Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different (Read 119448 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #150 –
Quote from: Axon on
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.


Quote from: Axon on
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.



Quote from: Axon on
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.



Quote from: Axon on
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.

Quote from: Axon on
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.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #151 –
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: Axon on
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.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #152 –
Quote from: analog scott on
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:
Quote
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?

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #153 –
Quote from: randal1013 on
Quote from: analog scott on
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 do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #154 –
Quote from: analog scott on
"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?
Quote from: analog scott on
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.
Quote from: analog scott on
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."
Quote from: analog scott on
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.
Quote from: analog scott on
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.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #155 –
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: randal1013 on
Quote from: analog scott on
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.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #156 –
Quote from: ShowsOn on
"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."

Quote from: ShowsOn on
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.



Quote from: ShowsOn on
"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?

Quote from: ShowsOn on
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.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #157 –
Quote from: analog scott on
.... 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?

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #158 –
Quote from: analog scott on
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.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #159 –
Quote from: andy_c on
Quote from: analog scott on
.... 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.


Quote from: andy_c on
Quote from: analog scott on
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.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #160 –
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: ShowsOn on
"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.
Quote from: analog scott on
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.
Quote from: analog scott on
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.

Quote from: analog scott on
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 do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #161 –
Quote from: ShowsOn on
Quote from: analog scott on
"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?
Quote from: analog scott on
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.
Quote from: analog scott on
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."
Quote from: analog scott on
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.
Quote from: analog scott on
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.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #162 –
Quote
...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?

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #163 –
Quote from: analog scott on
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.
Quote from: analog scott on
"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.
Quote from: analog scott on
"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!
Quote from: analog scott on
"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.
Quote from: analog scott on
"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.
Quote from: analog scott on
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.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #164 –
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on


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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.


Quote
If some one percieves better sound they percieve better sound regardless of why.


I always bow to complete mastery of that which is obvious. ;-)

Quote
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. ;-)

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #165 –
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote
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.

Quote from: analog scott on
Quote
"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.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #166 –
Quote from: andy_c on
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 believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #167 –
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.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #168 –
Quote from: Six_Vicious on
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
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #169 –
Quote from: analog scott on
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.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #170 –
Quote from: Ethan Winer on
Quote from: Six_Vicious on
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.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #171 –
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: knutinh link=msg=0 date=

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

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #172 –
Quote from: knutinh on
...What test methology allows me to conclude that there is no God?


Start here. God: The Failed Hypothesis

Quote from: knutinh on
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.


Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #173 –
Quote from: zane9 on
Quote from: knutinh on
...What test methology allows me to conclude that there is no God?

Start here. God: The Failed Hypothesis

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_language_of_god
Quote
Quote from: knutinh on
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.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #174 –
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.