Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

[Ralf11]

if there were some strong effect from something else, they could have trained for freq. response and NOT found that listeners most often found problems with freq. response

 

- no irony; the study simply shows that there is no such effect that is invariant w.r.t. training re freq. response

[Ralf11]

8 hours ago, Jud said:

 

And perhaps the visitors to Procrustes’ inn all ought to learn how to fit into the one bed?

 

Toole and Olive take a sonic characteristic to which most people are relatively insensitive, frequency response over the entirety of the audible spectrum; they as engineers feel people ought to be sensitive to it; and so they train people to be more sensitive to it.  In the process they also are training the same listeners *not* to prioritize characteristics to which people are immediately sensitive, such as phase linearity, with the role it plays in the fundamental auditory function of locating sounds.  Having changed the way people listen from normal, they then designate the result an improvement.  And some folks are even of the opinion *everyone* ought to learn to listen abnormally, since this would make them smarter.  

 

I am thinking if engineers were able to make designs that were more sophisticated than our level of knowledge and technology currently allows, they would be able to design speakers that reproduce the key characteristics of reality as people actually hear it, rather than taking what we currently know and are able to build and training people to think of it as accurate.

 

WOW!!  Way to mischaracterize something!

[Ralf11]

well, do you accept his stmt. that every component (even passive ones, and even resistors) has a non-linearity?

and further, that those non-linearities can be heard when listening to music?

 

if so, it necessarily follows that every amp will have a sonic difference

 

But, I think a better approach is to look at the amp driving a speaker (i.e. a complex load) and find non-linearities there...

[Ralf11]

34 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I can state with confidence that all amplifiers, even copies of individual brands, will have measurable differences. I am not making such an absolute claim to audibility -- let's say that amplifiers often have a sonic signature 

 

 

sounds about right

[Ralf11]

we do need to be careful with some of these findings - e.g. we won't be operating any components from 350 K to 4.7 K so the Johnson noise may not be an issue; the same researchers (last URL) did find that 1/f noise was not T-dependent 

[Ralf11]

1st - amps (that can drive your speakers well) are not the place to look for big changes in SQ

 

2nd - I suspect that active components will be more important than resistors in affecting SQ (not so sure re capacitors)

 

3rd - I am going to defer replacing (or testing new amps for possible replacement) of my Sunfire amp, and replace my DAC first (see #1 above)

 

It would certainly be an interesting test to see if listeners could hear different amps in a reliable test.  We would need a cheap source of subjects, and a high quality system + a listening space with an acoustically transparent curtain.  College students are often a good source of cheap subjects (and have good hearing) so we just need to find a college professor with a good sound system...

[Ralf11]

I explicitly mentioned resistors as a possible BUT UNLIKELY source of audible differences, mansr

[Ralf11]

Peter, if you are not doing a blinded listening test, then knowledge of any spec. is clearly a source of confirmation bias, just like a groovey lookin' front panel.  There's no way around that.

 

It does not mean one should ignore specs.

[Ralf11]

4 hours ago, mmerrill99 said:

Even if doing blinded listening tests, two devices which measure the same, will bias one towards not hearing any difference between these devices. 

 

 

good point

[Ralf11]

7 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Utter nonsense is a good point?

So it's blind test "bias" why audiophiles can't hear Santa and Uri Geller can't bend spoons under controlled conditions? Really?

 

you seem to be confused about what was said - please go back and read it again

[Ralf11]

esl, he is essentially saying that one might be biased to look only in certain places for something

 

thus, a bias in the design of an experiment could result in a bias that affects the outcome

 

a bit similar to the classic joke of a guy looking for his car keys under a light pole, a passerby asks about them and helps look only to find out he lost them in a dark spot several yards away ("but it's light over here")

[Ralf11]

3 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

I'm quoting verbatim, no confusion or rereading needed on my part.

You thought nonsense was a good point

 

don't be silly - either address the point or give up

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, wushuliu said:

Now that I see some typically divisive rhetoric from names familiar from other forums it's clear this thread has hit bottom.

 

there are some valid points being made, but a loft of sifting is required to find the wheat in the mounds of chaff

[Ralf11]

21 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

And again: Audiophile Equipment can't reconstitute anything lost in the production chain. It can only reproduce the track the person has in their possession.

 

it can upsample and interpolate

[Ralf11]

a blind test means the subject does not know the identity of the components; it does not mean the subject is blind or listening in darkness

[Ralf11]

Nyet!  Bad analogy.  Two cars are involved, assuming one could blind test a car

[Ralf11]

BTW, there is nothing wrong with extended listening tests, and they can be done blind and done as A/B or A/B/X

 

the contrast is really to extended vs. quick switching - and there are reasons to do both

[Ralf11]

Let's limit the Star Trek references to the alien sex goddesses

[Ralf11]