Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Why Your Objective Sound Quality Argument Sucks (Read 29543 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Why Your Objective Sound Quality Argument Sucks

Reply #50
Quote
Quote
Zetetics encourages to think by oneself, with rigor and method, one thousand miles away from dogmas, prejudices, and preconceived ideas.

Surely to place any method outside the categories of dogma and preconceived ideas is a prejudice that rigorous thinking will expunge?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=315001"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


One might (and one will - ed.) ask how one can prove that this "outside" is free of "dogma" and "preconceptions".

One might even extend the argument (as one now does -ed) to the language and concepts involved in thought.

Without some kind of order, there is no meaning.  Any placing of order is by definition a kind of preconception.

Given this, it would simply seem to be a case of which preconceptions one trusts, ones that are in fact reinforced by the real world, or ones that appear to be fantasy, emiphera, or imagination.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Why Your Objective Sound Quality Argument Sucks

Reply #51
Quote
An interesting debate. I have come to the following hypothesis, and of course all that follows comes with a massive slice of "in my opinion":

The act of listening to reproduced music comprises two distinct components: (i) the creation of a physical soundfield by means of equipment; (ii) the response inside the listener's ear/brain system to that soundfield.

Now, the second of these components (the listener's response) is not determined by the soundfield alone. External factors, such as the listener's state of health, can genuinely change what they hear. One such factor is knowledge of the equipment being used. Hearing a difference due to such knowledge (when there is no change in the soundfield) should NOT be described as "self-delusion", "lying", or any other kind of negative term. It is a genuine difference in what is heard.


Well, it's not 'lying', but claiming that 'what is heard' is due to some real difference in the equipment or the soundfield -- that the 'heard' difference has a soundfield counterpart  -  smacks either of hubris or dare I say, self-delusion.  The fact is that the evidence does not support that conclusion -- or disprove it. 'Hearing' a difference is simply *too easy* to experience, for it to be sufficient evidence for difference.


Quote
The objectivist and subjectivist camps both seem to draw the wrong conclusions. The subjectivists incorrectly ascribe the difference in what they hear as being due to a difference in the soundfield, refusing to acknowledge that they might be subject to external influence. This is ironically an attempt by them to appear "objective" about their position. Meanwhile, the objectivists incorrectly tell the subjectivists that they aren't actually hearing anything different and are deluding themselves. This is ironically a refusal by these so-called scientists to acknowledge the huge weight of empirical evidence that a difference is perceived.


No, the *accurate* objectivist tells them that their evidence doesn't support their conclusion --the difference *might* be real, but  they haven't *necessarily* heard a real difference at all.  And it is not that objectivists fail to acknowledge a huge bolus of empirical (anecdotal) evidence that a difference is percieved.  Everyone acknowledged that a difference is likely to be *perceived*.  It's that they ALSO acknowledge the huge bolus of empirical (anecdotal AND experimental) evidence that  'perceived' difference is poor prima facie grounds for concluding real difference.

This is not to say that individual 'objectivists' don't ever commit rhetorical or logical gaffes.  But I think they'd agree with what I wrote above.



Quote
In the real world of music listening, the equipment in use is known. We can't get away from this. (DBTs are a useful experimental tool, but play no part in listening for pleasure). And so we can't get away from the fact that this knowledge WILL impinge on what we hear. People need to accept that these external factors are a valid part of the listening experience, and to stop thinking that perceiving a difference where none exists in the soundfield is some kind of character flaw.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313535"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Sorry, Clive, but this doesn't wash.  It's like saying, 'millions of people around the world play the lotto every day.  It's time we realized that belief in 'luck'  is a valid part of the human experience, and stop thinking that concluding that lucky numbers exist in defiance of the laws of probability, is an expression of ignorance."

Just because people tend to believe and behave in a certain way, doesn't mean that conclusions drawn from those beliefs or behaviours are *valid*.  There'd be no need for education, otherwise.

Why Your Objective Sound Quality Argument Sucks

Reply #52
Quote
A lot of audiophiles have no problems with the modern scientific method, modern medicine, DBTs in medical and consumer fields, and modern psychoacoustics. They are just not convinced that either such methods and examples apply to audio, or they are insufficient to explain what is being observed.


Indeed.  So the question then becomes, what are their grounds for believing that?
What evidence *independent of* sighted listening supports their view that DBTs 'do not apply to audio or that what we know about psychological bias and perception is insufficient to explain the disparity between DBT and sighted results?

Why Your Objective Sound Quality Argument Sucks

Reply #53
Quote
Tolerance issues between "identical" devices are quite measurable. In the case of some DIY amplifier topologies requiring matched transistor pairs, gross errors in tolerance might even be audible. Similarly, as Pio2001 pointed out when he measured different cable resistance after what amounted to heating it up in his hand, the measured parameters of the same device can change over time.



You can get a person to 'identify' the SAME COMPONENT as  being 'A' or 'B' -- i.e., to make them think it's two components.  And it can't be that the component has changed between the two presentations, because it's not subsequently that hard to get the testee to believe what used to be 'A' is now 'B' and vice versa, simply by suggestion...all the time using just the same component.


Quote
It's all an issue of magnitude. If your ears tell you there's a difference, and the difference can't be measured by any objective means, then "clearly" your ears are more sensitive than your instruments, and therefore things that are measurable must definitely be audible.



Well, that would be poor reasoning.  There are some measurable limits to hearing -- built in S/N of our auditory system , for one.  We have the instrumentation to  *measure* stuff beyond those limits but we can't natively hear it.  Unless you're Superman.

Why Your Objective Sound Quality Argument Sucks

Reply #54
Quote
Quote
I've never really come across any seriously "converted" subjectivists, although I'm sure they are out there.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=314930"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Present !
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=314932"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Several of the most vigorous 'objectivists' on the audio newsgroups and in the press report having gotten that way after conversion experiences (e.g. Peter Aczel, Tom Nousaine, Stewart Pinkerton).

Why Your Objective Sound Quality Argument Sucks

Reply #55
Quote
Quote

A lot of audiophiles have no problems with the modern scientific method, modern medicine, DBTs in medical and consumer fields, and modern psychoacoustics. They are just not convinced that either such methods and examples apply to audio, or they are insufficient to explain what is being observed.


Indeed.  So the question then becomes, what are their grounds for believing that?
What evidence *independent of* sighted listening supports their view that DBTs 'do not apply to audio or that what we know about psychological bias and perception is insufficient to explain the disparity between DBT and sighted results?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=316939"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you're begging the question here. In the audiophile's eyes, there IS no evidence besides sighted evidence.

The eventual goal of DBTs is to identify products of a consistently high quality. That is, if you run a DBT between two different sodas, and the test fails, but one soda is still universally regarded as tasting inferior in sighted tests, the strength of the DBT will obviously appear weaker to a lot of people. If what is tested is not what is borne out in "the real world", then people are going to think that the test itself is flawed. Similarly for medicine - treatments that are no better than placebo are occasionally still performed, albeit usually with the alt medicine crowd.

More generally, the DBT can never be an end to itself in evaluation. Even an audio skeptic must admit this. If amp FOO tests the same as amp BAR, but I get consistently more joy out of using FOO instead of BAR, then choosing BAR would be patently stupid (all other things held equal). Eventually something has to give - either the test needs to be strengthened so that the enjoyment can be quantified (either as a placebo or as something important), or I just toss the test out the window and go with FOO. And given the well-founded difficulties in performing blind tests, only somebody with a lot of time on his/her hands will go all the way with the former option. Enjoyment is the ultimate goal, anyways, so some people will just not mess with it.

Why Your Objective Sound Quality Argument Sucks

Reply #56
Most of the times, all other things are not equal. The price of FOO is about one hundred times higher than the price of BAR.

Why Your Objective Sound Quality Argument Sucks

Reply #57
Quote
If amp FOO tests the same as amp BAR, but I get consistently more joy out of using FOO instead of BAR, then choosing BAR would be patently stupid (all other things held equal).[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317408"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



You're confusing a couple of things, I think.

Preference is something that each person gets to have. They can choose to select something from a sighted test, a DBT, or out of a catalog with no information beyond the company's selection of the model on the cover.

Preference does not have to be justified.  Your argument about "joy" drives back to preference. You get to have your preference.

When it comes to science, or to making any kind of claim to performance that goes beyond you as an individual, now we are out of the range of preference (beyond your stating yours, of course, you get to do that), and into the realm of externally verifiable issues.

Then we are into DBT's and the like.

It is possible, I suppose, to show that your preference is shared by a group of people in which case your stating your preference might have some reading on that group of people. This is what one might call a "critic" who has worked to determine some external validation.  That still remains your preference, you've now established (hypothetically at least) that your preference is sometimes shared by some particular group of people. That means that to those people, your preference may have some meaning.

BUT that is still sharing preference. It's not science, except in that you can use science to determine if your preference is in fact shared or not.

For preference, each person does what they like. Audiopiles will continue to use sighted tests, engage in egregious inadvertant self-deception, and operate on that basis because they PREFER to. There's nothing we can do about that, except to be aware that their input into the scientific process may be very seriously limited.  When they make external claims, we can (and should) challenge them, of course. On the other hand, we all know how much fun that is, too.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Why Your Objective Sound Quality Argument Sucks

Reply #58
That makes some sense to me.

I read the first page and didn't have time to read the whole thread, but I wanted to say something about my own opinion (especially since that page was so long!).

I am an amateur audiophile as far as sound goes, but I have an old L/R receiver that wasn't even that expensive to begin with.  I play guitar and I can tune my guitars pretty well, and I think that counts for something.  My biggest problem (besides the lack of hardware) is that my good ear (lost some high-range in my left ear due to a punctured eardrum a long time ago) has been giving me trouble.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that the point of massive cables is to reduce signal degradation between the output and the speakers).

In terms of subjectivity vs. objectivity, I fall heavily on the objective side.  However, I think that scientific methods should be used to determine a component or system's "potential".  This would be, IMO, done by quantifying the output - of the speakers if it is a system or the simple output for a component, with a nice sample - something you know very well and is dynamic enough to hit some extremes.  I tried using a song like this a long time ago to test a component, just by using hearing, and I found it to be useful.  I'm sure others have done this too.

I agree with those who believe in an inherent subjectivity of audio.  After all, audio sound interacts with the brain through the ears.  I think that this process has a slightly different effect in different people.  I also think that people develop preferences as to how they like music to sound.  I can't document any of this, but it's my opinion.

So I don't think that there is necessarily a schism between subjective results and objective ones - rather, I think they're both part of the whole experience.

"Another country heard from."
<<optimali>>

Why Your Objective Sound Quality Argument Sucks

Reply #59
Quote
Quote
Quote

A lot of audiophiles have no problems with the modern scientific method, modern medicine, DBTs in medical and consumer fields, and modern psychoacoustics. They are just not convinced that either such methods and examples apply to audio, or they are insufficient to explain what is being observed.


Indeed.  So the question then becomes, what are their grounds for believing that?
What evidence *independent of* sighted listening supports their view that DBTs 'do not apply to audio or that what we know about psychological bias and perception is insufficient to explain the disparity between DBT and sighted results?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=316939"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you're begging the question here. In the audiophile's eyes, there IS no evidence besides sighted evidence.

The eventual goal of DBTs is to identify products of a consistently high quality. That is, if you run a DBT between two different sodas, and the test fails, but one soda is still universally regarded as tasting inferior in sighted tests, the strength of the DBT will obviously appear weaker to a lot of people. If what is tested is not what is borne out in "the real world", then people are going to think that the test itself is flawed. Similarly for medicine - treatments that are no better than placebo are occasionally still performed, albeit usually with the alt medicine crowd.


Yes, and lots of people believe in lucky numbers, astrology, and other superstitions as well.  So?  Is objective truth simply the application of democracy on beliefs?  Or does the quality of evidence count?

Aside from which, there is no soda that is *universally* regarded as inferior tasting in sighted tests, that results in no difference in DBT, that I know of. 


Quote
More generally, the DBT can never be an end to itself in evaluation. Even an audio skeptic must admit this. If amp FOO tests the same as amp BAR, but I get consistently more joy out of using FOO instead of BAR, then choosing BAR would be patently stupid (all other things held equal).


So would insisting that the *reason* you enjoy FOO versus BAR is because FOO really *sounds* different than  BAR.  That would be drawing an unwarranted conclusion from what you perceive.

Quote
Eventually something has to give - either the test needs to be strengthened so that the enjoyment can be quantified (either as a placebo or as something important), or I just toss the test out the window and go with FOO.


Fine, but do you also toss out the possibility that you prefer FOO for reasons that may in fact have nothing to do with the way FOO and BAR create sound field?
"Audiophiles' tend to either never consider that likelhood , or simply deny it (in contradiction to science).


Quote
And given the well-founded difficulties in performing blind tests, only somebody with a lot of time on his/her hands will go all the way with the former option. Enjoyment is the ultimate goal, anyways, so some people will just not mess with it.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317408"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Right, and some people will call them on their unwarrantedly certain conclusions from sighted comparison.  Personally, I accept that much stuff I hear 'sighted' is inherently highly suspect.  I tend to buy gear based on features and price as a result.  I call that being *clear eyed* in terms of sighted listening.

Why Your Objective Sound Quality Argument Sucks

Reply #60
Quote
...
Aside from which, there is no soda that is *universally* regarded as inferior tasting in sighted tests, that results in no difference in DBT, that I know of.  

...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=318322"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Careful, careful, while I agree with a lot of what you have to say, "inferior" in a soda is a PREFERENCE that any given individual gets to have. There is no right or wrong answer.

To the question: Do these cables make a difference that the human auditory system can actually detect? there is an answer, and there is a right and wrong. (btw, the answer is not be "yes" or "no", the answer is "with such probablity", such is the realm of science, which, unlike some sighted reviewers, lacks absolute certainty)
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Why Your Objective Sound Quality Argument Sucks

Reply #61
dang! Wrong button. Sorry!
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Why Your Objective Sound Quality Argument Sucks

Reply #62
Quote
Quote
...
Aside from which, there is no soda that is *universally* regarded as inferior tasting in sighted tests, that results in no difference in DBT, that I know of.  

...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=318322"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Careful, careful, while I agree with a lot of what you have to say, "inferior" in a soda is a PREFERENCE that any given individual gets to have. There is no right or wrong answer.



Of course not.  Reread the post I was replying to...you'll see that I simply used the same language Axon did.  He's the one who stipulated the existence of a  soda 'inversally regarded as inferior'.

Why Your Objective Sound Quality Argument Sucks

Reply #63
Reading a scientific magazine today, I came across the term EBM, which means Evidence Based Medicine. That's the medicine based on double blind statistical evaluations.

Why not call audio objectivism EBH ? This would be Evidence Based Hifi

Why Your Objective Sound Quality Argument Sucks

Reply #64
I could post several thousand words on this topic, but since I've been embroiled in these kinds of "debates" over the past 30+ years in various forms (yeah, I'm old), I have just one link that to me epitomizes the most ridiculous and most stupid beliefs that a large majority of those people that think they know good sound when they hear it because they spent <insert insane amount of money here> on something that some magazine said was the best at the time.

So here I present the one item, just one single item, that caused me to literally laugh myself onto the floor the first time I saw it, the first time I read the deceptively ludicrous text describing it, and then the first moment I saw the price:

It's On That Thar Intarweb So It Must Be Good!!!

If that doesn't sum up the sheer insanity of "high end" stuff, nothing ever will.

Have fun, always...
bb
The difference between genius and stupidity?

Genius has limits.

Why Your Objective Sound Quality Argument Sucks

Reply #65
I went to that link and -- wow. At first I thought it was a joke. Then I went to their forums, and nope. NO joke. A bunch of believers, for sure. Did a quick forum search on some terms: placebo (0 hits), abx (0 hits), snakeoil (0 hits).

Why Your Objective Sound Quality Argument Sucks

Reply #66
Looked at it too...

I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry.  /


edit: Look at the price tag. 485 Dollars!!! Now I'm laughing!

Why Your Objective Sound Quality Argument Sucks

Reply #67
Well the audiophiles can have their visceral satisfaction of knowing they spend hundreds of dollars on things they think will make their music sounds better.

I will have my own visceral satisfaction of knowing I did not spend hundreds of dollars on things I know don't make my music sounds better.

Why Your Objective Sound Quality Argument Sucks

Reply #68
Audiophiles are so amusing sometimes, it's amazing how much they suspend disbelief when buying this crap.
That being said, I've got a $5000 air purifier that reduces intermodulation distortion and removes particles from the air that reduce resolution and muddle the high frequencies, which when turned on will give you a much warmer, more dynamic sound.

Why Your Objective Sound Quality Argument Sucks

Reply #69
Reading a scientific magazine today, I came across the term EBM, which means Evidence Based Medicine. That's the medicine based on double blind statistical evaluations.

Why not call audio objectivism EBH ? This would be Evidence Based Hifi

A bit pretentious. I like it!

However the whole debate over EBM (at least from what I quickly wikipedia'd) dovetails nicely with the debate over DBTs in hifi, and almost too nicely. Just like you can't use DBTs for some treatments/surgeries, it's next to impossible to DBT some things, and you have to rely on evidence that is less "strong" in the categorization of things.

I'd also worry that placing any sort of stock on expert opinion or sighted testing would violate TOS8. EBM appears to at least acknowledge both of them although they are less important than RCTs.

I'd order evidence for a perceptual change of something on the following scale:

1 - RCT/DBT shows a clear change
3 - Objective metrics change in a way that exceeds psychoacoustic ATHs
2 - Case/control sighted testing of multiple listeners with all results recorded (no cherry-picking)
4 - Consensus opinion of audio professionals
5 - Sighted test of one listener

And for something to pass HA's muster it must be level 1. This makes it hard to use EBH in more than an academic capacity here if the other 4 levels are meaningless.

 

Why Your Objective Sound Quality Argument Sucks

Reply #70
5 - Sighted test of one listener
Level 5 -- the best way to ensure that the $10'000 hi-fi setup sounds warm, rich, with great stereo stage separation and good liveliness at low frequency...
Let the pretty Sales Girls set it up for you.


Edit: I suddenly realized how those audiophile guys I know snag their chicks