Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[Teresa]

51 minutes ago, marce said:

 ...I could say that every time we poor objectives ask for proof the Pack gangs up on us telling us our systems are inferior and our hearing is flawed, OH my self confidence...

 

I'm a subjectivist and I know my system is inferior and my hearing is flawed. To me, no big deal, I bought a system that sounded the best to me that was within my price range. I spent less than 4K for my entire audio/video/computer system, so I never pretend there is nothing better. I enjoy music on my system and that is what is important to me. Thus it doesn't hurt my ego that anyone would call my system inferior.

 

I'm very old and I also don't pretend to have the hearing of a youngster, or anyone else for that matter. This also doesn't hurt my ego.

 

I don't care one bit if someone can hear something I cannot. It's no big deal to me.

 

Finally, I refuse to prove to anyone what I hear, what I enjoy and what I don't enjoy. I believe everyone should listen for themselves and form their own opinions. So you will never get any kind of proof from me and I require no proof from you or anyone else. Music is supposed to be enjoyed IMHO!

[Teresa]

15 hours ago, marce said:

...All we do it look what is happening, don't just blindly believe everything we are told...

 

I just want to point out that as a subjectivist I believe even less than you do.

 

I believe very little that I have not experienced with my 5+ senses. In audio if I have not heard it in my system, in my room, with my ears I can't comment.

 

I like to read other people's experiences but they are not my own, so there is nothing to believe or disbelieve IMHO.

 

subjectivism |səbˈjektəˌvizəm|
noun Philosophy
the doctrine that knowledge is merely subjective and that there is no external or objective truth.

[Teresa]

On 10/8/2017 at 8:01 PM, Rt66indierock said:

 

I found it interesting at RMAF that people were very uneasy with just volume matching and using a consistent set of reference albums. Pretty basic stuff for listening comparisons.

 

22 hours ago, marce said:

Testing requires a constant volume level... otherwise the test is biased...

 

18 hours ago, plissken said:

 

You unity gain the entire system and then give the listener the ability to control the volume. 

 

Level matching only works if both devices or music files under test have the same dynamic range. After average levels are matched, the device with the lowest dynamic range will be judged the best as it will be the loudest during many parts of the music, as humans pick the loudest as sounding the best in A/B tests. This is the opposite of reality as the one with the widest dynamic range should sound the best.

 

I submit that except for level differences, large amounts of noise or distortion that it is impossible for most human beings to tell if two things sound different. I believe the best that we can do is live with the device for a few weeks to determine if we like the effect of the device in our system or not.

[Teresa]

1 hour ago, marce said:

But we come accustomed to the sound...

 

That is a problem. If the change is good I can become accustomed to the sound, however if the change is bad I don't become accustomed to the sound and want it removed from my system ASAP.

 

If I like the sound after auditioning for a couple of weeks I remove the device for a week or so and listen to my system without it and then after that I put it back in my system again. I then make the decision to keep it or return it for a refund.

[Teresa]

16 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Teresa I was talking about volume matching. John Darko(Digital Audio Review) liked the MQA version of a song on The Nightfly because it was 2 dB louder than the other version he was comparing it to. Its an old trick of the industry louder is preferred. More people than me beat him up pretty good at RMAF.

 

This agrees with what I stated, if both samples have identical dynamic ranges they can be level-matched. If their dynamic range differs the loudest one will be selected as the best sounding, even if it is not. So I agree, John Darko likely selected the MQA version because it was 2dB louder.  

 

16 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

I got to disagree with second paragraph. Every room I listened to music in at RMAF sounded different.

 

I agree, all the rooms I have been to at an audio show have sounded different to me as well, some very different. However, I was discussing hearing differences under A/B conditions. With an audio showroom I can listen normally under comfortable conditions and then walk to another room and do it all over again. If there was a way to directly A/B those rooms it would much harder to hear any differences because of how the human brain works. Which is why I quit A/B’ing decades ago as it hides real audible differences.

[Teresa]

10 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Technically unexplainable.

 

Expanding from the civility thread this is probably the most "technically accurate" and I suspect least offensive. It says, "all my data and *available* scientific evidence cannot explain your experience". Of course others can submit other evidence if available or argue the point. Evidence also changes over time."Delusional" is simply incorrect...

 

I agree technically unexplainable would be the best term to use, and one both sides can agree on.

 

10 hours ago, esldude said:

But there is REAL scientific methodology...

 

Is there one that actually works with real music and real people?

 

6 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

...That such measurements can be made with instruments much more precisely than the human ear could possibly do?...

 

That is the assumption I believe is wrong. My friend, audio designer John Curl has stated many times that we can only measure a small percent of what we can hear. Measurements get you a competent design, selection of quality parts by listening is what gets you a product people want to hear music through.

 

4 hours ago, wgscott said:

If the perceptual differences disappear under blind testing conditions, how are we to ascribe any objective reality to them?  How do we distinguish it from expectation-bias-induced hallucinations?

 

The problem is not blind testing conditions, the problem is A/B'ing IMHO.

[Teresa]

4 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

...person A says I can hear a difference and Person B says no you can't. Person A doesn't really care what Person B thinks or about any test protocols. So I would say, if it matters, it is incumbent on Person B to worry about careful test protocols...

 

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

I don't care what person A says; I care if A can tell a difference.

 

See the difference?

 

But in this scenario Person A doesn't care what Person B thinks and is not interested in doing any tests. So only Person A will know if he heard a difference. In this case Person B would have to do the test he(she) wanted Person A to do.

 

If Person B could somehow make Person A comply with his(her) demands it wouldn't tell me how it will sound to me, for that I need my ears, my room and my audio system. IMHO nothing beats listening for oneself. 

[Teresa]

3 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Speaking of, I recall you've received a Lush USB cable from Peter. Did that make a difference in your system?

 

Perhaps? However, I'm not willing to comment yet. I let it burn-in and am spending two weeks listening to music through it. This Sunday night I will be taking the Lush out and putting back my inexpensive Dynex USB cable for a week or so and then go back to the Lush again. So it will be another 2 or 3 weeks before I am willing to comment.

 

Read more about it in this post.

[Teresa]

3 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

 

Burning-in a USB cable? oh god   [v puts popcorn in microwave and start hitting refresh...]

 

 

v

 

 

I burn-in everything whither it needs it or not. I have the XLO / Reference Recordings - Test & Burn-In CD so it's no big deal. I try to give everything a fair chance.  

[Teresa]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

You can argue against DBTs all you want, but if DBTs are biased then how could a sighted test be any more valid?

 

That's why I don't trust either one; DBTs or other peoples sighted listening impressions. If something looks interesting I have to hear it for myself, not just to see if there is a difference (for me) but if the difference makes my music sound more or less realistic.

 

If enough people rave about something and I have interest I might try it if I get a money-back satisfaction guarantee.

 

Most DBTs fail to show any statistical differences between most everything, and the few that do, only show a very small statistical difference. Thus I put zero stock in DBTs. On the other hand long-term listening lets me hear any accumulative effects on sound quality that increase over time. Things such as listening fatigue, if string tone is strident or smooth, if the overall sound is cold or warm, etc. The nasty sounding stuff in recordings and audio equipment sometimes takes weeks to experience in their totality. They start off as sounding fine, then progress to slightly wrong, then to slightly irritating, then more irritating and finally unlistenable. And this differs from person to person. So no one can listen for me, I must listen for myself.

 

 

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

Nah. I know this from personal experience

 

How is that even possible? 

[Teresa]

17 hours ago, Allan F said:

..."Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted."

-William Bruce Cameron

 

By way of example, there was an interesting panel discussion at RMAF which included four well known designers of audio equipment. John Curl noted how, in his experience in designing and building amplifiers, he found that different brands of resistors that measured the same did not sound the same. Some sounded great while others sounded awful. Notwithstanding his background in physics, he was unaware of any "technical explanation". His mantra is, "Trust your ears".

 

This is also what John Curl has told me. I've been to his apartment and seen his entire room of test equipment. He tells me we can only measure a small percentage of what we can hear and what we can measure is not even the most important. That's why after measuring, good audio designers listen by ear to select the best sounding parts that work well together and whose cost are within the projected retail price point of the component. Compromises have to be made in all components except for cost-no-object statement components. Minimizing the sonic consequences of cost compromises is the art of a great designer IMHO.

 

I'll look forward to hearing that RMAF panel discussion when it appears on YouTube.