The walking dead and "blind listening"

[semente]

I never tire of this video:

 

[video=youtube;ZCBe7-6rw4M]

 

R

[Sal1950]

I never tire of this video:

 

That was beautiful, I love it!

[Audio_ELF]

I never tire of this video:

 

That was beautiful, I love it!

It does sometimes seam accurate! Though I'm sure this fits in another recent thread better.

[semente]

Yes, I've just realised the mistake.

 

R

[livelistenlearn]

I'm actually quoting Michael Lavorgna...

 

Then it would have been nice if you used the double quote characters (") around the quoted text. Or, used the right-most button on the post editor, or even put a blank line between your words and Lavorgna's, or use other techniques to make a clear distinction between your own words and those of another person. That is, if your goal is to communicate and not to confuse.

 

Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you, but the quality of online posts can be pretty terrible sometimes, and the writer may not recognize some of the problems (like no capitalization, no punctuation, run-on sentences, unknown abbreviations, etc, etc.). So consider this a reminder to everyone.

 

“I see. In this case, it would be great and more appropriate if you had applied the (") punctuation marks to highlight the quotation.

 

Alternatively, you could have used the quotation function in the posting editor (click the "go advanced" tab to access this and other more interesting functions when posting) to the same effect. Perhaps, simply allocating a blank line, between your words and Lavorgna’s, would be nice in the future.

 

By doing so, you would indicate the difference between quotations and your words. It helps in making posts more lucid.

 

In short, if you would consider doing the above, it would be easier for me to read and understand the content of your posts in the proper context.

 

My sincere apologies if this post seems to single you out. However, the quality of online posts may sometimes be less than ideal. Some writers may not recognise inherent issues (that bother me) while posting on public forums… with regard to capitalisation, punctuation, paragraphing, abbreviations, alliteration, paraphrasing, grammar, syntax, flow, word count per sentence, choice of words, expression and tonality.

Please consider my comments to be a small off-topic request to everyone.

Thank You."

^ better?

 

 

[esldude]

The ear/brain "system" is very sensitive and if one trains oneself to "notice" certain characteristics of recorded sound playback (the legendary "golden-eared" audiophile) one can glean much from listening. However, the ear/brain is not an instrument. It cannot quantify and it cannot "measure or compare" impartially and without passion. Many things affect the listening outcome. These include such things as mood, circumstances (like peer pressure), even health. Also personal belief systems play a large part in what one hears (the so-called "expectational bias"). If one believes that all amplifiers and all DACs and CD players sound alike, then, like with the notorious Arny Kruger, they will all sound alike. This makes even double-blind tests somewhat unreliable (in my estimation) for audio. If many such tests, over a long period of time, all over the world, come up with the same conclusions, then DBT results take on a statistical consensus that makes their findings less likely to be the result of imaginative flights of fancy. But those results are likely still not 100% conclusive. I am reminded of the famous Meyer and Moran ABX test where they found that hundreds of college students couldn't tell the difference between an SACD playback straight-up and the same SACD through a daisy-chain loop of a number of 16-bit/44.1 KHz ADCs and DACs. In fact, their results were that listeners could detect differences only about 37% of the time, far below the level for blind chance. From that result are we to gather that there is no reason to trouble ourselves with SACD/DSD (or any other kind of so-called high-resolution recording/playback methodologies)? Even though if one reads the Meyer and Moran paper, one will see that their procedure was impeccable and the playback equipment used were all of "high-end" pedigree and should have shown clear differences between the samples, no such clear differences were observed, so, in light of what we know to be true, obviously something is wrong here (either with the audiophile community's expectations, or with the results of the study. Even Bob Stuart of Meridian found the Meyer and Moran study to be flawed as have many other industry pundits.

 

George,

 

at least get the story right. Criticize it if you wish, but don't build this tremendous straw man. You have written similar incorrect descriptions at least twice and I pointed them out to you. Should I do so again, or shall you read what M&M really was and correct it yourself?

 

http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

 

You can read the paper here and at least agree or disagree based upon reality rather than hyperbole.

[esldude]

That study was ridiculously flawed from step one. Why in Gods name would anyone set up a test to listen for subtle differences using a bunch of college students rather than experienced trained listeners?

 

If you brought your car in and it was missing on one cylinder I could call why it was down on power instantly just by listening. I wouldn't call in college students in liberal arts to diagnose a engine that was down on power???

 

Read the papeer.

 

http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

 

It wasn't what George described.

[sandyk]

Read the papeer.

 

http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

 

It wasn't what George described.

Come on Dennis, SACD and DSD players have improved substantially in recent years, as has the quality of almost every other component including DACs,Preamps, Power Amplifiers and speakers.

You are highly unlikely to ever change the mind of any other members in this Forum who prefer 24/192 LPCM and Double DSD over RB CD.

Alex

 

[Teresa]

Except in studies where they do... Think of (for instance) a test of pain medication, that would require a subjective response on the part of the patient.

 

Except test subjects no longer need to evaluate their own level of pain, see Scientists Succeed In Objectively Measuring Pain.

 

"In a much needed breakthrough, neuroscientists have developed a technique to predict how much physical pain people are feeling by looking at images of their brain scans."

 

Also we have a lot more than 5 senses ... Neurologists will say at least 9 and up to as many as 21 depending how they are defined - sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste are just simple umbrella terms and miss out things such as balance, sense of temperature, etc.

 

Thanks, I had no idea. (;-)

[Sal1950]

I trust

only

my ears.

I don’t trust my eyes, I don’t trust ABX/DBT protocols, I don’t trust name brands, I don’t trust price, I don’t trust measurements, I don’t trust reviewers, I don’t trust salespeople. I try for myself with a money-back satisfaction guarantee or I pass. This is what works for me, I cannot speak for anyone else.

 

That position only throws up major road blocks to any meaningful improvement in the technical design of Hi Fi components and their advancement in SQ and sets you up for major disappointments in the long run. Human sensory guesswork is the last thing a technology should depend on. JMHO

[Teresa]

That position only throws up major road blocks to any meaningful improvement in the technical design of Hi Fi components and their advancement in SQ

 

Why? In my opinion it does not. Making audio equipment only to specifications and not taking into consideration how it sounds to real people using their ear/brain systems is a huge mistake. The best audio engineers don’t do that. My friend, famous audio designer, John Curl has a whole room of test equipment in his apartment, I’ve seen it and it looks impressive. He uses it to make sure parts meet their stated specifications. However, he uses his ears to select which sounds the best in his designs. He has had parts with the exact same specifications that sound drastically different. He says that we can only measure a very small percentage of what we can hear and I believe him.

 

and sets you up for major disappointments in the long run. Human sensory guesswork is the last thing a technology should depend on. JMHO

 

Again, simply un-true in my opinion. Depending on specifications, manufacturer brochures, reviewers, etc. is the path to major disappointment and loss of money in the long run. If I don’t like how an audio device or a format sounds, I can’t enjoy listening to music from it. Thus it has zero value to me because I want to enjoy listening to the music I love. Understand?

 

If you want to be happy with your audio purchase for many years, if not decades, spend plenty of time (months if possible) deciding what you want to audition, and then listen to it long-term with a wide variety of music you love under all listening conditions.

 

It is my ear/brain system that I use to listen to music and thus it is my ear/brain system that will tell me want I like. It is all about enjoying music. Understand? This why I try for myself with a money-back satisfaction guarantee or I pass.

 

In my humble opinion blindly buying any product based only on laboratory measurements, blind listening tests, reviews, advertising or other people’s observations instead of using one’s room, one’s audio system and one’s ear/brain system is a good way to become dissatisfied and lose lots of money.

 

After all what good is a perfectly measured and reviewed piece of equipment if I can’t stand to hear music through it? That is why listening to the actual audio items long-term is important to me as I love music, and I don’t want a so-called perfect piece of crap ruining it and why I demand a money-back guarantee or I refuse to purchase!

 

So are you trying to tell me that you trust ABX/DBT protocols, name brands, price, measurements, reviewers and salespeople instead of trusting how your favorite music sounds and feels to you? If so, I feel very sorry for you. I say trust no one, listen for yourself or be dissatisfied.

[Sal1950]

"The best audio engineers don’t do that. My friend, famous audio designer, John Curl has a whole room of test equipment in his apartment, I’ve seen it and it looks impressive."

 

A wise and considered approach. Your position to,

"I don’t trust ABX/DBT protocols, I don’t trust measurements, I don’t trust reviewers,"

 

Wouldn't work very well for John or any other designer. Why do you think he has all those impressive instruments? The path from the components we listened to in the 1950s to where we are today was paved with hard work by dedicated engineers improving the measured performance AND listening to the results.

 

The discounting of ABX/DBT protocols by some of the audiophile community has led us to a market full of snake-oil products that service no real use but to lighten the wallets of the impressionable. That is the major failing of your "ears only" position. There's a whole market out there of people hearing things only because it's been publicized by slick marketing and mis-guided forum posters. The measurements say the products are useless and lack of ABX/DBT protocols to validate claims is shameful.

 

The process of trusting your "ears only" leaves out a whole other world of development. Your ears just like you eyes can be fooled by a large variety of means. Ever seen the optical illusions that can make you swear your seeing one thing when you actually are seeing something else?

[Jud]

Sal, do some reading in scholarly sources about echoic memory, particularly:

 

- How long it lasts.

 

- What is remembered.

 

- Masking of recall of earlier sound by later sound.

 

Now ask yourself, given that background science, what can be discerned from an ABX test.

[Sal1950]

Peter Aczel's Audio Legacy, much to be learned here.

What I have learned after six decades in audio

Web 'Zine Page 1

[Teresa]

"The best audio engineers don’t do that. My friend, famous audio designer, John Curl has a whole room of test equipment in his apartment, I’ve seen it and it looks impressive."

 

A wise and considered approach. Your position to,

"I don’t trust ABX/DBT protocols, I don’t trust measurements, I don’t trust reviewers,"

 

Wouldn't work very well for John or any other designer. Why do you think he has all those impressive instruments? The path from the components we listened to in the 1950s to where we are today was paved with hard work by dedicated engineers improving the measured performance AND listening to the results.

 

As I clearly stated John has all those instruments to ensure his parts meet his required specifications, however the choice of parts and topology is all done by his ears.

 

Audio designers have to ensure that their products measure well and that they have the best possible sound as heard with human ears at the target price point, that is if they want to sell them. Buyers on the other hand have to be happy with how it sounds playing their music, in their room, using their ears to listen with!!!!!!!

 

The discounting of ABX/DBT protocols by some of the audiophile community has led us to a market full of snake-oil products that service no real use but to lighten the wallets of the impressionable. That is the major failing of your "ears only" position. There's a whole market out there of people hearing things only because it's been publicized by slick marketing and mis-guided forum posters. The measurements say the products are useless and lack of ABX/DBT protocols to validate claims is shameful.

 

Any form of A/B testing either sighted or blind does not work. Long term listening over several weeks is the only way I have ever discovered to reveal important differences in the sound of music.

 

Five "human" things ensure why sighted or blind A/B testing fails to reveal statistical differences between nearly everything:

 

Cognitive bias

- your brain will fill in missing information thus making both samples sound the same on repeated listening.

 

Listener Fatigue

- switch back and forth too often and both music files will sound like crap.

 

Accumulative effects are hidden

- Accumulative effects on sound quality increase over time and remain hidden when switching back and forth between two music files, especially things such as strident/smooth, cold/warm sound, etc.

 

Soundstage and instrument placement

- it takes anywhere between 30 seconds to several minutes for my brain to map the soundstage and hear the instrument and vocal placement before I can judge anything. A/B'ing insures this never happens.

 

Confirmation Bias

- In addition sighted A/B testing has to fight confirmation bias, as some people think the major brand or more expensive item must sound better. This is not always true as sometimes the unknown brand or the least expensive item sounds the best.

 

Long-term listening will reveal those differences that your brain tries to hide from you. One has to use flawed gross comparions in evaluating audio equipment prior to purchase. For me sometimes this can take many months, during which time all the stereo salespeople know me by name. I ask them to turn out the lights in the listening room, and if not possible to dim them to the lowest setting. And to leave while I listen to one complete song (which I brought with me) uninterrupted.

 

At home either sighted or blind I never A/B anything as I don't trust by ear/brain system's first impression. It takes a very long time and I hate comparing stuff and only do so when it is absolutely necessary.

 

The process of trusting your "ears only" leaves out a whole other world of development. Your ears just like you eyes can be fooled by a large variety of means. Ever seen the optical illusions that can make you swear your seeing one thing when you actually are seeing something else?

 

Yes, the ear/brain system can be fooled at first, that is why long-term listening is mandatory. This is also why A/B testing blind or sighted does not work, why first impressions do not work, it takes a long time to determine if I like the sound of something. Money is important to me, I never rush to judgement and I also demand an iron-clad money back guarantee. Waste your money if you want to, I refuse to waste my money on what my ear/brain system does not like the sound of!!! Most of my equipment is decades old because I picked what made my music sound the most realistic and beauty to me. To do anything else if folly and a waste of money!!!!!

[Daudio]

That position only throws up major road blocks to any meaningful improvement in the technical design of Hi Fi components and their advancement in SQ and sets you up for major disappointments in the long run. Human sensory guesswork is the last thing a technology should depend on. JMHO

 

Isn't it blindly obvious to you that Teresa is NOT a 'designer' of Hi Fi components, but a consumer only ?? And, she is damn well entitled to her opinions, and her own approach to her selection of hardware and software !!

 

Your total dismissal of human hearing judgements of gear throws away the major set of information on performance and SQ. I fail to see why you would want to make yourself willfully ignorant

 

Meter, oscilloscope, ABX, DBT, results are not perfect either, they need a lot of effort, knowledge, and cost to get to small error rates.

And some measurements are useful, some aren't.

 

Human sourced info has higher error/uncertainty rates but there is a lot more of it available, and can be quite valuable and reliable in controlled conditions.

 

And the whole point of better sound quality in audio gear is for humans to enjoy listening to recorded music. So any evaluation that leaves out ear/brain results is irrelevant, if not stupid.

[semente]

In my view, the problem with human-sourced info is that our listening abilities are tinted by our musical and sonic culture and guided by our taste; it would be more useful if we could evaluate performance from a observational perspective but in practice I find such "selflessness" virtually impossible to achieve.

As such, subjective reviews are nearly always of little use to others. They are personal accounts of a non transferable experience.

 

But I agree that "the whole point of better sound quality in audio gear is for humans to enjoy listening to recorded music"; what it matters above all is to enjoy your system, or better yet, the way it reproduces your favourite music.

 

R

[gmgraves]

In my view, the problem with human-sourced info is that our listening abilities are tinted by our musical and sonic culture and guided by our taste; it would be more useful if we could evaluate performance from a observational perspective but in practice I find such "selflessness" virtually impossible to achieve.

As such, subjective reviews are nearly always of little use to others. They are personal accounts of a non transferable experience.

 

But I agree that "the whole point of better sound quality in audio gear is for humans to enjoy listening to recorded music"; what it matters above all is to enjoy your system, or better yet, the way it reproduces your favourite music.

 

R

 

 

+1!

[Sal1950]

 

Your total dismissal of human hearing judgements of gear throws away the major set of information on performance and SQ. I fail to see why you would want to make yourself willfully ignorant

 

Meter, oscilloscope, ABX, DBT, results are not perfect either, they need a lot of effort, knowledge, and cost to get to small error rates.

And some measurements are useful, some aren't.

 

Human sourced info has higher error/uncertainty rates but there is a lot more of it available, and can be quite valuable and reliable in controlled conditions.

 

And the whole point of better sound quality in audio gear is for humans to enjoy listening to recorded music. So any evaluation that leaves out ear/brain results is irrelevant, if not stupid.

 

You are totally correct except when you accuse me of wanting " total dismissal of human hearing judgements". I never said anything close to that and nothing could be further from the truth. Listening is a very important part of the evaluation of equipment and advancement of the state of the art.

It is Teresa's promotion of ignoring everything but the ear (exactly what you've accused me of) that I object to. Without a scientific approach we would still be living in the dark ages and be completely without all the technology we enjoy today.

[sandyk]

Without a scientific approach we would still be living in the dark ages and be completely without all the technology we enjoy today.

If we relied on the old ABX /DBT reports that a few members keep trotting out with monotonous regularity to support their jaundiced view of the world, we wouldn't have Double DSD or 24/192 recordings, ,and amplifier and DAC design would have stagnated many years ago.

[Sal1950]

Sal, do some reading in scholarly sources about echoic memory, particularly:

 

- How long it lasts.

 

- What is remembered.

 

- Masking of recall of earlier sound by later sound.

 

Now ask yourself, given that background science, what can be discerned from an ABX test.

 

The subjective community has tried to discredit ABX/DBT protocols with all kinds of BS.

Bottom line, if you can't prove you hear what you say you hear in a controlled scientific manner it will forever remain just an opinion. Forever an opinion

[Sal1950]

In my view, the problem with human-sourced info is that our listening abilities are tinted by our musical and sonic culture and guided by our taste; it would be more useful if we could evaluate performance from a observational perspective but in practice I find such "selflessness" virtually impossible to achieve.

As such, subjective reviews are nearly always of little use to others. They are personal accounts of a non transferable experience.

 

But I agree that "the whole point of better sound quality in audio gear is for humans to enjoy listening to recorded music"; what it matters above all is to enjoy your system, or better yet, the way it reproduces your favourite music.

 

R

 

Well said with one exception.

If you enjoy the sound of your system/music with an EQ that tilts the response like a roller coaster that's cool too. Just don't call it High Fidelity.

[Teresa]

The subjective community has tried to discredit ABX/DBT protocols with all kinds of BS.

Bottom line, if you can't prove you hear what you say you hear in a controlled scientific manner it will forever remain just an opinion. Forever an opinion

 

You are dead wrong once again. Everything in audio is personal opinion, including ABX/DBT testing, as it totally ignores how people listen to music for pleasure.

 

How did you miss the reasons I gave why AB tests either blind or sighted do not work. AB'ing of any kind is purely fraudulent. Here again so perhaps it will soak into your head!

 

Five "human" things ensure why sighted or blind A/B testing fails to reveal statistical differences between nearly everything:

 

Cognitive bias

- your brain will fill in missing information thus making both samples sound the same on repeated listening.

 

Listener Fatigue

- switch back and forth too often and both music files will sound like crap.

 

Accumulative effects are hidden

- Accumulative effects on sound quality increase over time and remain hidden when switching back and forth between two music files, especially things such as strident/smooth, cold/warm sound, etc.

 

Soundstage and instrument placement

- it takes anywhere between 30 seconds to several minutes for my brain to map the soundstage and hear the instrument and vocal placement before I can judge anything. A/B'ing insures this never happens.

 

Confirmation Bias

- In addition sighted A/B testing has to fight confirmation bias, as some people think the major brand or more expensive item must sound better. This is not always true as sometimes the unknown brand or the least expensive item sounds the best.

 

Only long-term listening will reveal those differences that your brain tries to hide from you.

 

Bottom line, you must prove that ABX/DBT protocols actually work with audio. According to its long sad history it does not, and that is unacceptable. Currently ABX/DBT protocols can only reveal extremely large differences. ABX/DBT tests fail poorly in real life tests with human beings.

 

Everything in audio is personal opinion, there are no shortcuts, you actually have to listen for yourself with your ear/brain system or be content with crap. Your choice.

[Teresa]

If we relied on the old ABX /DBT reports that a few members keep trotting out with monotonous regularity to support their jaundiced view of the world, we wouldn't have Double DSD or 24/192 recordings, ,and amplifier and DAC design would have stagnated many years ago.

 

Agreed, objectivists would have stifled all audio advancement. It is only complaints from subjectivists that motivate audio designers to improve their products and formats.

[Teresa]

...Listening is a very important part of the evaluation of equipment and advancement of the state of the art...

 

I am relieved that you admit listening is very important. You are on the road to truth.

 

It is Teresa's promotion of ignoring everything but the ear (exactly what you've accused me of) that I object to. Without a scientific approach we would still be living in the dark ages and be completely without all the technology we enjoy today.

 

Specifications are only a starting point, enjoying music I love is what is important to me, and I listen to music with my ears.

 

Before I purchased the awful sounding Sony CDP-101 (the first Sony CD player) I believed in advertising, reviews and product brochures. Early CDs and early CDs player sounded so ugly, strident, dry, shrill and cold that is was a wake-up to not believe anything until I could hear it in my room, with my system and with my ear brain system. I lost a lot of money as that was back in 1983 when there was no satisfaction guarantees.

 

So, yes I only buy what I like and am amazed anyone would advise doing anything different.

 

It is objectivists who would have stifled all audio advancement. It is only complaints from subjectivists that motivate audio designers to improve their products and formats.