In another thread Geddes was going on about how people in listening tests will hear differences when there are none. I think that's an exaggeration. I've been involved in many tests where listeners did NOT hear a difference, or claimed not to know if there was one.
We like to poke fun at audiophiles, but my experience isn't quite as dire as many of you report.
We like to poke fun at audiophiles, but my experience isn't quite as dire as many of you report.
you must be spending a lot of time with well balanced people. just received an email from a friend where he describes a situation that attests to the opposite 😀 (awful room acoustics are ignored while big bucks are spent on cables).
It is a clear example of Cognitive Dissonance ... and this theory is known from 1957 😱, but surely... subjectivist still are "open minded" 😀
it was a set of files that Jan posted, where some had been run through a steep all-pass in the midrange. They had been generated by Hawksford and intended for a sorting test.
Amusingly, John Curl went ballistic trying to convince people not to try it. That had little effect on some of us who trust our ears and we did it anyway. 😀 Pano and I were able to sort the files correctly and submit our results before the key was made public, I'm not sure who else did.
It may come as a surprise to you, but drug trials and sensory analysis experiments are set up differently. There are certainly common features, but they're not the same thing. The questions being asked are different, so it's not unexpected that experimental variables and controls are not 100% congruent.
I think Earl acquiesced once that some of the people could be trusted some of the time, leaving them to their own devices.
Perhaps you should remind us all what Jan's test was. My USUAL experience with DB tests is that they don't show differences that are actually there. This was apparently an exception with significant effort on the listener.
I think I did. It was Hawksford's test, Jan just put out the files for us to try to sort. The other trial I participated in at his place wasn't his work, it was a friend of his. It consisted of sorting tracks run at full resolution and various levels of MP3 encoding.
Cough, cough. As I recall, the only difference that you claim to be able to hear in a DBT is the presence of an ABX box. Very convenient. 😀 But for those of us who trust our ears, don't rely on peeking, and don't have a commercial interest in something being actually audible, there's lots of factors that we can demonstrate are audibly important. And we've done so repeatedly.
I torture small animals and children. I specialize in cute little bunny rabbits and little blond moppets.
'Except' red book digital. But nobody never, ever truncated any part of a mix down to 16 bit w/o noise shaping because of how sonically fragile 16 bit 44/48 khz sampling really is. Muwahahaha.
Likewise, I don't test phono systems by first running an Exacto blade along the grooves, or run a speaker magnet over a master tape before cutting. IOW, I understand how digital works and I don't deliberately do stupid things to sabotage it.
I assume that your use of the term "noise shaping" was actually meant to be "dither." I look forward to your actual experimental demonstration that Red Book standards are audible.
We can always use more help.
Why I ask, is that I am continually told that because I have designed audio circuits over the last 45 years, that I am biased because of that.
First: How else can someone get enough accumulated knowledge of audio design to comment on it?
What is 'expertise'? Let's define it.
Does an advanced degree in one subject, make someone an 'expert' in other areas? Why is it that when I claim to be an engineer, I get told that I am not, because I have a BA in Physics? If I try to claim to be a physicist, I get told that without a PhD, I have no real knowledge of physics.
If I claim 45 years of direct design experience with analog circuits, I get told that I am naturally biased toward marketing listening differences.
SY, you claim that you are able to expertly comment on: Chemistry, Physics, Engineering, and even Psychology. What is your background that gives you such a claim? Is it education? Is it experience? Is it having an audio hobby? All I want is an even playing field for discussion. If I am continually insulted, then I will cease to contribute.
First: How else can someone get enough accumulated knowledge of audio design to comment on it?
What is 'expertise'? Let's define it.
Does an advanced degree in one subject, make someone an 'expert' in other areas? Why is it that when I claim to be an engineer, I get told that I am not, because I have a BA in Physics? If I try to claim to be a physicist, I get told that without a PhD, I have no real knowledge of physics.
If I claim 45 years of direct design experience with analog circuits, I get told that I am naturally biased toward marketing listening differences.
SY, you claim that you are able to expertly comment on: Chemistry, Physics, Engineering, and even Psychology. What is your background that gives you such a claim? Is it education? Is it experience? Is it having an audio hobby? All I want is an even playing field for discussion. If I am continually insulted, then I will cease to contribute.
Last edited:
In Silicon Valley, where I come from, an engineer is someone who can work at an ENGINEERING LEVEL at designing circuits.
My first big boss, one of the best circuit designers that I have ever worked under, did NOT have a college degree, even. He was the one that showed a flaw in our results using the IBM developed: ECAP computer aided design program, for mainframe computers. I could not have done that (with a slide rule).
I realize that in some countries, and even states, to call yourself an 'engineer' means that you have to have a specific degree in Engineering, but not in Silicon Valley. I am sure that it is still the same, today.
My first big boss, one of the best circuit designers that I have ever worked under, did NOT have a college degree, even. He was the one that showed a flaw in our results using the IBM developed: ECAP computer aided design program, for mainframe computers. I could not have done that (with a slide rule).
I realize that in some countries, and even states, to call yourself an 'engineer' means that you have to have a specific degree in Engineering, but not in Silicon Valley. I am sure that it is still the same, today.
You have one, but you're clearly unhappy with it.
Facts, analysis, data, that's what matters, not whether or not you have a PhD. When you present facts with supporting data, that's more accepted by rational people than stories about conversations in 1969, rides in Bentleys, hand-waving pseudo-science, and ex-cathedra pronouncements.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.