I'm not sure why I should add that idea. I'm not implying that hypothetical outliers who perceive things that others don't are part of anyone's peer group.
I was thinking not of the circumstance of the listening test but a life starting from from birth (or prebirth for anyone who thinks that conditioning starts earlier.) And while training is also conditioning there are many other things that might lead to someone's developing sensitivity to things ordinarily ignored by most of us. (Note that the word used is 'ignored' not 'impossible'.)
Keeping it impersonal, it could be discussed for years and it wouldn't change anything anyway. The trouble with this line of argument on any forum is that it's not possible for you to prove he can't any more than he can prove he can. It's a complete waste of time now and always has been in the past. Every time it's tried it just ends in members getting frustrated in themselves and irritated with each other. Better to find an area the two can agree on. Boxing perhaps.
Don't care what YOU claim (make up). Sounds like the usual reason for bashing blind tests. You failed a blind test, your ego never recovered and these are your excuses. Maybe you just don't hear very well.
Or the big differences that are heard when you know it or can see the change are pure imagination.
How can such a thing be debated for so long? If a blind person, born without eyes, cannot hear the difference, then he is simply not there.
What man uses to hear differences are the ears, but when it comes to hifi, all the senses must be involved, why?
How can such a thing be debated for so long? If a blind person, born without eyes, cannot hear the difference, then he is simply not there.
What man uses to hear differences are the ears, but when it comes to hifi, all the senses must be involved, why?
What we do not measure! are all the words we use to describe what we hear, timbre tempo blur´t dark light irritating pleasant unnatural natural credible good or bad soundstage imaging etc.
What we can typically measure is deviation from the more or less "perfect", designers with great experience can over time gain an ability to put together the measured or principles with the heard. but not without listening.
It reduces in my opinion measurement to a check that the circuit works as it should it is fine sensible and good but also no more.
The problem with measurement is that we can never make the perfect circuit / construction and listening tests show that it is not the amount of error that determines whether something is good or bad ,it is the structure of the error that does this, an opamp circuit is pretty much perfect technically when the feedback loop is closed, yet they sound different.
We can actually see differences in the detailed data sheet of a opamp, but we need to listen to hear the consequences of this.
I'm not so excited about how something sounds if i constructing with circuits and components I've used before more of the same gives the same sound, but if that is not the case, then I'm curious what the outcome will be of the listening test.
The decisive factor is whether one can and must conclude when something is different in construction and material choice, then there will also be a sound difference and the audibility of the difference depends on the listener and the current hi-fi system's qualities and not least the music choice.
I recommend this video with Jonathan Novick as if anyone has insight into what we can measure and what we can not measure
What we can typically measure is deviation from the more or less "perfect", designers with great experience can over time gain an ability to put together the measured or principles with the heard. but not without listening.
It reduces in my opinion measurement to a check that the circuit works as it should it is fine sensible and good but also no more.
The problem with measurement is that we can never make the perfect circuit / construction and listening tests show that it is not the amount of error that determines whether something is good or bad ,it is the structure of the error that does this, an opamp circuit is pretty much perfect technically when the feedback loop is closed, yet they sound different.
We can actually see differences in the detailed data sheet of a opamp, but we need to listen to hear the consequences of this.
I'm not so excited about how something sounds if i constructing with circuits and components I've used before more of the same gives the same sound, but if that is not the case, then I'm curious what the outcome will be of the listening test.
The decisive factor is whether one can and must conclude when something is different in construction and material choice, then there will also be a sound difference and the audibility of the difference depends on the listener and the current hi-fi system's qualities and not least the music choice.
I recommend this video with Jonathan Novick as if anyone has insight into what we can measure and what we can not measure
Last edited:
@Evenharmonics Do not understand that you keep asking when you know the answer.
I have participated in blind tests, which have proven to me that there is an audible difference in e.g. components and cables, but I do not use the test form daily.
I mean that passive components that are different in construction and materials have different sound, this must have the consequence that components that are identical must sound the same.
This is not always the case in blind tests, just as clearly measurable sound differences are not always detected in a blind test.
Blind test is simply not a scientific proof of anything, other than statics can at best find the lowest common denominator for when something is significantly better or worse than something else. Something any serious hi-fi entuiast can hear blinded or not.
Hi-fi is in my opinion the many small steps towards the best possible hi-fi. I'm not interested in "McDonald's hifi" like Sean Olive.
These are some of the reasons why I do not use blind testing, I have elaborated on this in this post
I have participated in blind tests, which have proven to me that there is an audible difference in e.g. components and cables, but I do not use the test form daily.
I mean that passive components that are different in construction and materials have different sound, this must have the consequence that components that are identical must sound the same.
This is not always the case in blind tests, just as clearly measurable sound differences are not always detected in a blind test.
Blind test is simply not a scientific proof of anything, other than statics can at best find the lowest common denominator for when something is significantly better or worse than something else. Something any serious hi-fi entuiast can hear blinded or not.
Hi-fi is in my opinion the many small steps towards the best possible hi-fi. I'm not interested in "McDonald's hifi" like Sean Olive.
These are some of the reasons why I do not use blind testing, I have elaborated on this in this post
Last edited:
You talk as if the serious hi-fi enthusiast, the serious diy man or the manufacturer can be compared to a first time customer in a hi-fi store, it is condescending and wrong, we do not let ourselves be impressed by high prices, eloquent hi fi sellers, highly polished aluminum plate, etc.
That does not mean that I do not detest that sellers and manufacturers play on people's feelings and ignorance, and I can only encourage them to behave decently, the problem is that a good salesman can sell everything and does not care about morals and ethics.
Last edited:
I don't know the answer because you never revealed the details about the test you keep referring to.
There have been reports (by others) of blind listening test that you failed to identify cables.
The problem with your posts here is that you don't understand what double blind test is for and what the definition of hi-fi in audio is.
I would appreciate that you started arguing against the general questions I and thread starters raise, instead of derailing the thread's interesting topic by constantly making it personal, it can not be true that every time i say something it should be documented with a fully certified double-blind test or measurement results that can only be performed in a fully equipped laboratory.
At the same time as you apparently approve lie stories and measurement setups like this.
Say it now for the third or fourth time, I have not! participated, who will participate in a test with this seriousness
Standard computer, DAC and ADC to 10-15 $ from China, a setup put together with magnetic crocodile clip, etc. not me !!!.
And you should quote properly, I write by blind test, the participants hear sound difference on objects that are exactly the same and they do not hear difference on objects that are different, how can it be used as evidence ?, as I said, it can only be used to find at best the lowest common denominator. And the result will depend entirely on the equipment used.
Have you seen the video of Jonathan Novick I am referring to?. It is a good starting point for a sensible discussion.
Last edited:
Quote "Thor2":
"Say it now for the third or fourth time, I have not! participated, who will participate in a test with this seriousness?"
So who´s lying now??
Of course you did, and you couldn´t hear any difference at all. Why else would you spend days and days trying to analyze the files on your laptop??
Funny thing is, that Thor2 trashed my system verbally, calling it not suitable to recreate music/3D/ambience and what have you. Actually he had the opinion, that my speakers (Magnepan 3.6R) were the absolute worst in that area.
Nevertheless I was the only one, who on my setup could hear, which files had been sent through a capacitor, and which files had not.
"Say it now for the third or fourth time, I have not! participated, who will participate in a test with this seriousness?"
So who´s lying now??
Of course you did, and you couldn´t hear any difference at all. Why else would you spend days and days trying to analyze the files on your laptop??
Funny thing is, that Thor2 trashed my system verbally, calling it not suitable to recreate music/3D/ambience and what have you. Actually he had the opinion, that my speakers (Magnepan 3.6R) were the absolute worst in that area.
Nevertheless I was the only one, who on my setup could hear, which files had been sent through a capacitor, and which files had not.
Quote "Thor2":
"Every time i say something it should be documented with a fully certified double-blind test or measurement results that can only be performed in a fully equipped laboratory??"
Exactly.... because that´s how these thing are done properly. Everything else is just your own personal babble/bias, which is pretty useless for everybody else.
"Every time i say something it should be documented with a fully certified double-blind test or measurement results that can only be performed in a fully equipped laboratory??"
Exactly.... because that´s how these thing are done properly. Everything else is just your own personal babble/bias, which is pretty useless for everybody else.
A very nice example of a judgement based on appearance rather than sound.
It is exactly this stuff that illustrates the need for a well controlled test.
Jan
You don't have to document with a fully certified double blind test or measurement if you call it your subjective listening impression.
Apparently? It would help your cause if you can quote my post apparently approving it.
What kind of blind test, single, double, triple, level matched / unmatched or something else? Details please.
No, it's not.
There is a minor issue regarding lies in this debate.
The one who lies is Thor2.
I did a test where I converted a high rez file down to wav (1411 kb / s, 48 khz), I converted it so all filters showed 1411 kb / s 48 Khz and could not be distinguished from each other in eg foobar2000, this file I used for the whole test.
The first 2 files were the file that had been converted from high rez to wav and the same file that had been through the PC, minimixer, headphone amplifier, usb cables, phono cables - all cheap china equipment.
The 2 files had Thor2 downloaded and uploaded to Audacity to find the difference (compare) and he could not see any difference and understood well that people could not hear the difference in the 2 files as he could not spot any difference.
Thor2 then tries to tell you that he has not participated in the test, but how many believe that he has downloaded the files and checked them in Audacity (he showed that), but has not listened to them?
No one I will believe.
Since no one can hear the difference between the file that has been through the test setup and the file that has not been through, I perceive the test setup as good enough to use.
The next step is to insert different things in the signal path in the test setup and there I select some capacitors.
One capacitor is 2 series-connected capacitors for $ 7 each and the other is a capacitor for $ 2000 (pictured)
Here no one could hear the difference nor anyone who could see the difference in audacity.
The first 2 files + the 2 files with capacitors are then uploaded so people can hear the difference of all 4, here is Boydk who is also in the thread difference of "without capacitor and with capacitor", but mixed.
ie I switch around the files and listen again and for example Boydk again hears the difference between "without capacitor and with capacitor", but in a different order.
What hurts a lot about Thor2 is that the expensive capacitor is one made by one of his deceased friends (Duelund).
But no one could hear or find a difference between the expensive capacitor and one for $ 7 and then it's probably a kind of snake oil.
To show what the test equipment made of "errors" I ran the same file through the test equipment, ie from PC through china gear to the other PC, this file was then run through again etc etc so eventually the file had been 10 times through the setup and it was actually clear to hear, but once in a while no one could hear or see (in audacity)
Test equipment =
The capacitors for 2x7 $ and 2000 $ respectively that no one could hear or find differences on.
The expensive one at the bottom
In addition to these capacitors, alu and copper tape were also put and it could not be heard in comparison with the file which had not been through any of it, but only converted from high rez to 1411 kb / s 48 Khz
last line corrected
"To show what the test equipment made of "errors" I ran the same file through the test equipment, ie from PC through china gear to the other PC, this file was then run through again etc etc so eventually the file had been 10 times through the setup and it was actually clear to hear, but one time through no one could hear or see (in audacity)"
"To show what the test equipment made of "errors" I ran the same file through the test equipment, ie from PC through china gear to the other PC, this file was then run through again etc etc so eventually the file had been 10 times through the setup and it was actually clear to hear, but one time through no one could hear or see (in audacity)"
Finally, we have a conclusion thanks to Thomas C.
What we as hi-fi enthusiasts use of materials / components does not matter, what circuits we use do not matter, how it measures does not matter, how it is assembled does not matter, power supplies do not matter.
In short, nothing matters for what we hear.
The hi-fi industry and hi-fi enthusiasts have been misled for decades, they have imagined sound differences that are not there at all.membr
Luckily we have Thomas C, we finally have the ultimate proof for that all hi-fi is exactly the same in terms of sound, the sound differences people hear do not exist as anything other than imagination.
I thank you Thomas C for the clarity you have brought into the hi-fi industry, you are my new hi-fi God, you show how pointless this whole pursuit of lifelike sound is
Ps irony may occur in the above
What we as hi-fi enthusiasts use of materials / components does not matter, what circuits we use do not matter, how it measures does not matter, how it is assembled does not matter, power supplies do not matter.
In short, nothing matters for what we hear.
The hi-fi industry and hi-fi enthusiasts have been misled for decades, they have imagined sound differences that are not there at all.membr
Luckily we have Thomas C, we finally have the ultimate proof for that all hi-fi is exactly the same in terms of sound, the sound differences people hear do not exist as anything other than imagination.
I thank you Thomas C for the clarity you have brought into the hi-fi industry, you are my new hi-fi God, you show how pointless this whole pursuit of lifelike sound is
Ps irony may occur in the above
Hi Thor2.
All i did was tell and show how i did and what people could not hear, inclusive yourself.
Which is a common assumption, but a lot of counterevidence exists from good sensory experiments.
In fact, humans are still humans 'even' in a 'blind' test and therefore it is as easy to get incorrect results from 'blind' tests as it is from 'sighted' tests.
Experimenters need to consider the huge knowledge base existing about design of experiments especially in the sensory field, because we need a lot more of well planned and executed listening tests.
In addition the experimenters must get rid of the assumption that a negative test result is per se evidence for the fact that no detectable difference exists.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.