Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

Return to Propeller Head Plaza

On the insignificance of significant results and listener training

68.226.115.6
Posted on October 18, 2009 at 06:21:09
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 There's quite a bit of conversation here surrounding the results of group testing.

My thinking on the results of such testing has been what if you, or me, were one of those whose choices differed the the majority when significant results were achieved? And not being one who participated in such testing how would we know whether our own selection would have fallen in line with the significant majority?

Secondly on training. Of course with listener training our choices are going to fall in line with others who have similar training! Duh! I keep hearing about these "trained" panels of listeners all who come to an agreement. Well I guess that just means the "training" was successful.

To me it's a moot issue and the hoopla and righteous indignation being spewed over DBTs nothing more than hot air and wasted bandwidth.

It's not as if any result, whether the listeners are trained or not, has any influence on any decision I make. The results or lack of results are totally and completely insignificant to my world.

What more proof do we need other than trying stuff in our own living room and decided on our own what suits our own purposes the best? I say none!

Should we care if others claim we are wasting our money? Yea I care but only to the point that it makes me work a bit harder proving to myself that I am not.

Should we care if in fact we are wasting our money? Not me if I can convince myself that I am not. And no I'm confident in knowing I'm not going to wake up one morning a realize I went way to far. YMMV!
RE: On the insignificance of significant results and listener training, posted on October 22, 2009 at 18:43:18
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 You seem to be under the impression that we are telling you how to choose equipment and what to buy--I leave that to subjectivists and advertisers.

I do question some claims about differences people claim to be able to detect. There are some who maintain people are only reporting their perceptions, not making claims. But they often offer advice, too, that such and such amplifier or cable sounds better. However, when asked whether they have verified their reports of hearing differences resulting from changing interconnects, speaker cables, power cords, amplifiers, CDPs and so on, many get indignant: they may say they feel insulted, they may whine about DBTs, and often they engage in circumstantial ad hominem attacks (unresolving equipment, poor hearing, no experience) or worse.

If they really thought they were just reporting their perceptions, the reasonable reply would be that they haven't verified their statements and are comfortable with that. If they really only intend to report their perceptions, then they have no reason to expect others to share their perceptions.



"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
"My thinking on the results of such testing" ::major rant::, posted on October 20, 2009 at 10:19:22
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 4001
Joined: January 8, 2002
 Ah, "such testing." Such as? There in lies the rub. what testing are we talking about? The testing done by actual research science? I feel pretty good about the results that come from that testing and the conclusions drawn by actual scientists based on such tests. but what "tests" are we talking about here? I don't know of any peer reviewed published tests on the sound of CDPs, amps, cables, tweaks and the like. I am sure that our impressions of each are highly affected by our biases and other influences. Such is life. So are my reactions to every other aesthetic experience in my life affected by my biases and other influences. That's life. But what of the tests? How are they affected by bias? We don't really know without the peer review process and the ability to varify. That is why science does all that peer review shit. It is to set a basic standard. Anecdotes is anecdotes, sighted, blind, double blind or triple blind and if it aint peer reviewed it's anecdotal. If someone is worried about bias effects in their personal persuit of excellence in audio that is their personal concern. Only assholes demand scientific proof of others in regards to their aesthetic experiences just because they don't agree with the experience (as if that is in any way debatable.) How many of these assholes actually do anything to varify their own impressions of their own equipment? Oh and that does include speakers. This idea that because we "know" a particular component "sounds different" we no longer have to worry about bias effects is a dumb ass belief that has no foundation is psychoacoustics. If ever there is a need for bias controls it is when there are differences in sound. Anyone who is reading this but isn't smart enough to understand why bias controls are more needed when there is a difference in sound just speak up, show your ignorance and lack of deductive reasoning skills and I'll spell it out for ya.

::end rant::

P.S. this rant was not aimed at you Don.

RE: "My thinking on the results of such testing" ::major rant::, posted on October 21, 2009 at 05:41:52
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 "P.S. this rant was not aimed at you Don."

Seems like a reasonable response to me! I enjoy rants as much as the next guy and even more so when they fall in line with my thinking. Nice response.

But there is a point here though that I'd like to touch on.

"How many of these assholes actually do anything to varify their own impressions of their own equipment? "

Whenever someone posts comments or impression on hifi gear it's fair game that those who are interested in the gear, or in the impressions themselves, be allowed to question the veracity of the comments - ie. come to an understanding of the foundation upon which such impressions are formed.

The person making the comments, or sharing his experiences, should expect this and should not become defensive when such inquisitions are raised. Of course we can all make up our own minds on things, however portable or useful such information is to others is something we need to expect to clarify when we publish our conclusions in public.

I'm not suggesting "scientific proof" is required, I'm just saying a discussion on how one came up with their conclusions or impressions is relative to the usefulness of the information to others. Both sides need to be wary that this should be a process of understanding, not proving or disproving one result or another. The give and take in such conversations should be useful to all.
Preliminary reconaissance has reported..., posted on October 22, 2009 at 16:53:54
Presto
Audiophile

Posts: 2946
Location: Canada
Joined: November 10, 2004
 That 90% of hardcore objectivists don't even own a measurement mic much less an SPL meter.

The complaint that they ask others do to things they themselves do not do is, in many instances, a valid complaint.

They can't be measuring. Measuring takes time and they spend all their time on here arguing on prop heads.

Cheers,
Presto

RE: Preliminary reconnaissance has reported..., posted on October 26, 2009 at 03:14:44
theaudiohobby
Audiophile

Posts: 4438
Joined: January 16, 2003
 "That 90% of hardcore subjectivists don't even own a measurement mic much less an SPL meter."

hmmm.....and who conducted this reconnaissance?

"They can't be measuring. Measuring takes time and they spend all their time on here arguing on prop heads."

And how many will those be? A casual count illustrates that "subjectivist" (i.e. relativist ) audiophiles vastly outnumber the those with an objectivist point on this forum due to constructive attrition. Many objectivist either leave out of frustration or get banned for not toeing the party line, Richard Greene is the latest victim in the later category. Other AA members that hold something of an "objectivist" position generally avoid the prop heads cesspit. Prop heads in its current form provides a forum for "subjective" audiophiles to air off-the-wall opinions or vent their frustration at the wider audio community that rightly IMO regard them as holding irrational opinions about audio products and audio perception.


Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
"...the wider audio community...", posted on October 28, 2009 at 09:43:44
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 >...vent their frustration at the wider audio community that rightly IMO regard them as holding irrational opinions about audio products and audio perception.<

Pefectionist audio proponents are going to be, by definition, out of the mainstream of audio. The only real audio community I have any dealings with outside the garden variety audiophile is recording engineers. There are some that are perfectly fine with recording the likes of Milli Vanilli and your basic pop (mainstream) and there are some that work on audiophile-type recordings. The latter are outside the mainstream. They not only care about sound quality, they are in a position to do something about it. Most if not all "irrational" opinions about audio products and perception should be quelled with a listen to perfectionist audio recordings in comparison to recordings produced by the mainstream.

In short, it's very difficult to take seriously the blatherings of a group of people that are putting out crappy sounding products when those they consider irrational are producing high quality products. That's like a bench player criticizing Michael Jordan's bow-legs.

Is there any chance that you'll follow the example set by some like-minded former members..., posted on October 26, 2009 at 09:25:14
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 ... and leave, out of frustration or anything else?

Because, you know, how many times can one regurgitate the same tired nonsense, like you do in every single one of your posts? Of course, in sheer volume you're nowhere close to BassNut, but just as annoying, and unlike him, not at all entertaining.

"AA members that hold ... objectivist position generally avoid the prop heads cesspit" - that's simply not true. If anything they (you) are the MOST ACTIVE in Prop Heads, my guess would be for the simple reason that there's nothing for them to discuss anywhere else, except may be for Speakers forum.

RE: BassNut was so entertaining, posted on October 26, 2009 at 09:49:47
theaudiohobby
Audiophile

Posts: 4438
Joined: January 16, 2003
 >>> in sheer volume you're nowhere close to BassNut, but just as annoying, and unlike him, not at all entertaining.

BassNut was so entertaining, a ban was required to curtail the laughter.

LOL!


Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
IMO, it was wrong to ban him - makes this place duller., posted on October 26, 2009 at 10:55:31
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 Take it up with moderators, instead of whining here. However, they already explained their reasons.

He, BTW, still tries to be entertaining, this time at HA. Not very successful though - probably having bunch of aggressive, humorless dimwit "scientists" for an auditory doesn't help.

Exactly..., posted on October 20, 2009 at 10:54:38
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 15929
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 >Only assholes demand scientific proof of others in regards to their aesthetic experiences just because they don't agree with the experience...>

Because they aren't able to hear the same things.

I only care that . . ., posted on October 18, 2009 at 14:13:44
caspian@peak.org
Audiophile

Posts: 386
Location: Oregon
Joined: January 12, 2008
 . . . the engineers and producers of the recordings I buy, and the designers of the equipment I listen to those recordings on, possess significantly better-than-average hearing, and have in fact trained their ears to detect the subtler sonic nuances.

Perhaps one reason so many modern popular recordings sound so BAD, is that they are mixed and mastered by technicians who lack these refined listening skills. That, and the fact that the techs are under pressure (from tin-eared imbeciles in the front office) to make everything as LOUD as possible by compressing all the life out of it.

Many talented equipment designers say that once they have done the design groundwork by the book and by the numbers, and achieved acceptable measurements, they refine a product's performance by careful and extended listening and tweaking. George Short, a longtime speaker industry veteran, says this process can take him several months before he's satisfied.

It's not the engineers' ears..., posted on November 9, 2009 at 14:34:19
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 "Perhaps one reason so many modern popular recordings sound so BAD, is that they are mixed and mastered by technicians who lack these refined listening skills."

I think if you will investigate, as I have, you will discover that most of the top rank mastering engineers (the ones who produce the top selling albums in each genre) are well aware that many recordings are produced at insane loudness levels and the resulting high levels of distortion and lack of musical dynamics. You can see this on the various Internet forums these people frequent. You will also see them excuse this, because they provide a "service" and when the one who pays the piper tells them, "Make it louder," that's what they do. They also tell you that they have to feed their family.

Whatever their personal questions of ethics and morals may be, the real issue is with the producers and musicians who approve these recordings. I believe it's these people who can't hear. Of course, they will tell you that they must make their recordings "loud" so people will buy them. I don't buy this argument much either. Their customers have volume controls on their stereos and iPods.

So ultimately, it is the Public who is responsible. And if you buy druck that is sold to the masses, then you get what you deserve.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: On the insignificance of significant results and listener training, posted on October 18, 2009 at 12:49:51
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 1420
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 Presumably statistics could also be created which show hearing acuity distributions, and trained listening ability distributions. With this data all that is left is to define gear performance standards which lie in acceptable regions of the unions of these sets. Logic dictates this gear that achieves these goals automatically satisfies requirements of X number of listeners based on the design performance criteria. In my mind this method would be superior to the currently popular shot in the dark method if it can even be succesfully pulled off.

Edit: added a little punctuation

Would such data really be useful to anyone other than those selling and marketing equipment?, posted on October 18, 2009 at 17:18:00
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 For sure I think some designers and many sales and marketing groups would find such statistics quite useful.

Audiophiles today who are mostly swayed by marketing literature who feel compelled to read between the lines in equipment reviews and who study recommended components listings in order to fiqure out their next short list or purchase could go directly to the statistical data in order to find further support for their buying decisions.

But overall I'm betting the core group of hardcore audiophiles, those who enjoy listening in order to make up their own minds, and the equipment manufacturers who exist to supply components to this group, would be mostly uneffected by such statistical data.

Just my opinion.
To the extent that "good enough" hadn't been achived..., posted on October 19, 2009 at 02:55:27
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 1420
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 for every product on the market and everyone who wanted to purchase stuff AND the language existed such that everybody understood it and agreed about how to use it, this data could be used to compare equipment in an attempt to achieve ones equipment purchasing goals.

As things stand now, at least from my point of view, we have reviews by adjectivy reviewers in a language I don't understand and incomplete specs given by manufacturers which even if they were complete enough I still may not understand. Worse yet I'm not sure I trust what I do understand and hear 100% of the time from either of these sources. The problem that keeps coming up for me is we definitely haven't reached a point with the technology where, at least for the price points I'm looking at buying or auditioning, random purchases always approach "good enough" by my standards. I've identified imperfections in my sound system/s and haven't identified a gear buying approach that guarantees eliminating them.

The biggest stumbling block I seem to have is finding the language of to accurately describe what stuff would or does sound like at my house and finding someone using it truthfully and reliably in a way that is useful to me. Oh and this person or source, once found, needs to have applied this perfect description language to everything on the market so I know what the differences all really are. I may be dreaming but it is a pleasant dream.

A tower of babel, posted on October 19, 2009 at 08:45:44
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 I would not expect much progress in developing a universal language to describe sound. The problem is that different people perceive the same sounds in fundamentally different ways. In some cases, there are physical explanations, but the really interesting cases involve processes of cognition.

For example, humans can detect the pitch of various waveforms, and order pairs of sounds by pitch. Unfortunately, there exist sounds that different people order oppositely. As another example, one would expect that there is an ordered relationship between physical frequency and pitch perception. This would imply that a sequence of sounds could be ordered on a line, and since each increment of pitch involves a certain difference there could be no infinite sequence of ever increasing audible pitches. However, this is not the case. There is a sequence of such sounds. (I believe this was discussed in Scientific American many years ago.) It turns out that many of these perceptual differences are related to the imprinting of vocal sounds in a young child, and hence depend on the native language of the individual. The mind is programmed to discriminate sounds effectively in the native language, and differences peculiar to other languages are heard poorly or not at all.

So it appears that we are in a "tower of babel" situation.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

You're probably right., posted on October 20, 2009 at 00:46:58
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 1420
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 This means, unless I'm mistaken, the only hope left is for complete gear characterization data of adequate detail as to cover the entire audio gear buying populations hearing capabilities to be made public, for those who care the ability to understand that data, and for each of them to understand what it means in terms of their own perceptions of how things sound to them....or at least until the day arrives when everything on the market is so good that we can just grab any old thing off the shelf at the audio retailer of choice and expect relative perfection.

The problem is that no one I've noticed really even seems to be trying to make it all make sense. Perhaps my expectations of being an informed consumer are too high?

RE: You're probably right., posted on October 20, 2009 at 07:56:54
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 The processing of sound involves use of the human mind. Understanding language and making logical arguments involve the use of the human mind. So we are using the human mind to attempt to understand the human mind. This is somewhat akin to performing brain surgery on oneself. :-) But who said that life was supposed to be easy? Some say it is just lessons to be learned (or not)...

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

On the insignificance of senseless babble...., posted on October 18, 2009 at 07:44:51
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 Insignificant true, but Man! it's damn popular here.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!

Page processed in 0.080 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ] [ Go Green ] [ Take5 ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]