Skip to main content

Topic: Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different (Read 69397 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Reply #250
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.

  • knutinh
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Reply #251
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

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Reply #252
@knutinh
Quote
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 ? 


  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Reply #253
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:
Quote
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
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Reply #254
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:
Quote
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.

  • euphonic
  • [*][*]
Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Reply #255
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...
  • Last Edit: 13 October, 2009, 12:43:23 AM by euphonic

  • krabapple
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Reply #256
@knutinh
Quote
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.
  • Last Edit: 13 October, 2009, 12:27:22 PM by krabapple

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Reply #257
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.
Ed Seedhouse
VA7SDH

  • krabapple
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Reply #258
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.   

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Reply #259
@krabapple
Quote
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
Quote
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" ?
  • Last Edit: 13 October, 2009, 06:01:11 PM by extrabigmehdi

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Reply #260
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...

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Reply #261
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...
Ed Seedhouse
VA7SDH

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Reply #262
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
VA7SDH

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Reply #263
@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.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Reply #264
@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
VA7SDH

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Reply #265
@Ed Seedhouse
Quote
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:
Quote
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

In fact I was relying  first on  the french definition in wikipedia:
Quote
Une illusion est une perception déformée d'un sens.

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.
  • Last Edit: 13 October, 2009, 09:13:06 PM by extrabigmehdi

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Reply #266
Sorry,  I've been relying on the definition provided by wikipedia:
Quote
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


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.
  • Last Edit: 14 October, 2009, 12:45:37 AM by Ed Seedhouse
Ed Seedhouse
VA7SDH

  • krabapple
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Reply #267
@krabapple
Quote
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.
  • Last Edit: 14 October, 2009, 02:41:30 AM by krabapple

  • KeyLogic
  • [*][*]
Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Reply #268
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.

  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Reply #269
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
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Reply #270
@ajinfla
Quote
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.








Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Reply #271
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
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

  • ExUser
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Read-only
Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different
Reply #272
extrabigmehdi's nonsensical attempts to derail the discussion have been split here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=75464