Is Robert Harley suggesting we should listen with out eyes open then? That would improve our ability to listen? How have I gotten this so wrong? Same goes for all you meditators--well unless you meditate while watching your gear. Of course a more logical approach to the information would look like this: The fact that an expert on digital audio could pick out a flaw in digital audio doesn't surprise me. He should have a very good idea that it will be there long before he actually hears it. If not his expert status is sort of dubious. After pointing out the problem and the whole group then hears it certainly doesn't seem surprising either--especially in a group being addressed by an expert. Inserting a bias is a powerful influence. Just the other day my wife pointed out a shape she saw in the clouds. Prior to them it looked like a misshaped cotton ball to me. Afterwards I couldn't help but see a cartoon likeness of my friend's dog. Seems I'm just another lemming, but at least I know it.
I think I'll stick to Dr. Olive's studies so far.
The fact the the subjectivist camp would state someone who knows the research and uses understanding to make purchases or arguments and that somehow discredits them is quite bizarre. At the end of everyday you either stand for something that is defensible or fall for anything that's not. If there is no evidence for your believe, what are you standing on? Surely you have something. Please produce it. Until you provide something that would suggest your position makes sense, you are not convincing. If you are not trying to convince someone of something, then why are you arguing? The subjectivists just haven't demonstrated anything to stand on yet and we're over 14,500 posts. Come on gents, you can do better than that. Make this educational as well as humorous.
Dan
I think I'll stick to Dr. Olive's studies so far.
The fact the the subjectivist camp would state someone who knows the research and uses understanding to make purchases or arguments and that somehow discredits them is quite bizarre. At the end of everyday you either stand for something that is defensible or fall for anything that's not. If there is no evidence for your believe, what are you standing on? Surely you have something. Please produce it. Until you provide something that would suggest your position makes sense, you are not convincing. If you are not trying to convince someone of something, then why are you arguing? The subjectivists just haven't demonstrated anything to stand on yet and we're over 14,500 posts. Come on gents, you can do better than that. Make this educational as well as humorous.
Dan
I'm a little behind, but am glad I found this gem:
"The latest in this long history is a double-blind test that, the authors conclude, demonstrates that 44.1kHz/16-bit digital audio is indistinguishable from high-resolution digital. Note the word “indistinguishable.” The authors aren’t saying that high-res digital might sound a little different from Red Book CD but is no better. Or that high-res digital is only slightly better and not worth the additional cost. Rather, they reached the rather startling conclusion that CD-quality audio sounds exactly the same as 96kHz/24-bit PCM and DSD, the encoding scheme used in SACD. That is, under double-blind test conditions, 60 expert listeners over 554 trials couldn’t hear any differences between CD, SACD, and 96/24. The study was published in the September, 2007 Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.
I contend that such tests are an indictment of blind listening tests in general because of the patently absurd conclusions to which they lead. A notable example is the blind listening test conducted by Stereo Review that concluded that a pair of Mark Levinson monoblocks, an output-transformerless tubed amplifier, and a $220 Pioneer receiver were all sonically identical. (“Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?” published in the January, 1987 issue.)"
The guy is mentally unable to accept the results, therefor the whole proceedings are blamed, without any reasoning or factual backup. Also a great example how an otherwise intelligent person can be so biased that he goes against all logic.
If anybody wanted more proof of the destructive impact of bias and prejudice, I don't know of a better example.
jd
"The latest in this long history is a double-blind test that, the authors conclude, demonstrates that 44.1kHz/16-bit digital audio is indistinguishable from high-resolution digital. Note the word “indistinguishable.” The authors aren’t saying that high-res digital might sound a little different from Red Book CD but is no better. Or that high-res digital is only slightly better and not worth the additional cost. Rather, they reached the rather startling conclusion that CD-quality audio sounds exactly the same as 96kHz/24-bit PCM and DSD, the encoding scheme used in SACD. That is, under double-blind test conditions, 60 expert listeners over 554 trials couldn’t hear any differences between CD, SACD, and 96/24. The study was published in the September, 2007 Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.
I contend that such tests are an indictment of blind listening tests in general because of the patently absurd conclusions to which they lead. A notable example is the blind listening test conducted by Stereo Review that concluded that a pair of Mark Levinson monoblocks, an output-transformerless tubed amplifier, and a $220 Pioneer receiver were all sonically identical. (“Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?” published in the January, 1987 issue.)"
The guy is mentally unable to accept the results, therefor the whole proceedings are blamed, without any reasoning or factual backup. Also a great example how an otherwise intelligent person can be so biased that he goes against all logic.
If anybody wanted more proof of the destructive impact of bias and prejudice, I don't know of a better example.
jd
What I want to know is: Why do those of you who believe in double-blind tests whole heartedly, participate in audio discussion? Why do you, Jan, actually interview people that you think are completely deluded? Do you make money doing it? Why not interview other 'nuts' like 'witch doctors' etc.? No interest by the general public?
I have to say that IF double blind tests did what they claim to do, then we should all do something else, rather than audio. I would certainly be wasting my time, as I have 3 good preamps already and I have designed many more. Lots of power amps too! I should have stuck to my Dyna MK 3. ;-)
I have to say that IF double blind tests did what they claim to do, then we should all do something else, rather than audio. I would certainly be wasting my time, as I have 3 good preamps already and I have designed many more. Lots of power amps too! I should have stuck to my Dyna MK 3. ;-)
Can't blame them. I made some improvements in the TV color and contrast setting one day, asked my wife whether she noticed anything different, she said no. A few days later, I moded the active speakers connected to the TV, asked her whether she noticed anything different in sound, she said no.
Back in my single days, I asked a date whether she could hear the so called ultra sonic mosquito repeller I had which I could hear quite clearly, she stuck it to her ear, and said no.
My conclusion is, we really can't blame anyone that cannot distinguish between various quality. It's just reality.
Has anyone ever done the Diamond test on your lady? Do you see any difference in the diamond on your ring? Oh, it got smaller.
Back in my single days, I asked a date whether she could hear the so called ultra sonic mosquito repeller I had which I could hear quite clearly, she stuck it to her ear, and said no.
My conclusion is, we really can't blame anyone that cannot distinguish between various quality. It's just reality.
Has anyone ever done the Diamond test on your lady? Do you see any difference in the diamond on your ring? Oh, it got smaller.
Agreed. The guy wants to sell magazines doesn't he? What's that saying: 'Don't try to get someone to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it?'.
I really not read the hole thread just the Title and the last pages ...
That i have to add is that the difference is really easy audible - visible from the ultra cheap 0,5 $ cable to the 5 $ $ per meter from the realy cheap amp to a good one etc etc but after some "quality" is almost no diference and in the most of the times is measurable but not audiable - hearble .
With other words if something can cost from 1 (the worsh queality) to 1000 the best available till 100-300 (depends on application) every $ you pay is really worth the diference but after that .
As for audio my personal choose is
1 ) cables , Good quality but just this not the really bad ones.
2) preamplifier, The best i can afford without going to mad prices
3) Amplifier , One that is slightly mpore power that my loudspeaker will need with other words if with my budget i have to chose between 1 100 W medium-good quality and one 50 W good-superior quality and i am going to use 70 w loudspeakers i will choose the big since in my ears an 100w at 50 W almost always sounds beter at 50 W ...
4) The best my budget - amplifier can use easily i thing is not working to use really good BIG loudspeakers with a small budget amp .
Hope it makes sence since my English is really bad
That i have to add is that the difference is really easy audible - visible from the ultra cheap 0,5 $ cable to the 5 $ $ per meter from the realy cheap amp to a good one etc etc but after some "quality" is almost no diference and in the most of the times is measurable but not audiable - hearble .
With other words if something can cost from 1 (the worsh queality) to 1000 the best available till 100-300 (depends on application) every $ you pay is really worth the diference but after that
.As for audio my personal choose is
1 ) cables , Good quality but just this not the really bad ones.
2) preamplifier, The best i can afford without going to mad prices
3) Amplifier , One that is slightly mpore power that my loudspeaker will need with other words if with my budget i have to chose between 1 100 W medium-good quality and one 50 W good-superior quality and i am going to use 70 w loudspeakers i will choose the big since in my ears an 100w at 50 W almost always sounds beter at 50 W ...
4) The best my budget - amplifier can use easily i thing is not working to use really good BIG loudspeakers with a small budget amp .
Hope it makes sence since my English is really bad
I can't speak for all, but I would think for the same reason the believers in subjetive, anecdotal tests do. Does that sound reasonable?
John, what are you saying? Which people I interviewed do I think are completely deluded?? When did I ever say about someone that he is 'completely deluded'? The fact that you are apparently not interested in perception doesn't mean you can go around accusing me of something I didn't do, please.
There you have it, again. Because you would feel bad about things you did if it were true, therefor DBT's CANNOT be true.
I rest my case.
jd
Wrong again. You keep repeating the same fallacy. They spend so much time looking, seeing, knowing, imagining and yes, listening too, all at once. This has been explained many times. You just continue to evade it by necessity.
Right. Plenty of time to imagine all sorts of things, moods to change, etc,etc. resulting in the brains perception of the very same sound waves, to be different each time. Or whatever you want it to be, conscious or unconsciously.
If their "hobby" is imagining things, then yes, DBT's serve no purpose.
This thread however, is about whether wires produce non-imaginary audible sound, not explained by (known, measurable, not so mystical, boring, etc.) LCR.
Again you repeat the fallacy and again I will correct you. "Using their ears" is a DBT. This is not what they do. They use their eyes, prior knowledge, biases, etc. etc. and yes, a bit of their ears too. All processed by the brain. Resulting in "hearing" things. All sorts of things. This has been explained many times. To no avail.
Right. Which is why the "cheap" Pioneer amp can't sound as good as audiophile jewelry Brand X amplifier and why Rat Shack copper wire can't sound as swell as audiophile jewelry Brand Y "good" silver wires, etc., etc. etc.
Never about money, no sir
He doesn't have to. You have to prove that they are (outside of LCR).
Unsurprisingly, you are unaware of basic rules of logic, like you can't prove a negative.
Because it doesn't. People hear ghosts. Santa on the roof. Non-LCR cable "effects". No one disputes that. They do "hear" these things. And all would be fine, if they were happy with that subjective experience.
But they aren't. They want to "prove" that it isn't just in their mind, but outside, in the soundwaves impinging upon their ears.
That is measurable, testable(DBT) and requires proof.
Which is why you will never have any. 30yrs and 15,000 post later
Last edited:
That is why i asked for a definition of accuracy; certainly there is a technical one, but sound reproduction systems were normally intended for listening to music by humans and therefore the meaning of the phrase "accuracy" gets more complicated.
While i would totally agree that a system _should_ not have a sound that does not reflect the current reality.
As an additional factor we have to take the reproduction system/room into account and of course the individual listener.
I´m sure not only Toole/Olive but both of us has done some experiments about different room settings, reflections and so on and have noted which way listeners reacted to it.
Again, that is why i asked for the definition of accuracy; which of the unlimited versions of system/room/listener combinations does provide the _accurate_ version?
Does that depend on the situation in the recording/mixing/mastering studio?
I had linked that quite some time ago, because it gives a nice short summary:
http://www.rpginc.com/news/seminars/Diffuse_Seminar_2007_iRoom.pdf
Wishes
Yes nothing is true in every case, that´s why i so often am surprised that these discussion always tend to discuss only black and white.
The actual number of blind tests on cables is low, otherwise (for statistical reasons) we would most likely have more reported positive results.
I don´t know why you think that it "point overwhelmingly to inaudiblity"; i´m not aware of any dbt on cables in which it was shown that the test was reliable, objective and valid, we can only conclude that the rejection of the null hypothesis was not possible, but that we don´t know for what reasons.
Especially if you take into account the notorious erroneous human nature, you should be very suspicious in the case of tests not meeting scientific requirements.
Most of the human error mechanism remain completely intact under blind test conditions.
As said before, i´ve often noticed that even good listeners need some time and some trials before they get used to the specific conditions of a controlled blind test.
I can not give a link to the preamp dbts as it were my own tests.
Wishes
True. It never is b/w.
[snip]The actual number of blind tests on cables is low, otherwise (for statistical reasons) we would most likely have more reported positive results.
[snip]
Pure, unwarranted, reckless speculation. You're the adventurous type
My reasoning was that we KNOW that sighted tests are fully unreliable, and DBT tests, while not perfect every time (or not even most of the time), are orders of magnitude more reliable than sighted tests. As you said, it's never b/w, but the odds are overwhelmingly against sighted tests being reliable and repeatable.
jd
You're just repeating one of the most favorite "arguments" of the believers: "They don't hear it because either their equipment is not good enough or because their hearing is not capable of that special kind of perception."
If there's a difference then he or she will be able to hear it in a DBT. Normal hearing assumed. With enough participants a DBT would even uncover if there are people that hear things others don't.
Someone should collect all the standard arguments so this broken record doesn't get played for the rest of our lives.
I thought threads like this are audio science discussion....what a shock that you would spin it into something void of science
What is an audio discussion without data and real proof?
Others have posted that subjective listening is not proof....so you need to have proof for your conclusions to be accepted by others. Unless you are one of those people who just likes to post whatever is on your mind, think its proof enough?
It would be nice to see the unexpurgated data from these tests since we know that the AES has on at least one occasion thrown out a sample that they considered an anomaly. If one person is able to consistently hear a difference it's enough to provide a conclusion that it's possible to hear a difference. One doesn't need a consensus from the other 59 listeners.
John
The old "you don't know what I hear, but I CAN'T demonstrate it in a meaningful way and neither can you or anyone" argument is useless. Thank goodness Tom has the guts to attempt a demonstration. If he's wrong, would his demonstration be to the satisfaction of any subjectivist? Please say so if it would. If he is able to distinguish the different cables, would it mean anything to any objectivist? It would mean something to me.
Dan
Dan
Yes, I have constantly asked for proof only because I would love to know all I can about different products.
Does anyone want to have a bet on what others will answer on the subjective side?
Accuracy=garbage in,garbage out.
Yes, but it must be 100% accurate the same garbage
jd
It would certainly change my view of the issue.
In general, I like new things coming out and being proven, it means I can still learn. I would hate it if 30 years from now I would still believe the same things I believe now and never went forward at all.
jd
- Status
- Not open for further replies.