Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Kudos to Arny Krueger

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 7:37:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Folks,

Last week at the Home Entertainment Show in New York Arny Krueger
participated in a panel discussion with John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile
magazine. Arny is well known for his support for the scientific method to
test what is audible and what is not. John is known for, um, - well, let's
just call it an anti-science bias.

You can read about the discussion and also download an MP3 file (30 MB, 1
hour long) here:

www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/

Way to go, Arny!

--Ethan

More about : kudos arny krueger

Anonymous
May 11, 2005 7:53:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Last week at the Home Entertainment Show in New York Arny Krueger
> participated in a panel discussion with John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile
> magazine. Arny is well known for his support for the scientific method to
> test what is audible and what is not.

The scientific method is not foolproof. Simply removing certain obvious forms of
bias does not mean the test results are accurate or are correlated to what we
"actually" hear when we sit down to listen.


> John is known for, um, -- well, let's
> just call it an anti-science bias.

John isn't anti-science -- he just wants to believe what he wants to believe. In
that respect, he's no different from Arny, or 99% of the human race.


By the way, like Steven Sullivan, I very much appreciated your Stereophile
essay. I was flabbergasted that JA actually published it.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 12:03:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ethan Winer wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Last week at the Home Entertainment Show in New York Arny Krueger
> participated in a panel discussion with John Atkinson, editor of
Stereophile
> magazine. Arny is well known for his support for the scientific
method to
> test what is audible and what is not. John is known for, um, - well,
let's
> just call it an anti-science bias.
>
> You can read about the discussion and also download an MP3 file (30
MB, 1
> hour long) here:
>
> www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>
> Way to go, Arny!
>
> --Ethan

I listened to most of this (as a part-time engineer, a subscriber to
Skeptical Inquirer, and a long-time user of some of your software
products).

Clearly, if one can't tell the difference between two pieces of
equipment, then, for the purpose of that listener, the two pieces of
equipment are identical under those circumstances.

Those who criticise DBT testing on general principles are on such
non-scientific ground that they might as well join a church.

What I don't get, and what I thought that Atkinson was getting at until
he veered off into mysticism, is why the tests have to be conducted
with short pieces of sound. If Atkinson's claim is that he can
differentiate between different power amps when listening to them for
an extended period, then let's design an experiment that tests this
hypothesis, but remains double blind. How long does he need? A half
hour on each? Ten minutes? An hour? Shouldn't be difficult - certainly,
far more time has been spent arguing over this than would be necessary
to conduct a *scientific* experiment as to whether two pieces of
equipment can be differentiated under these circumstances.

Kudos to Arny, indeed, for perservering when most others would have
given up. I have long taken the view that the more idiots there are in
the world, the better it is for me, so I don't try to educate them. I
might even sell them some $2,500 power cables for them to plug into the
Romex cable feeding their power outlets.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:53:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote in message
news:o O6dne89EYl1wx_fRVn-3Q@giganews.com...
> Folks,
>
> Last week at the Home Entertainment Show in New York Arny Krueger
> participated in a panel discussion with John Atkinson, editor of
> Stereophile
> magazine. Arny is well known for his support for the scientific method to
> test what is audible and what is not. John is known for, um, - well, let's
> just call it an anti-science bias.
>
> You can read about the discussion and also download an MP3 file (30 MB, 1
> hour long) here:
>
> www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>
> Way to go, Arny!
>
> --Ethan
>

As one with preconceived notions about the superiority of the scientific
method, I have to say...

Rock on, Arnie! Keep up the good fight!

Craig
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:58:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

And kudos to you, Ethan, for your article
about audiophile voodoo in the current issue
of Skeptic magazine.

http://www.skeptic.com/


Ethan Winer <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote:
> Folks,

> Last week at the Home Entertainment Show in New York Arny Krueger
> participated in a panel discussion with John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile
> magazine. Arny is well known for his support for the scientific method to
> test what is audible and what is not. John is known for, um, - well, let's
> just call it an anti-science bias.

> You can read about the discussion and also download an MP3 file (30 MB, 1
> hour long) here:

> www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/

> Way to go, Arny!

> --Ethan



--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 2:03:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

It may not be foolproof, but it is certainly more reliable than
subjectivists analysis that refuses to explored by any form of objective
methodology.

"William Sommerwerck" <williams@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:118535ka0poba4@corp.supernews.com...
> The scientific method is not foolproof. Simply removing certain obvious
forms of
> bias does not mean the test results are accurate or are correlated to what
we
> "actually" hear when we sit down to listen.

The publication that he is chief editor of would indicate otherwise.
Furthermore, his poor attempts at justifying a lack of rigourous study of
most subjectivists claims published within Stereophile is further indication
to the contrary. Attempting to dismiss his attitude as nothing more than
closed mindedness that reflects the majority of the population does not deny
the above facts.

> John isn't anti-science -- he just wants to believe what he wants to
believe.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 3:33:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Raul Goyo-Shields wrote:
> It may not be foolproof, but it is certainly more reliable than
> subjectivists analysis that refuses to explored by any form of objective
> methodology.

For concluding what sounds good to the human ear? Nope.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 4:00:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 11 May 2005 15:53:13 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
<williams@nwlink.com> wrote:

>The scientific method is not foolproof. Simply removing certain obvious forms of
>bias does not mean the test results are accurate or are correlated to what we
>"actually" hear when we sit down to listen.

My worthless personal take, based on trying those "tests" quite
a lot at one time, are that the correlation problem is a bitch.

>John isn't anti-science -- he just wants to believe what he wants to believe. In
>that respect, he's no different from Arny, or 99% of the human race.

You're percentage is a little low.

>By the way, like Steven Sullivan, I very much appreciated your Stereophile
>essay. I was flabbergasted that JA actually published it.

Looking forward very much to reading it. Arny is particularly
elegant and well thought out in his structure, and can express it
convincingly if one accepts his premises. (Which in turn, are all
quite reasonable, well accepted, likely, and internally consistent.)

Chris Hornbeck
May 12, 2005 8:08:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny,

I listened to most of the debate. It was weird how the other guy didn't get
how an amp isn't flat because you can tell a signature after multiple
passes, but digital conversions can be done many times without a signature
and are by far flatter.\. My question is what sample rate and bit depth are
you using for this?

Julian


"Raul Goyo-Shields" <audio###forsale@yahoo.com###> wrote in message
news:5Qyge.33650$B82.962546@news20.bellglobal.com...
> It may not be foolproof, but it is certainly more reliable than
> subjectivists analysis that refuses to explored by any form of objective
> methodology.
>
> "William Sommerwerck" <williams@nwlink.com> wrote in message
> news:118535ka0poba4@corp.supernews.com...
>> The scientific method is not foolproof. Simply removing certain obvious
> forms of
>> bias does not mean the test results are accurate or are correlated to
>> what
> we
>> "actually" hear when we sit down to listen.
>
> The publication that he is chief editor of would indicate otherwise.
> Furthermore, his poor attempts at justifying a lack of rigourous study of
> most subjectivists claims published within Stereophile is further
> indication
> to the contrary. Attempting to dismiss his attitude as nothing more than
> closed mindedness that reflects the majority of the population does not
> deny
> the above facts.
>
>> John isn't anti-science -- he just wants to believe what he wants to
> believe.
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 8:26:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> It may not be foolproof, but it is certainly more reliable than
> subjectivists analysis that refuses to explored by any form
> of objective methodology.

Double-blind testing is a subjective form of testing. There is no proved
correlation between what one hears in the tests and what one hears when actually
listening to music. (The same thing is true of "subjectivist" reviewing, as
well.)
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 8:40:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Clearly, if one can't tell the difference between two pieces of
> equipment, then, for the purpose of that listener, the two pieces of
> equipment are identical under those circumstances.

Exactly... "Under those circumstances." Double-blind testing, as it is currently
implemented, is not equivalent to simply sitting down and listening to music.
Nor is "subjective" testing, for that matter.


> Those who criticise DBT testing on general principles are on
> such non-scientific ground that they might as well join a church.

Not at all. Calling something "scientific" does not make it so. (The word itself
implies a degree of "truthfulness" that is not fully justified.) Simply because
double-blind testing is useful in other areas does not mean it provides useful
or valid results when judging hi-fi equipment.

What most people conveniently ignore when criticizing my views is that I don't
agree with either side in this issue. Both sides are "wrong," because their
testing procedures have not been proven to be correct. Simply removing bias does
not guarantee accurate, valid, or useful results.


> What I don't get, and what I thought that Atkinson was getting at until
> he veered off into mysticism, is why the tests have to be conducted
> with short pieces of sound. If Atkinson's claim is that he can
> differentiate between different power amps when listening to them for
> an extended period, then let's design an experiment that tests this
> hypothesis, but remains double blind. How long does he need? A half
> hour on each? Ten minutes? An hour? Shouldn't be difficult - certainly,
> far more time has been spent arguing over this than would be necessary
> to conduct a *scientific* experiment as to whether two pieces of
> equipment can be differentiated under these circumstances.

What is needed -- and I could name several well-known people who agree with
me -- is long-term blind listening tests in which people simply sit down and
listen for pleasure. Properly conducted, such testing would would provide useful
information about "how" people listen, what they think they hear, and establish
a baseline for judging "subjective" and "objective" testing. But such testing
would require many listeners, take a lot of time, and be difficult to implement
and run correctly. Not to mention the fact that both subjectivists and
objectivists have a vested interest in believing what they want to believe.
People are uncomfortable changing their world views.


> Kudos to Arny, indeed, for perservering when most others would have
> given up. I have long taken the view that the more idiots there are in
> the world, the better it is for me, so I don't try to educate them.
> I might even sell them some $2,500 power cables for them to plug
> into the Romex cable feeding their power outlets.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 9:28:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

William Sommerwerck <williams@nwlink.com> wrote:
> > Last week at the Home Entertainment Show in New York Arny Krueger
> > participated in a panel discussion with John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile
> > magazine. Arny is well known for his support for the scientific method to
> > test what is audible and what is not.

> The scientific method is not foolproof. Simply removing certain obvious forms of
> bias does not mean the test results are accurate or are correlated to what we
> "actually" hear when we sit down to listen.

That you think it *should* correlate to that, suggests you don't get why
blind tests are needed in the first place. What you 'actually' hear
when you sit down to listen is *NOT* a good reference point, when differences
are 'actually' subtle or nonexistant.

This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend to use as a mantra,
reflects a fundamental overestimation of how 'trustworthy' your ears
are, when they aren't allowed to be the *only* arbiters of what you are
hearing. What you 'actually' perceive when you sit down and listen in casual
evulation, is an amalgam of truly audible plus other non-audible 'confounding'
factors. Science may not be foolproof, but the existnce of such factors
has been proved about as well as *anthing* has been. It's why scientific
investigations of all sorts routinely employs bias controls. Cognitive/perceptual
confounding factors are *insidious* and *pervasive*.



> > John is known for, um, -- well, let's
> > just call it an anti-science bias.

> John isn't anti-science -- he just wants to believe what he wants to believe. In
> that respect, he's no different from Arny, or 99% of the human race.

> By the way, like Steven Sullivan, I very much appreciated your Stereophile
> essay. I was flabbergasted that JA actually published it.

Stereophile essay? I'm talking about an article in *Skeptic*. I highly doubt
JA would have published it! If he did, my respect for Stereophile would
increase radically.


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 9:28:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> That you think it *should* correlate to that, suggests you don't get why
> blind tests are needed in the first place. What you 'actually' hear
> when you sit down to listen is *NOT* a good reference point, when differences
> are 'actually' subtle or nonexistant.

See my other post.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 9:46:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

huwgareth@my-deja.com wrote:

> Ethan Winer wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > Last week at the Home Entertainment Show in New York Arny Krueger
> > participated in a panel discussion with John Atkinson, editor of
> Stereophile
> > magazine. Arny is well known for his support for the scientific
> method to
> > test what is audible and what is not. John is known for, um, - well,
> let's
> > just call it an anti-science bias.
> >
> > You can read about the discussion and also download an MP3 file (30
> MB, 1
> > hour long) here:
> >
> > www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
> >
> > Way to go, Arny!
> >
> > --Ethan

> I listened to most of this (as a part-time engineer, a subscriber to
> Skeptical Inquirer, and a long-time user of some of your software
> products).

> Clearly, if one can't tell the difference between two pieces of
> equipment, then, for the purpose of that listener, the two pieces of
> equipment are identical under those circumstances.

> Those who criticise DBT testing on general principles are on such
> non-scientific ground that they might as well join a church.

> What I don't get, and what I thought that Atkinson was getting at until
> he veered off into mysticism, is why the tests have to be conducted
> with short pieces of sound.

They don't *have* to be. That recommendation comes from work in
psychoacoustics, where short snippets as samples were found to increase
discriminatory success, due to the nature of audio memory.
The whole idea behind using them is to *increase* the chance of detecting
real difference, not make it harder. But a testee is
certainly free to use longer
samples, long switchgn intervals, etc.
The only problem is that if those results turn out negative, then
one must retest for the possibility that those conditions themselves
masked a real difference (because scientific work suggests they can).

If someone *passes* a DBT using longer samples, though, there's no basis
for challenging the result due to the sample length. I think most
objectivists would be 'OK' with such a report. There's no 'rule' that
says the samples have to be short.


> If Atkinson's claim is that he can
> differentiate between different power amps when listening to them for
> an extended period, then let's design an experiment that tests this
> hypothesis, but remains double blind. How long does he need? A half
> hour on each? Ten minutes? An hour? Shouldn't be difficult - certainly,
> far more time has been spent arguing over this than would be necessary
> to conduct a *scientific* experiment as to whether two pieces of
> equipment can be differentiated under these circumstances.

I think the idea is that 'living with' the amps revealed a difference, that
doing an DBT while unfamiliar with the amps didn't show. Fine! By
all means, let's see if it made a difference. Now having formed quite
definite 'feelings' about the difference in sound..to the point of being
*sure* that one sounds better than another -- do another DBT. Should be
easy to pass if you're right! And if so, you have valid grounds to
start agitating for long 'acclimation' periods before doing DBTs
of audio stuff. (Actually, researchers already routinely recommend and
employ pre-DBT training sessions to sensitize the testees to differences...
Arny K also recommends this on his pcabx site)




--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 9:50:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Joe Sensor <crabcakes@emagic.net> wrote:
> Raul Goyo-Shields wrote:
> > It may not be foolproof, but it is certainly more reliable than
> > subjectivists analysis that refuses to explored by any form of objective
> > methodology.

> For concluding what sounds good to the human ear? Nope.

Since self-report of 'what sounds good' varies vastly across
the spectrum of listeners, one can hardly call it a reliable
indicator of much at all.

Meanwhile, it's incredibly easy for people to convince themselves
that a tweak makes something 'sound better' -- even when the
tweak does NOTHING AT ALL to the sound. I think Mixerman
told one of those stories in his diaries...twiddling gear that
wasn't even in the signal path, to assuage a record company
exec who wanted to hear more 'air' or 'body' or somesuch.


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 9:54:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 05:28:46 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
<ssully@panix.com> wrote:

>This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend to use as a mantra,
>reflects a fundamental overestimation of how 'trustworthy' your ears
>are, when they aren't allowed to be the *only* arbiters of what you are
>hearing. What you 'actually' perceive when you sit down and listen in casual
>evulation, is an amalgam of truly audible plus other non-audible 'confounding'
>factors. Science may not be foolproof, but the existnce of such factors
>has been proved about as well as *anthing* has been. It's why scientific
>investigations of all sorts routinely employs bias controls. Cognitive/perceptual
>confounding factors are *insidious* and *pervasive*.

Brilliant; possibly the best I've ever read. But now define "hearing".
And then define the color red.

Ya just can't get there from here, is the problem. I'll be very
interested in your comments; thanks; and please don't take my
comments negatively; anything but.

But perhaps the "cognitive/perceptual confounding factors" actually
matter for music?

Just some thoughts. We human beans have such a desperate need to
quantify and simplify the overwhelming complexity of the external
world that the need can overwhelm the better angels of our modeling
nature. "Trust, but verify".

Chris Hornbeck
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 10:50:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Joe Sensor wrote:
> Raul Goyo-Shields wrote:
>> It may not be foolproof, but it is certainly more
reliable than
>> subjectivists analysis that refuses to explored by any
form of
>> objective methodology.
>
> For concluding what sounds good to the human ear? Nope.

As usual Joe, you've missed the point.

<begin over Joe's head>

The point is that much of what these high-end snake-oil
artists claims sounds better, doesn't even sound different.

How can something really sound better, if it sounds no
different?

<end over Joe's head>

Joe, take as much time as you need to come up with a
well-thought-out answer, instead of your typical childish
hip-shots.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 11:09:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

How many times I pretended to twist a knob on a monitor mixer to make a
mucian happy when I knew I was already at the feedback threshold.

In my experience the differences in transducers far far outwiegh
differences in electronics. If you don't like the sound change your
speakers, mics, placement or room acoustics.

As far as amps in a professional setting, durability and reliability
trump super specs almost every time.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 11:18:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Julian wrote:

> I listened to most of the debate. It was weird how the
other guy
> didn't get how an amp isn't flat because you can tell a
signature
> after multiple passes, but digital conversions can be done
many times
> without a signature and are by far flatter.

Yes, its interesting that good converters can be that much
better than even really good amps.

> My question is what sample rate and bit depth are you
using for this?

I did the work I described at HE2005 with a Card Deluxe
running at 24/96.

I first established the transparency of the Card Deluxe with
these tests:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm

and moved on to these amplifier tests:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm

If I did it all over again today, my candidate cards would
be the M-Audio Audiophile 24/192 and/or the LynxTWO. Not
because there's anything wrong with the Card Deluxe, but
these are better price-performers, one much more expensive
but with far better performance, and one with similar
performance, but about half the price.
May 12, 2005 11:20:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'd like to coin a new phrase for the audiophools....

the placebo-audio effect


Mark
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 12:02:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D 5uqqt$hr3$2@reader1.panix.com...
> Since self-report of 'what sounds good' varies vastly across
> the spectrum of listeners, one can hardly call it a reliable
> indicator of much at all.
>
> Meanwhile, it's incredibly easy for people to convince themselves
> that a tweak makes something 'sound better' -- even when the
> tweak does NOTHING AT ALL to the sound. I think Mixerman
> told one of those stories in his diaries...twiddling gear that
> wasn't even in the signal path, to assuage a record company
> exec who wanted to hear more 'air' or 'body' or somesuch.

Even science knows that if the mind thinks something to be so then it might
as well be in some instances. And since music enjoyment is purely subjective
this makes doing whatever goofy things some people do (I'm not one of these
people BTW) even if it's totally immeasurable or worthless to others just as
justifiable as anything else. Even if two models of amps have been "proven"
to be equal in a DBS once the person gets it home, if he "wished he had
bought the other model", this will in fact interfere with his enjoyment of
it (and that is a FACT). So just look at DBS as a good way for YOU to find
what works for you and let the other guy go his way. You won't be able to
change him and if he finds joy in it (and he's not hurting anyone) who
cares?
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 12:07:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ethan Winer wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Last week at the Home Entertainment Show in New York Arny Krueger
> participated in a panel discussion with John Atkinson, editor of
> Stereophile magazine. Arny is well known for his support for the
> scientific method to test what is audible and what is not. John is
> known for, um, - well, let's just call it an anti-science bias.
>
> You can read about the discussion and also download an MP3 file (30
> MB, 1 hour long) here:
>
> www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>

The dude claims to hear differences in power cables. Nothing more needs
to be said on his credibility. He is so deluded, further discussion is
pointless.

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:01:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Or for that matter an automated system that switches (or not) between
units. It could be run from a PC with a form to fill out with your
opinions and ratings of the days listening. Pretty simple to implement.
Serial control of a couple good relays. You could test any reasonable
number of amps in a month. You could even make it interactive. As long
as the tester has no clue as to which amp it being listened to at any
time. Just ABC&D in a sealed black box and some sort of switching.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:08:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend to use as a mantra,
> reflects a fundamental overestimation of how 'trustworthy' your ears
> are

Ironic, considering that "trust your ears" is a perfectly valid summary
of how ABX works too...

Anahata
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:08:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Anahata wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>> This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend to use as a mantra,
>> reflects a fundamental overestimation of how 'trustworthy' your ears
>> are
>
>
> Ironic, considering that "trust your ears" is a perfectly valid summary
> of how ABX works too...

On the contrary, it tells you in short order just how much
trust you dare have in your ears.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:17:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
>
> But perhaps the "cognitive/perceptual confounding factors" actually
> matter for music?

I'm sure thay do. It only worries me when these factors might persuade
me to part with $2500 for a pair of interconnects because those factors
have persuaded me that they sound better.

Has anyone tried a non-blind "trick" test where the cheap and expensive
cable were disguised as each other, or the guts of the amplifiers
swapped between the boxes so the listener really thought he was
listening to device A when it was device B?

Anahata
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:23:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

>>For concluding what sounds good to the human ear? Nope.
>
>
> As usual Joe, you've missed the point.
>
> <begin over Joe's head>
>
> The point is that much of what these high-end snake-oil
> artists claims sounds better, doesn't even sound different.
>
> How can something really sound better, if it sounds no
> different?
>
> <end over Joe's head>

Extremes. I am not for the snake oil cables and such either. That ain't
me. Over my head? w.t.f. is that?





> Joe, take as much time as you need to come up with a
> well-thought-out answer, instead of your typical childish
> hip-shots.

You mean such as you did? Could you be any more hypocritical?
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:53:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> It may not be foolproof, but it is certainly more
reliable than
>> subjectivists analysis that refuses to explored by any
form
>> of objective methodology.
>
> Double-blind testing is a subjective form of testing.
There is no
> proved correlation between what one hears in the tests and
what one
> hears when actually listening to music. (The same thing is
true of
> "subjectivist" reviewing, as well.)

This sounds similar to a key point from the Debate, but I
think it overstates the relevant facts by quite a bit.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:58:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> What is needed -- and I could name several well-known
people who
> agree with
> me -- is long-term blind listening tests in which people
simply sit
> down and listen for pleasure. Properly conducted, such
testing would
> would provide useful information about "how" people
listen, what they
> think they hear, and establish a baseline for judging
"subjective"
> and "objective" testing. But such testing would require
many
> listeners, take a lot of time, and be difficult to
implement and run
> correctly. Not to mention the fact that both subjectivists
and
> objectivists have a vested interest in believing what they
want to
> believe. People are uncomfortable changing their world
views.

FWIW most if not all the original ABX partners did exactly
what is described here. They picked out two components to
compare, did long-term ABX testing, and compared their
results to shorter term tests. There have also been some
more-formal tests that David Clark did with I think it was
Larry Greehill.

Bottom line - no joy from the long term tests. If you can't
hear a difference in a well-done short term test, listening
for hours, days or weeks per trial hasn't been found to
help.

In fact, long trials can be shown to hurt listener
sensitivity, because they temporally displace the listening
experiences being compared even more, and that is known to
be a bad thing.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 3:16:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> > Clearly, if one can't tell the difference between two pieces of
> > equipment, then, for the purpose of that listener, the two pieces
of
> > equipment are identical under those circumstances.
>
> Exactly... "Under those circumstances." Double-blind testing, as it
is currently
> implemented, is not equivalent to simply sitting down and listening
to music.
> Nor is "subjective" testing, for that matter.
>
>
> > Those who criticise DBT testing on general principles are on
> > such non-scientific ground that they might as well join a church.
>
> Not at all. Calling something "scientific" does not make it so. (The
word itself
> implies a degree of "truthfulness" that is not fully justified.)
Simply because
> double-blind testing is useful in other areas does not mean it
provides useful
> or valid results when judging hi-fi equipment.
>
> What most people conveniently ignore when criticizing my views is
that I don't
> agree with either side in this issue. Both sides are "wrong," because
their
> testing procedures have not been proven to be correct. Simply
removing bias does
> not guarantee accurate, valid, or useful results.
>
>
> > What I don't get, and what I thought that Atkinson was getting at
until
> > he veered off into mysticism, is why the tests have to be conducted
> > with short pieces of sound. If Atkinson's claim is that he can
> > differentiate between different power amps when listening to them
for
> > an extended period, then let's design an experiment that tests this
> > hypothesis, but remains double blind. How long does he need? A half
> > hour on each? Ten minutes? An hour? Shouldn't be difficult -
certainly,
> > far more time has been spent arguing over this than would be
necessary
> > to conduct a *scientific* experiment as to whether two pieces of
> > equipment can be differentiated under these circumstances.
>
> What is needed -- and I could name several well-known people who
agree with
> me -- is long-term blind listening tests in which people simply sit
down and
> listen for pleasure. Properly conducted, such testing would would
provide useful
> information about "how" people listen, what they think they hear, and
establish
> a baseline for judging "subjective" and "objective" testing. But such
testing
> would require many listeners, take a lot of time, and be difficult to
implement
> and run correctly. Not to mention the fact that both subjectivists
and
> objectivists have a vested interest in believing what they want to
believe.
> People are uncomfortable changing their world views.

I don't know why you think that objectivists are against changing their
views. I certainly consider myself one, but if someone demonstrated
that they could consistently distinguish two power cords then I would
believe that there were audible differences between them. It is easy
enough to design an experiment to do this - it only takes 1% of the
effort that has been spent arguing about it.

"Objectivists" (or "rationalists", as I would call them) do not believe
that there are no differences between components, so we don't have any
"world views" to be uncomfortable changing. I believe very strongly
that there are big differences between speakers and microphones, for
instance.

It is not part of my weltanschuung (sp?) that there are no differences
between good power amps. I believe that there are audible differences
between mic pre amps, so I don't see why there wouldn't be audible
differences between power amps. But until people can distinguish good
power amps there's no reason to suppose that they sound different.






>
>
> > Kudos to Arny, indeed, for perservering when most others would have
> > given up. I have long taken the view that the more idiots there are
in
> > the world, the better it is for me, so I don't try to educate them.
> > I might even sell them some $2,500 power cables for them to plug
> > into the Romex cable feeding their power outlets.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 3:33:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Steven and William,

> And kudos to you, Ethan, for your article about audiophile voodoo in the
current issue of Skeptic magazine. <

> like Steven Sullivan, I very much appreciated your Stereophile essay. I
was flabbergasted that JA actually published it. <

Thanks. But just to be clear, my Audiophoolery article is in the current
issue of Skeptic, not Stereophile. Big difference! :->)

--Ethan
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 4:02:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

William,

> What is needed ... is long-term blind listening tests <

I have to agree with Arny. I can't see why listening long term increases
someone's ability to discern small differences. If anything I'd say it's the
other way around. But even if that were so, if you have to listen for a
month to detect some tiny improvement, how important really is that
improvement?

I know that when I A/B stuff where the differences are very small (not
blind, just fooling around) I need to hear the exact same short passage over
and over. A friend once asked me to listen for a change in a song his client
sent out for mastering. The ME claimed he made it "better" but my friend
couldn't hear any difference. I couldn't either, but I also "couldn't tell
if I could tell" until we took both versions of the tune and lined them up
in his DAW. Before we did that, one version might be playing a verse while
the next was at the chorus. Just having a different chord was enough to
throw off any perception of low end clarity and fullness from one version to
the next. But once I set up each tune to play the exact same 5 second
passage - over and over while switching back and forth - I was then able to
conclude with certainty that there was no meaningful difference.

Also, it is well known that the ear adjusts to changes in sound pretty
easily. So if anything, long term listening (live with a new power cable for
a month) will tend to *mask* real differences rather than reveal them
better.

--Ethan
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 4:33:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"William Sommerwerck"
>
>>
> The scientific method is not foolproof. Simply removing certain obvious
> forms of
> bias does not mean the test results are accurate or are correlated to what
> we
> "actually" hear when we sit down to listen.


** Pure gobbledgook.


>> John is known for, um, -- well, let's
>> just call it an anti-science bias.
>
> John isn't anti-science -- he just wants to believe what he wants to
> believe.


** Believing what you want to believe in spite of what the evidence
indicates is about as anti-science as it gets.


> In that respect, he's no different from Arny, or 99% of the human race.


** Your assertions are based on fallacies, use false logic and are plain
wrong.





............... Phil
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 5:01:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Double-blind testing is a subjective form of testing. There is no
proved
correlation between what one hears in the tests and what one hears when
actually
listening to music. (The same thing is true of "subjectivist"
reviewing, as
well.)"

....and then later:
"Double-blind testing, as it is currently
implemented, is not equivalent to simply sitting down and listening to
music.
Nor is "subjective" testing, for that matter."



This strikes me as the crux of the biscuit. I'm perfectly comfortable
believing there could be some Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
variation that affects our perception of recorded music the moment we
try to quantify our perceptions of recorded music.

But regardless of whether we're doing it through rigorous double-blind
ABX testing, or subjective equipment reviews for audiophile magazines,
or just kicking back listening to tunes through our newly procured CD
player, that's what we are doing -- trying to quantify our perceptions
of recorded music.

None of us are innocent. None of us are immune to this "effect" (if it
indeed exists). In ALL of those circumstances our conscious perceptions
have been corrupted, coerced by the goal which we seek. The effort
[sic] required to make a choice between A & B in an ABX test is the
exact same manifestation of perverted perception as the effort Harry
Peason made when trying to decide whether a power amplifier was "taut"
or "robust".
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 5:08:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 12:02:10 -0400, "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com> wrote:

>I have to agree with Arny. I can't see why listening long term increases
>someone's ability to discern small differences. If anything I'd say it's the
>other way around.
>...
>I know that when I A/B stuff where the differences are very small (not
>blind, just fooling around) I need to hear the exact same short passage over
>and over.
>...
>Also, it is well known that the ear adjusts to changes in sound pretty
>easily. So if anything, long term listening (live with a new power cable for
>a month) will tend to *mask* real differences rather than reveal them
>better.

When I was designing equipment (for myself), and struggling daily with
the question of whether a tiny improvement was real, I came to the
following conclusion:

My brain is willing to suspend disbelief in any halfway decent
electronically created illusion of sound for about thirty seconds.
After that, it quickly begins removing trust in those aspects of the
illusion that are not sufficiently well reproduced. If I can A/B for
thirty seconds back and forth, I can (if there is a difference) hear
the increase and decrease in realism. (For awhile, then fatigue sets
in.)

If I listen to the less realistic sample for a minute or more, my
brain disables my ability to trust in those aspects of the illusion
that were changing. Both samples now sound the same, because I'm no
longer listening for those differences. It may take a half-hour or
more of listening to only the more realistic configuration (or only
real, not reproduced sound) before I can trust whatever aspect of
illusion was being varied.

So the procedure was listen for half an hour, make a change, and
decide within thirty seconds whether there was a decrease in realism.
If there was a decrease, go ahead and repeat the test in the other
direction, but don't be surprised when there is no audible increase in
realism.

Am I the only one whose brain works this way?

Loren
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 5:20:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ethan Winer wrote:
> William,
>
>> What is needed ... is long-term blind listening tests <
>
> I have to agree with Arny. I can't see why listening long
term
> increases someone's ability to discern small differences.

In a way it does. Sometimes you have to listen a long time
before you set the stage for the audible difference to be
maximually audible. Stuff like a certain rim shot, etc.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 5:32:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 5/12/05 12:33 AM, in article 3eg4l9F2tk32U1@individual.net, "Joe Sensor"
<crabcakes@emagic.net> wrote:

> Raul Goyo-Shields wrote:
>> It may not be foolproof, but it is certainly more reliable than
>> subjectivists analysis that refuses to explored by any form of objective
>> methodology.
>
> For concluding what sounds good to the human ear? Nope.

Hehee... And in a word 'yes' (unless you;re doing the Orwell Thing)

Define
design a testable hypothesis
Test
examine results
peer review for others to attempt to duplicate results
Reassess
refine
Repeat

It's what got HiFi started in the ~30's professional engineering world
It's what keeps us refining and getting closer
It works reliably
NOTHING else does.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 5:41:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 5/12/05 1:28 AM, in article d5upie$t6d$1@reader1.panix.com, "Steven
Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote:

> This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend to use as a mantra,
> reflects a fundamental overestimation of how 'trustworthy' your ears
> are,

Not so, if we want to keep this a working discussion (and leave no loopholes
to wilgle throuhj semantically!) then it's about letting
'Trust Your Ears'
stand in for
'Trust What You Interpret'
DBT indeed is BIULT around the sole idea of Trusting Your Ears... And not
allowing in your eyes or other evidiciary confusing elements

Your ears are damned good...
Along with the processing parts of the brain and the emotional and
pattern-addicted parts of the brain and mind it's a system that is
INCREDIBLY good at resolving anomolies but indeed can be fooled easily IF WE
LET IT.
Maybe these folks need to watch Rashomon...
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 5:41:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 12 May 2005 07:09:27 -0700, tymish@hotmail.com wrote:

>How many times I pretended to twist a knob on a monitor mixer to make a
>mucian happy when I knew I was already at the feedback threshold.

How many times have I pretended to adjust my amp to make a soundman
happy... and then have them say "great, thanks".

Al
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 6:01:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>>How many times I pretended to twist a knob on a monitor mixer to make
a
>>mucian happy when I knew I was already at the feedback threshold.


>How many times have I pretended to adjust my amp to make a soundman
>happy... and then have them say "great, thanks".

>Al

Been on both sides of that coin. That's why I like 30 watt tube amps
for guitar.

:>)
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 6:32:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Even if two models of amps have been "proven"
> to be equal in a DBS once the person gets it home, if he "wished he had
> bought the other model", this will in fact interfere with his enjoyment of
> it (and that is a FACT). So just look at DBS as a good way for YOU to find
> what works for you and let the other guy go his way. You won't be able to
> change him and if he finds joy in it (and he's not hurting anyone) who
> cares?

This is a valid point that its ignore a little too often by both parties.
The subjectivists ignore it because their claims are about auditory
differences, not experiential differences. Objectivists ignore it because
they are merely concerned with auditory differences. That being said,
objectivist reviewers do recognize value as measured by quality and sound
difference (e.g. PA from TAC). The question becomes what cost difference
can be justified. If one recognizes one is talking about aesthetics,
perceived quality, status, jewellery, etc. (i.e. factors related to
experience as a whole, but not to auditory differences), then whatever price
one feels comfortable paying (like any other luxury). However, if the price
differentiation is based on auditory superiority where there is no
difference, then strong dissentient is justifiable; i.e. it is not a debate
about perceived value, but about ignorance, duplicitousness, greed, and to
paraphrase Bloom, the closing of the American mind to any form of objective
search for truth. So yes, experience in a phenomenological context matters,
and for people who are affected by factors other than sound (which one would
expect is most people since reliability matters, and aesthetics has value),
that should not be denied. Just don't take the next step and have
experience supersede true sonic differences to the point where the latter
becomes irrelevant.

PS. Although one can argue that science some times behaves as a form of
religion (i.e. as a means for deriving meaning), to just dismiss it is the
quintessential example of throwing out the baby with the bath water. If the
standards subjectivists want to impose were to be imposed on subjectivism,
it would conclude that nothing is valid, and all conclusions about equipment
and sound are meaningless. Furthermore, if the standards of subjectivism
were applied to all other areas of human existence, then nothing would have
validity, and by extension true meaning.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 6:56:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

we are paid to listen to what we are doing. we argue about which mike
and which mic pre and how they sound. we are claiming that we have
trained and experiences ears.

we argue about the sonic coloration's of mic pickup patterns and
speaker tweeter construction, the difference from tranisistor mic pres
and tube mic pres. we have trained to hear these things. our training
was experience with the issues how to use the electronics to get good
sound. this training and experience is why the pro does a better job
then the newbie.

there seems to be two attacks on the aesthetic approach to listening
for the details that every piece of electronics imparts to the audio
signal.

#1) I twisted a knob for some who has hired my ears and equipment,
which was connected to nothing and he was happy. this proves that
there is no difference in quality of the audio experience.

doesn't just prove that your client are lacking in the "ear training"
of how audio works?
that is why the trained engineer (you) is needed,.

#2) the use of ABX for comparing the sonic differences in equipment.

have you used an abx piece of electronics.
that switcher which allows you to "compare" some audio components.
it changes the nature of comparing sonic character by introducing its
sonic coloration into the equation.
kind of eliminates the ability to judge.

kind of like using a radio shack speaker to mix your clients recording.

better learn to listen better, that is what we are about as audio
people. that is what we sell.

dale
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 7:36:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> FWIW most if not all the original ABX partners did exactly
> what is described here. They picked out two components to
> compare, did long-term ABX testing, and compared their
> results to shorter term tests. There have also been some
> more-formal tests that David Clark did with I think it was
> Larry Greehill.

That's not at all what I'm suggesting. The listeners would simply be relaxing,
playing their favorite music, without any knowledge of the electronics in use,
and without any attempt to make distinctions.

In other words, we simply want to know what they think they hear.

After a few months (!!!), components might be substituted -- without the
listeners' knowledge -- to see how they react.


> In fact, long trials can be shown to hurt listener
> sensitivity, because they temporally displace the listening
> experiences being compared even more, and that is known to
> be a bad thing.

Agreed (more or less). But that's one of the reasons for running such a test --
to see how such things change.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 7:43:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>> What is needed ... is long-term blind listening tests <

> I have to agree with Arny. I can't see why listening long term increases
> someone's ability to discern small differences.

I guess I'm not explaining things clearly enough to overcome your
preconceptions.

The purpose of long-term blind listening is not (initially) to make
distinctions, but to simply see how we listen, and how we react to a particular
system.

For example, if the system remains unchanged, but people report differences in
its sound (especially if different people report different differences), then we
start to have an idea, of the character and magnitude of what I call "perceptual
noise". This would be useful to know, as it has a significant effect on
subjective testing, and (I think) at least a little on ABX and similar
methodologies.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 7:46:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> When I was designing equipment (for myself), and struggling daily with
> the question of whether a tiny improvement was real, I came to the
> following conclusion:

> My brain is willing to suspend disbelief in any halfway decent
> electronically created illusion of sound for about thirty seconds.
> After that, it quickly begins removing trust in those aspects of the
> illusion that are not sufficiently well reproduced. If I can A/B for
> thirty seconds back and forth, I can (if there is a difference) hear
> the increase and decrease in realism. (For awhile, then fatigue sets
> in.)

> If I listen to the less realistic sample for a minute or more, my
> brain disables my ability to trust in those aspects of the illusion
> that were changing. Both samples now sound the same, because I'm no
> longer listening for those differences. It may take a half-hour or
> more of listening to only the more realistic configuration (or only
> real, not reproduced sound) before I can trust whatever aspect of
> illusion was being varied.

> So the procedure was listen for half an hour, make a change, and
> decide within thirty seconds whether there was a decrease in realism.
> If there was a decrease, go ahead and repeat the test in the other
> direction, but don't be surprised when there is no audible increase in
> realism.

> Am I the only one whose brain works this way?

I doubt that you're unique, but the real issue is whether the differences you
think you hear really do exist. You are assuming that because you think you hear
a difference, you really do. You can't assume that, any more than those
supporting double-blind testing can assume it gives correct and complete
results.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 7:53:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 05:46:03 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
<ssully@panix.com> wrote:

>huwgareth@my-deja.com wrote:

> ...

>If someone *passes* a DBT using longer samples, though, there's no basis
>for challenging the result due to the sample length. I think most
>objectivists would be 'OK' with such a report. There's no 'rule' that
>says the samples have to be short.
>
>
>> If Atkinson's claim is that he can
>> differentiate between different power amps when listening to them for
>> an extended period, then let's design an experiment that tests this
>> hypothesis, but remains double blind. How long does he need? A half
>> hour on each? Ten minutes? An hour? Shouldn't be difficult - certainly,

IIRC he lived with that transistor amp he hated for six months.

>> far more time has been spent arguing over this than would be necessary
>> to conduct a *scientific* experiment as to whether two pieces of
>> equipment can be differentiated under these circumstances.
>
>I think the idea is that 'living with' the amps revealed a difference, that
>doing an DBT while unfamiliar with the amps didn't show. Fine! By
>all means, let's see if it made a difference. Now having formed quite
>definite 'feelings' about the difference in sound..to the point of being
>*sure* that one sounds better than another -- do another DBT. Should be
>easy to pass if you're right! And if so, you have valid grounds to
>start agitating for long 'acclimation' periods before doing DBTs
>of audio stuff. (Actually, researchers already routinely recommend and
>employ pre-DBT training sessions to sensitize the testees to differences...
>Arny K also recommends this on his pcabx site)

If it takes long-term listening to show the difference, then do a
test using long-term listening.
How about having a large locked box (large enough for heat buildup
not to be a problem) in the listening room that contains the
amplifier. Once a day a 'maintenance person' comes in, and without the
testee seeing (send him to the shower or something), opens up the box,
spends five minutes doing something, tests the system so see that it
works, locks the box, notifies the listener that he is through, and
leaves until the next day. The listener then has 23 hours and 55
minutes of listening time until the maintenance person comes in again.
During each visit, the maintenance man might or might not have
changed out the amplifier (all amps used are precisely gain-matched).
He might swap it at every visit for a week, then go two weeks just
checking at each visit to see if the unit functions ok (off-site
records are kept of what amp is in the box when). This should give
adequate listening time at least for the listener to decided "like it"
or "hate it" as Atkinson said of the transistor amp he had for several
months that had passed a DBT (been indistinguishable from another good
amp). With that sort of time frame (especially several weeks at a
time) he should be able to say when the amp has been changed out.
Sorry, with the above, the maintenance person knows what's what.
Leave both amps in the locked box, make a switchbox driven by a
microcontroller, the maintainer turns a keyswitch to activate it, it
switches (inaudibly of course) or not, and displays a five-digit
number that encodes the switch setting, the maintainer writes it down
but doesn't know how to decode it into a switch setting. For longterm
listening (several days of one amp at a time), make the chances of
switching much less than 1/2. So it's a good DBT.

But then, what was that Presidential quote, "We have nothing to
fear but truth itself..."
And now I wonder why I just spent my time typing all that...


-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 8:00:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 01:56:24 -0700, Bob Cain
<arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:

>
>
>Anahata wrote:
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>> This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend to use as a mantra,
>>> reflects a fundamental overestimation of how 'trustworthy' your ears
>>> are
>>
>>
>> Ironic, considering that "trust your ears" is a perfectly valid summary
>> of how ABX works too...
>
>On the contrary, it tells you in short order just how much
>trust you dare have in your ears.

Both camps rely on what [they believe] their ears percieve, they
just use different circumstances and methods to decide what that
perception is.

>
>
>Bob

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 8:00:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ben Bradley wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 01:56:24 -0700, Bob Cain
> <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Anahata wrote:
>>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>>> This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend
to use as a
>>>> mantra, reflects a fundamental overestimation of how
'trustworthy'
>>>> your ears
>>>> are
>>>
>>>
>>> Ironic, considering that "trust your ears" is a
perfectly valid
>>> summary of how ABX works too...
>>
>> On the contrary, it tells you in short order just how
much
>> trust you dare have in your ears.
>
> Both camps rely on what [they believe] their ears
percieve, they
> just use different circumstances and methods to decide
what that
> perception is.

It's the difference between naive perception (audiophool)
and informed perception (DBT).
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 8:10:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:17:26 +0200, Anahata wrote:

> Chris Hornbeck wrote:
>>
>> But perhaps the "cognitive/perceptual confounding factors" actually
>> matter for music?
>
> I'm sure thay do. It only worries me when these factors might persuade
> me to part with $2500 for a pair of interconnects because those factors
> have persuaded me that they sound better.
>
> Has anyone tried a non-blind "trick" test where the cheap and expensive
> cable were disguised as each other, or the guts of the amplifiers
> swapped between the boxes so the listener really thought he was
> listening to device A when it was device B?

Just try a simple A-B-C test:
- put an, as perfect as possible, recording setup in your normal listening
environment at the place you prefer to listen.
- take a sound sample A of your favorite music, play it and record it (B).
- replace your interconnect with a $10K one (***)
- take a sound sample A of your favorite music, play it and record it (C).
- normalise samples A, B and C.
- listen with a playback system that randomly plays A, B and C and rate
the samples.

I don't expect significant differences between samples B and C, I do
expect significant differences between sample A and other samples.

(***) you could try to exchange other parts in your system or close the
curtains, move a chair etc. too. I think moving a chair or closing the
curtains has more effect than most changes in interconnects, amplifiers
etc.

--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 8:10:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chel van Gennip wrote:
> Just try a simple A-B-C test:
> [snip description of random blind switching test]
I think you missed my point.

My hypothesis is that the subjectivists really believe that the golden
cable (or amp etc.) sounds better, but only while they "know" they are
listening to the expensive one.

To test this: instead of randomly switching so the listener didn't know
which was which, let them know quite clearly which is the cheap one and
which is the expensive one, but actually tell consistent lies about it,
and see if they still show a marked preference for the one that they
*think* is the fancy one. (you can't do this with speaker because the
trick would be obvious)

Better still, repeat with several victims, telling some the truth and
others the opposite. See if there's a better correlation between their
assessments and what they've been *told* they were listening to, than
between their assessments and what they were *actually* listening to.

I'm sure the psychology works: thousands of Bose customers think their
stuff sounds wonderful...

Anahata
    • 1 / 9
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!