The hypothesis that the best looking components sound better is incomplete. There are many factors potentially affecting the perceived sound quality of a component apart from any real differences. Preconceptions can be affected not only by the appearance of a component (and it's not necessarily true that the best looking component will be thought of as potentially sounding better - it could be the other way in some cases) but also by the name and any associations you have formed with it, infulences from peers and the circumstances you encountered the component in. Furthermore, environmental conditions at the time of listening can have an effect, as does the order the listening tests occur in and your general state of mind at the time. I'm sure there are innumerable other factors too.jeff mai said:
Although psychoacoustics is unfortunately poorly understood, there is a lot of very elightening information out there about what affects what we hear. Much of it is quite bizzare and will make you think twice before feeling sure of what you heard.
Mr Evil said:
Nothing you've said here offers any explanation of cases where preference goes against pre-conceived notions. "It's bizarre" isn't exactly the info I was looking for.
The only explanation I can think of is that in those cases where preference runs counter to pre-conceived notions is that the subject doesn't really know what his pre-conceptions are. Rubbish! Maybe in certain instances, but no way can this account for every case.
To Sayonara : Am I your vampire, am I drinking your blood ? Why ? Do you mean, that I am claiming, that all passive deviced are the same ? Certainly not, but I am against to here often declared " simply thruths ". Unfortunately my english is bad and often questions are not ask by me quite correctly and sufficiently, but I am not any " eunuch in harem " or only " amp assembler ". All my life I am searching in all aspect best way and I'm any demagog.
Just to make myself clear:
I was not born yesterday and I'm not into hi-fi since yesterday.
I accept that people that don't know me say that I can be fooled by the price or the looks, but I have the right to consider myself insulted.
I've listened to many things that look good and/or have nice glowing tubes that I couldn't bear to listen to. In fact, I didn't want it even to warm my room.
An Alpha pot costs less than 1/4th the price of an Alps Blue.
To me, it's not inferior.
I have a small amp I made (I mean: really small) that humiliated a big Vincent integrated, and that looks good.
It sounds better to me, it's better.
The more people were in the room, the more people would say it.
The case, the looks, the knobs, the lights, the plugs... please, that's for ignorant "audiophiles".
And I have no problem in showing something I made to anyone, like a cheap (modded) Marantz CDP humiliating a $$$$$ Sony ES SACD player.
Oh, the Sony looked much better.
The guy bought me the Marantz...
Yesterday I bought an old (but like new) Philips portable CDP for 20 Euros.
This thing is multi-bit.
The transport seams like a first-generation CDM12.
All this looks really robust.
It takes 4 AA batteries.
After some mods yesterday, it's producing very good sounds on my main system.
It will be even more fun comparing a portable CDP with the (good-looking) crap that is being sold right now.
Some people will be even more shocked.
I was not born yesterday and I'm not into hi-fi since yesterday.
I accept that people that don't know me say that I can be fooled by the price or the looks, but I have the right to consider myself insulted.
I've listened to many things that look good and/or have nice glowing tubes that I couldn't bear to listen to. In fact, I didn't want it even to warm my room.
An Alpha pot costs less than 1/4th the price of an Alps Blue.
To me, it's not inferior.
I have a small amp I made (I mean: really small) that humiliated a big Vincent integrated, and that looks good.
It sounds better to me, it's better.
The more people were in the room, the more people would say it.
The case, the looks, the knobs, the lights, the plugs... please, that's for ignorant "audiophiles".
And I have no problem in showing something I made to anyone, like a cheap (modded) Marantz CDP humiliating a $$$$$ Sony ES SACD player.
Oh, the Sony looked much better.
The guy bought me the Marantz...
Yesterday I bought an old (but like new) Philips portable CDP for 20 Euros.
This thing is multi-bit.
The transport seams like a first-generation CDM12.
All this looks really robust.
It takes 4 AA batteries.
After some mods yesterday, it's producing very good sounds on my main system.
It will be even more fun comparing a portable CDP with the (good-looking) crap that is being sold right now.
Some people will be even more shocked.
I cannot give you an explanation because I do not know, and I know of no studies comparing the results of double-blind tests to sighted tests to determine non-acoustic causes for preference.jeff mai said:
All I can say is that 1) Your subconcious may well have a different opinion to your conscious mind, and 2) Preconceptions do not entirely determine what is heard (otherwise there would be no point designing anything - it would all come down to marketing).
Whether or not there really is an audible difference between various devices as claimed, I cannot be sure. I know I do not hear any difference (or at least a consistent difference) between pots, or passive components in general under most circumstances (not that that stops me from seeking to improve them). I also know that many perceived differences disappear under double-blind (i.e scientific) conditions, and some do not. I also know that there are those who have a vested interest in convincing people that there are such differences for economic resons (e.g. the wooden knob people) or for other reasons (self-affirmation, perhaps).
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you just said that only sighted tests can be reliable. That seems backwards to me.carlosfm said:
Not directed to anyone in particular: I think it's a shame that so many people on both sides of the argument seem unwilling to accept the huge influence that psychoacostics has on the listening experience. Other disciplines accept and use psychological effects to their advantage. For instance a room may be painted a light colour to make it appear bigger. There is never any argument that the colour really has an effect on the size, never anyone saying that using a ruler is a flawed methodology, and yet the effect can still be exploited without sceptics complaining that people are being fooled by some imaginary difference.
Once those in the audio field accept this, and a lot more study has been done to determine what factors create what peceived sound, then, and only then, can the field move forward.
To Carlos : I was make many listening tests with experienced and also unexperienced people. All normal people ( if they aren't deaf ) listen the same. Exist only one difference between both groups : experienced ones know to give description of sound in " magazine newspeak " , while second not, although I must say, that second group is able to learn this " language " very quickly.
, while second not, although I must say, that second group is able to learn this " language " very quickly.
Mr Evil said:
If you know science, you know that this doesn't mean much. It's called a null result and you can't draw any conclusions from it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I'm unaware of blind testing methodologies that duplicate the environment in which we evaluate components. I'm not talking about transparent ABX boxes, but instead environments that are asking the brain to do similar things. You yourself said the brain works in bizarre ways - you can't now claim that it behaves in straightforward fashion here.
Certainly a sighted test is subject to bias, but that doesn't mean a blind test is better. It may remove sighted bias, but how is it known that that is the only way in which it affects the test?
Mr Evil said:
Are you certain your preconceptions are not affecting your ability to discern? The sword cuts two ways.
Mr Evil said:
"Accept" - sounds like a religion. How about demonstration by the claimant? Psychoacoustics do have a large influence, but a null result in a blind test does not indicate that a preference is psychoacoustic in nature. Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
"I can't hear it - you must be suffering from psychoacoustics." Ugh!
Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but it's the best thing you can get. For instance, the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of flying pigs is something I take as a sign that they probably don't exist. Occams razor should be applied in such cases.jeff mai said:
I don't claim that there is any such thing as a perfect test, double-blind or not, for measuring something that is so subjective, but sighted tests are too subject to placebo and experimenter-expectancy effects (single-blind tests are too, to a lesser degree). I see no reason why knowing what you are listening to should improve your hearing (note that that doesn't mean you can't know what you are listening for).
No, I cannot be certain that I haven't preconditioned myself to hear no difference where one exists, and of course even double-blind tests could not eliminate that if it were true. I have never said that my ears convey reality to me perfectly, for the same reason yours don't for you.jeff mai said:
I fail to see how you can compare knowing that perception does not correlate perfectly to external reality constitutes a religion.
At no point did I claim that anyone was "suffering from psychoacoustics". Phsychoacoustics is real, it may or may not be the reason for people here claiming there are audible differences between certain components, but it cannot be dismissed.
Mr Evil said:
Except this isn't quite the same as a flying pig, is it? Questioning one assumption brings everything down like a house of cards.
I could say that the entire field of psychoacoustics is a convenient pigeonhole for evidence contrary to the theory that a double-blind test is all-revealing. If you question the assumption that a double-blind test gives you the best picture, suddenly all of the results on which the field is based don't mean much. *Everything* is based on the notion that a DBT is the right test, but nobody has made any effort to demonstrate that it is.
Mr Evil said:
I agree, sighted tests do not preclude bias. This doesn't mean that a DBT is a better indicator. A DBT does not only remove sight - by necessity it changes the way a casual listener approaches the listening. How can you be sure this doesn't affect the ability to discern?
(A side thought - persons receiving placebo medication do actually get better in real terms. Maybe thick machined aluminium faceplates do make the sound better *in real terms* as long as one can see the faceplate.)
Mr Evil said:
Here is the crux of your argument and it is an assumption! Just because you can see no reason, doesn't mean there is no effect. When listening, the brain is always involved - remember how "bizarre" it is? You can't now do an about face and claim that it is straightforward and that because the mechanism is not readily apparent to you that it does not exist.
Mr Evil said:
OK - I agree, but that doesn't mean it explains everything that doesn't fit with the hypothesis that a DBT is the most revealing of tests.
If someone can't hear difference in pots and resistors simply their system aren't let them to do so. I would be worried if this happened to me.
Psychoacustic of course play a rule here but the experienced listener is aware of this and he tries to deal with it. Nevertheless lot of people just love to be fooled.
I don't need to be an E.E. to hear difference and I don't need to know why.
My experience let me think that one occasion test usually doesn't mean much, an item that in direct comparison may seem better in the long run it may become fatiguing and viceversa.
The listener must be indifferent to the stupid machine and only refer to the final goal, to have the better reproduction of music we can. He has to be indifferent to the stupid science too, who would tell him what he has or hasn't to hear.
To suppose that science, at the moment, can explain everything is just wrong, the world is full of inexplicable things but this doesn't preclude themself to happen.
The world hasn't to fit science.
pat
Psychoacustic of course play a rule here but the experienced listener is aware of this and he tries to deal with it. Nevertheless lot of people just love to be fooled.
I don't need to be an E.E. to hear difference and I don't need to know why.
My experience let me think that one occasion test usually doesn't mean much, an item that in direct comparison may seem better in the long run it may become fatiguing and viceversa.
The listener must be indifferent to the stupid machine and only refer to the final goal, to have the better reproduction of music we can. He has to be indifferent to the stupid science too, who would tell him what he has or hasn't to hear.
To suppose that science, at the moment, can explain everything is just wrong, the world is full of inexplicable things but this doesn't preclude themself to happen.
The world hasn't to fit science.
pat
Mr Evil said:
Huh?
No!
I said that blind or sighted tests should have the same results.
Upupa Epops said:
Let's be more sophisticated.
Comparing two CDPs.
The guy that's making the test asks to a crowd of 10 people how many instruments are playin' in a particular track.
With one of the CDPs it was obvious, on the other one, it was difficult to say, bacause the sound was "jittery", not defined at all.
Even with the evidence, most people said there as two or three instruments.
Some said one: only one guitar.
After confimation, and listening again, averybody agreed: of course, it's only a guitar!...
And only after this (incredible, isn't it?), everybody agreed what was the best CDP.
This is what I mean.
Upupa, you simplify and generalize things, when things sometimes don't fit on the same bag.
Just because one person didn't pick any difference between two amps on a blind test, that doesn't tell me anything.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.