Audiophoolery?

[JoeESP9]

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).

How do you know there is no difference? You've already agreed that different gear is not identical. If that's true then different gear delivers a different signal to the ear canal. Therefore it sounds different.

 

[Freezer7Pro]

How do you know there is no difference? You've already agreed that different gear is not identical. If that's true then different gear delivers a different signal to the ear canal. Therefore it sounds different.

He made a point in his fourth post on page 5 that the two theoretical amplifiers in the example made the speaker move in the exact same way.

 

[robgmn]

Mr. Pig,

I stated that if ALL FACTORS ARE THE SAME, there is no difference.
It's hard to be much more clear than that (and I do not refute your argument that when variables are changed, what you can/will hear will change).

When I state "if all factors are the same" and you counter with "there are variables you're not accounting for", it shows that you are not "listening" to my statements and are merely trying to support your opinion that sorcery & magic exist.



The Tice clock very much exists (and it is bunk).
My "pyramid" cable supports are fantasy, but cable supports are not (and they are bunk).
$300 USB cables exist (and they are bunk).
A magic magnet that aligns the fuel molecules in your car to give better gas mileage exists (and it is bunk).
Painting the edge of your CDs green exists (and it is bunk).
Speaker cables are sold in various "grades" (which by their very nature means they are bunk).
A TV antenna box that plugs into the wall and uses your house wiring to create a super-antenna exists (and it is bunk).
Bi-wring exists (and it is bunk).
Skin effect exists (and it has NOTHING to do with how a speaker cable works)
Directional speaker cables exist (and they are bunk).
$700 power cords exist (and they are bunk).

I will gladly retract every "bunk" here (I'll take an ad in the Times) if the tweak can be PROVEN with double blind testing and a significant majority hear the difference.

Just remember, the tweak CANNOT be used to fix an inherent defect in the original engineering (i.e. if the cable riser moves the cable a foot away from that high voltage line it runs parallel to, or the power cord replaces a 24 gauge line feeding a 1,000 watt monoblock, or the 8 gauge directional speaker cable replaces a 22 gauge zip cord feeding a set of Magneplanars, the test is forfeit).

Unless the tweak makes a change (and that change can be PROVEN), it is bunk.

I use subjective listening to pick what I want, but again, I do not accept MAGIC as the reason one thing may sound better to me than another.
To adhere to your preference for reality: Sorry, slapping wood panels on the side of your receiver and re-badging it "Exquisite" ain't gonna' make it sound any better or even different unless the output is somehow altered.

As stated, DBT testing WOULD be the best way (were it possible) to choose your equipment because it would virtually guarantee that you were choosing what SOUNDS BEST to you, versus what you THINK sounds best at the time based on factors other than what you hear.

Listen to a really good set of speakers under very good conditions (room painted the proper color, proper frame of mind, etc.), then listen to an amazing set of speakers under bad conditions (bad room color, bad mood, bad indigestion).
Assuming the room itself "sounds" the same, I'd bet that the negative factors present in the "Amazing" speaker room will color your opinion negatively and the positive factors in the "really good" room will color your opinion positively.
Let's assume that you now think the "really good" ones sound BETTER than the "amazing" ones.

With your logic, this would now prove that the really good speakers are actually BETTER than the "amazing" speakers (until the non-acoustic influences are reversed, then you'd have your proof that the "amazing" speaker is indeed better than the "really good" one).

Do you see the flaw yet?

Double-blind testing is designed to remove those outside influences (if you BELIEVE the Tice clock is gonna' make your system sound better, it probably will. To you. Even when the sound is absolutely the same).

Magic does not exist (when you have proof it does, contact James Randi. He has a million dollars in escrow that he will be more than happy to give you once you show him the proof).

 

[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?

Then DBT testing would be used properly. For the flip side of the answer is that there is a difference. Just because you assume there would be no difference does not mean you would dismiss it if you experience it. If you chose to ignore it, then you would not be impartial, and not really practicing scientific methodology. The point being that DBT can be used to prove there are no differences....or that there are differences. The test would not discriminate. So its equally valid for proving either point. For the record, I have never dismissed DBT testing, its a great tool...but I don't think its the only way to evaluate audio gear....just one way.

Regards
Mister Pig

 

[JohnVF]

The logical fallacy is that those of us who hear a difference think it's because of "magic". I'm also not sure when a complete lack of first-hand experience with something became objective.

 

[chicks]

Welcome to AK, robgmn. You'll soon learn that you can't unconvert the converted here. There are those who are utterly convinced they can hear differences in fuses. Put them on ignore, let them enjoy their fantasies, and you'll get along just fine.

 

[DC]

Welcome to AK, robgmn. You'll soon learn that you can't unconvert the converted here. There are those who are utterly convinced they can hear differences in fuses. Put them on ignore, let them enjoy their fantasies, and you'll get along just fine.

No, I try not to ignore the open-minded. I read their stuff (with respectful caution) and try to learn something. I prefer to decide for myself if they are nuts or if maybe they might be on to something.

I am beginning to start to ignore the staunchly hard-headed, though. I think I've learned about all I am going to from them ...

 

[JohnVF]

Welcome to AK, robgmn. You'll soon learn that you can't unconvert the converted here. There are those who are utterly convinced they can hear differences in fuses. Put them on ignore, let them enjoy their fantasies, and you'll get along just fine.

Argument ad hominem.

Amazes me what a friendly inviting place this is sometimes.

 

[Mister Pig]

Mr. Pig,

I stated that if ALL FACTORS ARE THE SAME, there is no difference.
It's hard to be much more clear than that (and I do not refute your argument that when variables are changed, what you can/will hear will change).

When I state "if all factors are the same" and you counter with "there are variables you're not accounting for", it shows that you are not "listening" to my statements and are merely trying to support your opinion that sorcery & magic exist.



The Tice clock very much exists (and it is bunk).
My "pyramid" cable supports are fantasy, but cable supports are not (and they are bunk).
$300 USB cables exist (and they are bunk).
A magic magnet that aligns the fuel molecules in your car to give better gas mileage exists (and it is bunk).
Painting the edge of your CDs green exists (and it is bunk).
Speaker cables are sold in various "grades" (which by their very nature means they are bunk).
A TV antenna box that plugs into the wall and uses your house wiring to create a super-antenna exists (and it is bunk).
Bi-wring exists (and it is bunk).
Skin effect exists (and it has NOTHING to do with how a speaker cable works)
Directional speaker cables exist (and they are bunk).
$700 power cords exist (and they are bunk).

I will gladly retract every "bunk" here (I'll take an ad in the Times) if the tweak can be PROVEN with double blind testing and a significant majority hear the difference.

Just remember, the tweak CANNOT be used to fix an inherent defect in the original engineering (i.e. if the cable riser moves the cable a foot away from that high voltage line it runs parallel to, or the power cord replaces a 24 gauge line feeding a 1,000 watt monoblock, or the 8 gauge directional speaker cable replaces a 22 gauge zip cord feeding a set of Magneplanars, the test is forfeit).

Unless the tweak makes a change (and that change can be PROVEN), it is bunk.

I use subjective listening to pick what I want, but again, I do not accept MAGIC as the reason one thing may sound better to me than another.
To adhere to your preference for reality: Sorry, slapping wood panels on the side of your receiver and re-badging it "Exquisite" ain't gonna' make it sound any better or even different unless the output is somehow altered.

When I state "if all factors are the same" and you counter with "there are variables you're not accounting for", it shows that you are not "listening" to my statements and are merely trying to support your opinion that sorcery & magic exist.

You are making a lot of assumptions of what I believe. I suggest you change that.

AS far as the example of speakers and amplifiers. My point is that the example you give is too simplistic. That is all. A blanket statement of all factors are the same does not provide a pass on discussing on how real world situations affect electronics. If you define all the points in a discussion, you are always right. And I do not agree with your example. My point is that if all speakers were 8 ohm static loads, then all amplifiers will be unstressed....and in that case I do agree they can sound very similar. But in the real world that is usually not the case, and so amplifiers do sound different, sometimes dramatically so.

Now as far as your list goes, I personally agree with some, and not others. The ones I feel are of value I have formed those ideas through direct experience. I don't need anyone to tell me what I need to buy, or what I should experience. I spend the time to listen, evaluate, and compare to reference pieces. Thats good enough for me.

Yes I also do agree that tweaks, set up, or even matching dissimilar components..ie..synergy....are appropriate fixes for a poorly designed piece of equipment. But what SOME of them do is shade the sound of a system in one direction or another, and provides some tune-ability to the end user. Some footers and isolation devices do this, and there is good solid science to back up how they effect a system.

But for the most part your list brings up the hilarious audio tweaks, and while they may have some following, I suspect that very few of them have large followings. But I have no interest in going through the whole list again, its a topic that makes the rounds here at AK.

But for what its worth, I have been using several sets of liquid filled fuses. So that should give you a good belly laugh, and discount whatever I have experienced in this hobby. So feel free to chuckle away.

Regards
Mister Pig

 

[Freezer7Pro]

Then DBT testing would be used properly. For the flip side of the answer is that there is a difference. Just because you assume there would be no difference does not mean you would dismiss it if you experience it. If you chose to ignore it, then you would not be impartial, and not really practicing scientific methodology. The point being that DBT can be used to prove there are no differences....or that there are differences. The test would not discriminate. So its equally valid for proving either point. For the record, I have never dismissed DBT testing, its a great tool...but I don't think its the only way to evaluate audio gear....just one way.

Regards
Mister Pig

Yes, double-blind testing can be used the other way around, provided that the person doing the listening is guaranteed not to lie.

:scratch2:

I can spot a quite big flaw in that.

On the contrary, when DBT is used when someone claims there to be a difference, they cannot lie their way out of it. It is simply impossible, and that's why DBT works.

The whole point of double-blind testing is to remove the human factor as much as possible, and if the subject can lie and turn the results in their favour, there is absolutely no point in doing it in the first place.

AS far as the example of speakers and amplifiers. My point is that the example you give is too simplistic. That is all. A blanket statement of all factors are the same does not provide a pass on discussing on how real world situations affect electronics.

Actually, his example demonstrates his point perfectly. You're over-thinking it, as the real world has nothing to do with it. The only point he's making is this:

If the signal received by your ear is the same in both cases, any difference you hear is in your mind. If you claim it to be anything but, you must believe in magic. Since, if the signal that goes into your ear is the same, and your mind doesn't play any role at all in it, where is the difference coming from?

 

[JohnVF]

DBT is not a magic bullet. If you're inclined to think there is no difference in anything, the same type of psychoacoustics that somebody influenced by sight had, would still exist. The mere presence of a choice would introduce bias. Because they think that there is no need for a choice. If the charge is true that we hear what we want to hear, they would hear no difference.

 

[Mister Pig]

Yes, double-blind testing can be used the other way around, provided that the person doing the listening is guaranteed not to lie.

:scratch2:

I can spot a quite big flaw in that.

On the contrary, when DBT is used when someone claims there to be a difference, they cannot lie their way out of it. It is simply impossible, and that's why DBT works.

The whole point of double-blind testing is to remove the human factor as much as possible, and if the subject can lie and turn the results in their favour, there is absolutely no point in doing it in the first place.



Actually, his example demonstrates his point perfectly. You're over-thinking it, as the real world has nothing to do with it. The only point he's making is this:

If the signal received by your ear is the same in both cases, any difference you hear is in your mind. If you claim it to be anything but, you must believe in magic. Since, if the signal that goes into your ear is the same, and your mind doesn't play any role at all in it, where is the difference coming from?

While a DBT may not stop anyone from lying that they did not hear a difference, then its their loss. Why deny yourself improved audio reproduction just because you want to be right? If a person doesn't want to believe what they hear and experience, then they can sit in misery or mediocrity for all I care.

If the signal received by your ear is the same in both cases, any difference you hear is in your mind. If you claim it to be anything but, you must believe in magic.

Once again a simple example, which does not occur in the real world of audio. In terms of a speaker there is enough variation in the manufacturing process to guarantee that two pairs of speakers from the same model will not provide EXACTLY the same waveform to the ear. Then there is the nature of the ear. Since listeners ears are not the same, then they cannot receive and transfer the waveform to the inner ear in the same way. It is a point that I don't buy. This doesn't even go as far as discussing how the brain/ear interface evaluates and quantifies the input.

I suppose this is worth mentioning, I don't bring it up often. I am a staff writer for Positive Feedback Online. I spent a lot of time listening to audio equipment that is not mine, and that I don't have a vested interest in. My job is to determine if I hear differences, and try to convey what I experience to readers in the most direct way possible. I do a lot of critical listening, and have access to a lot of manufacturers and designers. I prefer the small companies, as the people who run them have a real passion and enthusiasm about audio. You know what? They all have different ideas and theories on what should be done. These are smart folks, and there is no agreement on how to build the best audio gear at any price. So it should also come as no surprise that hobbyists do not agree with what audio gear should do either. The problem is that audio as a hobby is a science that is trying to relay an art form. There is an inherent conflict here, and creates disagreements. But I spent a lot of time listening to designers, listening to equipment, and making comparisons to what my reference components are. My words are not THE TRUTH, but they are an accurate reflection of what I experience.

Regards
Mister Pig
John Hoffman

 

[grateful]

The point is by concentrating on things that make a real difference you can really improve your listening experience. DBT provides that tool.

 

[Tom Brennan]

If you're inclined to think there is no difference in anything, the same type of psychoacoustics that somebody influenced by sight had, would still exist. The mere presence of a choice would introduce bias. Because they think that there is no need for a choice. If the charge is true that we hear what we want to hear, they would hear no difference.

Damn John, between this and the argumentum ad hominem you'd have made first rate Jesuit. Instead of John VF you could'a been John SJ.

 

[robgmn]

I choose to listen to people and hopefully share with them the facts.
I'm certainly glad people MUCH smarter than me did this in the past (else we may still believe the earth is flat), and I do it with any discussion that has opposing sides (religion, politics, AUDIO...).

I only ask for proof, of which no believers in magic can seem to supply.

Mr. Pig, I would gladly accept that your liquid-filled fuses improve sound quality if YOU could prove that you could consistently hear the difference between fuses.
(Could you describe a testing method that would allow you to do this that would prevent you from knowing the "proper" answer in advance?)

I would then scientifically show you that the improvement was due to some type of "defect" or fault with the non-liquid-filled ones that was preventing them from doing their proper job in the first place.
Remember, if something is an improvement, then whatever is improved was WRONG.



BTW - I replaced the $2 USB cable on my keyboard with a new $60 one from Audioquest.
The letters that I see in my post look just like the ones I sent through my cheap USB cable.
Damn.

 

[RamblinE]

BTW - I replaced the $2 USB cable on my keyboard with a new $60 one from Audioquest.
The letters that I see in my post look just like the ones I sent through my cheap USB cable.
Damn.

I disagree. I think your letters have much fuller body and stunning sharp clarity.

 

[Freezer7Pro]

While a DBT may not stop anyone from lying that they did not hear a difference, then its their loss. Why deny yourself improved audio reproduction just because you want to be right? If a person doesn't want to believe what they hear and experience, then they can sit in misery or mediocrity for all I care.

You must understand that if the person doing the listening has a choice in what he answers to the question of hearing differences, the whole point of a double-blind test is nullified! For a double-blind test to have any effect at all, the subject must have his or her views challenged by it! If that is not the case, the listener is subject to experimenter's bias and the whole test is rendered completely pointless!

If the signal received by your ear is the same in both cases, any difference you hear is in your mind. If you claim it to be anything but, you must believe in magic.

Once again a simple example, which does not occur in the real world of audio. In terms of a speaker there is enough variation in the manufacturing process to guarantee that two pairs of speakers from the same model will not provide EXACTLY the same waveform to the ear. Then there is the nature of the ear. Since listeners ears are not the same, then they cannot receive and transfer the waveform to the inner ear in the same way. It is a point that I don't buy. This doesn't even go as far as discussing how the brain/ear interface evaluates and quantifies the input.

That whole point is beside the point, as an abstract example can be indefinitely extreme in order to demonstrate a point. The real world has nothing to do with it. The fact that he used two amplifiers as an example is irrelevant.

Furthermore, your arguments against it are highly flawed. Variation in the speaker is nullified by the fact that the speaker is the same between tests. The ear of the listener is also nullified by the fact that it isn't changed between tests. The brain is nullified by the fact that we are assuming that the brain plays no role in the perception of the sound in this example! Much like in a double-blind test.

Remember, the argument you need to contest is that a listener, when presented when the identical neural input from his ears, will not hear a difference in the signals, unless his brain is making him perceive the sounds differently for some reason. Since the listener, in this case being some pro-tweak person is absolutely sure that his brain is not altering the sound he experiences, he must, by logical conclusion, believe in magic. If what enters his ear is the same, and his brain does nothing to alter the sound, then what is causing the difference if not magic?

Remember, this is a purely theoretical example applied in order to demonstrate a point. It will never be this extreme in the real world, but the result is the same.

I suppose this is worth mentioning, I don't bring it up often. I am a staff writer for Positive Feedback Online. I spent a lot of time listening to audio equipment that is not mine, and that I don't have a vested interest in. My job is to determine if I hear differences, and try to convey what I experience to readers in the most direct way possible. I do a lot of critical listening, and have access to a lot of manufacturers and designers. I prefer the small companies, as the people who run them have a real passion and enthusiasm about audio. You know what? They all have different ideas and theories on what should be done. These are smart folks, and there is no agreement on how to build the best audio gear at any price. So it should also come as no surprise that hobbyists do not agree with what audio gear should do either. The problem is that audio as a hobby is a science that is trying to relay an art form. There is an inherent conflict here, and creates disagreements. But I spent a lot of time listening to designers, listening to equipment, and making comparisons to what my reference components are. My words are not THE TRUTH, but they are an accurate reflection of what I experience.

Regards
Mister Pig
John Hoffman

Being a writer for a magazine that without sarcasm talks about the "sonic prowness" of a power cable is REALLY NOT a good way to convince a sceptic of your legitimacy.

This has become too toxic. I'm leaving this thread to die before somebody gets banned. Good riddance.

 

[RamblinE]

If you don't believe in it. Don't partake in it. It's that simple. Long winded arguments aren't necessary.

 

[robgmn]

Why is it that a discussion of facts never becomes toxic, but as soon as magic is introduced - kablooey?

Can't we have a discussion without a fight?

 

[Tom Brennan]

Long winded arguments aren't necessary.

But they are amusing.