Audiophoolery?

[robgmn]

Arrgghhhh.
I log in, type a reply, hit submit.
I'm redirected to the login page and told to log in.
I log in and hit submit and get sent to a page telling me to go BACK one page and reload.
All typing gone.
Arrggghhhh.

 

[robgmn]

Mister Pig,
You are mixing and matching your ideas (apples versus oranges if you will).

I DO NOT argue that differences can be heard.
My argument is that unless there is a difference in the waveform that enters your ear canal, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

 

[JoeESP9]

Mister Pig,
You are mixing and matching your ideas (apples versus oranges if you will).

I DO NOT argue that differences can be heard.
My argument is that unless there is a difference in the waveform that enters your ear canal, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

IMO no one in his/her right mind would argue this. So, what's your point?

 

[Bigerik]

Your saying this after scrutinising Robgmn's first post in such a condescending manner is, at best, insulting to all parties involved.

This will indeed go nowhere. Have a good day.



While I realise that these are rhetorical questions, I'll still take the opportunity to present another view, since I'm quite certain that I'm a part of the group you're referring to.

I don't care about how you, Brett or anybody else choose to enjoy their stereo. That is absolutely none of my business, and I want to make that very clear.

However, when someone enters an open forum, the Internet in particular, they should not expect their personal opinion to carry the same weight as the decades of peer-reviewed, scientific research that it opposes. If you choose to enter such a forum and voice such an opinion, you shouldn't be surprised when someone has a problem with it and calls you out on it. That's free speech in action.

That is, however, not what causes the "hostile" situations. If the holder of the opinion was to acknowledge it as a mere opinion, nobody would think anything more of it.

That rarely happens. It is when the holder of the opinion then tries to elevate his opinion to the same level of credibility as the science that it opposes, that sparks start to fly. What was a harmless opinion has now been turned into an unprovable fact, and the discussion is bound to swirl down the drain and into the sewers of theological Internet debates.

What science?

 

[Mister Pig]

Mister Pig,
You are mixing and matching your ideas (apples versus oranges if you will).

I DO NOT argue that differences can be heard.
My argument is that unless there is a difference in the waveform that enters your ear canal, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

No I asked a simple question. You support DBT testing as the best possible way to evaluate audio gear. That science offers all the measurements and answers needed to select an audio system. So can you please explain if you use DBT testing to select your audio gear, and if so how you do it. Thats all, one simple question. Please do not dodge it. Or try to confuse the subject by acknowledging that different gear sounds different. Or that differences don't exist unless they enter the ear canal. Those are all red herrings. Please tell us how you use DBT testing in your personal audio system, thats all.

Regards
Mister Pig

 

[cubdog]

Round and round we go. Might as well be arguing over the existence of God.

cubdog

 

[robgmn]

round and round we go. Might as well be arguing over the existence of god.

Cubdog

bingo

 

[Art K.]

Round and round we go. Might as well be arguing over the existence of God.

cubdog

qft

 

[robgmn]

Mister Pig,

If a binary code of 1001001010100011001110 enters your DAC, there is no difference whether it was delivered there by a stand of copper thinner than a hair or a piece of 99.999% pure silver cryogenicaly treated and encased in optic crystal.
If he code is the same, then the code is the same (even when the optic crystal is supported by a piece of petrified cocobolo machined to the exact dimensions of Cheops' pyramid).
Were this not the case, the compounding of errors in/from all of our PCs would make the internet fall apart in matter of seconds.

If two components from two different mfgrs' (lets say Amps from Sony and MacIntosh) theoretically caused your speaker to produce the EXACT same waveform as each other, you would not (could not) distinguish between the two components unless you were told which one was connected to the speaker.
THAT is fact.

DBT removes the possibility of your perception being influenced by factors other than what you are trying to measure.
It eliminates the placebo effect that we (as humans) are so susceptible to.
People can, will, and DO choose what the "better" is of anything based on what they believe they SHOULD choose (bottled water directly from the tap and labeled with a good name at $4.00 is MUCH better than any other tap water, isn't it? Bose Acoustimass speaker MUST sound better than any speaker that only sells for half as much 'cuz the advertising SAYS SO, right?)

Show me that a significant majority of "Golden Ears" can hear a change to a system when sorcery is applied (without them knowing whether it was applied or not), and I can guarantee that there will be some measurable change to the waveform they are hearing.
It's the science of sound.

If the only time the change can be be heard is when they KNOW the sorcery was applied, then psychoacoustics/the placebo effect are in play and the sorcery is nothing more than a money-making scam.

I suppose using DBT would be a nice way to choose components, but you'd have to do it in your home.
I have neither the resources nor the desire to.
If I hear something in a store that sounds better than what I currently have, I might buy it.
If I get home and find that it DOESN'T sound better any more due to my listening environment, then it goes back.
It's pretty simple.

If, however, the salesman tells me that one amp sounds better than the other because one has piano-gloss-finished maple panels on the side and another doesn't (all other components the same), I will tell him where he should keep the amp warm while he waits for me to pony up the cash.

If people want to believe in magic, more power to them (heck, some people believe that prayer will make this summer's tornadoes less destructive than had they NOT prayed. Some people refuse to have their child's burst appendicitis treated and choose to pray for healing instead).

Sorry, I DON"T believe in magic (and until someone walks through my door, lays down on my floor and starts to levitate, I WON'T believe in it).

Do YOU chose magic over science?

 

[Tom Brennan]

What science?

If not science how about engineering? Good engineering seeks to ensure that the device actually does what it's intended to do.

 

[robgmn]

IMO no one in his/her right mind would argue this. So, what's your point?

Because people DO argue that they hear a difference when no difference exists (just as some people believe hurricane Katrina was God's punishment to America for our policy on abortion).

They confuse psychoacoustics with reality (and fantasy with reality).

 

[Freezer7Pro]

What science?

For instance, this, this or this.

The mere act of claiming that there are differences to be heard that are neither measurable nor psychological in nature is anti-scientific in nature, since it assumes that we either don't have measuring equipment capable of capturing an audio spectrum signal better than the human ear (false), we can't present or interpret that measurement (false), or that the difference is immeasurable (magic).

 

[robgmn]

Welcome to AudioKarma. That's quite a first post.
If I understand you correctly, you believe science has sufficiently proven that all equipment operating at a certain basic set of specs is transparent. I think you're wrong; everything the signal passes through changes the signal in some way and there is no possible way to achieve absolute transparency. It's a theory I know.

You support me 100%.
Transparency is inherent if all factors are identical.
If not, then coloration has occurred, and coloration is measurable.

If coloration HASN'T occurred, then there is no difference in the sound (i.e. unless that $700 alarm clock somehow causes measurable coloration, it's a con).

 

[Bigerik]

For instance, this, this or this.

The mere act of claiming that there are differences to be heard that are neither measurable nor psychological in nature is anti-scientific in nature, since it assumes that we either don't have measuring equipment capable of capturing an audio spectrum signal better than the human ear (false), we can't present or interpret that measurement (false), or that the difference is immeasurable (magic).

Awesome. So all audio equipment is perfect now. We know everything about how the human ear works. We have a complete understanding of how the brain interprets sound. I guess that's why my dads $4000 hearing aids sound just as good as his natural hearing. Gotta be, right? Science has all the answers!

Btw, please tell me which system I should buy. You have the measurements now. It will save me all that annoying time actually spent listening to gear.

 

[Bigerik]

Mister Pig,

If a binary code of 1001001010100011001110 enters your DAC, there is no difference whether it was delivered there by a stand of copper thinner than a hair or a piece of 99.999% pure silver cryogenicaly treated and encased in optic crystal.
If he code is the same, then the code is the same (even when the optic crystal is supported by a piece of petrified cocobolo machined to the exact dimensions of Cheops' pyramid).
Were this not the case, the compounding of errors in/from all of our PCs would make the internet fall apart in matter of seconds.

If two components from two different mfgrs' (lets say Amps from Sony and MacIntosh) theoretically caused your speaker to produce the EXACT same waveform as each other, you would not (could not) distinguish between the two components unless you were told which one was connected to the speaker.
THAT is fact.

DBT removes the possibility of your perception being influenced by factors other than what you are trying to measure.
It eliminates the placebo effect that we (as humans) are so susceptible to.
People can, will, and DO choose what the "better" is of anything based on what they believe they SHOULD choose (bottled water directly from the tap and labeled with a good name at $4.00 is MUCH better than any other tap water, isn't it? Bose Acoustimass speaker MUST sound better than any speaker that only sells for half as much 'cuz the advertising SAYS SO, right?)

Show me that a significant majority of "Golden Ears" can hear a change to a system when sorcery is applied (without them knowing whether it was applied or not), and I can guarantee that there will be some measurable change to the waveform they are hearing.
It's the science of sound.

If the only time the change can be be heard is when they KNOW the sorcery was applied, then psychoacoustics/the placebo effect are in play and the sorcery is nothing more than a money-making scam.

I suppose using DBT would be a nice way to choose components, but you'd have to do it in your home.
I have neither the resources nor the desire to.
If I hear something in a store that sounds better than what I currently have, I might buy it.
If I get home and find that it DOESN'T sound better any more due to my listening environment, then it goes back.
It's pretty simple.

If, however, the salesman tells me that one amp sounds better than the other because one has piano-gloss-finished maple panels on the side and another doesn't (all other components the same), I will tell him where he should keep the amp warm while he waits for me to pony up the cash.

If people want to believe in magic, more power to them (heck, some people believe that prayer will make this summer's tornadoes less destructive than had they NOT prayed. Some people refuse to have their child's burst appendicitis treated and choose to pray for healing instead).

Sorry, I DON"T believe in magic (and until someone walks through my door, lays down on my floor and starts to levitate, I WON'T believe in it).

Do YOU chose magic over science?

So you just don't practice what you preach to others.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Mister Pig]

Mister Pig,

If a binary code of 1001001010100011001110 enters your DAC, there is no difference whether it was delivered there by a stand of copper thinner than a hair or a piece of 99.999% pure silver cryogenicaly treated and encased in optic crystal.
If he code is the same, then the code is the same (even when the optic crystal is supported by a piece of petrified cocobolo machined to the exact dimensions of Cheops' pyramid).
Were this not the case, the compounding of errors in/from all of our PCs would make the internet fall apart in matter of seconds.

If two components from two different mfgrs' (lets say Amps from Sony and MacIntosh) theoretically caused your speaker to produce the EXACT same waveform as each other, you would not (could not) distinguish between the two components unless you were told which one was connected to the speaker.
THAT is fact.

DBT removes the possibility of your perception being influenced by factors other than what you are trying to measure.
It eliminates the placebo effect that we (as humans) are so susceptible to.
People can, will, and DO choose what the "better" is of anything based on what they believe they SHOULD choose (bottled water directly from the tap and labeled with a good name at $4.00 is MUCH better than any other tap water, isn't it? Bose Acoustimass speaker MUST sound better than any speaker that only sells for half as much 'cuz the advertising SAYS SO, right?)

Show me that a significant majority of "Golden Ears" can hear a change to a system when sorcery is applied (without them knowing whether it was applied or not), and I can guarantee that there will be some measurable change to the waveform they are hearing.
It's the science of sound.

If the only time the change can be be heard is when they KNOW the sorcery was applied, then psychoacoustics/the placebo effect are in play and the sorcery is nothing more than a money-making scam.

I suppose using DBT would be a nice way to choose components, but you'd have to do it in your home.
I have neither the resources nor the desire to.
If I hear something in a store that sounds better than what I currently have, I might buy it.
If I get home and find that it DOESN'T sound better any more due to my listening environment, then it goes back.
It's pretty simple.

If, however, the salesman tells me that one amp sounds better than the other because one has piano-gloss-finished maple panels on the side and another doesn't (all other components the same), I will tell him where he should keep the amp warm while he waits for me to pony up the cash.

If people want to believe in magic, more power to them (heck, some people believe that prayer will make this summer's tornadoes less destructive than had they NOT prayed. Some people refuse to have their child's burst appendicitis treated and choose to pray for healing instead).

Sorry, I DON"T believe in magic (and until someone walks through my door, lays down on my floor and starts to levitate, I WON'T believe in it).

Do YOU chose magic over science?

Fair enough, you support DBT testing, but don't use it.

I have neither the resources nor the desire to.
If I hear something in a store that sounds better than what I currently have, I might buy it.
If I get home and find that it DOESN'T sound better any more due to my listening environment, then it goes back.
It's pretty simple.

So in other words you use a subjective evaluation process to decide if gear is worth owning or not. Just like the rest of us. Thats all I needed to know.

Now as far as this point:

If two components from two different mfgrs' (lets say Amps from Sony and MacIntosh) theoretically caused your speaker to produce the EXACT same waveform as each other, you would not (could not) distinguish between the two components unless you were told which one was connected to the speaker.
THAT is fact.

Yes and no, there are variables that you are not accounting for. The speaker for one. Is the speaker a stable and even impedance load? Does it have severe phase angles due to driver and crossover design? If so, these amplifiers are not going to sound the same, nor perform the same at the difficult impedances. Power supplies and circuit topology will perform differently with a reactive speaker. Thats what makes a Rowland, Levinson, or Krell amplifier cost big bucks, and an Adcom, NAD, or Emotiva a lot less expensive. So I do not agree with you on this point, the example is too simplistic.


One more question:
If a binary code of 1001001010100011001110 enters your DAC, there is no difference whether it was delivered there by a stand of copper thinner than a hair or a piece of 99.999% pure silver cryogenicaly treated and encased in optic crystal.
If he code is the same, then the code is the same (even when the optic crystal is supported by a piece of petrified cocobolo machined to the exact dimensions of Cheops' pyramid).

Why do you continue to make up examples that do not exist? There are plenty of "tweaks" in audio that are questionable. Try sticking to the real world. Now as far as digital cables go, I would agree that the differences are minimal at best. There has been research done in the early days of digital cables that discussed the phenomenon of reflection in digital cables. The people do this work ended up deciding that a 1.5 meter cable length negated these reflections. But this is a known event and has application in other digital transmission fields besides audio. There is a wikki link that has supporting site and information regarding the effects of digital reflection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_reflection

As I understand it, this does apply to a certain extent to digital playback in audio. So it does not seem to be a cut and dry answer.

Regards
Mister Pig

 

[Bigerik]

So Rob believes he is ok listening to gear, but not the rest of us.

 

[Freezer7Pro]

You still have not answered the question. Its a simple one, shouldn't take too many sentences to do so. I will state it again, so you don't have to scroll back to a previous post.

Can you please explain if you use DBT testing to select your audio gear, and if so how you do it. What is your switching system, and what is your control system? Simple question really. Doesn't need that long post to argue a point I did not bring up. If you don't mind the trouble, just share with us how you use DBT testing thats all.

Regards
Mister Pig

You're pressuring him for an answer to the wrong question.

Double-blind testing is primarily a good technique for exposing those who claim that there is a difference where there is none. Robgmn doesn't claim that, he favours the contrary. DBT is also a good technique for impartially judging what speakers one subjectively prefers over another set without prejudice, and in this application it could be applied to choosing what gear to purchase, but it is a very cumbersome way to do so, and it is completely pointless if and only if a complete set of specifications for the gear is available and the purchaser knows how to interpret them. This is sadly almost never the case.

Personally, if I didn't have access to a proper spec sheet, but had the possibility of performing a double-blind test effortlessly when I choose between gear, I'd do the test without hesitation! It wouldn't necessarily make me go home with the more accurate speaker, but it would make me go home with the speaker I liked the sound of more.

What DBT is not good for at all is judging if a system is objectively superior to another, which you seem to be pushing toward a bit in your original post.

Awesome. So all audio equipment is perfect now. We know everything about how the human ear works. We have a complete understanding of how the brain interprets sound. I guess that's why my dads $4000 hearing aids sound just as good as his natural hearing. Gotta be, right? Science has all the answers!

Btw, please tell me which system I should buy. You have the measurements now. It will save me all that annoying time actually spent listening to gear.

Please. If you're going to put words in my mouth, what is the point of me speaking in the first place?

I never claimed that all audio gear is perfect, nor did I even hint toward it. I didn't claim us to have a complete understanding about how the brain interprets sound, nor did I claim to have all the measurements.

We have a fair understanding of how the brain interprets sound. We know enough to with certainty be able to say that we're extremely susceptible to external factors messing with it.

We know enough about how electrical and acoustic signals work to be able to build machines that are an order of magnitude more sensitive toward them than our bodies, and we've got the understanding of the measurements put out of those machines to draw conclusions based upon what we've measured.

If I had access to the gear you were interested in buying and the right test equipment, it would be no match for me to tell you which piece of kit is the most accurate, or what the differences are between different machines. However, I could never tell you what gear to buy since I couldn't possibly know what subjective qualities you look for in it. A few double-blind tests of the right gear could sort that right out, though.

 

[Mister Pig]

You're pressuring him for an answer to the wrong question.

Double-blind testing is primarily a good technique for exposing those who claim that there is a difference where there is none. Robgmn doesn't claim that, he favours the contrary. DBT is also a good technique for impartially judging what speakers one subjectively prefers over another set without prejudice, and in this application it could be applied to choosing what gear to purchase, but it is a very cumbersome way to do so, and it is completely pointless if and only if a complete set of specifications for the gear is available and the purchaser knows how to interpret them. This is sadly almost never the case.

Personally, if I didn't have access to a proper spec sheet, but had the possibility of performing a double-blind test effortlessly when I choose between gear, I'd do the test without hesitation! It wouldn't necessarily make me go home with the more accurate speaker, but it would make me go home with the speaker I liked the sound of more.

What DBT is not good for at all is judging if a system is objectively superior to another, which you seem to be pushing toward a bit in your original post.



Please. If you're going to put words in my mouth, what is the point of me speaking in the first place?

I never claimed that all audio gear is perfect, nor did I even hint toward it. I didn't claim us to have a complete understanding about how the brain interprets sound, nor did I claim to have all the measurements.

We have a fair understanding of how the brain interprets sound. We know enough to with certainty be able to say that we're extremely susceptible to external factors messing with it.

We know enough about how electrical and acoustic signals work to be able to build machines that are an order of magnitude more sensitive toward them than our bodies, and we've got the understanding of the measurements put out of those machines to draw conclusions based upon what we've measured.

If I had access to the gear you were interested in buying and the right test equipment, it would be no match for me to tell you which piece of kit is the most accurate, or what the differences are between different machines. However, I could never tell you what gear to buy since I couldn't possibly know what subjective qualities you look for in it. A few double-blind tests of the right gear could sort that right out, though.

You're pressuring him for an answer to the wrong question.

Double-blind testing is primarily a good technique for exposing those who claim that there is a difference where there is none. Robgmn doesn't claim that, he favours the contrary. DBT is also a good technique for impartially judging what speakers one subjectively prefers over another set without prejudice, and in this application it could be applied to choosing what gear to purchase, but it is a very cumbersome way to do so, and it is completely pointless if and only if a complete set of specifications for the gear is available and the purchaser knows how to interpret them. This is sadly almost never the case.

Personally, if I didn't have access to a proper spec sheet, but had the possibility of performing a double-blind test effortlessly when I choose between gear, I'd do the test without hesitation! It wouldn't necessarily make me go home with the more accurate speaker, but it would make me go home with the speaker I liked the sound of more.

What DBT is not good for at all is judging if a system is objectively superior to another, which you seem to be pushing toward a bit in your original post.

The purpose of my question is does the OP who supports DBT testing actually use it? If the methodology is superior, then it should be the go to technique for evaluating equipment.

Double-blind testing is primarily a good technique for exposing those who claim that there is a difference where there is none.

Funny how the test is appropriate for debunking those whose position you may disagree with. But not applicable for use in choosing the gear you want. Why does the "subjectivist" have to prove their point, and yet the empiricist get a pass on not using their own evaluation methodology?

Yes I asked for a specific answer, and when it was given, it proved the same thing that I always see. DBT users do not use their own methodology. But require anyone they disagree with to use that test to prove they are right. Doesn't seem very fair does it?

Regards
Mister Pig

 

[Freezer7Pro]

Yes I asked for a specific answer, and when it was given, it proved the same thing that I always see. DBT users do not use their own methodology. But require anyone they disagree with to use that test to prove they are right. Doesn't seem very fair does it?

Regards
Mister Pig

What is the point of testing if someone who claims there to be no difference can identify the difference that they claim isn't there?