Peter Daniel said:
Damn, sit still!
Look, enjoying our systems is a subjective experience. And blind testing should have nothing to do with that process.
But simply enjoying our systems and sharing our subjective experiences is one thing, and there's simply nothing to argue on that count. However when one goes from that paradigm to making objective claims of actual audibility of something, then one has entered an entirely different paradigm.
se
Peter Daniel said:
The point is that insisting that one's subjective perceptions of differences are always and entirely due to actual audible differences and substantiating such instistance by stomping your feet and saying "I know what I hear" is nothing but an illogical, irrational, wholly worthless load of crap.
That put it succinctly enough?
se
Peter Daniel said:
That's what bias-controlled listening tests are for. Their goal is to filter out those biases which can influence our subjective perception and cause us to subjectively perceive things even when there's nothing there to actually "hear."
If you can reliably achieve a positive result while ruling out other biases with a fair degree of certainty, then you begin to establish the objective reality. That is that a thing is in fact actually audible.
Until then the jury is out and claims to the contrary are just empty claims.
se
Newbie again...
Oh man! Lots of info to research and digest. That won't happen in the near future, so here goes anyway...
Seems to me that any test worthy of both the subjectives and the objectives would have to rely on properly calibrated instruments to measure both the humans and the equipment. Plus, there would have to be an agreed upon method of minimizing the contribution of (pop)psychology. Considering the human condition, I'd say this was futile.
So why does the rhetoric continue? (Rhetorical question... don't answer.)
In any case, looks like many have forgotten the original goals of which the top 3 seem to be:
1) My system is better than yours. Definition of better left to individual tastes.
2) My wife/gf/bf/partner/spouse/pet is impressed with (or tolerates) the aesthetic values and spacial requirements of the system.
3) It costs less than it is worth since I design, built, assembled, connected and/or combined it myself.
And finally for what it's worth. I don't worry about the objective or the subjective, but not because I don't subscribe to one or the other, but because I don't believe I have the ears to hear past a certain level of performance, even though I can tell the crappy equipment from the satisfactory.
: )ensen
"What is real?" Morpheus in Matrix
Oh man! Lots of info to research and digest. That won't happen in the near future, so here goes anyway...
Seems to me that any test worthy of both the subjectives and the objectives would have to rely on properly calibrated instruments to measure both the humans and the equipment. Plus, there would have to be an agreed upon method of minimizing the contribution of (pop)psychology. Considering the human condition, I'd say this was futile.
So why does the rhetoric continue? (Rhetorical question... don't answer.)
In any case, looks like many have forgotten the original goals of which the top 3 seem to be:
1) My system is better than yours. Definition of better left to individual tastes.
2) My wife/gf/bf/partner/spouse/pet is impressed with (or tolerates) the aesthetic values and spacial requirements of the system.
3) It costs less than it is worth since I design, built, assembled, connected and/or combined it myself.
And finally for what it's worth. I don't worry about the objective or the subjective, but not because I don't subscribe to one or the other, but because I don't believe I have the ears to hear past a certain level of performance, even though I can tell the crappy equipment from the satisfactory.
: )ensen
"What is real?" Morpheus in Matrix
Interesting top 3 goals PurplePeople!
My point in starting this thread was to hopefully help some folks make more informed decisions about where to focus their time, money and other resources with respect to their audio systems. In this case "informed" means objective evidence that something makes a difference in their system and to their ears.
Reading back through the 600+ posts in this thread, it's fairly obvious some of the GoldenEar types have felt the need to try and discredit me and the objective methods I've only suggested people experiment with. That has created many heated discussions.
If someone doesn't care about the objective evidence and wants to spend time and money on things they may only *perceive* make an improvement in their system, I don't have any problem with that. But it's not fair for these same people to insist that audible differences really exist when they do not--or at least when they don't stand up to any objective criteria (or in many cases even common sense).
It also doesn't seem reasonable they should try to discredit someone who's only suggesting the curious TRY some blind listening and perhaps null testing for themselves. I'm not standing on a soapbox claiming the world isn't flat. I'm merely suggesting some of the more open minded folks might want to take a trial boat ride.
My point in starting this thread was to hopefully help some folks make more informed decisions about where to focus their time, money and other resources with respect to their audio systems. In this case "informed" means objective evidence that something makes a difference in their system and to their ears.
Reading back through the 600+ posts in this thread, it's fairly obvious some of the GoldenEar types have felt the need to try and discredit me and the objective methods I've only suggested people experiment with. That has created many heated discussions.
If someone doesn't care about the objective evidence and wants to spend time and money on things they may only *perceive* make an improvement in their system, I don't have any problem with that. But it's not fair for these same people to insist that audible differences really exist when they do not--or at least when they don't stand up to any objective criteria (or in many cases even common sense).
It also doesn't seem reasonable they should try to discredit someone who's only suggesting the curious TRY some blind listening and perhaps null testing for themselves. I'm not standing on a soapbox claiming the world isn't flat. I'm merely suggesting some of the more open minded folks might want to take a trial boat ride.
Eyes closed, AV amp detected!
nw,
I told you I can pay more attention to music details and quality with my eyes closed.
Have you tried it?
So... as long as you don't keep switching A and B like there's no tomorrow, I can say where is the AV (or the cheap) amp.
Let that switch alone, nw, let me hear a little more!
Some people are audiophile.
nw is 'avphile'.
Just joking...
nw,
I told you I can pay more attention to music details and quality with my eyes closed.
Have you tried it?
So... as long as you don't keep switching A and B like there's no tomorrow, I can say where is the AV (or the cheap) amp.
Let that switch alone, nw, let me hear a little more!
Some people are audiophile.
nw is 'avphile'.
Just joking...
We Got Both Kinds..
Hi again Nw_avphile,
Hey, maybe you, Se, Sy and I can understand that we are not on different wavelengths, and thereby together communicate rather better and more effectively in future.
Yes, yes, yes.
Yes, measurements are the first indicator of quality, and they are perfectly repeatable.
Measurements (or the Carver nulling test) can for example, quickly show that in a particular location, a $1.00 capacitor is all that is required, and avoid the wastage of using a $10.00 one.
Understanding this fact would dispell a lot of mythology for a lot of DIYers, and likely save them many dollars much better spent elsewhere.
Yes, a major proportion of the replies have been responses to the 'if you can't measure it, it is not there' posts from you, SE and Sy more particularly, and these responses from the OBJ camp can be interpreted as attempts as discrediting the SUBJ camp.
No one is disputing the validity of static measurements, but you three seem stuck on the reliability of other people's ears versus instruments.
It is noteworthy that instrument testing is never done with a loudspeaker connected and playing MUSIC in a loungeroom.
Of course, loudspeakers are dynamic and reactive loads, and conventional instrument testing will not pickup differences in sonics due to behaviours when driving dynamic reactive loads.
It is this behaviour that is revealed in subjective listening tests.
Nobody is thereby discredited.
Just as the objective/measurement camp consider subjective listening testing to be flawed or invalid because of psychological variables, static instrument testing is similarly flawed because it is not done under dynamic conditions, and it is here where differences are heard.
Ok, lets forget for now the Peter Belt freezer type stuff.
This is most certainly in the area of belief systems/self hypnosis categories, and really is not relevant in what is trying to be a sensible and scientific discussion here.
The key as I understand it is to take note when the cleaners or other non-technical types say that THEY can hear fine differences - General proof that the Pure Series accessories do what they say they will do, is evidenced by even non-informed, non-technical people (such as business partners and cleaners) eventually comment "I must say for some reason that the room or something sounds a whole lot better" after the accessory is installed.
I have recieved comments like these previously, and from those who had no idea at all of what had been changed.
Yes it is useful to understand the variability when vey fine differences are involved, however the ears do tell accurately when the differences are above this 'fine' threshold.
This threshold can be according to the listener in any particular environment.
Both Subjective AND Objective findings are relevant in my opinion.
Eric.
Hi again Nw_avphile,
Hey, maybe you, Se, Sy and I can understand that we are not on different wavelengths, and thereby together communicate rather better and more effectively in future.
Yes, yes, yes.
Yes, measurements are the first indicator of quality, and they are perfectly repeatable.
Measurements (or the Carver nulling test) can for example, quickly show that in a particular location, a $1.00 capacitor is all that is required, and avoid the wastage of using a $10.00 one.
Understanding this fact would dispell a lot of mythology for a lot of DIYers, and likely save them many dollars much better spent elsewhere.
Yes, a major proportion of the replies have been responses to the 'if you can't measure it, it is not there' posts from you, SE and Sy more particularly, and these responses from the OBJ camp can be interpreted as attempts as discrediting the SUBJ camp.
No one is disputing the validity of static measurements, but you three seem stuck on the reliability of other people's ears versus instruments.
It is noteworthy that instrument testing is never done with a loudspeaker connected and playing MUSIC in a loungeroom.
Of course, loudspeakers are dynamic and reactive loads, and conventional instrument testing will not pickup differences in sonics due to behaviours when driving dynamic reactive loads.
It is this behaviour that is revealed in subjective listening tests.
Nobody is thereby discredited.
Just as the objective/measurement camp consider subjective listening testing to be flawed or invalid because of psychological variables, static instrument testing is similarly flawed because it is not done under dynamic conditions, and it is here where differences are heard.
Ok, lets forget for now the Peter Belt freezer type stuff.
This is most certainly in the area of belief systems/self hypnosis categories, and really is not relevant in what is trying to be a sensible and scientific discussion here.
The key as I understand it is to take note when the cleaners or other non-technical types say that THEY can hear fine differences - General proof that the Pure Series accessories do what they say they will do, is evidenced by even non-informed, non-technical people (such as business partners and cleaners) eventually comment "I must say for some reason that the room or something sounds a whole lot better" after the accessory is installed.
I have recieved comments like these previously, and from those who had no idea at all of what had been changed.
Yes it is useful to understand the variability when vey fine differences are involved, however the ears do tell accurately when the differences are above this 'fine' threshold.
This threshold can be according to the listener in any particular environment.
Both Subjective AND Objective findings are relevant in my opinion.
Eric.
I won't speak for anyone else you lumped in with that belief, but attributing that to me is, once again, an out and out fabrication. Didn't your momma teach you that lying is a bad thing?
And you've made that up, too. I've advocated subjective testing over and over and over, yet you find it necessary to attribute things to me which are the direct OPPOSITE of anything I've said. Is it that you have difficulties reading the English language? Si vous voulez, je peux rèpondre en Francais. C'est plus facile pour vous?
Re: We Got Both Kinds..
I agree with SY's comments above. I've stated several times the methods I've suggested in this thread only supplement subjective listening. I also have stated several times I don't have any issue with subjectivists making their own decisions based on whatever subjective criteria they want.
Most of the differences in this thread come from a few GoldenEars who, instead of letting this thread be an open discussion among people interested in more objective testing, have chosen to jump in here and try and discredit objective methods. Worse, they've said some pretty unkind things about people promoting objective methods which discourages others from coming forward unless they don't mind being called names, branded as deaf, etc.
The GoldenEars have flung all kinds of mud with almost zero objective evidence to back up their views. They've ignored many direct questions and issues and instead just keep coming back to "I hear the differences so they must be there and you must be crazy/deaf/dumb/drunk/etc. if you can't hear them." Mrfeedback, you've been doing exactly that, so no I don't think we're on the same wavelength.
I agree with SY's comments above. I've stated several times the methods I've suggested in this thread only supplement subjective listening. I also have stated several times I don't have any issue with subjectivists making their own decisions based on whatever subjective criteria they want.
Most of the differences in this thread come from a few GoldenEars who, instead of letting this thread be an open discussion among people interested in more objective testing, have chosen to jump in here and try and discredit objective methods. Worse, they've said some pretty unkind things about people promoting objective methods which discourages others from coming forward unless they don't mind being called names, branded as deaf, etc.
The GoldenEars have flung all kinds of mud with almost zero objective evidence to back up their views. They've ignored many direct questions and issues and instead just keep coming back to "I hear the differences so they must be there and you must be crazy/deaf/dumb/drunk/etc. if you can't hear them." Mrfeedback, you've been doing exactly that, so no I don't think we're on the same wavelength.
Re: Re: We Got Both Kinds..
Boy I am sure glad you don't have the emotional investment in your viewpoint that the golden ears have. You know that you have been at this debate for 10 days! I could probably teach you to hear differences in half this time, if you weren't so convinced that can't. How many converts have you made so far?
Its just sad.
nw_avphile said:
Boy I am sure glad you don't have the emotional investment in your viewpoint that the golden ears have. You know that you have been at this debate for 10 days! I could probably teach you to hear differences in half this time, if you weren't so convinced that can't. How many converts have you made so far?
Its just sad.
Don´t know in which posts the author has me in mind (not that it matters much either) but here is some of my thoughts.
Most people I have argued with that claim "it´s not possible to hear diffe..." actually HAS relatively low resolving gear and NON treated lively "typical" domestic listening rooms, that explain a whole lot
I do believe relatively many people are under influence of "hip" marketing and fancy $$$ gear (poor weak minded souls) and that those people often "hear the difference/improvement" just because of the name on the box and the price of it. Also reading some magazines may influence some. Then on the extreme other end there are very critical openminded people that simply search for the "truth" and can gladly "dis" any fancy stuff unless it´s not a good/supreme product and welcome any product or design that is good no matter how cheap or expensive it is.
Sometimes I´m sure some people hear a difference that´s not there. Sometimes there is a difference that some does not hear.
OFTEN ther are a difference that most can hear though.
To be able to hear difference between as good as all amps, CDP´s, cables and so on one has to have a training and feeling for critical listening and also have a test set up that is GOOOOD!!!
There was a time when I did not hear any difference between cables, but could hear difference between digital sources, after some time my gear got better and my livingroom started to look like a studio and VOILÁ it´s easy for anyone to hear the difference between CD/SACD, preamps, amps and cables.
The difference between amps is so big it´s ridicolous to discuss blind tests. It´s like asking someone to do blind tests between coffe and coke, otherwise the "drinker" can´t prove he really can taste the difference.
Even though all friends that have listened to different gear in my set up and other can hear what I hear (we did blind tests yes), I often can pick out the difference much faster. Out in a noisy bar with soft background music, often my friends hardly are aware that music is playing, I often tell which song it is after a couple of seconds.
Did a hearing test a couple of years ago and it turned out (which I suspected) that I have about 10dB better hearing on sinewaves than the average Swedish population. That means when the signal is hardly or not detectable for "Joe" you can attenuate the signal -10dB before I start to loose the ability to hear the signal.
Both objective and subjective testing has it´s right, and I do not say one is better than the other, I just feel sorry for people that think that a stereo is a stereo is a s....
Some things I have not heard a difference from (yet) is vibration control or different feets under my SACD and amps, that could mean I have reached my limit or that the construction of my boxes are such that vibration is a little problem.
What I do not do, is suggesting other who get improvement from vibration controling techinques, are halucinating, because 8 years ago I did not hear the slightest difference between different cables which now can be heard and detected in two seconds.
I AM a little sceptic against Bybee filters, shakti stones and green pens though
Peace and happy listening!
/Peter
Most people I have argued with that claim "it´s not possible to hear diffe..." actually HAS relatively low resolving gear and NON treated lively "typical" domestic listening rooms, that explain a whole lot
I do believe relatively many people are under influence of "hip" marketing and fancy $$$ gear (poor weak minded souls) and that those people often "hear the difference/improvement" just because of the name on the box and the price of it. Also reading some magazines may influence some. Then on the extreme other end there are very critical openminded people that simply search for the "truth" and can gladly "dis" any fancy stuff unless it´s not a good/supreme product and welcome any product or design that is good no matter how cheap or expensive it is.
Sometimes I´m sure some people hear a difference that´s not there. Sometimes there is a difference that some does not hear.
OFTEN ther are a difference that most can hear though.
To be able to hear difference between as good as all amps, CDP´s, cables and so on one has to have a training and feeling for critical listening and also have a test set up that is GOOOOD!!!
There was a time when I did not hear any difference between cables, but could hear difference between digital sources, after some time my gear got better and my livingroom started to look like a studio
and VOILÁ it´s easy for anyone to hear the difference between CD/SACD, preamps, amps and cables.The difference between amps is so big it´s ridicolous to discuss blind tests. It´s like asking someone to do blind tests between coffe and coke, otherwise the "drinker" can´t prove he really can taste the difference.
Even though all friends that have listened to different gear in my set up and other can hear what I hear (we did blind tests yes), I often can pick out the difference much faster. Out in a noisy bar with soft background music, often my friends hardly are aware that music is playing, I often tell which song it is after a couple of seconds.
Did a hearing test a couple of years ago and it turned out (which I suspected) that I have about 10dB better hearing on sinewaves than the average Swedish population. That means when the signal is hardly or not detectable for "Joe" you can attenuate the signal -10dB before I start to loose the ability to hear the signal.
Both objective and subjective testing has it´s right, and I do not say one is better than the other, I just feel sorry for people that think that a stereo is a stereo is a s....
Some things I have not heard a difference from (yet
) is vibration control or different feets under my SACD and amps, that could mean I have reached my limit or that the construction of my boxes are such that vibration is a little problem.What I do not do, is suggesting other who get improvement from vibration controling techinques, are halucinating, because 8 years ago I did not hear the slightest difference between different cables which now can be heard and detected in two seconds.
I AM a little sceptic against Bybee filters, shakti stones and green pens though
Peace and happy listening!
/Peter
I agree with the above.Pan said:
I agree the difference between *SOME* amps is obvious, but I think you and many members of this group would have their opinions altered if you did a proper blind test of amplifiers that measure reasonably well. I don't care if one costs $300 and the other $30,000, if they measure reasonably well you might be surprised at how difficult they are to tell apart in a blind test. This has been demonstrated many times but some people, apparently you're one of them, fail to accept this.Pan said:
Anyone I know would pass a blind test between coffee and coke. More to the point, I bet most could tell the difference between Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola in a blind test. If they were a regular drinker of either, they could probably even tell you which was which.
So, if the differences between amplifiers are as obvious as "coffee and coke", why are they so hard to pick out in blind tests Pan?
Pan said:
I've said many times hearing abilities differ. I think some of us are more naturally "gifted" with more sensitive hearing. I also think listening to subtle differences in audio equipment is partly an acquired skill. But unless you remove the psychological bias of knowing what you're listening to, it's hard to tell!
As I've mentioned, I've participated in blind tests where some can reliably hear a difference and some cannot (in the same test). But I have to ask: Should we train the person who cannot hear some subtle difference in what to listen for or just let them enjoy the music?
Some of the people reading this forum probably have more invested in their audio system than their car. Should I go for a drive in their car and point out all the flaws it has compared to the latest Mercedes BECAUSE THOSE THINGS MATTER TO ME? Or should I just let them enjoy their car because they think it's good enough in the ways that matter to them?
The open minded folks in this group, with limited resources (time, money, etc.) to devote to audio, should try some blind listening to see what sorts of differences matter to them and not worry about what the GoldenEars claim to hear or for that matter what I claim NOT to hear.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.