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

[AJ Soundfield]

4 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

So, let's try to qualify this - are you saying that if noise mod is audible it will show up in the DR test?

Put the cart back behind the horse, have "noise mod" show up audible in a trust ears test first, worry about showing correlated measurements later, no wild goose chases and shifted burden of proof.

[AJ Soundfield]

4 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

It's just your logic that's in question

By not exposing myself to components for weeks to "hear" them?

[AJ Soundfield]

1 minute ago, mmerrill99 said:

Do you know any such tests for noise mod?

Nope, not my burden, just the noise mod hearers

[AJ Soundfield]

5 minutes ago, esldude said:

Good point.  While I was curious about noise floor modulation, it often gets thrown about as an issue, while measures of it show not very much happening.  So my a priori judgement would be it is a wild goose chase. 

The modus operandi of believers and magic shills is to shift the burden of proof to rational people for their claims and what they "hear", with zero evidence in the form of "trust ears" "just listening".

"prove I'm wrong" aka negative proof

[AJ Soundfield]

18 minutes ago, Superdad said:

Let me see if I have this straight:

You don't.

Quote

a) You trust your ears so you don't do blind tests

Wrong. I trust my ears enough to not fear them. I've taken plenty. Harman, Philips, Klippel, etc.

You don't trust yours so you fear blind test will expose you.

 

Quote

b) You don't trust anyone else's ears so they must perform blind tests or what they say is rubbish;

For extraordinary claims about hearing "phase noise", Santa, "unmeasurable but audible effects" etc. absolutely.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

Quote

c) Anyone who performs a blind test is irrational and must be trying to prove there are differences--when none can be heard and none can be measured;

Can't help with you that gibberish, sorry.

.

Quote

d) Anyone who performs a sighted "test" is delusional, and any reports of what they hear are to be instantly discarded;

You're repeating yourself without cognizance, unsurprisingly. See b).

 

Quote

e) Well regarded engineers who have for decades been designing and producing products based on a combination of measurement and sighted listening (for selection of components which nobody can show measurable differences between) are likewise charlatans.

See c)

 

Quote

Have I left anything out @AJ Soundfield? 

A cogent argument.

[AJ Soundfield]

6 hours ago, mmerrill99 said:

Contrary to the claim objectivists make that their measurements are without bias

Listening tests for your claims about in head noises, Santa, magic wires, magic resistors, Casper etc, don't require a single measurement. Once you have established that "it" is audible, trusting ears, just listening, then, "biased" measurements become necessary, if one wants cause correlation to level, noise, frequency, etc, etc.

[AJ Soundfield]

Yes, this whole exercise is for false equivalence, my sighted daydreams are the equivalent of your "biased" measurements.

[AJ Soundfield]

Since some love analogies.

 

Your honor, I call to the stand our expert witness in this case involving electro-acoustics and pschoacoustics/perceptions.

 

Please state your name and accreditations to the court.

 

Joe Audiophile. I'm a dentist who's been hearing stuff for 40 years. I can hear stuff very few or no one else can.

 

Sir, this case is about electro-acoustics and pschoacoustics/perceptions. Your degree is in Dentistry? What is your knowledge base and certifications in electro-acoustics and pschoacoustics/perceptions??

 

I don't need any, I can hear stuff and don't dare question my abilities!

 

Bailiff, please Baker Act Mr Audiophile and remove from the court, see that he is institutionalized for that hearing stuff in head

 

 

 

[AJ Soundfield]

7 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

the inadequacy of measurements to support claims of inaudibility

Ah yes, the old negative proof fallacy with zero cognizance.

 

Quote

"look how flawed sighted listening is"

2017 and horses can still count, Santa is real, dead relatives speak across mediums, power bracelets work, orchestras should be all male, etc, etc.

All posted via a 40 Mbps connection using a 1.5GHz processor, created by biased "measureists"

[AJ Soundfield]

11 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

...another small step toward normalizing contempt?

No, utter contempt of logic, reason, scientific method, intellectual honesty, ridicule of measuring "measureists" , etc, etc. all considered quite normal.

No steps.

[AJ Soundfield]

11 minutes ago, Jud said:

Right now, more work to do.

No matter what the case involves, I'll be your expert witness.

I've trained myself and passed all my own tests A+

I can hear stuff others can't. I know more about audio than...the scientists know, believe me.

[AJ Soundfield]

15 minutes ago, jabbr said:

yes "mastering grade" equipment would tend to be transparent

I wonder how many audiophiles would prefer a TASCAM over a piece of $50k audiophile bling, in a sighted evaluation, 2 months or not?

Hmmm 

[AJ Soundfield]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

My Tascam is great. Guess I'm not a real audiophile.

Just another poor deaf Mid-Fi measureist who begrudges those who can afford to hear better.

Wait, did I just sound contemptuous???

Nah....

[AJ Soundfield]

4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

I'm not aware of any DSP that uses deconvolution to apply EQ.

DSP "room correction" also has nothing to do with the original signal(s).

It is based purely on one transduction of it.

[AJ Soundfield]

12 hours ago, Teresa said:

I always thought everyone was like me, but some people including you, claim to be able to AB. I don’t believe it, if one thing sounds better than another blind AB tests should always be 100% and they are not, they are closer to 50 to 60% and that is not good enough for me. So, in short I don’t believe that AB’ing works either sighted or blind. Music cannot be listened to in that manner. I say it’s impossible.

No, you are projecting your inadequate hearing abilities unto all others and fabricating numbers out of thin air, about subjects you clearly know nothing about.

Folks with normal hearing have no issue picking out what they perceive as better in AB tests (even though they are relatively rare, as most serious blind tests are done using ANOVA, ABCHR, etc), such as the Harman speaker tests.

Trained listeners do even better, as they have learned and tested their skills hearing tonal colorations such as peaks and some dips (though harder to hear) in the frequency responses (multi-axis, as this affects timbre as well). In the same way you can't outrun Usain Bolt, who has trained all his life and field tested his skills. No matter how much one fantasizes being able to run faster than him, in a real, officially electronically timed 100m distance etc. test, one would fail badly. Obviously to be avoided also!

In these same large scale Harman AB tests (and MS too), the worst performers are self identified "audiophiles. They have no reference and any sort of training regimen other than lifelong self delusion. So naturally, they do very poorly is actual trust ears just listening tests. They use those words, but have absolutely no idea what they mean.

Btw, I believe when you say you can't tell differences ABing. ABing is very revealing of real differences (such as with loudspeakers), but very poor at revealing imaginary ones. It makes perfect sense for some folks to avoid them at all cost. However, the entire field of audio science uses such controlled listening comparisons, out in the real world of audio, not in the bubble most audiophiles talk to each other in.

 

Quote

 

The only way I have ever found out what I like is to listen to a wide variety of my favorite music over a period of several weeks.

Staring at components one is auditioning is not a good idea.

 

But that is exactly what you do. You know the entire time what component you are listening/watching/seeing/knowing. You are doing far more than "just listening", "trusting ears". You are also incorporating what you believe you want to hear.

Nothing wrong with that approach if you simply want to know what you prefer. But what you prefer goes well beyond sound and includes looks, street rep, what you believe, etc, etc.

IOW, way more than soundwaves.

[AJ Soundfield]

11 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

Tascam is the pro-line of Teac. I own a Teac UD-501 DSD USB DAC, Tascam products are too expensive for me, so I go for the less expensive Teac versions. In the past I have owned several Teac reel-to-reel tape decks and I really liked them a lot. So does that count?

Sure. How many times have studio "transparent" Tascam DACs,etc. won Product of Year, Class A, etc etc in audiophile mags?

 

Quote

My entire computer/audio/video system cost less than $4k. My guess would be less than 1% of audiophiles have or could afford a $50k system.

Good for you finding such value. I've had a $7k CD player in my system. It sounded no better than my $1k bluray/UD player, so its gone. I have no issue with someone spending $50k or $500k if it makes them happier. Do you?

 

Quote

AJ you seem to enjoy making fun of audiophiles

That is purely your subjective perception. I may indeed poke a bit of fun at audiophile beliefs. If they weren't so tenuous, how could I? Why is it that they are always playing the card of poor victims, if what they claim has any basis and is not completely specious?

Teresa, was Stereophiles founder making fun of audiophiles here? https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/index.html

 

Quote

which is behavior I find odd for a speaker manufacturer.

How many tell it like it is ones do you know?

What speakers do you prefer?

[AJ Soundfield]

Yes, Teresa is badly misinformed about controlled testing.

Teresa, if you have an interest in finding about the reality of controlled audio tests, this is a good place to start

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=11272

Here are some basics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinded_experiment

No need to guess and make up random numbers about statistics in these sort of tests.

[AJ Soundfield]

Wrong Frank. Teresa says she prefers A over B by "experiencing" it over weeks, which is perfectly fine for determining preference, if you can't hear it via soundwaves...which is what a controlled listening comparison does. Sound.

Vs looks, feelings, touch, etc over weeks of staring-listening-knowing-believing,etc, etc.

[AJ Soundfield]

8 hours ago, Superdad said:

You really ought to apologize to Teresa for being so rude.

Yes. I can see now she has no short term memory due to her condition, so indeed it may have nothing to do with her hearing per se, so for that I do apologize. I missed the dementia part.

[AJ Soundfield]

51 minutes ago, Teresa said:

I fully trust my ears with honest long-term listening

Along with your eyes, knowledge, biases, etc, etc, etc.

 

Quote

Your statement that folks have no issue picking out what they perceive as better in AB tests is highly incorrect

Except in the real world where many can and do. Harman, MS, Fremer & JA had no issue in an AES amp comparison, etc, etc, etc. The key is real, vs imaginary differences. For very small impairments, a bit more sophisticated than AB is used.

I get it, your condition prevents this, but not everyone else, like you believe.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Enjoy your Infinitys, those are nice speakers that can compete with many modern one (yes, I've heard that model).

Don't take what I say too seriously, I certainly am not offended by your fact averse statements. Its all just audio, enjoy.

 

 

[AJ Soundfield]

26 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

I agree, there is nothing wrong with blind tests where the subject doesn't know what they are listening to. My objection is to the switching back and forth (AB'ing)

That's exactly what is done in a blind test. There is no time limit between switching, if you know anything about blind tests. You could take a week or a month. The key is no knowing what each is, etc, etc. Thats what "blind" means.

[AJ Soundfield]

14 minutes ago, Teresa said:

I don't have to know what component or music sample I am listening to

 

How would you not know what component and music you are listening to??? Makes no sense.

 

Quote

Long-term listening will weed out any false starts such as an imaginary difference

 

The opposite. Long term viewing/hearing/experiencing allows your moods, perceptions and imaginations to run rampant.

One could actually listen to same component/track a few minutes, days, weeks apart and hear differences!

Our human perceptions are highly variable with time. Fact.

 

Quote

I likely will keep the Infinity's until I die, if they hold up. I have been to audio shows where I have heard better speakers than mine but they are aways way out of my price range.

I have a soft spot for old Infinitys, even bought a pair for restoration...until a tree fell on my storage building and damaged them beyond repair 

 

Quote

Thanks for the last sentence, but I just want to say that most of what is written on audio forums are personal opinions not facts. Enjoy. 

Absolutely agree. I don't take any of this, including myself, too seriously.

Now I did hear about a near brawl between 2 reviewers at a recent show. Both subjectivists I might add! 

 

cheers,

 

AJ

 

[AJ Soundfield]

40 minutes ago, Teresa said:

50% - 60% correct answers are not good enough for me, show me a credible AB test with 100% correct.

Michael Fremer got 5/5 or 100% in a SS amp vs Tube effects processor at an AES meet. How do you explain that and your incorrect assumptions?

50-60% is indicative of random chance, although 60% with a large enough amount of trials might be ok.

How well do you understand statistical analysis?

[AJ Soundfield]

27 minutes ago, Teresa said:

I consider 5 out of 5 correct as an extraordinary claim! Do you have a link? 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/blind-listening-letters

 

There are countless other examples. All the listener training programs by Harman. Philips, Klippel, etc require a form of AB comparisons where you must be 100% right in each test to complete. Unless one lacks the hearing skill for obvious to subtle differences. Here is more info: http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

Again, 100% is required 

 

Quote

50-60% are the results of the more successful AB and ABX tests I read

Your turn. Link?

 

So you can't tell the difference between your Infinity's and a $20 boombox in an AB test?

Wow!

[AJ Soundfield]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Studio and Pro products are seldom embraced by the consumer market for many reasons, including feature set and complexity. When an audiophile sees that a product has a Mic Pre and TRS jacks, he usually moves on to the next product with familiar features. 

True, but there are also studio DACs, amplifiers, etc.

If they are "transparent" to the recording one is listening to....