|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
172.78.17.64
In Reply to: RE: It won't sell posted by josh358 on October 25, 2015 at 18:38:53
"Well, I'd have to agree with mkuller in that the door swings both ways."
Sure, both camps suffer from dogmatic rigidity. That's obvious.
"It's kind of funny to read Hydrogen Audio and watch them dancing around their own regulations"
I'm unfamiliar with that publication/website.
"chances are I've been fooling myself."
That's the sort of refreshing honesty you rarely get from either camp.
Follow Ups:
"That's the sort of refreshing honesty you rarely get from either camp."
Maybe because I was in both camps myself when I was young?
Like many, I was raised on Julian "All Amplifiers Sound The Same" Hirsch. Only at some point, I discovered that that wasn't true. I discovered Stereophile and put together a system that in its realism made my first attempts seem like the efforts of a caveman.
Then Enid Lumley came along and people started hearing open faucets in the next room and spending thousands of dollars on cables, and the limitations of subjective evaluation started to become apparent.
The awful sound of early digital recordings only confirmed my belief that standard measurements weren't telling the whole truth and as I started working in pro audio I learned that most audio engineers agreed. But it seemed as well that people (including audio engineers) were hearing things that weren't there, owing to what I then thought of as the placebo effect. And snake oil salesmen were moving in to take advantage of that.
In recent years, I've learned more about confirmation bias, about the degree to which the brain processes information from many different streams, the degree to which what appears to be straightforward perception has actually been processed by our brains by the time it reaches consciousness. The Harman research, the McGurk effect, studies on the rapidity with which the ear adapts to an unfamiliar acoustic -- all of these mean that the evaluation of audio equipment is extremely difficult.
So I think we're in a difficult situation, one in which our understanding of the correlation between measurement and perception is still inadequate, but in which subjective assessments have been shown to be colored as well. ABX tests are great for demonstrating that we *can* hear something, but can't demonstrate that we can't hear something.
That being said, if you ignore the fringes, the subjectivist and objectivist perspectives aren't as different as their adherents sometimes like to imply. I mean, ABX'ers have successfully distinguished sampling rates (this of course would be valid only for the filter characteristics that they used), the sound of op amps (three in series was the magic number), and amplifiers (though the question of whether you can hear the difference between modern amps within their linear range after you've compensated for impedance interactions is an interesting one). So typically, I find that ABX results agree with our subjective assessments.
I think a lot of the problem is that we tend to make subjective assessments under the wrong conditions. We rarely control variables, we rarely do blind testing. And a similar objection applies to many supposedly objective tests -- statistically invalid ABX comparisons, inadequately revealing ancillary equipment, etc. Evaluating a dipole in the middle of the room, evaluating "high res" audio that turns out to be upsampled 44.1 -- some of the mistakes are frankly embarrassing.
"In recent years, I've learned more about confirmation bias"
When it comes to the subjective camp I wonder how much brand/price bias figures into the evaluation process?
It seems to me that when subjectivists insist on sighted testing what they are really after is brand/price identification/knowledge. Once they are given that information then they are on firm footing. Oftentimes, if an audiophile thinks he is evaluating a $500 amp the exercise becomes a yawner. But if he believes he is auditioning a $25,000 amp....
In his book "Why You Like the Wines You Like," wine writer, Tim Hanni, recalls the night a friend brought a five thousand dollar magnum to his house for a dinner party. "It was a lovely wine," says Hanni. The next day Kate, his wife, confronted him and demanded, "Why didn't you tell me how expensive that wine is!"
Hanni says like any insensitive and stupid husband he asked, "What would that have mattered? It's not as though someone is going to smell the wine and say, Wow!, this is worth thousands of dollars!"
His wife's response was: "If I had known it was that special I would have paid more attention and enjoyed it more."
Hanni says that, "She is, of course, right."
Hanni points to a study (link below). According to Stanford researchers, when a person is told they are comparing a $5 wine with a $45 wine, when they are, in fact, sampling the same wine, the part of the brain that experiences pleasure will become more active when the drinker believes he is tasting the $45 wine.
I suspect further research will demonstrate the same holds true for evaluations of high-end audio and other luxury goods.
Tim Hanni here. And i am heavily into audio! Yes, many of the same biases are evident in audio evaluation as well as wine.
"When it comes to the subjective camp I wonder how much brand/price bias figures into the evaluation process?"
I wonder too. It certainly figures in, the Harman research shows that. But I have no idea to what degree its affecting a given review, or my own impressions.
"It seems to me that when subjectivists insist on sighted testing what they are really after is brand/price identification/knowledge. Once they are given that information then they are on firm footing. Oftentimes, if an audiophile thinks he is evaluating a $500 amp the exercise becomes a yawner. But if he believes he is auditioning a $25,000 amp...."
But who insists on that? I think that the issue with blind testing usually has more to do with practical logistics. Side-by-side double blind AB tests are hard to arrange.
"Hanni points to a study (link below). According to Stanford researchers, when a person is told they are comparing a $5 wine with a $45 wine, when they are, in fact, sampling the same wine, the part of the brain that experiences pleasure will become more active when the drinker believes he is tasting the $45 wine.
"I suspect further research will demonstrate the same holds true for evaluations of high-end audio and other luxury goods."
I wouldn't be at all surprised. And, really, is there anything wrong with that, if your goal is to feel good? The issue that I have is that it makes it harder to put together a really good *sounding* system.
Personally, I try to find those few magical components that punch way above their price class.
"And, really, is there anything wrong with that, if your goal is to feel good?"
No. Nor am I suggesting there is. I understand why some audiophiles take pride and comfort in owning certain brands.
"Personally, I try to find those few magical components that punch way above their price class."
Yes, that is the difficult part, isn't it?
Yes, it can be very time consuming. It helps that there's so much great used stuff available now. Also to focus on major rather than minor issues, e.g., improving room acoustics rather than buying expensive interconnects. And to give a listen to the components that reviewers consider a great value while trying to ignore the allure of hideously expensive items that reach the point of diminishing returns.
And maybe to be a bit canny. Forex, I just got a couple of Crown 2500's to try on my woofers, they were on sale for $300 each because the new model is coming out. I'd never expect to run a cheap Class D amp full range, the highs aren't very good. But they're typically great at bass frequencies. And if these don't pan out (as usual, I've heard conflicting reports) I can just send the back to Amazon.
There was a time when I did buy the fancy stuff, and some of it was beautiful. But eventually I found that I could outdo most systems for very little, and make a system that lights up the eyes of audiophiles and non-audiophiles alike -- and more importantly, that sounds so remarkable I could be happy with it forever. And the interconnects will be nothing more than 14 gauge lamp cord, because I'm focusing on the major stuff rather than costly improvements with consequences so subtle you aren't even sure whether they're real or not.
When it comes to the subjective camp I wonder how much brand/price bias figures into the evaluation process?
They are of the same price and both are of unknown brands to the listener? That happened to me on one of my visits to Sea Cliff back in '01. The two contenders were a pair of Edge Signature Monoblocks:
vs VTL Wotans:
Visually, it was like comparing Jenny McCarthy to Rosie O'Donnell. Chassis of milled and engraved aluminum using countersunk machine bolts vs rolled sheet metal and plain screws.
Guess which I preferred in terms of making the walls disappear and sounding more like live music? Soon after that, I purchased new amps and remain giddily happy using them to this day. If you check my system, you'll find the answer to the question. :)
Visually, it was like comparing Jenny McCarthy to Rosie O'Donnell, Guess which I preferred in terms of making the walls disappear and sounding more like live music? Soon after that, I purchased new amps and remain giddily happy using them to this day. If you check my system, you'll find the answer to the question. :) - EStat
Sooooo, Since it was not a blind test, my guess..? you like Ugly amps and or Big women .. :)
Edits: 10/29/15 10/29/15
Sooooo, Since it was not a blind test, my guess..? you like Ugly amps and or Big women .. :)
That's what DBT proponents would say. :)
"Visually, it was like comparing Jenny McCarthy to Rosie O'Donnell. Chassis of milled and engraved aluminum using countersunk machine bolts vs rolled sheet metal and plain screws."
It's to your credit that you weren't swayed by a pretty face. But my point has to do with brand/price, not cosmetics.
"They are of the same price and both are of unknown brands to the listener?"
Again, my example has to do with situations in which the listener does know the brands and prices under review (or, as in the Stanford study, believes he does).
But my point has to do with brand/price, not cosmetics.
I had never heard of either brand before, so I had no prior bias about either - one way or another.
Their price was the same.
My choice was based upon my emotional reaction to how each reproduced music. One was exceptionally good. The other had me laughing out loud listening to my favorite music. :)
"My choice was based upon my emotional reaction to how each reproduced music."
Good for you. I can think of no better criteria for purchasing an audio component.
...don't you list your system?
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: