 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: The link was intended to inform about methodology -- not statistics posted by Richard BassNut Greene on August 06, 2003 at 06:04:22:
Despite the fact that it has been explained many times, and that the only scientific way to interpret nulls that have no controls for test sensitivity is that they are inconclusive, you insist on equating any null results to a bona-fide negative.Null results do not mean that there were no audible differences, and have very little actual meaning, other than a lack of some sort of defined (statistically significant, etc.) positive result. Period.
Yet the naysayers continue to habitually make the equation of a null to a negative, usually based on pretty lousy tests that are highly suspect in the first place.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that they are spinning the 'results' to make them appear to back up their POV.
I honestly believe that your own exposure to this propoganda and subsequent 'eqo-crushing', has made you way too suspicious of your own ability to hear subtle audio changes, as it tends to do for those exposed to these kinds of quack ABX listening tests, and you have swallowed the ABX propoganda hook-line-and-sinker. Thus everyone else must also be 'deluding themselves'. Then you evangelize over the issue, and try to convince other people that they can not hear audio sonics either.
The real question is: Who are the ones deluding themselves? The ABX naysayers, or the folks listening for subtle audio sonics?
Jon Risch
Follow Ups:
Of course very few of you Golden Ears would ever admit to NOT hearing a difference between two different components during a sighted audition ... so EVERYTHING sounds different during sighted auditions!Here's how sighted auditions prevent those pesky nulls:
- The audiophile should waltz into a high-end audio store just after reading a positive review in Stereophile (are there any other kind?) to audition this great new recommended component ...
... and is then told by the salesman what will be heard
... and then listens to an unfamiliar stereo & listening room
... and then is told again by the salesman what was just heard
... and then buys the new component
... and then rushes home to listen to his favorite recordings
... and then posts a review at Audio Asylum
... about how his new $10,000 unobtanium wires made such a huge improvement ... even his wife could hear the difference!If a more objective audiophile posts a question about whether it's possible that reading the positive review in Stereophile combined with the pride of ownership could have biased the wire review
... he's told "I KNOW WHAT I HEAR" by the Golden Ear.
The possibility of two components sounding the same is NEVER considered (that's grounds for being tossed out of the Golden Ear
"club").But when ANYONE compares two components under blind conditions and can't hear a difference, along comes a Golden Ear to criticize
the test methodology, the equipment used, and even the hearing ability of the listeners. No standards are EVER good enough ... unlike sighted auditions, where there are NO standards at all.Could a two-hour blind audition miss some subtle A-B difference that might have been noticed after weeks or months of long-term listening?
Sure that's possible.But if you want to choose a component that sounds better ...
you can reduce bias by hiding the identity of that component and
comparing two components playing at the same volume using your ears, and ONLY your ears, in your own listening room. Under blind conditions even a "guru" writing in Stereophile will have no influence on your purchase decision. Only your own ears can decide.
This is ALL about ego, on both sides.I agree completely that is amazing to read posts/reports where a person claims to "hear" the sound of a single component in a completely unfamiliar system and room; it's a complete impossibility. Much of what is claimed for audio equipment is clearly BS.
However, there are clearly people who are threatened by the "golden ear" crowd, as described in your post, and those people have an irrational need to "prove" that the golden ears can't hear what they say they hear.
I believe that the only way forward is to remain open to the obvious notion that we do not know all there is to know about audio reproduction, and look for the repeatable correlations between engineering choices and listening observations.
BTW, IMO most of the "can't hear a difference" crowd has permanently blown their credibility based on their moronic claims a few years ago that it was not possible to hear differences in digital transmission media, even though there are (and always were) clear engineering reasons why there would be differences. How many "I'm a EE, it's just 1s and 0's; it can't possibly sound different" posts have we all seen... Most of them couldn't find the PLL at the end of a digital cable...
That's NOT a null result, and is therefore statistically useful; they were flat out wrong!
Peter
One of the four double-blind ABX tests I participated in was
a Mini-Disc recording versus the original CD in the early 1990's when mini-disc was relatively new. No audio club member could hear a difference while listening to music.Special test signals always had an audible difference.
Eventually one song was found where a difference was sometimes
audible.Solid-state amplifiers rarely sound different when not clipping
and playing music at the same volume. This is true of my own ears under double-blind conditions ... along with a dozen other audio club members.CD players rarely sound different when playing music at the same volume. This is true of my own ears under double-blind conditions
... along with a dozen other audio club members.Most important:
Audiophile who claim "I know what they hear" ... are almost always proven wrong when they are courageous enough to listen with the identities of the components hidden, and A-B volumes carefully matched, minutes after claiming to hear differences under sighted conditions. I have personally witnessed this effect many times ... and have experienced it myself.
You said:CD players generally sound the same.
SS amps generally sound the same.
Cables generally sound the same.Therefore:
With a given loudspeaker, all systems with any combination of CD player, solid state amplification and cables will sound the same.
(OK, OK, with all the usual qualifiers of clipping, etc.... )
Do you really believe this is true?
Peter
I can't extrapolate that far from a small number of blind tests comparing similar components ... to ALL possible combinations of different types of components.And of course test results may not apply to ears of people who did not participate and belive they have Golden Ears.
If all three components rolled off high frequencies more than average, the combined effect could be audible, even though the high frequency roll-off for EACH component was inaudible.
There is no controlled listening evidence that A*N*Y*O*N*E can differentiate among cables intended for audio use -- even the free interconnects that come with some components.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=20030805205609.18302.00000941@mb-m15.aol.com
A "small number of blind tests" keep being used to condemn all subjective reports of differences in equipment (esp. cables).I'm using the same speakers I did 5 years ago, but I'm certain that my system sounds quite different. The only things I've changed have been cables, cd playback equipment and amplifiers.
So, either those things make a difference or they don't. If they do, then that difference is certainly not being uncovered by double blind testing (as it is aparently being practiced).
The reports that audiophiles claim to hear difference in sighted tests (but can't correctly identify them blind)are also very intersting. I don't doubt that the differences heard in sighted tests are due in part to a defensive need to prove a position.
Unfortunately, it doesn't help establish whether the differences are real or not.
Peter
I can barely remember the sound quality five minutes ago!You wrote:
"I'm using the same speakers I did 5 years ago, but I'm certain that my system sounds quite different. The only things I've changed have been cables, cd playback equipment and amplifiers."RG:
I'll assume no changes to speaker location, listener location and room acoustics / revised room furnishings which could obviously affect a comparison over such a long time period:Five years, five months, or even five days ... is a very long time to hold a memory of exactly what you heard. Not to mention that your hearing has probably changed over time, especially if you are a male over 40, your music preferences may have changed over time, and your audio sound quality preferences may have changed over time ... ... but these are all moot points AFTER you buy new equipment --
just enjoy the new components.Blind comparisons are best for quick purchase decisions when long-term auditions in your home are not possible. I frequently use single-blind volume-matched comparisons of borrowed components (except speakers) and my own components in my own listening room BEFORE I buy a component. If I can't hear a difference in the day or two that I have before returning the component, then I don't buy it. For speakers I spend my limited time trying alternative locations
rather than wasting my limited time on single-blind comparisons.
I don't like to assume my current speaker position will be the optimum position for the borrowed speakers. Besides, it's tough to hide speakers for a blind comparison without affecting sound quality.
Richard:It's clear that we are operating with radically different paradigms.
Once you head down the slippery slope of claiming that there is no long-term memory of the way a system sounds, then it becomes fairly easy to "prove" that any two systems are sonically identical if they cannot be compared in real time. This also invalidates any listening impressions gained over periods of more than a few minutes.
While in college, I used to sell audio equipment. In doing demos of different speaker types, prospective customers would ALWAYS prefer speakers than sounded up-front and hard compared to something more neutral. It was hard to explain that they were going to tire of this sound (which many did) and should buy a more accurate transducer. If your logic is correct, then this would not happen; we're all in a minute-to-minute audio Groundhog Day....
Although it is obviously not possible to remember the exact sonic signature of anything for any significant length of time, it is certainly posible to remember the reaction to it. I can tell you which concerts I attended 5 years ago had good sound, and which were terrible. It certainly isn't by carrying a .wav file around in my head.
So, I can't prove that my system sounds any different than it did 5 years ago. Hell, I can't prove it sounds different than the one-box monaural reel-to-reel I started with in 1972.
But I do know that the system gets closer and closer to the essence of the music.
Peter
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]