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

[Jud]

41 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

I'm always curious when others are talking about 'lowering noise levels'. How do you define 'noise levels'? I really can't hear noise in my system at any DSD or PCM settings. Or are you perhaps referring to how noise might affect SQ?

 

Great question.  I think when people talk about noise being masked they have things exactly turned around.  If you’ve been in an environment where people are having loud conversations nearby, they impact your ability to understand your own conversation long before the level where you can clearly make out what people in those other conversations are saying.  I think it’s the same with noise - before you can hear the noise as a separate thing from the music, it impacts your ability to clearly hear lower level musical detail.  So the “masking” I’m concerned about is of musical subtleties by noise levels that may well not be audible as a separate thing.

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

What post? and I can follow up from there.

 

 

 

Heck if I can recall details now.  Guess if I can’t point to specifics I shouldn’t have brought it up - my apologies.

[Jud]

9 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

As I said, I can't hear a separate, identifiable signal in my setup that I would call noise. I've not heard noise in such an obvious form for a very long time in my systems.

 

A masking noise that itself is not audible as a separate signal is obviously much harder to detect in a listening evaluation, other than possibly in a comparison to something that reduces that noise.

 

Yes, same here, except when I had the “noise sniffer” in the system.  And in the analog system, I had a ground hum, but that, thankfully, was two turntables ago.  (I had a turntable for 30 years.  I bought a new one, and soon afterward an upgraded model came out, which I liked but wasn’t going to spend the money on.  Then I won the upgraded model as a door prize at an audio dealer’s shindig!  It’s even the same color as the one it replaced.)

[Jud]

13 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Jud asked why there is a push against subjectivity here.

 

Actually the words in the topic are “audiophiles” and “contempt.”  I think tone matters, and not just in audio reproduction.

[Jud]

And by the way, as you know I’ve asked as strongly for respect to be shown to “objectivists.”

[Jud]

2 hours ago, wushuliu said:

Like there's a DBT kit you can buy off Amazon.

 

If there were, would folks who like the “objective” side of things buy it?

 

I certainly see marketing patter directed toward objectivists, though not so much as toward subjectivists.

[Jud]

23 minutes ago, mansr said:

Just as cheap to tell people their ears are crap.

 

No, no, it’s your system.

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's why I avoid mentioning specifics of my gear. Whatever it is, someone will have a personal grudge with the brand.

 

Aw c’mon, be a sport, let us mock your equipment!

[Jud]

3 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

Science in action doesn't always look like "best practices".

 

Relax, no one here is doing real science in the field of audio.  (At least no one I know of who I’ve noticed participating in the thread yet).  One or two are scientists in other fields, one or two are engineers working in the audio field.  None I know of that I’ve seen participating has performed audio testing for a peer reviewed paper published in an academic journal.

 

Lots of talk of science, but really what we all are going for is to understand, and in a couple of cases design and build, things a little better.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Teresa said:

If those power bracelets work for the wearers, who I am to question them? 

 

Hi Teresa -

 

In some of those bracelet cases, if you felt you knew the people well enough, you might, because harm could result.  For example my aunt, as with all my mother’s family, was absolutely petrified of cancer, and when she first started having pains she instantly assumed that’s what it was.  She lived independently with a neighbor’s help, and by the time any of us became aware of what was happening, she was confined to a wheelchair for the rest of her life (almost 20 years) by simple osteoporosis that should have been easily treated.

 

Here in the audio world, fortunately, no such situations are occurring.  Here it’s just “bikeshedding.”  

 

That’s from an old complaint from a FreeBSD developer.  He wrote that if there were a nuclear power plant proposal with all the plans for all the systems shown, what people might wind up arguing most fervently about would be what color to paint the bike shed.  Few would consider themselves qualified to comment on the most technical systems.  But everyone would think he or she was an expert on something like the best color.  So with technical subjects, like software development, nuclear power plants, or audio, no one argues about the real technical meat of the thing, like component choices and circuit topology.  People tend to pick something they feel comfortable with (“How much could a wire matter?”) and argue incessantly about that, leaving the really important, difficult, technical stuff well alone.

[Jud]

A J, I’m curious: Do you have any control over the amplification used for your speakers at shows?  If so, how do you choose?

[Jud]

5 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Yes, I insist that a remote is provided, with at least volume control.

 

A check for 1/2 the room cost is usually suffice.

 

Btw, I'm disappointed it took this long to redirect to me/my speakers. Let's keep focus there, lest we start talking about USB widgetry and phase noise hearing etc

 

It was a sincere and serious question, and not intended as a “redirection” of anything at all.  I was interested in what characteristics you look for in amplification to present your speakers to best advantage.  Why you should be coy about amplifiers I don’t know, but if you don’t care to provide any information in answer, I don’t suppose there’s really anything to do about that.

[Jud]

38 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

And my answer was sincere jest. 

Are you asking what amps I prefer personally or say, would recommend to customers if they ask?

My personal preference is anything from Bruno Putzeys. I'm a bit green conscious, so Class D fills the bill there.

Hypex NCore based amps are my number one choice. However, if you've visited my site, you'll see a design that is very specifically designed for low power high output impedance amps, like typical SETs. So I design for the tastes of others as well.

 

Thanks.  Yes, I’m quite interested in Putzeys’ designs myself, and have liked the NCore based amps I’ve heard.

[Jud]

8 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Well, to be fair it was $600 new, but I see now going for $400, so I'd say "inexpensive:, rather than "cheap".

 

Mine cost $375 new, so plainly you overspent.

[Jud]

In a couple of the recent comments I think we see some of the emotion that helps to drive the logic of the more objective and more subjective views.

 

Subjectivists are seen as easy prey to a fundamentally dishonest industry, while objectivists use science to keep from being scammed.

 

Or on the other hand, subjectivists are those who can truly feel our shared human emotions when listening to music, while objectivists are seen as forcing themselves to be emotionless robots who deny our shared humanity.

 

Interesting that two groups of folks who both just want to get better sound without being ripped off see each other as so very different.

 

By the way: Nothing wrong with basing reasoning on emotion.  Studies on people who have had damage to centers of the brain responsible for emotion, who become to some extent creatures of pure reason, show such individuals have immense difficulty making decisions at all.  This can make even trips to the grocery store for a few items hours-long affairs.

[Jud]

I’ve heard some wonderfully enjoyable stuff at shows from systems with analog front ends, and one of my favorite demos for friends is playing “Pinball Wizard” from an LP I bought in 1969.  But I am happier with the sound from digital.

[Jud]

Just now, firedog said:

I'm doubtful about the efficacy of blind listening tests in practice. Personally I find that I listen differently in "test" situations. There is a fair amount of psychological stress involved also. So I don't think what I hear in that scenario is the same as what I hear when listening for enjoyment, even critically. 

 

I assume one way around this would be to conduct the tests with lots of subjects and under different testing conditions. You'd sort of assume that  any issues of the kind I'm referring to would cease to have much of an influence then. 

But that isn't a likely scenario. And even less so in a home environment.

 

I wonder if the perception of stress comes from trying to do the impossible, employ echoic memory over spans of time longer than just several seconds.  

 

mansr put out a couple of files, one with a considerable amount of distortion, the other “clean.”  I did not try to employ switching every 2-4 seconds.  Listening to one 30 second file followed immediately by the other 30 second file, though I ultimately guessed correctly I told mansr that I felt the harder I concentrated, the less certain I became.

[Jud]

14 minutes ago, esldude said:

Actually in terms of fidelity it is black and white. CD is superior. Just like my 1967 12 inch vacuum tube analog TV is far inferior to a modern HDTV.

 

Yes, though there are enough badly mastered CDs and reasonably mastered LPs, even of the same material, that there will be plenty of instances where the LP might provide a better listening experience.

[Jud]

22 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w5903

http://www.upworthy.com/this-orchestras-blind-audition-proves-bias-sneaks-in-when-you-least-expect-it

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/million-dollar-strads-fall-modern-violins-blind-sound-check etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

I'm not.

A victim of my education and non-audiophile as is currently popular status. YMMV

 

So we’ve got a couple of articles saying there are problems with bias in sighted tests - certainly no problem agreeing with that - and another saying it’s likely people prefer the louder instrument; no problem there either.

[Jud]

3 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

The gist is that controlled (Blind) testing is the de facto scientific valid standard for all audio, not just electro-acoustic widget audiophoolery

 

How very odd then that you should choose for your illustrations a blind test not controlled for loudness and two examples of sighted bias.

 

 I believe it was in another thread you mentioned to me evolution denialism as an example of anti-science.  “Scientific” creationism and Intelligent Design depend entirely on the binary fallacy that any issue with evolution is somehow proof of their correctness.  So clearly you are aware of the fallacy, and thus of the fact that issues with sighted testing make any blind test neither more nor less valid.

 

And I would suppose one of the first things you’d want to make sure of in any blind test you set up is that loudness was equalized.

[Jud]

7 hours ago, plissken said:

You are missing the point about bias controlled evaluation. Sorry you don't get to pick and choose here.

 

I’m not sure he’s the one missing the point about bias controlled testing.  Since when is testing with  some samples louder than others bias controlled?

[Jud]

9 minutes ago, patagent said:

I tend to be sympathetic to "objectivists."  But speaking as someone who studied physical sciences - any study that involves testing human response or behavior seemed like pseudo-science or soft science at best.  Physicists look down on chemists who look down on biologist who all look down on psychologists.  

 

JMO, a listening test on a group of individual should really be the last confirming piece of evidence after the proper measurements have been taken and interpreted.  Even then I'd take it with a grain of salt.

 

As I've said before, I always prefer the particular to the general.  Specifically with respect to human audibility, appropriately designed listening tests are the second best way to determine this I'm aware of.  (fMRI is the best I'm aware of, as it avoids the "Iowa gambling task" problem, which is the fact that human sensory apparatus and some parts of the brain can react to inputs before we become consciously aware of them.  This is a known problem that experimentalists attempt to take account of if possible.)

[Jud]

4 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Why would that be odd in the context posted...unless you missed the context??

Orchestras should regress to audiophile style sighted auditions?

 

So by your reckoning, the remarkable change in orchestra diversity is due to women playing louder than men?

 

I'm sure it's that well-known sense of humor accounting for the fact that you provided no reasoned response to anything I said.

 

As I noted in my response, your audition examples show a problem with sighted testing and have nothing at all to do with the validity of blind testing, which (the validity of blind testing for audio) was your stated context.

 

As I also noted in my response, the problem of unequal loudness has to do with your single blind test example.

 

So as I mentioned before, in support of blind testing in audio, you referenced two instances of problems with sighted testing, and an inadequately controlled blind test.  I'm reasonably sure you can do better.

[Jud]

Just now, AJ Soundfield said:

So again, your claim is that blind auditions are invalid, thus the resulting large shift is gender is from flawed non-level matched testing, women having played louder than men.

 

You've now wasted two posts trying to mischaracterize my quite simple statement, which is that the validity of blind tests depends on how they are conducted.  Any problems with sighted tests make blind tests no more valid; they must rise or fall on their own.

 

Thus whether blind auditions are valid depends on the circumstances of each blind audition and how it relates to what's auditioned for.  This has nothing to do with whether sighted auditions are valid.

 

An example of a blind audition that might be problematic would be an audition of solo material for people vying for a job that would not involve being a soloist, but rather the ability to play in close coordination with others.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Classic audiophile false equivalence fallacy.

No one is arguing for invalid blind tests, but a lot of folks are arguing for invalid sighted tests

 

That's interesting, since an inadequately controlled blind test of violins was one of your references for the proposition that blind tests for audio are scientifically valid.

 

You also referenced two examples of sighted bias being removed.  Did you also make an independent investigation of the validity of the blind auditions for the jobs auditioned for that I somehow missed?