Over at ASR they believe that if SINAD if good enough a device must be "audibly transparent." Its based on measurements, so it must be scientific! Not.
When this thread started, we had people who believed bi-wiring couldn't possibly sound different.
We still have people who believe a shielded power cord can't possibly do anything because its resistance is only a small part of the total resistance going all the way back to the power plant generator.
Point is, people can believe they are highly objective and scientific and still be quite mistaken.
BTW, a famous paper on how humans believe: https://dtg.sites.fas.harvard.edu/Gillbert (How Mental Systems Believe).PDF
When this thread started, we had people who believed bi-wiring couldn't possibly sound different.
We still have people who believe a shielded power cord can't possibly do anything because its resistance is only a small part of the total resistance going all the way back to the power plant generator.
Point is, people can believe they are highly objective and scientific and still be quite mistaken.
BTW, a famous paper on how humans believe: https://dtg.sites.fas.harvard.edu/Gillbert (How Mental Systems Believe).PDF
Last edited:
^ You seem reasonable.
I'd contend that ASR / Amir are / is scientific in their / his methods. Just because they don't agree with how YOU would choose to demonstrate that something is relatively good / not good toward meeting a purpose, doesn't preclude them from using science or an engineering mindset to demonstrate what they think are meaningful characteristics of an audio device. You seem to imply that other things should be included / hold more merit. Then post your website with Markw4's advice and ratings along with your methodology. Maybe people will flock to your recommendations. I'd read them.
People are rarely objective. That's why when I conducted any 'real' experiments / studies I used specific methods to filter the lack of objectivity from whatever it is we were studying.
Either way, I've sucked enough air out of this thread trying to demonstrate what the placebo effect is (or isn't) and rambling on about directivity (which may relate to bi-wiring, but clearly went way off topic) and now a discussion on 'belief'.
Back to reading whatever anyone has to offer re: bi-wiring and giving my fingers and others' eyes a rest.
Cheers!
I'd contend that ASR / Amir are / is scientific in their / his methods. Just because they don't agree with how YOU would choose to demonstrate that something is relatively good / not good toward meeting a purpose, doesn't preclude them from using science or an engineering mindset to demonstrate what they think are meaningful characteristics of an audio device. You seem to imply that other things should be included / hold more merit. Then post your website with Markw4's advice and ratings along with your methodology. Maybe people will flock to your recommendations. I'd read them.
People are rarely objective. That's why when I conducted any 'real' experiments / studies I used specific methods to filter the lack of objectivity from whatever it is we were studying.
Either way, I've sucked enough air out of this thread trying to demonstrate what the placebo effect is (or isn't) and rambling on about directivity (which may relate to bi-wiring, but clearly went way off topic) and now a discussion on 'belief'.
Back to reading whatever anyone has to offer re: bi-wiring and giving my fingers and others' eyes a rest.
Cheers!
Not really. There is no published evidence in any scientific journal supporting a claim that if SINAD is good enough then "audible transparency" is assured. What they hold as scientific truth is a pet theory invented by Amir, nothing more. Its based on the absurd assumption that only HD/IMD as seen in PSS FFT measurements can interfere with "transparency." Anyone who knows a hoot about sigma-delta modulators, about soundstage, about random noise jitter, should know its quite unlikely Amir's theory would turn out to be correct if it were ever seriously studied scientifically.
Last edited:
Where does Amir or any direct representative of ASR (not just a forum member) make this claim? I did a search, and I could not find any such claim.
What I wrote was that I'd contend (spelling corrected after your quote) that their methodology follows science. If you're stating that they cannot possibly be scientific in their methods because they're not citing or using journal publications to back a (as yet uncited) claim, then I'd disagree with you, but that's OK. I don't think you have to be a published peer-reviewed author to demonstrate the ability to use 'science'.
Your posts seem to have a trend...
Someone makes an evidence-based claim. When you disagree with that evidence or it refutes your belief, you point toward "something" that hasn't been published or studied as proof that their claim cannot possibly be correct. It comes down to the likelihood of it being "right". I lean toward those that provide evidence vs. those that point to the sky and claim "It must be something else".
You can't prove a negative. We go on the best information we have at the time. If you contend that there are other factors at play, show your evidence. It will then be up to others to review and agree / disagree with the conclusions you've drawn from the evidence you've shown.
Amir (et. al.) have posted their evidence to substantiate what they think are meaningful metrics for the evaluation of some audio gear. I admire them for the effort.
Now... back to bi-wiring. I don't want to cut you off, but I really have taken this off-topic. Apologies to the OP.
When proper controls are applied audible differences all but vanish. Here is a recent example:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/.../blind-testing-two-dacs-proper-process.57890/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ng-two-dacs-proper-process.57890/post-2131259
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/.../blind-testing-two-dacs-proper-process.57890/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ng-two-dacs-proper-process.57890/post-2131259
I also have an aversion to 'belief' because it's too often associated with religious issues and, to me at least, it sits on the same shelf as 'faith' and uncomfortably close to it...
I like double blind tests, measurability, reproducible experiments and theories and hypothesis rooted in what we know to be fact.
You will see it in some dac reviews. He will do a little calculation adding up dB numbers, then declare a dac "audibly transparent." When I asked about the basis for that claim, I was told to the effect is was something Amir wrote about a long time ago, but no link was provided to me. The person who responded to me described it as a "working theory." However, when dacs are declared audibly transparent in reviews, there is no disclaimer that it is only a working theory. Thus most of the people over there believe it is a scientific "fact." Amir does nothing to dissuade people from that belief.
@StevenCrook - re: the use of the word "belief" - That's fair. I tend to think that beliefs are based upon many things... those based upon science are my favorites. Those based upon 'faith' are just fine with me and any mix in between. What I tend to ask for is evidence or thoughts around what people used to form a belief, particularly when that belief goes against some things I've 'learned'. If they return with something akin to "an angel told me in a dream", then I wish them well and as long as their belief doesn't bring the end of the world, I tend to leave it at that. People can believe what they want. I don't even scoff. I do like to learn from folks that will share information. If I was never wrong, I'd never learn.
re: Studies - Agreed. 🙂
@Markw4 - Thanks for the reference. I'll take a look at some of the reviews. If they (he) does use the phrase audibly transparent, I'd also take issue. That's sort of nonsense in my book. I assume he listens through speakers or headphones ... and there's really no definition for "transparent" in this context. Cheers!
re: Studies - Agreed. 🙂
@Markw4 - Thanks for the reference. I'll take a look at some of the reviews. If they (he) does use the phrase audibly transparent, I'd also take issue. That's sort of nonsense in my book. I assume he listens through speakers or headphones ... and there's really no definition for "transparent" in this context. Cheers!
I am not persuaded by amateur blind testing. How was the system qualified for listening tests? By SINAD numbers? How were the listeners trained? Is there sufficient and detailed information provided sufficient to make it exactly replicable? There are many unknowns about such events which disqualify them as publication quality scientific studies.
^ Now that I know that your standard for 'proof' aka to believe something is:
Just poking in good fun. Cheers!
I'll hold you to the same burden of proof when you offer a claim.
Just poking in good fun. Cheers!
That's the burden they would hold me to at ASR if I disagree with them. However, if I agree then no proof needed 🙂
Likewise I'm not persuaded by sighted testing and actually I find amateur blind testing much more convincing than any sighted testing without proper controls.
My position is that we have sufficient controls here. I just listened to Marcel's 2-bit versus 4-bit dither, and what did I say? Couldn't hear any difference. Could I have fooled myself to think I heard a difference? Sure. But I know the symptoms in myself, and I know my friends will catch me if I'm wrong. IOW, some training and practice can go a long way to help, even if perfection isn't always possible. Unfortunately, few people seem to bother with it.
Then you'd also accept an equal likelihood that you could have fooled yourself into NOT hearing a difference, wouldn't you?
True, but it would have to have been a very slight difference, down around the thresholds. There was nothing clearly different on very revealing electrostatic speakers.
What happens when the differences get down around thresholds is some people won't hear a real difference and some other people will. If you may only hear a possible slight difference, especially if you were expecting one, then you have really check carefully how you are focusing your listening. A common mistake people make is to focus on one part of the sound of one DUT (say, the treble details), and focus on a different part for the sound on the other DUT (say, the bass punch). IME, its possible for someone to catch themselves starting to do that and stop it. If not aware of that type of thing, then its very, very easy to get fooled.
What happens when the differences get down around thresholds is some people won't hear a real difference and some other people will. If you may only hear a possible slight difference, especially if you were expecting one, then you have really check carefully how you are focusing your listening. A common mistake people make is to focus on one part of the sound of one DUT (say, the treble details), and focus on a different part for the sound on the other DUT (say, the bass punch). IME, its possible for someone to catch themselves starting to do that and stop it. If not aware of that type of thing, then its very, very easy to get fooled.
Last edited:
In my youth I was a regular reader of Aldous Huxley. I didn't know that the man was also an expert in electronics, I thought he was "just" an intellectual..........🙄
A family famous for the science, also for the writing. From the time of Darwin when Thomas Henry Huxley was known as Darwin's bulldog. Eugenics too.
I always like to post this video when we start getting a lot of folk claiming to hear differences with speaker cables.
Bruno also claimed that the benefit of biwiring of their amp will typically require other amplifier doing biamping.
Due to not low enough output impedance.
When it comes to cables, there is a mix of snake oil and of good technology out there. Its possible in some cases for speaker cable to affect sound, sometimes for better, and sometime for the worse. Sometimes no audible effect at all.
Also, one "debunking" video is not a general proof of anything.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.