Objectivists/Subjectivists

[Music Enthusiast]

24 minutes ago, esldude said:

To quote another thread participant, what would convince you that his test is valid?

 

 

I would have to listen with my own ears. If I couldn't detect any differences with listening tests, I would accept the test results. 

[Music Enthusiast]

55 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

We know,  it's our ears or gears that's not up to your standards.

Not the fact that you can't produce repeatable results with you eyes closed.

Last time I conducted a blind listening test with 4 USB cables, 2 people could name the cables 5 out of 5 times with random cable swapping. Even when I tried to trick them and kept the same cable in twice they knew I didn't swap it. 

[esldude]

12 minutes ago, Music Enthusiast said:

I would have to listen with my own ears. If I couldn't detect any differences with listening tests, I would accept the test results. 

Maybe you should get in touch with @plissken to see if he would arrange for you to hear that or not. 

[Music Enthusiast]

57 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Thats a great question (one I push a lot) but in fairness at least he tries and did establish a difference in a measurement  that correlated with his conclusion. Not sure about "So as usual, we can show measurements that bother the eye but not the ear" but some here will ooze blood from their eyes when they read that. The bottom line is that it is notoriously hard to come up with a scientific test protocol that stands up to peer reviewed journal standard, and in those journals the result often comes back "interesting".

I was talking to a DAC engineer one day who went on a mission to prove to some engineers on his team that an Audio Precision machine is only of limited usefulness when designing audio gear. He ran the full gamut of tests on one of his DAC's. Then he took another DAC that was identical and tested it as well. The measurements were pretty much identical. Blind listening tests were conducted between the 2 DAC's and nobody could tell them apart. Next he took one of the DAC's and swapped a bunch of parts out that he knew made a drastic audible difference, but no difference regarding measured results. He ran the full gamut of tests on this DAC again. Nothing changed at all with the measurements. Next he did another blind test, and the difference in sound between the 2 was so drastic that everyone could clearly pick which DAC was the modified one. 

 

After this experiment, his team members became much better engineers. The moral of the story is the best audio engineers use their ears and the measurement gear together. Both are required for true excellence. 

[Music Enthusiast]

4 minutes ago, esldude said:

Maybe you should get in touch with @plissken to see if he would arrange for you to hear that or not. 

I don't need to. I have conducted enough tests on my own to satisfy my curiosity. 

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, esldude said:

Maybe you should get in touch with @plissken to see if he would arrange for you to hear that or not. 

 

 Music Enthusiast

 Forget Plissken . He is likely to throw in a couple of repeats etc. to confuse you.

 These tests are hard enough without that unless you are a professional used to performing DBTs

 Do any tests using your OWN system that you are used to, under non sighted conditions with others controlling the switching.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

15 minutes ago, Music Enthusiast said:

I was talking to a DAC engineer one day who went on a mission to prove to some engineers on his team that an Audio Precision machine is only of limited usefulness when designing audio gear. He ran the full gamut of tests on one of his DAC's. Then he took another DAC that was identical and tested it as well. The measurements were pretty much identical. Blind listening tests were conducted between the 2 DAC's and nobody could tell them apart. Next he took one of the DAC's and swapped a bunch of parts out that he knew made a drastic audible difference, but no difference regarding measured results. He ran the full gamut of tests on this DAC again. Nothing changed at all with the measurements. Next he did another blind test, and the difference in sound between the 2 was so drastic that everyone could clearly pick which DAC was the modified one. 

 

Yes its the old are you measuring what you think you are measuring or are you measuring the right things..

 

Amir's test was a bit different because he did find a measurement that appeared to be sensitive (amount unknown) to the outcome. That's a different scenario to not finding a difference in any measurements.

 

The 5 out of 5  in a listening test is pretty good (FWIW p= 0.031 I think) but needs more trials.

 

Edit I agree with SandyK. You need to have confidence in the people doing a DBT and control biases

 

[Music Enthusiast]

Just now, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Yes its the old are you measuring wgat you think you are measuring or are you measuring the right things..

 

Amir's test was a bit different because he did find a measurement that appeared to be sensitive (amount unknown) to the outcome. Thats a different scenario to not finding a difference in any measurements.

 

The 5 out of 5  in a listening test is pretty good (FWIW p= 0.031 I think) but needs more trials.

 

He certainly did prove that some DAC's are much better at rejecting noise from source gear/USB cables. But he did not prove that there was no audible differences between the cables even with the best DAC in the test. That would require some good sets of ears. Then if those ears could still detect differences, further research into why could be conducted.

 

This is how good scientists break new ground. If you read an Audio Precision manual you'll discover these machines have capabilities far beyond the simple testing Amir conducts. But his agenda isn't to prove that things some audiophiles can hear are actually audible. It's to prove that these audiophiles are a bunch of flakes. Running just the simple tests are all he needs to do to accomplish his agenda, and please his sycophants.

[Thomas savage]

Ha ha , so let’s turn this around and get some sensible discourse,, ah let’s turn it into a cable thread coz that’ll do it. 

 

I fairly sure even now if I had to listen to my system connected via usb using a cheap looking cable vs a nice chunky expensive one it would sound better with the later. I might even feel ‘safer’ and my anxiety levels may well be reduced ( certainly 2 or 3 years ago) and that’s without having bought in to the ‘science ‘ of the manufacturer. So I know it shouldn’t make a difference but it still dose..,

 

But how can this be....?  .... maybe something else , something to do with visual association informing auditory perception maybe ..?  Maybe this is how tv marketing works too, maybe this is a powerful mechanism of prejudice, let’s cut out the visual and see just what happens when we separate these senses. 

 

Or lets not and just assume its the cable , let’s not look any further after all I trust my ears , but then do I trust them in combination with my eyes , ah sod it I know what I know god damn it. 

 

The cable is making a diffrence i dont care what the tests say, they don’t know what I’m hearing , they are not me . 

 

 

[Music Enthusiast]

13 minutes ago, Thomas savage said:

Ha ha , so let’s turn this around and get some sensible discourse,, ah let’s turn it into a cable thread coz that’ll do it. 

 

I fairly sure even now if I had to listen to my system connected via usb using a cheap looking cable vs a nice chunky expensive one it would sound better with the later. I might even feel ‘safer’ and my anxiety levels may well be reduced ( certainly 2 or 3 years ago) and that’s without having bought in to the ‘science ‘ of the manufacturer. So I know it shouldn’t make a difference but it still dose..,

 

But how can this be....?  .... maybe something else , something to do with visual association informing auditory perception maybe ..?  Maybe this is how tv marketing works too, maybe this is a powerful mechanism of prejudice, let’s cut out the visual and see just what happens when we separate these senses. 

 

Or lets not and just assume its the cable , let’s not look any further after all I trust my ears , but then do I trust them in combination with my eyes , ah sod it I know what I know god damn it. 

 

The cable is making a diffrence i dont care what the tests say, they don’t know what I’m hearing , they are not me . 

 

 

Nobody is saying that expectation bias and placebo effect isn't real. But this can't be used to explain away everything that's not easy to understand. There's actually real differences between some gear that simple Audio Precision tests don't pick up on.

 

But of course to understand this It takes more than just choosing 1 extremist camp to be apart of then succumbing to the perils of groupthink. 

[Taz777]

I think the whole has to be considered rather than the graphs and charts for one specific component. If the whole feels good then does anything else really matter?

 

For me there is a tipping point when the music I feel is simply marvellous. That could be with a length of wet string or a component that is so technically competent that it challenges the measuring equipment.

[Thomas savage]

3 minutes ago, Taz777 said:

I think the whole has to be considered rather than the graphs and charts for one specific component. If the whole feels good then does anything else really matter?

 

For me there is a tipping point when the music I feel is simply marvellous. That could be with a length of wet string or a component that is so technically competent that it challenges the measuring equipment.

I just listen to music these days , I wonder about room correction now and then ( I do use something with my subwoofers but not the mains ) but other than that I don’t worry and Iv not changed anything in my main listening room for 3 or 4 years now.   I chose all my kit by evaluating it at home , not a process I ever enjoyed as all I wanted was to hear music that sounded ‘right’ to me.  

 

If you paid 2 grand for that bit of string and were sold it on the belief it was ‘the best thing’ despite you being happy I’d suggest maybe it would be worth looking into. 

 

Still id love to have my stuff measured , just to see just what’s really going on. Are those products I bought really performing to spec etc.  To me I’m part of the system and I can be faulty just like a amp to some degree. 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

40 minutes ago, Music Enthusiast said:

He certainly did prove that some DAC's are much better at rejecting noise from source gear/USB cables. But he did not prove that there was no audible differences between the cables even with the best DAC in the test. That would require some good sets of ears. Then if those ears could still detect differences, further research into why could be conducted.

 

This is how good scientists break new ground. If you read an Audio Precision manual you'll discover these machines have capabilities far beyond the simple testing Amir conducts. But his agenda isn't to prove that things some audiophiles can hear are actually audible. It's to prove that these audiophiles are a bunch of flakes. Running just the simple tests are all he needs to do to accomplish his agenda, and please his sycophants.

 

I agree that there were too many variables and unknowns and that the results were inconclusive in a strict scientific sense. I will stay clear of the motivations (albeit it speaks to bias). I will say, the results were suggestive if not conclusive IMO. I applaud anyone doing tests, its a tough gig. I always take conclusions with a grain of salt but the evidence is there for all to interpret.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 minutes ago, Thomas savage said:

Still id love to have my stuff measured

 

talk about confidence !

[Ajax]

On 12/29/2018 at 8:20 AM, sandyk said:

In other words : 

"  Trust me, I am an Engineer/Physician/Politician and I know what's best for you ! "

 

All 3 groups have two things in common. They are human, and they all make mistakes from time to time.

 Recently an aeroplane dived into the sea. Recently a 4 months old , almost 400 apartments high rise block in Sydney started to crack and become in need of urgent repair, not because of shoddy workmanship, but an engineering mistake .All residents have been forced to vacate for an expected 10 days while engineers investigate.

Hi Alex,

 

I have real problem with what you have written here. In both cases there has been no "official report" on either why the plane crashed or why the building has cracked.

 

With regard to the building you wrote "Recently a 4 months old, almost 400 apartments high rise block in Sydney started to crack and become in need of urgent repair, not because of shoddy workmanship, but an engineering mistake. All residents have been forced to vacate for an expected 10 days while engineers investigate.

 

Exactly, while engineers investigate. You have no evidence it was not due to shoddy workmanship. Guy Templeton, the president of WSP in Australia & New Zealand, who have been the independent engineers engaged to investigate the issue said that “[It was] the connection between prefabricated and in situ poured concrete that was damaged on Level 10, “Two of these areas, both on level four, show evidence of some but lesser damage.”

 

I am a civil engineer and spent about 10 years on building sites as a site engineer, responsible for taking the consulting engineers design and ensuring it was correctly interpreted by the subcontractors, and I can tell you from experience when you are joining two materials together on a site, one being from factory and another from on site construction, it is normally always poor workmanship or lack of site supervision. However, without inspecting the work personally I really don't know but I do know you are making provocative and inflammatory statements, which is a habit of yours and is helpful to nobody, especially while having a civil debate. So stop it.

 

As an engineer it was reinforced to me time and time again to understand what is happening. Why are you doing this? Is there a better more cost effective way? Is the factor of safety you are allowing sufficient. Think for yourself. Think for yourself. Think for yourself. What's going on? What's going on? What's going on? Does it make sense? Does it make sense? Does it make sense?

 

I have only read a few of the initial comments in this thread and I really object to being stereotyped - IAM AN INDIVIDUAL - I don't belong "solely" to any group, I have many personality traits, which if taken in isolation appear conflicting. I'm a surfer (therefore an environmentalist) I'm a business man (therefore a capitalist) I'm a music lover (therefore an audiophile) I am a humanitarian (therefore a socialist but I vote conservative, but maybe not much longer), my best friend is a woman (my wife), my nieces are women (therefore I am a feminist but I loath the inference that all men are bastards), I am an engineer (therefore I am an objectivist), I am always trying to improve the sound of my system by changing gear, adding subs, moving speakers, installing wall treatments (therefore I am a subjectivist) etc etc

 

Stop with the finger pointing and lazy categorisation and stereotyping of individuals into groups. We are all individuals and are made up of a lot of different beliefs, many of which are conflicting.

 

 

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

52 minutes ago, Thomas savage said:

But how can this be....?  .... maybe something else , something to do with visual association informing auditory perception maybe ..?

 

The usual suspect audiophile is dedicated a degree of defness.

 

Now I don't know what you guys saw in that link I gave you (once again, btw - it's not new at all of course), but apparently you can stifle over it for 2 days without seeing that it clearly shows differences all over. And so the problem is even worse than this thread discusses:

 

a. The audiophile I just quoted is now even blind;

b. The suspect objectivists are all too.

So Thomas, nothing wrong with you (expect that you are in that camp and won't come out of it ).

 

Somehow, mysteriously, the differences seen are waved by referring to the superiority of some DAC's to reject the differences to some extent ?

 

So it is all in the clear now; you guys just don't want to see it. Today, however, that has become literal.

And so measurement doesn't even help the objectivist.

 

 

[sandyk]

26 minutes ago, Ajax said:

I have real problem with what you have written here. In both cases there has been no "official report" on either why the plane crashed or why the building has cracked.

 We should find out soon enough after the NSW Government issues the report on the building investigations.

 Nowhere have I suggested that all Engineers are incompetent, however several here seem to think that they are infallible in engineering matters.

They aren't. They are human like the rest of us, and occasionally make errors too.

[sandyk]

35 minutes ago, Ajax said:

. However, without inspecting the work personally I really don't know but I do know you are making provocative and inflammatory statements, which is a habit of yours and is helpful to nobody, especially while having a civil debate. So stop it.

 

  Well perhaps they should stop making provocative and insulting comments about what I report, where they aren't even interested in seeing any proof that I have made available.

In case you haven't noticed, there have been very few civil debates recently  in the General area of the forum, and it's not usually due to the Subjective side .

[sandyk]

32 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 We should find out soon enough after the NSW Government issues the report on the building investigations.

 Nowhere have I suggested that all Engineers are incompetent, however several here seem to think that they are infallible in engineering matters.

They aren't. They are human like the rest of us, and occasionally make errors too.

 

 If an Engineer wasn't present during such a critical phase of the construction, then they should have been required  to be there by legislation if need be .

[esldude]

8 hours ago, Music Enthusiast said:

I was talking to a DAC engineer one day who went on a mission to prove to some engineers on his team that an Audio Precision machine is only of limited usefulness when designing audio gear. He ran the full gamut of tests on one of his DAC's. Then he took another DAC that was identical and tested it as well. The measurements were pretty much identical. Blind listening tests were conducted between the 2 DAC's and nobody could tell them apart. Next he took one of the DAC's and swapped a bunch of parts out that he knew made a drastic audible difference, but no difference regarding measured results. He ran the full gamut of tests on this DAC again. Nothing changed at all with the measurements. Next he did another blind test, and the difference in sound between the 2 was so drastic that everyone could clearly pick which DAC was the modified one. 

 

After this experiment, his team members became much better engineers. The moral of the story is the best audio engineers use their ears and the measurement gear together. Both are required for true excellence. 

Names and details or it's just anecdotal bs. 

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, esldude said:

Names and details or it's just anecdotal bs. 

 

Your mood is getting better and better.

[Sal1950]

8 hours ago, Music Enthusiast said:

Nobody is saying that expectation bias and placebo effect isn't real. But this can't be used to explain away everything that's not easy to understand. There's actually real differences between some gear that simple Audio Precision tests don't pick up on.

If and when that's true, you should be able to hear that difference with your eyes closed.

If it only exists when you know what your listening to, it's a bias.

A very simple deduction,

[89reksal]

6 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

your listening

you're listening

[89reksal]

On 12/29/2018 at 10:00 PM, lasker98 said:

I don't know if I'm being intentionally trolled or some of these people are truly as ignorant as I'm taking them to be. It's like an alternate universe where less is more (2016 is newer than 2011 and being able to post that with what i took as a straight face).

Since it's too late to edit this I just wanted to correct:

should read "(2011 is newer than 2016 and...)"

[diecaster]

1 hour ago, lasker98 said:

you're listening

 

Now you are going to correct misspellings? What's next? Grammar?

 

Maybe you needed more time off.....