As humans we have a natural inclination to attach ourselves to persons, groups, experiences and ways of thinking that infer a beneficial staus upon us.
it goes back to basic instincts and learned routines based on the simple cost benefit analysis that we perform everyday, often without being aware of it happeneing.
If you have the germ of a theory or concept in your head, typically based on first hand experienced or read learning then you are predisposed to be attracted with others with the same thoughts. The reciprocal of this is naturally to reject the theories of other camps, often leading to an unreasonable entrenching of your own beliefs and the colouring of the same with emotional baggage.
The truth is that until the 'scientists' have a measure to be able to highlight a difference with, they are unable to see the existence of this difference.
and that belief step is what seperates your run of the mill 'technician' from the truly great theoretical scientists who have been responsible for much of the scientific advance of the last century.
I'm none of these things, no scientist, no hifi objectionist, i do however believe in one very simple rule. Not evertyhing that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Because of this i'm not prepared to take side in such an arguement, because at the end of the day i think the answer is far too complicated for the question.
I believe the ear brain interface is complex enough to compensate for very much greater audiotory differences than we are looking for here, and is therefore the wrong tool for this task.
the question should be 'can' the ear make two truly identical amplifiers sound different if the listener is pre-disposed to believing that they are different.
if you can answer that question first then we may have gotten somewhere...
it goes back to basic instincts and learned routines based on the simple cost benefit analysis that we perform everyday, often without being aware of it happeneing.
If you have the germ of a theory or concept in your head, typically based on first hand experienced or read learning then you are predisposed to be attracted with others with the same thoughts. The reciprocal of this is naturally to reject the theories of other camps, often leading to an unreasonable entrenching of your own beliefs and the colouring of the same with emotional baggage.
The truth is that until the 'scientists' have a measure to be able to highlight a difference with, they are unable to see the existence of this difference.
and that belief step is what seperates your run of the mill 'technician' from the truly great theoretical scientists who have been responsible for much of the scientific advance of the last century.
I'm none of these things, no scientist, no hifi objectionist, i do however believe in one very simple rule. Not evertyhing that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Because of this i'm not prepared to take side in such an arguement, because at the end of the day i think the answer is far too complicated for the question.
I believe the ear brain interface is complex enough to compensate for very much greater audiotory differences than we are looking for here, and is therefore the wrong tool for this task.
the question should be 'can' the ear make two truly identical amplifiers sound different if the listener is pre-disposed to believing that they are different.
if you can answer that question first then we may have gotten somewhere...
I certainly believe that. Now if we could only figure a way to deal constructively with it in times of stress...abzug said:
That has been answered in the affirmative not only for hearing, but just about anything involving human perception.sq225917 said:
The real question we are faced with is delineating guidelines for listening tests that, on the one hand maximize the available resolving power of the ear+brain, and at the same time eliminate any and all non-auditory cues that can let the insidious and all-powerful effect of psychological bias render the tests meaningless.
sq225917 said:
My take on that. It will depend on the listener, his ability to distinguish between differences and if he allow to be influenced before listening.
It's been pointed out more than once that it's not a conscious choice to allow yourself to be influenced by other cues. It's subconscious and you cannot will it away, not matter what kind of willpower you have.Andre Visser said:
abzug said:
I don't disagree with this but if you listen with no preference for the outcome, what influence are there then?
Magura said:
Everything is possible....to do the impossible just takes a little while longer........???
abzug said:
That placebo-like effects are at play in some situations is true.. but not always..
Sceptisism is good.. especially if you got a sack of money just lying around that you are about to invest in a company/product or such. However I find it hard to understand those that start to yell "DBT DBT ABX ABX.." as soon as someone share their experiences with audiogear, especially if the forum is a DIY forum.
It's been suggested to me many times that what I have heard is likely a placebo effect. What I would like someone that understand better than me to explain is why this placebo effect is so selective? Explanation follows;
I have tryed many things in my own rig and have been participating in listening tests of various kinds at other places many times as well. How come that sometimes I can not hear any difference even though the general opinion in the group is that there should be one, and sometimes I do?
I have tried stuff at home sometimes excpecting to hear a difference... but nothing. Other times I have tried stuff that I didn't really know what to think of but I ended up positively surprised about the improvement (not necessarily objective, certainly not placebo but very subjective). All those times that I have not heard any differences I have not moved on to blind testing.. would be kind of foolish I suppose (and again, maybe not). OTOH I have participated in blind tests several times when I knew there was an audible difference between certain components. Those times I have succeded at picking out and identify the DUT's.
I'm sure placebo play a roll in other areas of my life, however when I try to improve my rig I am sure I do have the willpower to not hear a difference if there are none and many times, subtle as they may be, hear them if they are real.
Well that's my experiences in a nutshell.. I should add also that I use measurements and these days I believe that everything that can be heard also can be measured.
/Peter
Interesting thread.
I think the comments in recent hours about similarity to religious belief and tribalism are very close to the mark.
I think the comments in recent hours about similarity to religious belief and tribalism are very close to the mark.
Andre Visser said:
And now all that's left for you to figure, is how long it will take VS. how old you expect to become 😀
Magura 🙂
I would like to do a scientific research on how the whether, moon and the sun have influence on our human perception in audio relations
Just have to figure out how to make ABX blindtests...locking up the test persons in a rubber cell fore a week is probably not a good idea 😀
Just have to figure out how to make ABX blindtests...locking up the test persons in a rubber cell fore a week is probably not a good idea 😀
tinitus said:I am about to do a scientific research on how the whether, moon and the sun have influence on our human perception in audio relations
Just have to figure out how to make ABX blindtests...locking up the test persons in a rubber cell fore a week is probably not a good idea 😀
Can't help you with that but light and dark make a difference.
abzug said:
back in the 70's Tom Holman used a very simple experiment when he was researching Dynamic Headroom. in fact the paper he wrote about it might be available through the AES. he recorded the sound of a pair of scissors being snipped. the sound of a pair of scissors haqs a long low level sound with a very large transient at the end. the sound has a very low average power but a very high transient value. he tested amplifiers with the average power at 1 watt, and found that the amount of transient power to properly reproduce the snip was 200 watts. most amps he tested sounded like "snik" not "snip". with an average power of one watt, most of the amps he was testing were badly clipping the transient, and made the scissors sound very unreal. a few amplifiers he tested (for sake of comparison he was using amps all rated at 100W) actually reproduced the transient cleanly.
actuall ABX testing should be much easier and more reliable with computers. you could use a simple randomization program to switch relays and record keystrokes of "A", "B" or "X" (for not sure) and tally the results.
unclejed613,
maybe a little bit slow here today but.. are you saying that all amplifiers clipped the signal but some of them still managed to sound "real"?
If all amps was 100W amps and 200W was needed to reproduce the transient without clipping that's the only way I can interpret what you wrote.
/Peter
maybe a little bit slow here today but.. are you saying that all amplifiers clipped the signal but some of them still managed to sound "real"?
If all amps was 100W amps and 200W was needed to reproduce the transient without clipping that's the only way I can interpret what you wrote.
/Peter
- Status
- Not open for further replies.