Bias is not a fact of life if you're the sort of person who cares enough about getting accurate results to train yourself to be resistant to it. Again, bias effects are a mental condition that can be treated to some degree, at least in my own experience. Easy solution: err on the side of caution. Of course, then you trade false positives for missed true positives, but claiming that it cannot be treated is a fallacy."
"Can one hear a sound but not be consiously aware he heard it?"
Yes. Don't confuse what the ear does with what the brain does. One can fail to identify what one *is hearing* for a variety of reasons including bias effects.
I don't care how you cut it, spending $2000 on cables is always problem behaviour. There are a lot of untreated individuals out there...
Edit: based on the negative-consequences criterion above, there are two: inappropriate use of resources, and hallucination of things that are not there.
I'm a bit confused here.
Yeah, right.
Are you saying that 2,000 dollar cables don't exist and audiophiles are just imagining them? What is the "treatment" for buying 2,000 dollar cables? (that may or may not exist???). Where exactly is the "rule book" on appropriate and inapporpraite use of any individual's personal reseources?
The 'treatment' for a belief in an unlikely audible difference is a good bias-controlled listening test. But that's bitter medicine to the sort of audiophile who actually buys $2000 cables.
There in lies the great objectivist myth. Bias controlled listening tests do not "cure" bias effects.
Straw man argument. Nobody ever said that Bias controlled listening tests "cure" bias effects except you.
Bias controlled listening tests may cure people of wasting money on alleged benefts that are the consequences of listener bias, as opposed to benfits that are not the consequence of listener bias.
Bias is not a fact of life. You can train yourself to be resilient to it. I haven't claimed I heard a difference when none existed in years, basically since I discovered the methodologies described by the people here. There are cases where I am unsure, definitely. In those cases, I switch to proper blind testing and can be certain to within some confidence interval. There are also cases where I am certain, and I have not been wrong about those assessments in years.
I doubt you trained yourself out of bias.
I suspect you trained yourself to not automatically accept what seems to be the case...this is not the same as being free from bias. You trained yourself to be critical of your impressions, because you are aware bias exists.
The term 'bias' as used in this psychological setting doesn't mean only conscious choice -- it's an 'unthinking' choice too. We are far from rational automatons who dispassionately weigh evidence. The 'unthinking'n response is still there, even if we realize that it may be erroneous.
'Treatment doesn't mean 'cure', and the illness, btw, is not bias, it's the unquestioned *belief* in one's subjective 'truth' , unmoored from any consideration of bias. In such case, the treatment leaves the patient with sobering evidence of its power, and that their subjective 'truth' might be false. Healthy recalibration of priorities -- and new caution about making truth claims from sighted comporisons --may ensue. Or, in the case of the more hopeless branch of audiophilia, what ensues is defensive retreat further into denial and concoction of ever-more-contrived reasons why "blind tests don't work".
There's a little bit of a disconnect in thinking here. What is being optimized in a skeptical/positivist worldview is objective or psychoacoustic sound quality, while what is being optimized in a traditional audiophile worldview is the subjective, perceptual evaluation of sound quality. It simply does not follow that accepting the former can necessarily allow the latter. That is, Canar (and I, and I guess you) might simply be special cases of people whose subjective evaluations - of our
inherently biased perceptions - have trended to match objective evaluations.
Such a disconnect makes it easy for audiophiles to respond by saying that "true" happiness in the hobby - reflecting "true" sound quality - requires a certain lack of concern given to verifiable evidence. As knutinh said, "life as a skeptic can seem grey". I suspect many people would have no problem at all jettisoning such a philosophy, even if it were provably true, if it implied such an outlook.
'Treatment doesn't mean 'cure',
Indeed it doesn't which points to the utter futility and in some cases self dellusion for those who seek a cure for bias effects in DBTs.
and the illness, btw, is not bias, it's the unquestioned *belief* in one's subjective 'truth' , unmoored from any consideration of bias.
One can find folks aflicted with such a state of mind (not an illness by the way) on both sides of the subjectivist/objectivist aisle.
In such case, the treatment leaves the patient with sobering evidence of its power, and that their subjective 'truth' might be false.
Subjective truth can't be false. One can not falsify perceptions. They are what they are.
Healthy recalibration of priorities -- and new caution about making truth claims from sighted comporisons --may ensue.
I see nothing "healthy" about challenging other peoples' percpetions or values. Priorities are, in and of themselves, subjective in nature. Perhaps an understanding of that fact might lead to some "healthy" recalibration of attitudes in those who are in need but unaware of said need.
Or, in the case of the more hopeless branch of audiophilia, what ensues is defensive retreat further into denial and concoction of ever-more-contrived reasons why "blind tests don't work".
Well sure. Both sides become quite irrational and nasty when the "debate" devolves into a pissing contest. Not sure what the rationale for inciting such things is, unless one is invested in the so called "debate."
I don't care how you cut it, spending $2000 on cables is always problem behaviour. There are a lot of untreated individuals out there...
Edit: based on the negative-consequences criterion above, there are two: inappropriate use of resources, and hallucination of things that are not there.
I'm a bit confused here.
Yeah, right.
Are you saying that 2,000 dollar cables don't exist and audiophiles are just imagining them? What is the "treatment" for buying 2,000 dollar cables? (that may or may not exist???). Where exactly is the "rule book" on appropriate and inapporpraite use of any individual's personal reseources?
The 'treatment' for a belief in an unlikely audible difference is a good bias-controlled listening test. But that's bitter medicine to the sort of audiophile who actually buys $2000 cables.
There in lies the great objectivist myth. Bias controlled listening tests do not "cure" bias effects.
Straw man argument. Nobody ever said that Bias controlled listening tests "cure" bias effects except you.
Bias controlled listening tests may cure people of wasting money on alleged benefts that are the consequences of listener bias, as opposed to benfits that are not the consequence of listener bias.
It seems that some here think they have actually "cured" themselves of bias effects through DBTs so it isn't a straw man. But you make an interesting assertion about value. There is nothing "alleged" about percieved improvements. If some one percieves better sound they percieve better sound regardless of why. So why is a percieved improvement less or more valuable than another depending on the cause? If some one spends money on things that give them the perception of better sound how on earth in a hobby based on getting better percieved sound would that be a waste of money?
Sure you do. Bias effects is a reason. there are other possible reasons.Thngs related to state of mind and body.
but once you know there is no difference, your bias is gone.
Well, no. What's gone (MAYBE!) is the faith in your subjective impression. The bias (the unconscious predisposal to believe in a difference) -- and its effect, (the impression that B sounds different from (better/worse than) A) -- may still be there. But you now have a counterbelief.
Here as HA, we typically act on the counterbelief that derived from objective evidence, not on the belief derived from subjective impression, and feel satisfied we've done the intelligent thing. But not everyone rolls that way.
Rather infamously, Stereophile editor John Atkinson's experience with blind comparison of amplifiers led him to embrace the subjective, not objective, evidence. His blind test told him the expensive amp he preferred sounded the same as the more affordable one. And in the course of living with the 'objective' choice, his choice gnawed at him; he found himself dissatisfied with the sound. He wasn't happy again until he switched back to the expensive amp.
People can sincerely believe they aren't the least bit racist/xenophobic, but tests generally reveal they still harbor some unconscious bias that way. Same with sighted bias. It doesn't go away, it just gets relegated to something to be guarded against consciously...or not, depending on your philosophy.
There's a little bit of a disconnect in thinking here. What is being optimized in a skeptical/positivist worldview is objective or psychoacoustic sound quality, while what is being optimized in a traditional audiophile worldview is the subjective, perceptual evaluation of sound quality. It simply does not follow that accepting the former can necessarily allow the latter. That is, Canar (and I, and I guess you) might simply be special cases of people whose subjective evaluations - of our inherently biased perceptions - have trended to match objective evaluations
Not the case with me. I still encounter plenty of instances in audio where something 'sounds different' to me when it probably won't hold up in an controlled listening test. I simply take that as evidence I'm still a fallible human, and move on.
I don't say, hmm, maybe all this sciency stuff is nonsense, I should just 'trust my ears'.
THAT, I suspect, is where the difference lies between 'objectivists' and the audiophile mainstream. Not that our subjective evals are inherently more accurate than theirs -- our *faith* in them is simply much less.
It seems that some here think they have actually "cured" themselves of bias effects through DBTs so it isn't a straw man. But you make an interesting assertion about value. There is nothing "alleged" about percieved improvements. If some one percieves better sound they percieve better sound regardless of why. So why is a percieved improvement less or more valuable than another depending on the cause? If some one spends money on things that give them the perception of better sound how on earth in a hobby based on getting better percieved sound would that be a waste of money?
The answer reflects the amount of meaning we place in the statements and communications of others. If we were truly talking about other's perceptions as being truly subjective - like you propose - they would have no inherent truth to whoever reads them. And then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Of course this is not the case - these comments are taken as representing an objective reality, 99% of the time, on a daily basis,
among audiophiles. Not skeptics.
Usually, if you pick up any high-end review, you are not going to read claims exclusively of the form "well I perceived X and Y and had this emotion Z, sooo, there you go.". You'll read those claims, sure, but
in the context of objective statements about the characteristics/intrinsics of the device, the engineering concepts involved, etc. In other words, you are going to read objective claims. But they will be rooted in subjective statements.
So if we want to talk strawmen, I'd say the one to be tackling here is the whole idea that mainstream audiophile communication is subjective in character. I posit that while much of it is, the majority of it is stated as, and interpreted as, objective - even when the meaning of the communication is rooted in subjective perception.
With a strawman thus de-strawed it seems pretty self-evident to me as to why calling certain products a waste of money is entirely justified.
another thing to consider is that reviewers have to differentiate between products and rank them.
I recently shopped for DSLR cameras, and I ended up with one that many people considered "inferior" for various reasons.
Yet, in actual usage, I found that its weak spots were pretty much inconsequential to me. Thus, the reviewer ranked the cameras from 1-5 on noise levels, but in practice, the noise levels differed by like 5% -- a difference, but no big deal at all.
'Treatment doesn't mean 'cure',
Indeed it doesn't which points to the utter futility and in some cases self dellusion for those who seek a cure for bias effects in DBTs.
Since I said nothing of 'cures', but wrote only of treatment for a *belief*, nor do I hold that one can be 'cured' of *bias*, apparently you had some other axe to grind.
and the illness, btw, is not bias, it's the unquestioned *belief* in one's subjective 'truth' , unmoored from any consideration of bias.
One can find folks aflicted with such a state of mind (not an illness by the way) on both sides of the subjectivist/objectivist aisle.
Thank you ever so much again, Obvious Man.
In such case, the treatment leaves the patient with sobering evidence of its power, and that their subjective 'truth' might be false.
Subjective truth can't be false. One can not falsify perceptions. They are what they are.
I've had about enough of your sophistry for one session, Scott. (btw, remind me, are you or are you not the same SWheeler from rahe and Hoffman's forum? He too was prone to such tedious rhetorical game-playing. The resemblance is uncanny if not). By 'subjective truth' I mean 'what you conclude to be true *about the objective world*, based only on your impression'. I don't mean that the perceptions don't exist...or are insincerely believed -- I mean that the conclusions we draw from them can and are often WRONG. Clearly our subjective truth-claims -- our models -- often turn out to be wrong -- they are INACCURATE models of reality.
Like, arriving at the 'subjective truth' from a 'sighted' audition that one CD player sounded better than another, when the objective truth was that the same CD player was simply played twice.
It seems that some here think they have actually "cured" themselves of bias effects through DBTs so it isn't a straw man. But you make an interesting assertion about value. There is nothing "alleged" about percieved improvements. If some one percieves better sound they percieve better sound regardless of why. So why is a percieved improvement less or more valuable than another depending on the cause? If some one spends money on things that give them the perception of better sound how on earth in a hobby based on getting better percieved sound would that be a waste of money?
it's a waste of money because of what i established earlier. the 'why' is the core of issue. if someone purchases new equipment and controlled testing proves that the new equipment makes no audible difference, yet the purchaser still perceives an improvement, then the improvement did not come from the new equipment, but the person's mind. since the new equipment did not make a difference and the purchaser can improve the sound with their own mind, the purchase was a waste of money. when one believes that sound can be improved without actually improving the sound, their interest in audio ceases to be a hobby and becomes a religion.
There in lies the great objectivist myth. Bias controlled listening tests do not "cure" bias effects. They eliminate them for that test *if* they are actually being done well to begin with. Bias effects come back into play as soon as you go back to listening under sighted conditions. There is no cure. It is not an illness. It is a fact of life.
But the test has determined whether or not there is a real difference, or if the difference is bias! If the only difference is bias, then the test has proved that there actually is no difference. If a person continues to feel that there is a difference, then they are literally just deluding themselves.
But it does happen. and it does happen to completely normal human beings with no need for any treatment. It is a part of being human. We can not seperate ourselves from bias.
Yes we can, by doing controlled tests.
Even when we know bias is in play. You should know that your biases are in play when you listen to your system under sighted conditions.
Of course. So if under sighted conditions I think that I need better speaker cables, but then under controlled conditions I find out that different speaker cables make no difference, I know that when I return to sighted conditions that any desire for different speaker cables is just an effect of bias, which you say no person can escape from.
Does that mean you are delluding yourself? I would think anyone worried about things being "real" would avoid audio altogether and just go to live performances.
Anyone who believes something to be true when they have evidence to the contrary is by definition deluding themselves.
That is the power of the controlled test, to enable a person to find out if something is supported by evidence, or just a product of bias. Once they have determined an effect to be simply bias, then they have no rational reason to continue believing something that is untrue.
Of course the fact some people still buy $2000 speaker cables is just evidence that there are some people who still believe things that are untrue in face of evidence to the contrary.
No. it is not gone. it *may* be altered but it is not gone. You as a human being will always be strapped with your biases whatever they may be at the time. that's life. oh and yes some folks actually do just what you are saying. if you check with the Belts they fully acknoweledge that their tweaks don't affect the actual sound of any system. They claim their products create some sort of "relaxing friendly energy pattern" that affects the listener. It seems that they are almost admitting that their products work by bias effects without calling it bias effects. and yet it seems to work for them quite effectively.
It doesn't "work for them quite effectively" at all. It just puts a price tag on their own bias.
Why should someone pay for their own bias when they can have it for free?
The answer reflects the amount of meaning we place in the statements and communications of others. If we were truly talking about other's perceptions as being truly subjective - like you propose - they would have no inherent truth to whoever reads them.
I think you are painting a black and white world that is actually made of of shades of gray. we can take things that are pretty inarguably subjective such as taste (literally and figuratively) and through experience we can find common ground. more with some individuals than others.
And then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Of course this is not the case - these comments are taken as representing an objective reality, 99% of the time, on a daily basis, among audiophiles. Not skeptics.
Perhaps in some cases. But i don't know how that is sucha big problem. If one understands that subjective impressions are personal and subjective why is it so hard to understand that when some folks appear to be stating their subjective impressions as objective facts? If I say New Orleans has th best food in the world I have stated it as an objective fact. is it so hard to figure out that it is a subjective personal opinion? I think this is an issue due to ego more than any other reason.
Usually, if you pick up any high-end review, you are not going to read claims exclusively of the form "well I perceived X and Y and had this emotion Z, sooo, there you go.". You'll read those claims, sure, but in the context of objective statements about the characteristics/intrinsics of the device, the engineering concepts involved, etc. In other words, you are going to read objective claims. But they will be rooted in subjective statements.
The same can be said of any subjective review of food, art film etc etc. As well it should be. It eventually becomes a waste of space, ink and paper. It's really not hard to figure out that subjective review is subjective review.
So if we want to talk strawmen, I'd say the one to be tackling here is the whole idea that mainstream audiophile communication is subjective in character. I posit that while much of it is, the majority of it is stated as, and interpreted as, objective - even when the meaning of the communication is rooted in subjective perception.
I just don't see this as a problem that has any merit beyoond the egos that are bruised and/or offended.
With a strawman thus de-strawed it seems pretty self-evident to me as to why calling certain products a waste of money is entirely justified.
Fair enough. It could be seen as implied that to say so is a personal subjective statement.
With a strawman thus de-strawed it seems pretty self-evident to me as to why calling certain products a waste of money is entirely justified.
Fair enough. It could be seen as implied that to say so is a personal subjective statement.
Not at all. If a product doesn't actually do anything, then by definition it is a waste of money.
You are basically saying that it is enough to think that a product does something. But that's just silly, because as you have repeated, humans are biased, they will often lead the objectively wrong conclusions.
Basing one's life on delusions is silly. If humanity did that, then we would still be living in caves, we would have no way to make social and technological progress.
Your arguments have been reduced to pure ad hominem. If you wish to discuss audio I am quite happy to do so as well. but this post is basically personal attacks against me. can't go anywhere from there.
That wasn't pure ad hominem at all. He wrote:
Like, arriving at the 'subjective truth' from a 'sighted' audition that one CD player sounded better than another, when the objective truth was that the same CD player was simply played twice.
So what does that mean to the sighted listener? That the same CD player is BOTH good and bad at the same time?
Or does it just demonstrate - as you have said yourself - that people are subject to perceptual bias?
It seems that some here think they have actually "cured" themselves of bias effects through DBTs so it isn't a straw man. But you make an interesting assertion about value. There is nothing "alleged" about percieved improvements. If some one percieves better sound they percieve better sound regardless of why. So why is a percieved improvement less or more valuable than another depending on the cause? If some one spends money on things that give them the perception of better sound how on earth in a hobby based on getting better percieved sound would that be a waste of money?
it's a waste of money because of what i established earlier. the 'why' is the core of issue. if someone purchases new equipment and controlled testing proves that the new equipment makes no audible difference, yet the purchaser still perceives an improvement, then the improvement did not come from the new equipment, but the person's mind. since the new equipment did not make a difference and the purchaser can improve the sound with their own mind, the purchase was a waste of money. when one believes that sound can be improved without actually improving the sound, their interest in audio ceases to be a hobby and becomes a religion.
"Why" may be the core issue for you but that is not a universal objective truth for every other audiophile. I think this is a classic case of an objectivist failing to understand that priorities are a subjective choice made by individuals. I have no problem with you saying expensive cables are a waste of money for you and for other like-minded individuals. but to assert it as a universal truth is plainly wrong. There are in fact audiophiles that derive great pleasure from expensive cables. So it isn't a waste of money for those individuals. Kind of reminds me of an old joke about a prospector back in the gold ruch who hit the big claim and cashed in 3 million dollars. The banker who payed him off saw the prospector a couple days later, the prospector waqs broke. The banker asked him what did you spend all that money on in such a short time. the prospector said "I spent a third of it on women, a third on wine and I wasted the other third.
"Why" may be the core issue for you but that is not a universal objective truth for every other audiophile.
So now you are saying that some people LIKE to be fooled? They want to spend $2000 on speaker cables so they can think they have spent enough on speaker cables?
I think this is a classic case of an objectivist failing to understand that priorities are a subjective choice made by individuals.
No. I think this is a classic case of a subjectivist failing to understand that perceptual bias can lead people to conclusions that are untrue.
I have no problem with you saying expensive cables are a waste of money for you and for other like-minded individuals. but to assert it as a universal truth is plainly wrong.
No, it is plainly wrong to assert that speaker cables aren't a waste of money without being able to refer to any objective evidence that proves that improve sound quality.
You've basically turned this into a massive circular argument. Your argument has become "speaker cables improve sound quality because some people think speaker cables improve sound quality."
There are in fact audiophiles that derive great pleasure from expensive cables.
Yes, and they are deriving this pleasure based on a false believe, something that is objectively wrong. Of course, provided it is legal, they can derive pleasure from whatever they like. But it doesn't mean they are actually deriving pleasure from something that is objectively true. We know that they are in fact deriving pleasure from perceptual bias. So rather than spending $2000 on speaker cables, they should just go outside and find a rock, place that on their CD player and then convince themselves that the rock is the thing that has improved the sound of their CD player.
So it isn't a waste of money for those individuals.
Yes it OBJECTIVELY IS a waste of money to spend $2000 on speaker cables.
You've basically fallen down a post-modernist worm hole based on an extremist case of relativism. According to you, whatever is true for someone is the truth.
Well I counter that, my personal truth is that somethings are true and others aren't, which makes your argument completely illogical.
It seems that some here think they have actually "cured" themselves of bias effects through DBTs so it isn't a straw man. But you make an interesting assertion about value. There is nothing "alleged" about percieved improvements. If some one percieves better sound they percieve better sound regardless of why. So why is a percieved improvement less or more valuable than another depending on the cause? If some one spends money on things that give them the perception of better sound how on earth in a hobby based on getting better percieved sound would that be a waste of money?
it's a waste of money because of what i established earlier. the 'why' is the core of issue. if someone purchases new equipment and controlled testing proves that the new equipment makes no audible difference, yet the purchaser still perceives an improvement, then the improvement did not come from the new equipment, but the person's mind. since the new equipment did not make a difference and the purchaser can improve the sound with their own mind, the purchase was a waste of money. when one believes that sound can be improved without actually improving the sound, their interest in audio ceases to be a hobby and becomes a religion.
"Why" may be the core issue for you but that is not a universal objective truth for every other audiophile. I think this is a classic case of an objectivist failing to understand that priorities are a subjective choice made by individuals. I have no problem with you saying expensive cables are a waste of money for you and for other like-minded individuals. but to assert it as a universal truth is plainly wrong. There are in fact audiophiles that derive great pleasure from expensive cables. So it isn't a waste of money for those individuals. Kind of reminds me of an old joke about a prospector back in the gold ruch who hit the big claim and cashed in 3 million dollars. The banker who payed him off saw the prospector a couple days later, the prospector waqs broke. The banker asked him what did you spend all that money on in such a short time. the prospector said "I spent a third of it on women, a third on wine and I wasted the other third.
on the contrary, the 'why' is most certainly the core of the issue and you just proved it. but you're right about me failing to understand the priorities of the subjectivist. to the objectivist, the answer to "why buy new equipment?" is "to improve the audio." to the subjectivist, the answer is "to give myself an opportunity to delude myself.". to the objectivist, the purpose of new equipment is to audibly improve the sound. if the equipment fails to do that, then purchasing it is a waste of money. to the subjectivist, the purpose of new equipment is to act as a catalyst for self delusion and thus every purchases succeeds.
what i would like to know is, why do subjectivists need a catalyst for delusion? if they know when new equipment does not make an audible difference, yet can perceive a difference anyway, then it follows that their perception is independent of the equipment. therefore the equipment shouldn't matter. yet you were just defending subjectivist purchases. why? shouldn't subjectivists be above chasing the latest gadget? it seems to me that by purchasing new equipment when subjectivists can improve the sound simply by their own will, that they're essentially worshiping audio gear.
"But it does happen. and it does happen to completely normal human beings with no need for any treatment. It is a part of being human. We can not seperate ourselves from bias."
Yes we can, by doing controlled tests.
What about when the test is over? then what? biases are gone for good? No, you can't seperate humans from human bias. What is the plan? To only listen under blind conditions and never know what is in your system?
"You should know that your biases are in play when you listen to your system under sighted conditions."
Of course. So if under sighted conditions I think that I need better speaker cables, but then under controlled conditions I find out that different speaker cables make no difference, I know that when I return to sighted conditions that any desire for different speaker cables is just an effect of bias, which you say no person can escape from.
You "know" that? You may have affected your biases but you didn't eliminate them. Nothing wrong with that. That is why I use blind protocols. not to eliminate biases but to point them in the same direction as my unbiased percpetions are already pointing.
"Does that mean you are delluding yourself? I would think anyone worried about things being "real" would avoid audio altogether and just go to live performances."
Anyone who believes something to be true when they have evidence to the contrary is by definition deluding themselves.
I'm not so obsessed with objective truth when it comes to aesthetic valuations of perceptions that will ultimately be formed with biases in play. Do you worry about such self dellusion when it comes to other subjective perceptions? when you enjoy a movie or a song or a piece of cake do you sit there and wonder how much of that was the result of bias? I assure you all such aesthetic value judgements are profoundly affected by biases. Does that bother you as well?
That is the power of the controlled test, to enable a person to find out if something is supported by evidence, or just a product of bias. Once they have determined an effect to be simply bias, then they have no rational reason to continue believing something that is untrue.
Of course the fact some people still buy $2000 speaker cables is just evidence that there are some people who still believe things that are untrue in face of evidence to the contrary.
IMO the concern over other peoples' "beliefs" is ego driven. IMO If people are buying and enjoying such things then so be it. "It is not enough that I am right you must also be wrong" is ego incarnate.
.... not to eliminate biases but to point them in the same direction as my unbiased percpetions are already pointing.
Uh, what? You want to point your biases in the same direction as your "unbiased percpetions (sic) are already pointing"? What's that supposed to mean?
IMO the concern over other peoples' "beliefs" is ego driven. IMO If people are buying and enjoying such things then so be it. "It is not enough that I am right you must also be wrong" is ego incarnate.
As Axon mentioned earlier, this is a strawman. The concern is not about other people's beliefs, but asserting these beliefs as physical reality.
.... not to eliminate biases but to point them in the same direction as my unbiased percpetions are already pointing.
Uh, what? You want to point your biases in the same direction as your "unbiased percpetions (sic) are already pointing"? What's that supposed to mean?
Fair question. The vast majority of my comparisons these days is between various masterings of my favorite recordings. No question that different masterings sound different but which sound better? There are plenty of "beliefs," rules of thumb," and other influences to make me biased going into any such comparison. Soooo I like to do my first comparisons undr blind conditions. this will give me an unbiased preference. Then I will compare under sighted conditions but with the knowledge of what my preference was under blind conditions. In the end whatever mastering is chosen will be listened to under sighted conditions. That is why my final auditions are also done under sighted conditions. But at least it is done with the full knowledge of what my unbiased pereference was. IMO that will probably have some effect on my biases.
IMO the concern over other peoples' "beliefs" is ego driven. IMO If people are buying and enjoying such things then so be it. "It is not enough that I am right you must also be wrong" is ego incarnate.
As Axon mentioned earlier, this is a strawman. The concern is not about other people's beliefs, but asserting these beliefs as physical reality.
I still believe it is an ego based concern.
"But it does happen. and it does happen to completely normal human beings with no need for any treatment. It is a part of being human. We can not seperate ourselves from bias."
Yes we can, by doing controlled tests.
What about when the test is over? then what? biases are gone for good? No, you can't seperate humans from human bias. What is the plan? To only listen under blind conditions and never know what is in your system?
You keep talking about "bias" as if it is an actual object, it isn't, the bias is something that leads you to think something that is wrong. Once you know you were wrong, there is no reason to continue to think you are right.
When the test is over, the cheap speaker cable STILL sounds the same as the $2000 speaker cable, even if the listener thinks the opposite is true.
A baby gets great enjoyment from playing peekaboo because they think a person or object has magically disappeared. But that doesn't make it true, their enjoyment is just a product of their flawed perceptions.
You "know" that? You may have affected your biases but you didn't eliminate them. Nothing wrong with that. That is why I use blind protocols. not to eliminate biases but to point them in the same direction as my unbiased percpetions are already pointing.
Well this is a misuse of a blind test. You don't conduct a blind test in order to support your biased beliefs. You do a blind test to figure out if your beliefs are true or just the product of bias.
I'm not so obsessed with objective truth when it comes to aesthetic valuations of perceptions that will ultimately be formed with biases in play. Do you worry about such self dellusion when it comes to other subjective perceptions? when you enjoy a movie or a song or a piece of cake do you sit there and wonder how much of that was the result of bias? I assure you all such aesthetic value judgements are profoundly affected by biases. Does that bother you as well?
Can't you see that you have just completely changed the topic? Whether or not a $2000 speaker cable sounds better than a $5 cable is a question that can be answered objectively. Whether or not you like a piece of music or a film or a piece of cake isn't a question that can be answered objectively.
IMO the concern over other peoples' "beliefs" is ego driven. IMO If people are buying and enjoying such things then so be it. "It is not enough that I am right you must also be wrong" is ego incarnate.
There is no evidence that they are actually enjoying the speaker cable, they are just enjoying their bias, so they could've saved $2000 and spent it on, well MUSIC!
It requires a massive ego to assert that speaker cables effect sound because some people think speaker cables effect sound. Only a pure egotist could make such an illogical 'argument'.
"Why" may be the core issue for you but that is not a universal objective truth for every other audiophile.
So now you are saying that some people LIKE to be fooled? They want to spend $2000 on speaker cables so they can think they have spent enough on speaker cables?
I think this is a classic case of an objectivist failing to understand that priorities are a subjective choice made by individuals.
No. I think this is a classic case of a subjectivist failing to understand that perceptual bias can lead people to conclusions that are untrue.
I have no problem with you saying expensive cables are a waste of money for you and for other like-minded individuals. but to assert it as a universal truth is plainly wrong.
No, it is plainly wrong to assert that speaker cables aren't a waste of money without being able to refer to any objective evidence that proves that improve sound quality.
You've basically turned this into a massive circular argument. Your argument has become "speaker cables improve sound quality because some people think speaker cables improve sound quality."
There are in fact audiophiles that derive great pleasure from expensive cables.
Yes, and they are deriving this pleasure based on a false believe, something that is objectively wrong. Of course, provided it is legal, they can derive pleasure from whatever they like. But it doesn't mean they are actually deriving pleasure from something that is objectively true. We know that they are in fact deriving pleasure from perceptual bias. So rather than spending $2000 on speaker cables, they should just go outside and find a rock, place that on their CD player and then convince themselves that the rock is the thing that has improved the sound of their CD player.
So it isn't a waste of money for those individuals.
Yes it OBJECTIVELY IS a waste of money to spend $2000 on speaker cables.
You've basically fallen down a post-modernist worm hole based on an extremist case of relativism. According to you, whatever is true for someone is the truth.
Well I counter that, my personal truth is that somethings are true and others aren't, which makes your argument completely illogical.
"So now you are saying that some people LIKE to be fooled? They want to spend $2000 on speaker cables so they can think they have spent enough on speaker cables?"
No i am not saying that. where have I said that?
"No. I think this is a classic case of a subjectivist failing to understand that perceptual bias can lead people to conclusions that are untrue."
So you think that if some one percieves an improvement in sound they didn't percieve an improvement in sound? "It sounded better to me" is only untrue if the person saying it is flat out lying.
"No, it is plainly wrong to assert that speaker cables aren't a waste of money without being able to refer to any objective evidence that proves that improve sound quality."
sorry but you are not the official arbitrator of value for everyone else.
"You've basically turned this into a massive circular argument. Your argument has become "speaker cables improve sound quality because some people think speaker cables improve sound quality.""
Who are you quoting? Sure isn't me. i have never said that. Please don't attribute things to me that i have not said. There is no way to have any kind of conversation on this if you are going to premise your arguments on misrepresentations of my position. what i have argued is that the "perceptions" are what they are regardless of the underlying mechanisms that cause them. I did not claim that beliefs manifest themselves in a physical effect on the sound.
"Yes, and they are deriving this pleasure based on a false believe, something that is objectively wrong."
heaven forbid that someone might derive pleasure from something that hasn't been scientifically varified! They are basing the belief by and large on the perception. The perception has many influences including bias. This is true of the vast majority of experiences that we, as humans have and then go on to draw conclusions about their aesthetic value in every day life. i am quite certain that you have drawn conclusions about the sound quality of your system that is every bit as affected by your biases as the guy enjoying the 2,000 dollar cables. does this concern you? do the affects of bias on your own system worry you as much as the effects of bias on the guy enjoying his expensive cables?
"You've basically fallen down a post-modernist worm hole based on an extremist case of relativism. According to you, whatever is true for someone is the truth."
When it comes to personal perceptions that we aesthetic judge, yes. In those cases yes "what ever is true for someone is the truth." Beyond that no.
If some one says boy those cables made my system sound better I accept that *perception* at face value. Audio is IMO a perceptual based hobby. If they say the cause was a "friendly energy field" genrated from the cable then they have made an objective claim that can be put to the test. that is an objectively arguable assertion that can be falsified.
Again I think arguing with people about their *perceptions* is ridiculous and ego driven. Arguing about assertions of mechanisms is very quite different.
...priorities are a subjective choice made by individuals. I have no problem with you saying expensive cables are a waste of money for you and for other like-minded individuals. but to assert it as a universal truth is plainly wrong. There are in fact audiophiles that derive great pleasure from expensive cables. So it isn't a waste of money for those individuals.
What about all the listeners who derive an equally great amount of subjective pleasure on an otherwise equal setup, in spite of the cheap cables they listen with? Surely you won't deny that they can enjoy their system just as much even though their systems are wired more cheaply?
(1) They don't get on the internet blathering about how ordinary cables constitute a killer sonic upgrade.
(2) Since they enjoy their systems just as much, they don't have to deal with cognitive dissonance in having to justify to themselves the big bucks spent on cables that generate "benefits" that aren't objectively measurable.
Point (2) points out the unhealthy feedback loop audiophiliacs find themselves in. They end up spending more to justify their belief that their system has been improved as a result of the added expenditure. Then to prove to themselves that they haven't wasted their money, they inevitably find themselves arguing with objectivists, who might just happen to be subjectively enjoying their sound systems every bit as much (and at lesser expense).
Comparing the two sets of subjective experiences, what would make audiophiliacs think their expensively-cabled systems sound any better to them than a cheaply-cabled system sounds to someone else? Y'know, it's actually possible for a listener, with science on his side, to believe that his cheaply-wired system sounds every bit as superb. If audiophiliacs feel the need to spend a lot more to feel equally good, well doesn't that constitute some form of pathology?
No i am not saying that. where have I said that?
Well that is the implications of what you have written whether you realise it or not.
"No. I think this is a classic case of a subjectivist failing to understand that perceptual bias can lead people to conclusions that are untrue."
So you think that if some one percieves an improvement in sound they didn't percieve an improvement in sound? "It sounded better to me" is only untrue if the person saying it is flat out lying.
That is the whole POINT of perceptual bias! Sometimes people are CONVINCED that they have heard something that they actually haven't heard! They are LYING to their own ego if we want to continue your bizarre Freudian analogy.
"No, it is plainly wrong to assert that speaker cables aren't a waste of money without being able to refer to any objective evidence that proves that improve sound quality."
sorry but you are not the official arbitrator of value for everyone else.
Sorry, but I never claimed to be the official arbiter of value for everyone else. Your assertion that whatever someone thinks is immediately true is the biggest truth claim that can possibly be made!
"You've basically turned this into a massive circular argument. Your argument has become "speaker cables improve sound quality because some people think speaker cables improve sound quality.""
Who are you quoting? Sure isn't me. i have never said that.
I don't care if you haven't stated that, even if you don't realise it, that is the implication of what you are saying. You are saying if someone spends $2000 on speaker cables and thinks they sound better than $5 cables, and even if they can't prove they sound better, according to you they still sound better simply because the person THINKS they do!
You're making the truth claim that there is no such thing as an invalid truth claim, and yet you accuse others of arrogance! Your claim is simply post-modernist nonsense, something is true as long as someone thinks it is true. That is just silly.
"Yes, and they are deriving this pleasure based on a false believe, something that is objectively wrong."
heaven forbid that someone might derive pleasure from something that hasn't been scientifically varified!
More nonsense. I clearly wrote that anyone can derive pleasure from anything they like (provided it is legal) but that doesn't mean it is true, right, correct, or based on fact.
They are basing the belief by and large on the perception. The perception has many influences including bias. This is true of the vast majority of experiences that we, as humans have and then go on to draw conclusions about their aesthetic value in every day life. i am quite certain that you have drawn conclusions about the sound quality of your system that is every bit as affected by your biases as the guy enjoying the 2,000 dollar cables. does this concern you? do the affects of bias on your own system worry you as much as the effects of bias on the guy enjoying his expensive cables?
Big fat NO, because I don't base my judgements on nonsense. But of course anyone can do so if they wish, it doesn't make them right, and ultimately just demonstrates that some people buy into delusions.
Straw man argument. Nobody ever said that Bias controlled listening tests "cure" bias effects except you.
Bias controlled listening tests may cure people of wasting money on alleged benefts that are the consequences of listener bias, as opposed to benfits that are not the consequence of listener bias.
It seems that some here think they have actually "cured" themselves of bias effects through DBTs so it isn't a straw man.
Key words "It seems". Again Scott you are arguing with your perceptions, not some piece of evidence that you have produced.
But you make an interesting assertion about value.
I did no such thing. Again, I wrote one thing and you are responding to something else.
There is nothing "alleged" about percieved improvements.
Again, you are arguing with yourself. I never said anything about perceived improvements.
I said "alleged benefits". Just because something is said to be alleged, it still may be true, reliable, factual or whatever; or not. All I said is that it was alleged.
If some one percieves better sound they percieve better sound regardless of why.
I always bow to complete mastery of that which is obvious. ;-)
So why is a percieved improvement less or more valuable than another depending on the cause? If some one spends money on things that give them the perception of better sound how on earth in a hobby based on getting better percieved sound would that be a waste of money?
Where in my post did I say anything about wasting money? I didn't. It appears to me Scott that you have a great burden on your mind that you somehow want to shift onto me. I'm not buying any today. ;-)
Bias is not a fact of life. You can train yourself to be resilient to it.
Above some arbitrary threshold, we must be able to make reliably objective analyses of sound without interference from bias. For example, some people, by simply hearing a song, can identify the key that it is written in. Others can identify the lyrical content. Some can identify the singer. Some can identify the kind of instrumentation used.
Claiming that bias prevents any objectively-valid subjective analyses of audio is complete nonsense. At worst, many of these traits are identifiable to within some reliable error margin. Many of these traits are more reliably identified by humans than by algorithms!
Being aware that one cannot identify a detail is also a part of that training. It is possible to be able to identify that one cannot hear a difference or cannot identify some characteristic of a song.
"Can one hear a sound but not be consiously aware he heard it?"
Yes. Don't confuse what the ear does with what the brain does. One can fail to identify what one *is hearing* for a variety of reasons including bias effects.
Again, nonsense. If I am not aware of a sound, I cannot possibly be said to have heard it. Hearing is a conscious phenomenon. If I am merely subconsciously affected by a sound, I certainly have not heard it. Your definition of "hearing" is ridiculously limited. If my girlfriend were to call my name and I was distracted and so was unaware that she called even though my ears picked it up, I certainly would not tell her that I heard her.
So where is my science wrong again? Oh right, it's not, you're just trolling.
How about RMAF? Will you be there? I see RealTraps on the exhibitor list but I wasn't sure if you'd be there personally. I live in the area, so I got a 1-day ticket.
Actually, none of us will be there in person because we're so busy preparing AES. We're treating four rooms at RMAF for other vendors. Sorry! I'd like to meet you in person too.
--Ethan
I've been reading an ongoing argument and feel the need to chime in, the nosy philosopher that i am. I've never listened to a high-end system, so I'm neither an audiophile nor a skeptic.
Suppose a man says, "I hear the sound of a dog barking," when there is in fact no dog barking. It can be objectively determined that there is no dog barking, and nothing reproducing similar soundwaves. But this fact tells us nothing about the truth of the man's claim. He didn't claim he heard an actual dog in proximity, all he said was he perceived the *sound* of a dog barking. Just because his perception wasn't caused by a soundwave, doesn't mean the perception doesn't exist. It might have been caused by LSD, mushrooms, or schizophrenia, but his perception is only a matter of *effect*, not cause.
Likewise, everything I'm seeing right now (walls, window, etc), I don't know if it's really there, but I'm 100% certain that I'm seeing images of those things. Another way of saying it is, I don't know if these images are being caused by actual walls and objects, but I know that I'm engaged in the activity of seeing walls and objects. My perception, though possibly deceptive, at least exists.
Besides sight and sound, another thing that's subjective is pleasure. Think of a kid watching a magic show, or a WWF match, or going to the mall to meet Santa, and his parents haven't told him that it's all fake. The kid is enjoying each event as much as he would if it were real. Suppose after watching the WWF match he says, "WWF matches are super fun to watch." I wouldn't enjoy watching it, so the kid's claim isn't universally true, but it is true *relative to the kid*. For him it's true, for me it's false...for things like pleasure, relativism makes much more sense than absolutism.
What I'm getting at is, audio is subjective. If an audiophile says he enjoys E expensive system more than C cheap system, he is stating his personal experience, much like I'm stating mine when i say i see walls and objects at the moment. My vision of the walls might be an illusion, but it's still there. System E might produce exactly the same physical waves as System C, but the audiophile's extra enjoyment is still there when he listens to System E. Does that mean that I'd enjoy System E better also? No, but just like the WWF example, something can be true for him and false for me. His enjoyment might simply be a placebo effect, but the placebo effect is real, as it is with many patients who take placebo pills and report feeling better.
Is it bad for people to spend thousands of dollars on placebo pills (assuming you guys are right and E is no better than C)? If they can afford it, I guess not. Would it be better for them to learn to be less biased in their judgment? Sure, but unfortunately, it's easier for them to spend money for enjoyment, than to learn to enjoy System C as much as System E, and I guess it's especially hard for them to learn since there isn't any real proof that System C produces the same soundwaves as System E. If we were to provide physical evidence that C = E, then perhaps audiophiles would learn to perceive things the way non-audiophiles do. Though some, I imagine, would hold firmly to their beliefs so they wouldn't have to regret all the money they flushed away.
Is it bad for people to spend thousands of dollars on placebo pills (assuming you guys are right and E is no better than C)? If they can afford it, I guess not.
Yes, that's fine. The problem is when someone with a limited budget asks honestly in a forum if expensive AC wires are a worthwhile purchase. That's when I feel compelled to chime in. The believers who already bought into replacement AC are less of a concern to me.
--Ethan
Your arguments have been reduced to pure ad hominem. If you wish to discuss audio I am quite happy to do so as well. but this post is basically personal attacks against me. can't go anywhere from there.
"Pure ad hominem"? That's patent nonsense, Scott. Regardless of whether you are offended by my take on you and your style, the logical arguments I make against your points and the questions I pose are still there, and you are evading them. Meanwhile you are offering up straw men, as Axon noted, and semantic diversions. I call it 'sophistry' and you call that 'ad hominem'. Unlike others here, I've had far too much experience with your posts -- via RAHE and several other forums where you're retailed the same self-serving 'you guys are just as bad as subjectivists/audio is aesthetic, subjective' line -- to write otherwise.
Is it bad for people to spend thousands of dollars on placebo pills (assuming you guys are right and E is no better than C)? If they can afford it, I guess not.
Yes, that's fine. The problem is when someone with a limited budget asks honestly in a forum if expensive AC wires are a worthwhile purchase. That's when I feel compelled to chime in. The believers who already bought into replacement AC are less of a concern to me.
--Ethan
this. as long as the delusional audio enthusiasts don't preach their feel-good snake oil to the uninitiated, they are harmless, but unfortunately this is not the case.
How do you prove that there is no audible advantage in crazy audiophile gadgets? How do you disprove God?
Life as a sceptic can seem gray compared to the fantastic world of true believers.
-k
That is easy. Bias controlled tests. I think the question you may have meant to ask is how do you prove there is no "perceptual" advantage to such gadgets? In actuality one can prove that there are actual advantages in positive bias effects. It is only logical that if one makes a change in their system that offers no "audible " difference but does offer a "percptual" advantage that one has actually improved the percieved performance of their system and at no cost to the "actual" performance of that system. Ironically one can actually do harm to the actual audible and percieved quality of their system's performance when making changes that do in fact make an audible difference with the belief that such a fact renders the need for bias controlled auditions needless. Biases can be that powerful. If ever there is a use for bias controls in audio it is when there *is* an audible difference. That way one does not take a step back in "actual audible" performance because they were affected by their biases.
Ok. So what test-method do you suggest that firmly allows me to conclude that there are no perceptible "audiological" differences between cables made out of nano-carbon-kevlar fibres? Regular ABX DBTs has two possible outcomes:
1) Positive (with e.g. 95% confidence)
2) Inconclusive
What test methology allows me to conclude that there is no God?
What test methology can prove that there is no life on any other planets beside the earth?
I think that you need to read my question one more time, and ensure that you are discussing my post, and not the post you had hoped that I had written ;-) I am simply pointing to the fact that being sceptical is an exercise that you never "win". You get to be grumpy and point to "lack of evidence", "bad methology" etc. But the true believers will always believe that somewhere, around the next corner, awaits evidence that will prove what they have already concluded to be right. That is the beaty of making up you mind before examining all of the evidence and not trying to play devils advocate.
I think that being a believer (no matter what faith we are talking about) can be a rewarding way of life. But I dont think that we have liberty to chose such a fundamental part of our personality at will. I find comfort in that the sceptical view of the world at least helps in making science and understanding move forwards, if the sceptics are equally good at applying their scepticism in all directions.
-k
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is
possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something
is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
- Arthur C. Clarke's First Law
...What test methology allows me to conclude that there is no God?
Start here. God: The Failed Hypothesis (http://www.prometheusbooks.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=12)
What test methology can prove that there is no life on any other planets beside the earth?
You need to spend some time learning the basics of scientific enquiry. One starts with a hypothesis: methodology comes later.
...What test methology allows me to conclude that there is no God?
Start here. God: The Failed Hypothesis (http://www.prometheusbooks.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=12)
I have read Richard Dawkins "The God delusion" and Francis Collin's "The Language of God". Does your book contribute enough that I should read yet another book on this topic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_language_of_god (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_language_of_god)
What test methology can prove that there is no life on any other planets beside the earth?
You need to spend some time learning the basics of scientific enquiry. One starts with a hypothesis: methodology comes later.
Besides being rude, what can you contribute to this discussion? Did you really fail to see the point of my post?
Spelling it out: it seems highly improbably that mankind will ever be able to thoroughly investigating every single planet in the universe. Therefore we are left with two probable outcomes:
1) We find extra terrestial life, and can prove that life outside of our planet exists
2) We find no evidence of such life, but since we havent investigated all planets, we cant rule it out either.
Sadly, many phenomenons regarding human perception falls within the same cathegory. We can make all kinds of clever models, but proving that one audio cable when connecting two hifi components sounds*) exactly the same as another audio cable is very difficult. Proving that they sound different, however, can be done provided that we do the right testing (using methods that may or may not have been found yet).
-k
*)"Sounds" as in affecting the human organism in any way conducted as pressure variations in air or other media.
Apologies for seeming rude. You edited your post twice, I believe - before and after my reply. The point of your post is rather murky, perhaps.
You just edited a post again! (The reply to mine). Sheesh.
Apologies for seeming rude. You edited your post twice, I believe - before and after my reply. The point of your post is rather murky, perhaps.
I think he is trying to point out that we can't prove that something is not, only that something is.
.... We can make all kinds of clever models, but proving that one audio cable when connecting two hifi components sounds*) exactly the same as another audio cable is very difficult. Proving that they sound different, however, can be done provided that we do the right testing (using methods that may or may not have been found yet).
Indeed. Proving that two cables sound different can be done. In my experience, when two cables are shown to be different at an audible level, people who substitute faith/belief systems for proper science and engineering will often produce some whacko explanation, or resort to the old "trust your ears, science can't explain everything" cliche.
.... We can make all kinds of clever models, but proving that one audio cable when connecting two hifi components sounds*) exactly the same as another audio cable is very difficult. Proving that they sound different, however, can be done provided that we do the right testing (using methods that may or may not have been found yet).
Indeed. Proving that two cables sound different can be done. In my experience, when two cables are shown to be different at an audible level, people who substitute faith/belief systems for proper science and engineering will often produce some whacko explanation, or resort to the old "trust your ears, science can't explain everything" cliche.
I should have added that proving that two given cables sounds different also of course depends on there actually being some differences to prove.
-k
It requires a massive ego to assert that speaker cables effect sound because some people think speaker cables effect sound. Only a pure egotist could make such an illogical 'argument'.
It is an assertion i never made. You can burn that straw man as many times as you want but it won't change the fact that I have never said this or in any way implied it. It is not my problem if you do not understand the difference between actual sound and the perception of it.
I'm not going to take the bait for a pissing contest between objectivsts and subjectivists over who enjoys their stereo more. It is not my place to pass judgement on how well anybody enjoys their hobby.
It seems that the enjoyment of expensive cables somehow elicits a pretty strong emotional response in many who don't share that experience. Maybe you should explore what is behind that anger rather than worry about who is enjoying thier stereos more.
You've responded to my subjective observations by getting personal. Trust that I feel no anger, only a degree of pity, having perused post after foaming post of yours.
Why is this thread still open?
It hit the level of a typical usenet group several pages ago, and a quick glance suggests that it hasn't recovered.
(My apologies if I've missed some gem that adds to the world of audio knowledge).
Cheers,
David.
No, I think you more or less hit it. I got too tired to contribute a few pages ago - and I did my best to actually advance the conversation - but it seems like quite a few people are wishing to repeat years-old shouting matches instead.
Ironically, given the OP's tenure at AA, he's been notably silent through most of this.
Dear audiophiles,
please stop to listen to gear & cables and start listen to music.
It seems that the enjoyment of expensive cables somehow elicits a pretty strong emotional response in many who don't share that experience. Maybe you should explore what is behind that anger rather than worry about who is enjoying thier stereos more.
Wow. someone is projecting here.
Is it bad for people to spend thousands of dollars on placebo pills (assuming you guys are right and E is no better than C)?
That has never been the question that the experienced, serious contributors to this forum have been asking all along.
It is generally agreed upon by us that preference is individual, and it is what it is.
Our problem with the so-called "audiophile perspective" comes when people say strange things like
"I enjoy listening to LPs more than CDs because LPs generally sound more lifelike than CDs or any digital recordings. One reason for that is that they don't suffer from the bad effects of all that empty space between the samples".
BTW, this is a paraphrase of things that I've seen said on real audio forums by real persons. I'm not making these "audiophile perspective" talking points up.
The part about enjoyng LPs more than CDs isn't the problem. There's no accounting for taste or the lack of it.
If people think that Mogen David 20-20 is top quality wine and like drinking it, that is a choice they get to make.
The problems are the alleged reasons why, which are complete and total fantasies.
Lol i didn't expect this to turn into a discussion of god. I understand the point that you can't prove God or aliens or planets don't exist, but the question of whether a difference exists between sets of audio equipment, is quite different.
Soundwaves aren't subjective, only our perception of them. If we were to compare the soundwaves emitted by high-end equipment with super cables, to a mid-grade system with the factory cables, and saw that the waves were exactly the same in each nanometer of the wave, that would be scientific proof that no semi-rational audiophile could deny.
Conversely, if we did that experiment and saw that the waves were different, then we'd have to say that the audiophiles were right (depending on what the differences were, and whether they were relevant to sound quality).
Why is this thread still open?
Closing it is just going to cause the debate to move to another thread. Ignore this one until the flames die down. The arguments seem to be iterating towards a close.
....The problems are the alleged reasons why, which are complete and total fantasies.
Without being too melodramatic, I feel like a refugee who has found an island of sanity surrounded by sea of lunacy. This forum in general, and this thread in particular, offers some relief from the idiocy that is spouted daily on many sites.
At any given moment you can witness people reassuring each other on the benefits of cd demagnetizing and deep-freezing power cords, the musical qualities of amplifiers, the directionality of speaker cables. Should you dare ask for an explanation, even in the most neutral tone possible, you can expect many reactions - - none of which ever answer the question.
The magic is in the music, not in the gear. The science and engineering was settled long ago.
The magic is in the music, not in the gear.
I think I just found myself a new signature.
Without being too melodramatic, I feel like a refugee who has found an island of sanity surrounded by sea of lunacy. This forum in general, and this thread in particular, offers some relief from the idiocy that is spouted daily on many sites.
And in many magazines and newspapers as well...
Lol i didn't expect this to turn into a discussion of god. I understand the point that you can't prove God or aliens or planets don't exist, but the question of whether a difference exists between sets of audio equipment, is quite different.
Soundwaves aren't subjective, only our perception of them. If we were to compare the soundwaves emitted by high-end equipment with super cables, to a mid-grade system with the factory cables, and saw that the waves were exactly the same in each nanometer of the wave, that would be scientific proof that no semi-rational audiophile could deny.
Conversely, if we did that experiment and saw that the waves were different, then we'd have to say that the audiophiles were right (depending on what the differences were, and whether they were relevant to sound quality).
I am sorry if I went too far beyond topic with my philosophical tendencies.
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.
Using microphones and measurement equipment, we very seldomly find "two identical waves". If we think that we do, doing one more measurement of the same phenomenon might change our minds. What we find is numbers describing certain characteristics that we think is critical, and when comparing them we might conclude that to the best of our knowledge the difference should not matter when humans are to listening to the result.
Again, practical, pragmatic approaches lets you get results. Such as shipping a product, finishing you degree or even submitting a paper. But for dealing with absolutes such as "there is no difference, period", things gets cumbersome fast.
My point was that proving the opposite, that two stones
are different is a lot easier. We just need the luck/insight to measure the right characteristic, and any significant difference will disprove that they are the same (provided that we got the method and equipment right).
-k
...But for dealing with absolutes such as "there is no difference, period", things gets cumbersome fast.
(in defense of what I took as a
likely unintentional snub:)
I think it is safe to say that if and when a regular
contributor to HA makes an absolute statement (such as "there is no difference, period") it can reasonably be taken as shorthand for "there is no proven (and likely no provable) audible difference."
Considering that our ability to objectively measure audio with scientific instruments is orders of magnitude finer than our ability to measure audio with our bodies also means that discussing the limits of objective truth and coarseness of measurement technique is irrelevant. Our measurement techniques are
good enough. I will say this until someone can show me a proven
audible difference which is not also a
measurable difference.
...But for dealing with absolutes such as "there is no difference, period", things gets cumbersome fast.
(in defense of what I took as a likely unintentional snub:)
I think it is safe to say that if and when a regular contributor to HA makes an absolute statement (such as "there is no difference, period") it can reasonably be taken as shorthand for "there is no proven (and likely no provable) audible difference."
Considering that our ability to objectively measure audio with scientific instruments is orders of magnitude finer than our ability to measure audio with our bodies also means that discussing the limits of objective truth and coarseness of measurement technique is irrelevant. Our measurement techniques are good enough. I will say this until someone can show me a proven audible difference which is not also a measurable difference.
I guess that this topic has been thoruoughly covered now, and that everyone interested has read enough. I was referring to the quote below and it seems to me that anyone making a statement like that has a very different view from myself when it comes to measuring stuff to be used for audio reproduction. I think that in this context you simply cannot do measurements "alone" without connecting them to some implicit or explicit knowledge about human perceptions, as well as appreciating the (commonly very low level) of uncertainty in most of the observations we can make about the world around us.
If you match levels between two components to 0.1 dB instead of, say, 0.0001 dB, claiming that the levels are "equal" relies upon human perception not being able to distinguish level differences below 0.2 or 0.15 dB or whatever. If you measure an electronic component to have a flat frequency response to 100kHz, you say that it is "flat" in the context of humans not being able to hear frequencies at sensible sound levels above 20 kHz or something.
Very few things in the real world show a perfectly repeatable observed behaviour down to arbitray low levels of details, and even if they did, the instruments that we use to observe their behaviour is sure to introduce such randomness if we go low enough. And in practice, that very seldomly matters because we live in a macro-world where very many of the phenomena that affects us seems to be explained perfectly well without going into philosophical debates.
The confusion is complete when audiophiles grasp such convenient material to defend their strong beliefs without bothering to understand the whole story OR when sceptics/rationalists take shortcuts to seemingly prove what actually is quite hard to prove.
If we were to compare the soundwaves emitted by high-end equipment with super cables, to a mid-grade system with the factory cables, and saw that the waves were exactly the same in each nanometer of the wave, that would be scientific proof that no semi-rational audiophile could deny.
to me the original question had little to do with being an audiophile and everything to do with an expensive addiction, which the wife needs to treat it that way, figure out why hes really spending all this money on stuff, maybe take away temptations (Sterophile etc.) theres so many more important things then wasting all your money on a stereo, even if the benefits are real.
random other thoughts: he might be using it as an escape from something (back to the addiction hypothesis) he might be obsessive compulsive, im not sure and im not going to claim that i could even possibly know, but it sounds to me, just from the original post, that this is something a more serious then $1,000 cables, especially if its affecting his marrage
...and i find the idea of analog scott defending such destructive behavior as utterly repulsive. if he could demonstrate that people derive tangible benefit for their extravagant purchases beyond placebo it would be one thing, but he has pretty much indicated that he won't (can't).
...and i find the idea of analog scott defending such destructive behavior as utterly repulsive. if he could demonstrate that people derive tangible benefit for their extravagant purchases beyond placebo it would be one thing, but he has pretty much indicated that he won't (can't).
His position is an entirely logical conclusion to the premise that the tangible benefit of such purchases is 100% subjective. And such a premise, on its face, has significant merits. I disagree with it, but it's not something that can be easily dismissed.
It really doesn't seem like you've been reading his posts, especially the last ones (or the ones that were binned (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=74979)); 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.
A fascinating, new development amongst audiophiles recently, is the claim that they have done blind tests themselves to "prove" that they can indeed "hear" what they claim to hear. I have noticed this on several forums now. I think that this is a natural reaction to the realization of how absurd they look claiming to hear things under uncontrolled conditions as well as knowing that this is the only standard that people of normal mental health/scientifically literate will accept as evidence. Some of these fabrications are quite amusing to read . That said, Scott seems genuine and not liable to just make up stuff. He has stated repeatedly that he carries out blind tests of components he has interest in, as not to be influenced by psychological biases and only by the soundfield.
Here is a description of Scotts system (http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/3229.html).
Scott, this is the perfect forum to discuss blind testing, unlike the protective cocoon of AA from which you have ventured away from. I know you won't obfuscate here or make up any excuses to avoid direct discussion, so here goes:
Please describe the blind test methods you used to pick these sonically superior soundfield components (including wires, bricks and all the other doodahs) in your system. This should be extremely enlightening to all audio reproduction lovers here. The floor is yours .
cheers,
AJ
Soundwaves aren't subjective, only our perception of them. If we were to compare the soundwaves emitted by high-end equipment with super cables, to a mid-grade system with the factory cables, and saw that the waves were exactly the same in each nanometer of the wave, that would be scientific proof that no semi-rational audiophile could deny.
Conversely, if we did that experiment and saw that the waves were different, then we'd have to say that the audiophiles were right (depending on what the differences were, and whether they were relevant to sound quality).
No, the second paragraph above needs to be qualified with the proviso that the measured differences were of such nature and magnitude that it is indisputable that they would be audible. We can measure easily differences we cannot hear, as shown by decades of scientific investigation. Mere measured difference is not sufficient to establish audible differences.
A fascinating, new development amongst audiophiles recently, is the claim that they have done blind tests themselves to "prove" that they can indeed "hear" what they claim to hear. I have noticed this on several forums now. I think that this is a natural reaction to the realization of how absurd they look claiming to hear things under uncontrolled conditions as well as knowing that this is the only standard that people of normal mental health/scientifically literate will accept as evidence. Some of these fabrications are quite amusing to read . That said, Scott seems genuine and not liable to just make up stuff. He has stated repeatedly that he carries out blind tests of components he has interest in, as not to be influenced by psychological biases and only by the soundfield.
Here is a description of Scotts system (http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/3229.html).
Scott, this is the perfect forum to discuss blind testing, unlike the protective cocoon of AA from which you have ventured away from. I know you won't obfuscate here or make up any excuses to avoid direct discussion, so here goes:
Please describe the blind test methods you used to pick these sonically superior soundfield components (including wires, bricks and all the other doodahs) in your system. This should be extremely enlightening to all audio reproduction lovers here. The floor is yours .
cheers,
AJ
First the information provided by your link
Analog Scott's none System
IP Address: 207.200.116.11 Last Update: December 01, 2007 at 16:45:09
Amplifier: Audio Research D 115 Mk II (100watts all tube)
Preamplifier (or None if Integrated): Audio Research SP 10
Speakers: Sound Lab A3s, Vandersteen 2W subwoofer
Sources:
CD Player/DAC: Rotel
Turntable/Phono Stage: Forsell Air Reference with flywheel, Koetsu Rosewood Signature cartridge
Other Source(s): none
Other Accessories/Room/Misc.:
Speaker Cables/Interconnects: Audioquest Clear speaker cable, MIT Shotgun interconnects
Other (Power Conditioner, Racks etc.): Equitech 1.5Q line conditioner and Bybee pro filter
Tweaks: Aurios Pros under Subwoofer, Aurios 1.2 under 3/4 slab of acrylic under preamp, Aurios 1.0 under 2 one inch slabs of acrulic sandwiching seven home made discs of silicone elastomer with a shore hardness of 9, Tip Toes under power amp , VPI bricks over transformers on Martin Logans,
Room Size (LxWxH): 21' x 12' x 8.5'
Room Comments/Treatments: Speaker end of room is heavily damped with acoustic foam, listening end is difused with lots of records in shelves and collectables on display and plants. Floor is a concrete slab with carpet, ceiling is wood with beams running side to side every 3 feet.
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.
Speakers: Sound Lab A3s, Vandersteen 2W subwoofer
Couldn't find a practical method to do any comparisons blind. Although i actually did do a blind comparison between my previous speakers, the Martin Logan CLSs and the Apogee Duetta Signatures. That was a royal pain in the ass.
Sources:
CD Player/DAC: Rotel
Bought this without an audition because I got a great deal on it.
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.
Other Source(s): none
Other Accessories/Room/Misc.:
Speaker Cables/Interconnects: Audioquest Clear speaker cable, MIT Shotgun interconnects
Didn't do any blind comparisons for the speaker cables. Did an ambush blind test on my friend with the MITs with a positive result.
Other (Power Conditioner, Racks etc.): Equitech 1.5Q line conditioner and Bybee pro filter
Can't say that I ever heard any difference with the Bybee under sighted conditions. sold it for more than I bought it.
Tweaks: Aurios Pros under Subwoofer, Aurios 1.2 under 3/4 slab of acrylic under preamp, Aurios 1.0 under 2 one inch slabs of acrulic sandwiching seven home made discs of silicone elastomer with a shore hardness of 9, Tip Toes under power amp
Did five trials with the Aurios under the sub and under the TT. I quit afte five trials because the difference was just too obvious. Not so much so under the preamp. If there is a difference it is too subtle for me. sold those Aurios.
VPI bricks over transformers on Martin Logans,
This needs to be undated. I don't have the Martin Logans. Never did blind comparisons. I don't think the VPI bricks did anything that regular bricks can't do. They are now on my sub and make an obvious and meausrable difference in the vibration fo the cabinet.
Room Size (LxWxH): 21' x 12' x 8.5'
Room Comments/Treatments: Speaker end of room is heavily damped with acoustic foam, listening end is difused with lots of records in shelves and collectables on display and plants. Floor is a concrete slab with carpet, ceiling is wood with beams running side to side every 3 feet.
all room treatment was auditioned sighted. wish I could do it blind but found no practical means.
In all cases where I did some sort of blind comparisons I often did sighted comparisons first and always did sighted comparisons after.
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?
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
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?
I think it's time for this.
Perfect timing! Thank you.
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.
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 (http://rslspeakers.com/About/index.cfm?page=AboutHome)?
cheers,
AJ
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 (http://rslspeakers.com/About/index.cfm?page=AboutHome)?
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
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 (http://rslspeakers.com/About/index.cfm?page=AboutHome)?
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.
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!
.
.
.
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
@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?
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".
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.
@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.
It really doesn't seem like you've been reading his posts, especially the last ones (or the ones that were binned (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=74979)); 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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think you might have scared Scott away Arnold.
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 (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=general&n=219080&highlight=blind+Analog+Scott). 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 (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=general&n=450422&highlight=blind+Analog+Scott&r=)
On the viability of Scott's amateur, "Peer" less review (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=general&n=450843&highlight=blind+Analog+Scott)
Nice
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 (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=general&n=219080&highlight=blind+Analog+Scott). 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 (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=general&n=450422&highlight=blind+Analog+Scott&r=)
On the viability of Scott's amateur, "Peer" less review (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=general&n=450843&highlight=blind+Analog+Scott)
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?
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!
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.
...Also, I don't think I have ever met an audiophile who would object to a controlled, double blind test.
http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listen...ditorial?page=1 (http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial?page=1)
Blind Listening Tests are Flawed: An Editorial
...
The answer is that blind listening tests fundamentally distort the listening process and are worthless in determining the audibility of a certain phenomenon.
My two cents: Double-blind ABX tests are useless because they're aren't measuring what's important.
It doesn't matter if a person can identify whether X is A or B. What matters is how much pleasure they derive from A or B. A useful blind test would be to have a person enter in on a keypad how much they're enjoying the music (say on a 1-5 scale) from time to time. Whether they were listening to A or B wouldn't be known to them. Over time, if their scores indicated they were significantly happier when listening to A than B, then there is both a difference between A and B *for that person* and A is preferable. Extend it to a reasonable sample over a long enough period of time, and you may be able to conclude that most people enjoy listening to A more than B. More likely, you'll find some people consistently prefer A over B, but most people don't care.
I think audiophilia is fundamentally neurotic. Audiophiles hear things that irritate them that most people can't or aren't aware of. The irritation stirs them to do something about it. The great variation in equipment and cables suggests that people lack the tools to identify the source of the irritation, and so resort to trying lots of different things, each of which bring their own annoyances. Other people capitalize on it and voila, the audiophile market is born.
That said, I can hear the difference between my stereo speakers and my computer speakers. I usually, yet not always, prefer the former to the latter, but some recordings sound best in a car at high speed. Most of my friends say, however, there's not much of difference, and they don't care.
When I played sax, I could tell the difference between types of reeds and whether the ligature was tightened on the top or bottom. The vast majority of people can't; most can't tell the difference between a tenor or an alto playing the same note. Few could identify which was which in a blind test.
But that doesn't prove doodly even if you publish it in the AES Journal.
My two cents: Double-blind ABX tests are useless because they're aren't measuring what's important.
Hold it right there. You're fundamentally missing the point. Double-blind tests prove exactly one thing: that there is a perceptible difference between two (or more) choices, and it quantifies the likelihood that the difference was actually perceived and not just the result of random guessing.
The usefulness of DBT is when comparing two pieces of hardware that are supposed to sound identical. This had critical implications when developing MP3, as the aim of the development was to produce a signal that was indistinguishable from the original. Around this premise, Hydrogenaudio was born. Keeping that in mind, we require that all statements about audio quality be scientifically-verifiable. If you don't want to play by those rules, you can leave and enjoy your audio as much as you like.
My two cents: Double-blind ABX tests are useless because they're aren't measuring what's important.
It doesn't matter if a person can identify whether X is A or B. What matters is how much pleasure they derive from A or B. A useful blind test would be to have a person enter in on a keypad how much they're enjoying the music (say on a 1-5 scale) from time to time. ...
How can B give me more enjoyment than A if I cant distinguish them?
-k
Actually, his confusion is between ABX tests and AB tests, which have entirely different objectives, but both are double-blind. ABX determines whether a difference is audible, and AB determines whether the difference is audible and ranks them in terms of perceived quality.
My quibbling cent and a half for your two cents: what's important really depends on the context.
If you're concerned about determining whether perceived differences in A and B are actually present in the audio (which seems to be the remit of most people around here), then an ABX test is clearly the way to go. They're not measuring preference, since that's not what they're designed to do, any more than you'd use a thermometer to take someone's pulse (much less to determine whether they have a headache or not). That doesn't make them useless, it makes them a specific tool for a specific task. Whether an ABX test is useful to you is determined by how useful that task is to you. If you're testing for what "most people" enjoy, then obviously your testing methodology is going to be different.
I'm guessing that EveAnnaHatesMyAmps read some disinformation at some other site and is parroting it here. He needs to become better informed before he can post intelligently at HA.
That's why I post here very little. I don't know enough to add to the discussions/debates.
I don't post here that often myself (and I mostly confine myself to the foobar2000 forums when I do), but I think that this is probably the wrong approach. Instead of being afraid to say something because you don't know enough, say it anyway and be willing to learn. What's the worst that could happen? (This is mostly directed at myself, you understand.)
Hold it right there. You're fundamentally missing the point. Double-blind tests prove exactly one thing: that there is a perceptible difference between two (or more) choices, and it quantifies the likelihood that the difference was actually perceived and not just the result of random guessing.
No: it asks the audience to *identify* the difference. People experience all sorts of things which they can't say they're aware of at a conscious level, and yet it alters their behavior. If their behavior is altered in a statistically significant and repeatable way, then there is a perceived difference (at the sensory level) whether they can state it or not.
If you played some music and videotaped the people listening to it, and while listening to B the people consistently moved (tapped toes, bobbed heads) more frequently (in a way that was unlikely by chance) as when listening to A, there is a significant objective difference between A and B. If people get up and dance to A but not to B, there's a difference.
Whether they can state the difference doesn't matter.
If people get up and dance to A but not to B, there's a difference.
Ah, so we're measuring(?) danceability now, are we....?
No: it asks the audience to *identify* the difference.
Incorrect. Double-blind tests are used, in scientific language, to invalidate the null hypothesis. In real-world language, that's roughly what I said: to provide statistical evidence for a difference between two or more things. Double-blind tests do not require the audience to identify anything. It's the tester that confirms or denies whether a difference existed.
If you played some music and videotaped the people listening to it, and while listening to B the people consistently moved (tapped toes, bobbed heads) more frequently (in a way that was unlikely by chance) as when listening to A, there is a significant objective difference between A and B.
How are you defining a single trial here? Are you playing two tracks, one after the other, while varying the order of A and B? There's no testing methodology listed, so I cannot confirm that what you've described is a valid double-blind test.
You've got a very skewed view of what double-blind testing means, and I'd appreciate it if you'd keep further disinformation off this board.
My two cents: Double-blind ABX tests are useless because they're aren't measuring what's important.
That's your first mistake - ABX tests don't measure anything. All they can tell is whether or not two things sound different. If ABX tests measured anything, they would measure how much things sound different, but they don't do that. They don't even try.
If sounding different was a glass of water, ABX tests could not tell how full the glass was. All they can do is tell you that the glass has something between a bit of condensation in in it and full.
It doesn't matter if a person can identify whether X is A or B.
ABX tests don't require people to identify whether X is A or B. All they require people to do is guess whether they think X sounds more like A or B, given that X is either A or B.
What matters is how much pleasure they derive from A or B.
What does it mean if people get more pleasure from A or B, but yet they can't hear any difference between A and B?
Obviously, it means that any difference in pleasure that they receive does not come from any audible difference between A and B.
That can be a very definate real world situation, but it is a completely different matter than saying that A "sounds better" than B or vice versa, right?
How many time have you heard someone say: "I like A more than B because A sounds better than B", or "Buy this, it sounds better"?
An ABX test can help determine the truth of those two statements. You do know that it is not a given that everything everybody says is exactly true, right?
Instead of being afraid to say something because you don't know enough, say it anyway and be willing to learn. What's the worst that could happen? (This is mostly directed at myself, you understand.)
If your posts are too stupid, we trace your IP address back to where you work or live and dispatch the men in black helicopters with black suits and big fearsome-looking weapons! ;-)
ABX tests don't measure anything. All they can tell is whether or not two things sound different. If ABX tests measured anything, they would measure how much things sound different, but they don't do that. They don't even try.
I'm not quite sure I'd word things that way. They
do "measure" (or maybe "calculate" would be better here) the statistical likelihood that two things sound different.
If people get up and dance to A but not to B, there's a difference.
Ah, so we're measuring(?) danceability now, are we....?
That one was just
too easy .
At least we finally know what danceability is.
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.
If you need to 'meet' them, simply peruse the Audio Asylum or Stereophile forums. There really are audiophiles who believe DBTs 'don't work'.
My two cents: Double-blind ABX tests are useless because they're aren't measuring what's important.
That's your first mistake - ABX tests don't measure anything.
Sure they do. They literally measure the subject's success at identifying A and B. That is the raw data that comes out of an ABX: number of correct identifications.
btw, I second 2bdecided's idea of an entry test.
A useful blind test would be to have a person enter in on a keypad how much they're enjoying the music (say on a 1-5 scale) from time to time. Whether they were listening to A or B wouldn't be known to them. Over time, if their scores indicated they were significantly happier when listening to A than B, then there is both a difference between A and B *for that person* and A is preferable.
We have such a test (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=ABC/HR) already. While I'm surprised others have not told you this, I'm not all that surprised that you don't know about it, based on the level of understanding of blind testing you've demonstrated so far.
Audiophiles hear things that irritate them that most people can't or aren't aware of.
Sure, and in many instances they only think they hear things that irritate them. Without a double-blind test you really can't know if you're mind is playing tricks on you, regardless of how discriminating you think you are.
That said, I can hear the difference between my stereo speakers and my computer speakers.
...and you can probably ABX them; I know I can with mine. So?
When I played sax, I could tell the difference between types of reeds and whether the ligature was tightened on the top or bottom.
Yep, and I can tell the difference between the sound of various electric guitar pickups. It doesn't mean that I can hear the difference between a listening environment with and without magic rocks, and I doubt you can either.
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.
Sure, I'll help you out
Posted by Analog Scott (A ) on August 5, 2002 at 17:45:08
In Reply to: Are you serious?? posted by BrassMonkey on August 5, 2002 at 09:20:02:
I think it would be interesting if you were to document this in double blind listening tests and show it to the folks who are in the "objectivist" camp. I've never bothered with such tests myself.
What exactly does the last sentence mean? Is the word "double" your escape clause? Why did you not mention that you had performed single blind tests right then and there. Or anywhere in the next few years? Did you forget? Or had you not concocted the story yet to justify buying your audio jewelry?
Is it that I am a "makeup artist" and you are simply amused by the pun?
Yes and yes. Given your propensities.
What is it that you think you have uncovered?
You tell us . Let's pretend Scott did "blind" tests at RSL (unverifiable) and in Hong Kong (unverifiable). Of the "home brew" variety (your words).
Posted by Analog Scott (A ) on August 20, 2006 at 13:23:54
In Reply to: It’s still better than sighted listening tests posted by Caymus on August 20, 2006 at 11:46:08:
I am not against home brewed blind tests. I worry that some may think they have more validity or offer more universal truth than they actually do. I am not convinced at all that for the purposes of audiophilia that home brewed blind tests are at all better than sighted ones.
Posted by Analog Scott (A ) on August 23, 2006 at 10:48:20
In Reply to: "Until it passes peer review in a scientific journal it's just another anecdote" posted by Richard BassNut Greene on August 23, 2006 at 10:15:02:
Sorry but scientifically speaking you have peer reviewed evidence and you have junk. There is no inbetween. That some "objectivists" would represent their anecdotes as scientifically valid despite the utter and complete lack of peer review says more about their disregard for real science in the name of a cause than anything it tells us about audio.
"Add this evidence to other evidence collected from other experiments to reach a reasonable conclusion."
No. You just get more junk piled on old junk. If you want to see a real big pile of such junk look into ufo sightings and alien abductions. Ask any real scientist the value of "evidence" that has not been published in a real peer reviewed scientific journal and they will all tell you the same thing. Nothing. Nothing + nothing = nothing. Nothing x 10,000 = nothing. The math is real simple.
Is your dilemma a bit clearer now?
cheers,
AJ
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.
Sure, I'll help you out
Posted by Analog Scott (A ) on August 5, 2002 at 17:45:08
In Reply to: Are you serious?? posted by BrassMonkey on August 5, 2002 at 09:20:02:
I think it would be interesting if you were to document this in double blind listening tests and show it to the folks who are in the "objectivist" camp. I've never bothered with such tests myself.
What exactly does the last sentence mean? Is the word "double" your escape clause? Why did you not mention that you had performed single blind tests right then and there. Or anywhere in the next few years? Did you forget? Or had you not concocted the story yet to justify buying your audio jewelry?
Is it that I am a "makeup artist" and you are simply amused by the pun?
Yes and yes. Given your propensities.
What is it that you think you have uncovered?
You tell us . Let's pretend Scott did "blind" tests at RSL (unverifiable) and in Hong Kong (unverifiable). Of the "home brew" variety (your words).
Posted by Analog Scott (A ) on August 20, 2006 at 13:23:54
In Reply to: It’s still better than sighted listening tests posted by Caymus on August 20, 2006 at 11:46:08:
I am not against home brewed blind tests. I worry that some may think they have more validity or offer more universal truth than they actually do. I am not convinced at all that for the purposes of audiophilia that home brewed blind tests are at all better than sighted ones.
Posted by Analog Scott (A ) on August 23, 2006 at 10:48:20
In Reply to: "Until it passes peer review in a scientific journal it's just another anecdote" posted by Richard BassNut Greene on August 23, 2006 at 10:15:02:
Sorry but scientifically speaking you have peer reviewed evidence and you have junk. There is no inbetween. That some "objectivists" would represent their anecdotes as scientifically valid despite the utter and complete lack of peer review says more about their disregard for real science in the name of a cause than anything it tells us about audio.
"Add this evidence to other evidence collected from other experiments to reach a reasonable conclusion."
No. You just get more junk piled on old junk. If you want to see a real big pile of such junk look into ufo sightings and alien abductions. Ask any real scientist the value of "evidence" that has not been published in a real peer reviewed scientific journal and they will all tell you the same thing. Nothing. Nothing + nothing = nothing. Nothing x 10,000 = nothing. The math is real simple.
Is your dilemma a bit clearer now?
cheers,
AJ
"My dilemma?" So because I understand the limited merits of my single blind tests, something that I have been nothing less than clear about on this thread, that is evidence that I didn't do them at all? I don't see the logic in that. However I do see the desperation in it. I mean all those hours you spent digging in audio forums through my posts throughout the years..... You had to come up with something didn't you? ::chuckle:: So the admission that I have never done DBTs was the big "gotcha" eh? Hmmmm. I think I have been more than clear about the fact that my blind comparisons have all been single blind. My humility about the scientific validity of my single blind tests and my opinions about the relative merits of home brewed blind tests in general in the eyes of science and the admission that I have never done DBTs (something I have never claimed to have done) proves that I "made up" my blind comparisons?
I think your best argument was the pun.
thanks for the chuckle though.
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.
Sure, I'll help you out
Posted by Analog Scott (A ) on August 5, 2002 at 17:45:08
In Reply to: Are you serious?? posted by BrassMonkey on August 5, 2002 at 09:20:02:
I think it would be interesting if you were to document this in double blind listening tests and show it to the folks who are in the "objectivist" camp. I've never bothered with such tests myself.
What exactly does the last sentence mean? Is the word "double" your escape clause? Why did you not mention that you had performed single blind tests right then and there. Or anywhere in the next few years? Did you forget? Or had you not concocted the story yet to justify buying your audio jewelry?
Is it that I am a "makeup artist" and you are simply amused by the pun?
Yes and yes. Given your propensities.
What is it that you think you have uncovered?
You tell us . Let's pretend Scott did "blind" tests at RSL (unverifiable) and in Hong Kong (unverifiable). Of the "home brew" variety (your words).
Posted by Analog Scott (A ) on August 20, 2006 at 13:23:54
In Reply to: It’s still better than sighted listening tests posted by Caymus on August 20, 2006 at 11:46:08:
I am not against home brewed blind tests. I worry that some may think they have more validity or offer more universal truth than they actually do. I am not convinced at all that for the purposes of audiophilia that home brewed blind tests are at all better than sighted ones.
Posted by Analog Scott (A ) on August 23, 2006 at 10:48:20
In Reply to: "Until it passes peer review in a scientific journal it's just another anecdote" posted by Richard BassNut Greene on August 23, 2006 at 10:15:02:
Sorry but scientifically speaking you have peer reviewed evidence and you have junk. There is no inbetween. That some "objectivists" would represent their anecdotes as scientifically valid despite the utter and complete lack of peer review says more about their disregard for real science in the name of a cause than anything it tells us about audio.
"Add this evidence to other evidence collected from other experiments to reach a reasonable conclusion."
No. You just get more junk piled on old junk. If you want to see a real big pile of such junk look into ufo sightings and alien abductions. Ask any real scientist the value of "evidence" that has not been published in a real peer reviewed scientific journal and they will all tell you the same thing. Nothing. Nothing + nothing = nothing. Nothing x 10,000 = nothing. The math is real simple.
Is your dilemma a bit clearer now?
cheers,
AJ
Not clear at all. In all that digging through my old posts over the years on various forums you found what? Let's look at the quotes you cite without your color comentary and see what they mean.
"I think it would be interesting if you were to document this in double blind listening tests and show it to the folks who are in the "objectivist" camp. I've never bothered with such tests myself."
"I am not against home brewed blind tests. I worry that some may think they have more validity or offer more universal truth than they actually do. I am not convinced at all that for the purposes of audiophilia that home brewed blind tests are at all better than sighted ones"
"Sorry but scientifically speaking you have peer reviewed evidence and you have junk. There is no inbetween. That some "objectivists" would represent their anecdotes as scientifically valid despite the utter and complete lack of peer review says more about their disregard for real science in the name of a cause than anything it tells us about audio."
"No. You just get more junk piled on old junk. If you want to see a real big pile of such junk look into ufo sightings and alien abductions. Ask any real scientist the value of "evidence" that has not been published in a real peer reviewed scientific journal and they will all tell you the same thing. Nothing. Nothing + nothing = nothing. Nothing x 10,000 = nothing. The math is real simple"
So in a nut shell you found that I have never done double blind tests, I'm not against home brewed tests but think that some audiophiles may give them more credibility than they deserve and that I acknowledge the lack of scientific validity and the anecdotal nature of home brewed tests. Oh and I am not sure that the home brewed blind tests are any more valuable than sighted ones.
Now let's look at my comments on this thread about my blind comparisons.
"The vast majority of my comparisons these days is between various masterings of my favorite recordings. No question that different masterings sound different but which sound better? There are plenty of "beliefs," rules of thumb," and other influences to make me biased going into any such comparison. Soooo I like to do my first comparisons undr blind conditions. this will give me an unbiased preference. Then I will compare under sighted conditions but with the knowledge of what my preference was under blind conditions. In the end whatever mastering is chosen will be listened to under sighted conditions. That is why my final auditions are also done under sighted conditions. But at least it is done with the full knowledge of what my unbiased pereference was. IMO that will probably have some effect on my biases. "
"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."
" i actually did do a blind comparison between my previous speakers, the Martin Logan CLSs and the Apogee Duetta Signatures. That was a royal pain in the ass."
"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."
"Did five trials with the Aurios under the sub and under the TT. I quit afte five trials because the difference was just too obvious. Not so much so under the preamp. If there is a difference it is too subtle for me. sold those Aurios."
"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? "
QUOTE (pdq @ Sep 23 2009, 16:43)
@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. "
So what do we find here, that none of my tests were double blind, that I acknowledge the anecdotal nature of them and that I also do sighted tests because I think they are also meaningful, as meaningful as my home brewed bind comparisons actually. And I acknowledge the lack of scientific validity of home brewed tests.
What was my dilemma again?
Sorry but scientifically speaking you have peer reviewed evidence and you have junk.
No, there's peer-review
able evidence and there's junk. Anyway, do continue
Audiophiles, golden ear's, and snake oil peddlers are against DBT's becuase that is the final outcome that proves them wrong. One can prove the high end wrong with measurements and as I have done with pictures of the internal hardware but they will ignore that, when they fail a DBT they can no longer ignore that and that is what makes them act like children.
What was my dilemma again?
The need to double respond to my post .
You had clearly forgotten about your circa 2002 admission on never performing blind tests - when you decided to make up the whole Yamaha/ARC blind comp at RSL tale circa 2005(?). But that's ok. We know you like to just make up stuff in a futile attempt to support beliefs . What you have also admitted, is that even if your tale had been true, it would have been completely invalid in determining anything related to the soundfield.
So here is your chance to come clean audiophile Scott. What is the real reason you bought all that audio jewelry and VPI brick type doo-dahs in your listed system?
We know that it was not due to any perceived improvement in the soundfield from any blind listening tests whatsoever...so what was it?
cheers,
AJ
What was my dilemma again?
The need to double respond to my post .
For some reason my posts have been taking more than a day to appear after I post them. I figured the first draft might have been too harsh and was somehow rejected. so I simply posted a second, kinder gentler response. I didn't expect both to show up a day later. But they essentially say the same thing.
You had clearly forgotten about your circa 2002 admission on never performing blind tests - when you decided to make up the whole Yamaha/ARC blind comp at RSL tale circa 2005(?). But that's ok.
Now who is "making things up?" The so called "admission" was that I have never done any *double blind* tests. Just because I knew then and know now that my blind comparisons over the years have never been double blind does not mean I made them up. Given that I have made that clear in not one but two responses it is pretty dishonest of you to claim I admitted having never done any sort of blind comparisons including single blind ones. I am terribly sorry that the facts didn't work out for you on this one. I know you did a lot of work to come up with such a great gotcha.
We know you like to just make up stuff in a futile attempt to support beliefs .
Believe what you want. Clearly you will do so despite the very facts you spent hours upon hours digging up.
What you have also admitted, is that even if your tale had been true, it would have been completely invalid in determining anything related to the soundfield.
What *I* have also admitted? Please don't confuse your denial of the facts followed by your mis-interpretation of them as any admission on my part. I have never been anything but clear and consistant about everything from the begining. I have neither mis-stated the facts about my blind comparisons nor have I misrepresented their meaning or merits. I am sorry that all that sleuth work didn't pan out for you. Your time might have been better spent reading up on room acoustics.
So here is your chance to come clean audiophile Scott. What is the real reason you bought all that audio jewelry and VPI brick type doo-dahs in your listed system?
I have already covered that. It is not my problem it doesn't jive with your belief system.
We know that it was not due to any perceived improvement in the soundfield from any blind listening tests whatsoever...so what was it?
cheers,
AJ
Of course you "know" that. You "knew" that before you knew anything about me or my blind comparisons. Your MO is quite common among those who have already decided they have a monopoly on the absolute truth. If something doesn't fit it must be attacked or denied, facts be damned.
Audiophiles, golden ear's, and snake oil peddlers are against DBT's becuase that is the final outcome that proves them wrong. ...
How do you think that any DBT can
prove an audiophile wrong?
-k
@knutinh
How do you think that any DBT can prove an audiophile wrong?
This thread looks like a debate of believers vs atheist , at the end.
Do you have faith on what you believe the best for your ears ?
Is the word "double" your escape clause? Why did you not mention that you had performed single blind tests right then and there?
The so called "admission" was that I have never done any *double blind* tests.
Ah yes, as predicted. And you of course just "forgot" to mention having done single blind in that response and throughout 2002-2004, yes?
Ok, you'll at least admit that there is no evidence of you having done any blind tests whatsoever, other than the claims you started making up around 2004?
Why do you assert having done "home brewed" blind tests of your equipment (some) if:
Posted by Analog Scott (A ) on August 23, 2006 at 10:48:20
In Reply to: "Until it passes peer review in a scientific journal it's just another anecdote" posted by Richard BassNut Greene on August 23, 2006 at 10:15:02:
Sorry but scientifically speaking you have peer reviewed evidence and you have junk. There is no inbetween. That some "objectivists" would represent their anecdotes as scientifically valid despite the utter and complete lack of peer review says more about their disregard for real science in the name of a cause than anything it tells us about audio.
"Add this evidence to other evidence collected from other experiments to reach a reasonable conclusion."
No. You just get more junk piled on old junk. If you want to see a real big pile of such junk look into ufo sightings and alien abductions. Ask any real scientist the value of "evidence" that has not been published in a real peer reviewed scientific journal and they will all tell you the same thing. Nothing. Nothing + nothing = nothing. Nothing x 10,000 = nothing. The math is real simple.
How does that justify or validate your decision to buy the audio jewelry ARC over the imaginary Yamaha? Using "junk" "Nothing" tests (
your words), you decided the ARC sounded better than the imaginary Yamaha? Even for a fabrication, a bit contradictory no?
What about the wires, bricks and all the other costly doo-dahs? On what valid basis were they, like the ARC, really purchased?
Now when I saw the ARC equipment I have to admit it looked very formidable
I think we both know, but like admitting to making stuff up...
cheers,
AJ
Is the word "double" your escape clause? Why did you not mention that you had performed single blind tests right then and there?
The so called "admission" was that I have never done any *double blind* tests.
Ah yes, as predicted. And you of course just "forgot" to mention having done single blind in that response and throughout 2002-2004, yes?
Why would I mention single blind comparisons of electronics, turntables and various masterings to someone when suggesting that they do double blind tests of cables? I didn't mention that I have never sky dived or that I like Godzilla movies either. Why would I bring up irrelevant information?
Ok, you'll at least admit that there is no evidence of you having done any blind tests whatsoever, other than the claims you started making up around 2004?
Why would I admit that?
Why do you assert having done "home brewed" blind tests of your equipment (some) if:
Posted by Analog Scott (A ) on August 23, 2006 at 10:48:20
In Reply to: "Until it passes peer review in a scientific journal it's just another anecdote" posted by Richard BassNut Greene on August 23, 2006 at 10:15:02:
Sorry but scientifically speaking you have peer reviewed evidence and you have junk. There is no inbetween. That some "objectivists" would represent their anecdotes as scientifically valid despite the utter and complete lack of peer review says more about their disregard for real science in the name of a cause than anything it tells us about audio.
"Add this evidence to other evidence collected from other experiments to reach a reasonable conclusion."
No. You just get more junk piled on old junk. If you want to see a real big pile of such junk look into ufo sightings and alien abductions. Ask any real scientist the value of "evidence" that has not been published in a real peer reviewed scientific journal and they will all tell you the same thing. Nothing. Nothing + nothing = nothing. Nothing x 10,000 = nothing. The math is real simple.
How does that justify or validate your decision to buy the audio jewelry ARC over the imaginary Yamaha? Using "junk" "Nothing" tests (your words), you decided the ARC sounded better than the imaginary Yamaha? Even for a fabrication, a bit contradictory no?
Nope, There are no contradictions. I made my assertions because you asked and I gave honest answers. There is no conflict where you percieve one because I haven't confused my auditions of components and recordings with scientific research. Is it really all that hard to understand that while I find my auditions informative I don't give them more merit than they deserve? I can give you a list of my favorite restaurants that I have "auditioned" only under sighted conditions. I wouldn't ever claim that my opinions on restaurants were "scientific" but they were appropriately informed opinions. I never said my blind comparisons were "junk and nothing." I said such evidence is junk in the world of scientific research because it is in effect anecdotal. I have made it clear always that I consider my blind comparisons to be anecdotal in nature. Is it really all that hard to tell the difference between scientific research and hobbyist audition processes? Is it really all that hard to understand why a subjective opinion can be reasonably formed about aesthetic experiences while scientific conclusions can not? By the way, how did you come to the conclusion that the Yamaha was imaginary? Where do you come up with this stuff? That one is just weird.
What about the wires, bricks and all the other costly doo-dahs? On what valid basis were they, like the ARC, really purchased?
Again, I have already answered these questions.
Now when I saw the ARC equipment I have to admit it looked very formidable
I think we both know, but like admitting to making stuff up...
cheers,
AJ
We have already covered the MO of folks who believe they have some monopoly on the absolute truth. It follows that you would think we both know whatever it is you believe. Unless you have something more to offer than misinterpretations of non=conflicting statements you have dug up over the years isn't it time to make peace with the fact that you found nothing? Heck I am kinda surpised that everything has been so consistant. You'd think with the unreliability of memory that I would have made more errors in reporting past events. Maybe another 100 hours of research will turn up something. But I still contend you will do yourself a great deal more good spending that time on something like reading up on room acoustics. I highly recomend Ethan's website on the subject.
This thread looks like a debate of believers vs atheist , at the end.
Do you have faith on what you believe the best for your ears ?
Comparing this to an issue of faith is much too pat, not to mention belittling towards religion. Among other things, religion is prompted/underpinned by the ultimate existential question: Why is there something instead of nothing?
Audiophiles have no such intangible to explain -- in lieu of one, they make one up!
edit: i'd better add an emoticon...
@knutinh
How do you think that any DBT can prove an audiophile wrong?
This thread looks like a debate of believers vs atheist , at the end.
Do you have faith on what you believe the best for your ears ?
Aside from it being convenient to do so, why should you believe your ears? It's very easy to 'fool' them. I could probably make your 'ears' think the exact same piece of gear sounded 'best' or 'worst' of set, depending on how I manipulated the comparison conditions. It's also very common for ears to hear things that aren't really there. I was part of a remarkable demonstration yesterday at the AES convention where Poppy Crum of Johns Hopkins showe dus how our ears 'fill in' missing information -- or even add 'meaning' when there is none, depedning on what cues are coming from other senses. The latter example involved playing part of 'Stairway to heaven' forwards (with lyrics shown), then backwards (no lyrics, it sounded like gibberish), then again showing the 'backwards' lyrics about Satanism -- suddenly the gibberish sounded like the words. It was uncanny. Though of course nothing about the sound itself changed.
Aside from it being convenient to do so, why should you believe your ears? It's very easy to 'fool' them. I could probably make your 'ears' think the exact same piece of gear sounded 'best' or 'worst' of set, depending on how I manipulated the comparison conditions. It's also very common for ears to hear things that aren't really there.
Indeed, this fact makes stereo sound possible. Unless you have center speakers, there is no sound coming from between the stereo pair. It all comes from the right or the left. So "hearing things that aren't there" makes our hobby economically feasible in the first place, for otherwise to hear the illusion of an orchestra in our homes would require more than a hundred channels and as many speakers as channels.
Indeed, this fact makes stereo sound possible. Unless you have center speakers, there is no sound coming from between the stereo pair. It all comes from the right or the left. So "hearing things that aren't there" makes our hobby economically feasible in the first place, for otherwise to hear the illusion of an orchestra in our homes would require more than a hundred channels and as many speakers as channels.
Probably not quite that many. I think Tomlinson Holman says it's more like 13.
@krabapple
Aside from it being convenient to do so, why should you believe your ears? It's very easy to 'fool' them.
Same things for the eyes with optical illusions.
But "biologically" , that's impossible to stop trusting your eyes/ears, because you rely every day on them. You believe your ears "instinctively".
@Ed Seedhouse
Indeed, this fact makes stereo sound possible. Unless you have center speakers, there is no sound coming from between the stereo pair.
Because you have two ears, and we only need two slightly different source, to recreate the "3D image" of the sound in the brain. There's no reason to perceive what could be between,
unless you got three ears. No imagination is involved here, that's the limit of how we perceive sound.
We could say same things for colors: we can recreate every colors by blending
r,g,b components, but other animals might see thing differently.
I've read once that the gray shrimp would need
11 components to recreate the colors it is able to see.
Does it mean that all the colors we see are "fake" ?
This thread looks like a debate of believers vs atheist , at the end.
Do you have faith on what you believe the best for your ears ?
Comparing this to an issue of faith is much too pat, not to mention belittling towards religion. Among other things, religion is prompted/underpinned by the ultimate existential question: Why is there something instead of nothing?
Audiophiles have no such intangible to explain -- in lieu of one, they make one up!
edit: i'd better add an emoticon...
Oh, I think it's entirely appropriate, especially as the audiophile belief system seems to have replaced religious belief systems among the boomers who make up audiophile buyers. They have their tenets of belief, their mysteries, their sacred texts, their adherents, their zealots, their sects, their priests and their lay preachers.
Ever tried arguing that their cables might not make a difference to one of these guys in a forum? That's not defending an expensive purchase, you are zoning in on their belief system. At the very least, it's like wearing the wrong team colors at an English soccer match. At worst, you keep expecting Torquemada to pitch in and have you burned for your heretical views.
That being said, I think we sometimes quote from Floyd Toole's book like it was scripture too, so maybe we're just as bad...
So "hearing things that aren't there" makes our hobby economically feasible in the first place, for otherwise to hear the illusion of an orchestra in our homes would require more than a hundred channels and as many speakers as channels.
Probably not quite that many. I think Tomlinson Holman says it's more like 13.
13 woudn't be enough if not for the phantom image illusion. Well, I suppose 4 would be enough for a quartet, but for any large ensemble you'd need one channel and one speaker for each player if not for phantom images. And the sound of the hall would not be transferable at all, really.
And of course pan potted effects used by rock bands and the like wouldn't work at all. there goes Dark Side of the Moon...
Because you have two ears, and we only need two slightly different source, to recreate the "3D image" of the sound in the brain. There's no reason to perceive what could be between,
unless you got three ears. No imagination is involved here, that's the limit of how we perceive sound.
Frankly I have no idea what you are talking about there. The fact is that if you hear a stereo image you are hearing an illusion. If two speakers playing the same signal seem to you to produce a single signal coming from the air between them, that it an illusion. Without it we could not have stereo in our homes, so it is a beneficent one, but an illusion non the less.
If you are viewing this on a screen you are seeing another illusion, since no matter how it may look there are actually no letters in front of your eyes. There are only unconnected dots or, in the case of a CRT, one dot only.
The letters you appear to see (presuming you can see of course) are another illusion.
@Ed Seedhouse
I think you are making an inadequate use of the word illusion.
What you can't see or hear, can't be called illusion.
You hear a "stereo image", because it would be biologically impossible
to hear something else. An illusion is a deformed perception.
For instance a straight line that appear curved , that's what I call an illusion.
Often technology is exploiting the limit of our perceptions,
because there's no need to reproduce things you can't hear or see anyways.
@Ed Seedhouse
I think you are making an inadequate use of the word illusion.
What you can't see or hear, can't be called illusion.
You hear a "stereo image", because it would be biologically impossible
to hear something else. An illusion is a deformed perception.
For instance a straight line that appear curved , that's what I call an illusion.
Often technology is exploiting the limit of our perceptions,
because there's no need to reproduce things you can't hear or see anyways.
It's been called the "stereo illusion" for many years and that wasn't started by me. Your point about "biologically impossible" is nonsense because there are in fact people in the population with perfectly good hearing but who don't hear the illusion. They just hear two independent sources.
If you want to be understood by others it's usually a good idea to use words with their normal senses.
Illusion: "an erroneous mental representation" (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn), which describes things exactly. As Wikipedia says in the article under "Stereo": "Stereophonic sound attempts to create an
illusion of location for various sound sources".
@Ed Seedhouse
If you want to be understood by others it's usually a good idea to use words with their normal senses.
Sorry, I've been relying on the definition provided by wikipedia:
An illusion is a distortion of the senses, revealing how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation [etc.. etc...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion)
In fact I was relying first on the french definition in wikipedia:
Une illusion est une perception déformée d'un sens.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion)
Which could roughly be translated by deformed perception.
I don't consider that hearing stereo from two sources an illusion, but if the expression "stereo illusion" has been used for many years, I can't fight this.
When your eyes are squinting , you see two separate images; and I wouldn't be accusing people seeing a single image being victim of an illusion.
If people are able to not hear stereo , while other people hear stereo; it's hard to tell if it's either a limitation of how their brain interpret things (unable to recreate the 3d sound image) , or that they have beyond average abilities.
Sorry, I've been relying on the definition provided by wikipedia:
An illusion is a distortion of the senses, revealing how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation [etc.. etc...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion)
The Wikipedia definition is OK, and it goes on to say : "While illusions distort reality, they are generally shared by most people.".
The phantom image illusion is certainly a distortion of the reality caused by our senses. So is hearing a voice talking where actually there's just a vibrating membrane of paper, plastic, or metal. There's no little man inside the TV, you know? Nobody is up there on the movie screen and no images are moving, either. These are all illusions - useful ones now that we know about them.
The point is that we've learned through scientific methods just how our senses do in fact often delude us, and we have instruments that can prove that these are illusions. Our knowledge allows us to reliably fool our senses for entertainment purposes.
One thing we have discovered is that often two identical sounds will sound different to us, and also we know that two signals can be measurably different yet not be distinguishable to our ears. So simply thinking you hear a difference is not necessarily evidence that the two sounds are in fact different. We have invented instruments that are better than our own senses is some respects. We should be aware of that.
@krabapple
Aside from it being convenient to do so, why should you believe your ears? It's very easy to 'fool' them.
Same things for the eyes with optical illusions.
But "biologically" , that's impossible to stop trusting your eyes/ears, because you rely every day on them. You believe your ears "instinctively".
It's not impossible to question them or to be aware that they might not be conveying the truth. That's what higher cognitive function are for.
Could you talk him into spending the money on taking his wife to live music events instead? It might satisfy him AND involve her at the same time.
Or this may just exacerbate the problem as the husband will want to make even further adjustments/improvements to his high-end system in an attempt to recreate the experience felt and heard at these live events.
Perhaps the husband should attempt to prove to his wife that there is an audible difference in sound quality that makes it worth the cost, possibly showing that what she considers to be 'good enough' is in fact inferior in every way to the high end system. lol. Of course, just because something sounds noticeably better does not mean that it's worth the money you pay for it.
When ABXing you are never completely sure, if you are unable to hear a difference.
How would that differ from a non-ABX scenario? When listening casually, you have absolute certainty that no difference was heard?
cheers,
AJ
@ajinfla
How would that differ from a non-ABX scenario?
Your hearing condition might vary depending of non obvious factors, just like state of mind (relaxed, anxious etc...) . Also non obvious ABX test might require a level of patience, that not everyone have.
Anyways, when there's a doubt, sometimes that's all what matters (either you ABX or not).
In favor of blind tests, I'm tempted to make an analogy with homeopathy. Numerous experiments has been made , to show that homeopathy does not perform better than placebo effect. Despite this, you see people defending that homeopathy worked for them. Also there's a strong lobby , for homeopathy, especially in France. You'll find numerous pseudo scientific papers , showing that double blind testing cannot work for the specific case of homeopathy.
I was part of a remarkable demonstration yesterday at the AES convention where Poppy Crum of Johns Hopkins showe dus how our ears 'fill in' missing information -- or even add 'meaning' when there is none
I have nothing to add, but just wanted to say it was great to finally meet you and Axon in person.
--Ethan
extrabigmehdi's nonsensical attempts to derail the discussion have been split here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=75464 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=75464)