Archimago‘s 16/44 test

[shtf]

On 5/4/2019 at 11:14 AM, mcgillroy said:

...first infos up on his site. No stats yet but he unblinded the devices. Seems like - uhhhh uhm - I really liked the iPhones sound: 

 

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2019/05/blind-test-results-part-1-do-digital.html

 

I like Archimago and I appreciate some of his work especially his demeanor and seemingly due diligence.  But with all due respect I find neither this test nor his 24-bit vs 16-bit test objective.

 

In fact, based on Archimago's findings, the only thing I can find overwhelmingly conclusive or reaffirming is that high-end audio's weakest link by far is the majority's ability to discern / interpret what we hear.  And that includes musicians and engineers as well as enthusiasts, manufacturers and designers, dealers, distributors, reviewers, and editors.  But this is old news.

 

And to the contrary, even if well-intentioned I can't help but think these subjective tests as little more than potentially damaging to high-end audio as well as potentially self-serving.  Even though I do not think that's the intention.

 

And this not to say I possess well-train ears (though I hope to possess well-enough trained ears to get by) nor is this to say I find significant differences between 24-bit and 16-bit but for one reason or antoher there are often times small but distinct differences.  And some of those differences may have little / nothing to do with the format itself.

 

[shtf]

34 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

What do you mean by "objective"?

 

Did you even try to take the meaning of my statement on its face?

[shtf]

17 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Did you even try to think about the multiple meanings of the term ????

 

You're right.  There are many potential meanings and interpretations of the use of the word objective.  

 

So why do you bother trying to lead me down this trite rabbit hole?

[shtf]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

Why do you think this is damaging to high end?  Because high enders have to maintain the idea their hearing abilities are utmost instead of the truth, which is their hearing isn't that good and easily fooled?  Or some other reason.

 

Good question.  Though in and of itself your own question is potentially damaging / unhealthy.

 

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that a clear majority of high-end audio participants of every kind believe we inherit at birth the ability to discern / interpret what we hear and have no need to nurture that ability so long as we passed a hearing test two years ago.  Now in the visual world of fine art, a genuine connoisseur of fine art would be laughing his ass off if somebody told him that we all inherit at birth the ability to discern / interpret fine art and have no need to nurture that ability.

 

Nevertheless, since it seems the vast majority of listeners lack such listening skills, any findings by polling the same using a series of questionable / subjective tests only further substantiate the fallacy that we all inherit at birth this ability to discern / interpret what we hear and that our equipment really doesn’t matter.

 

First we test those potentially lacking the ability to discern / interpret what they hear by providing them 4 potentially base “digital players”, actually at least one is a digital processor only.  And when the outcome as expected is that the bulk of participants cannot audibly discern potential differences between digital processors then the logical conclusion is that digital processors all (not just 4 low-end processors) sound far more similar than different.

 

Then we conduct a similar test using similar participants to discern differences between 24-bit and 16-bit digital.  Low and behold we have similar findings.

 

But why stop there?  Always have to look at an endeavors potential outcome as well as its actual outcome, right?  Following this pattern, it only makes sense to then conduct a similar test for preamps, then cables, then all other parts of the audio vineyard and achieve similar findings for all parts of the vineyard.

 

I’m already aware of some so-called “Audio Experts” who’ve proclaimed for years that all cables sound identical and all components sound identical because ALL retain the fidelity of the input signal.

 

Ultimately, how do Archimago’s questionable findings from his questionable tests help keep us from thinking everything sounds identical like the Audio Expert I mentioned above?   If there was any substance to any of this, then there’s no more need to improve anything and hence, we have no more need for R&D, no need for new technologies, strategies, methods, etc. because it all sounds pretty much the same.  So the industry might as well focus on the bling-bling because ain’t nobody gonna’ buy anything for performance differences because tests like these only confirm that everything sounds pretty much identical.  (BTW, we're already there).

 

In reality, these types of tests and findings only demonstrate that the vast majority of industry participants are playing T-ball with their hobby and they are seeking to drag everybody else down to their lowest common denominator.  When the better alternative should be to get the T-ballers to strive to better themselves by demonstrating that a national league exists and hopefully T-ballers at least start dreaming they too could one day play in the national league and that there is opportunity for personal growth and increased pleasure. 

 

When those who lack the ability to discern / interpret what they hear should be focused on training themselves or spending time and resources to have somebody else train them so they are able to become better trained and strive for improved levels of musicality that greatly enhances the potential enjoyment that high-end audio can provide.

 

Rather, the only real outcome of those who refuse to train or hone their listening skill along with such tests and findings as these are that with each passing year a greater percentage of enthusiasts become more comfortable and confident with their inability to discern / interpret what they hear and the more they mock those that have some ability to discern / interpret what they hear until eventually they stop participating in audio forums because it’s no longer worth the friction.

 

How is any of this potentially damaging / unhealthy for high-end audio, you ask?  Because ultimately from a performance perspective this base-level mindset keeps the entire industry far closer to its infancy than it rightfully should be.  If the pedal-to-the-metal, balls-to-the-walls drag racing industry maintained this same mindset all these years, I’d guess we’d still be arriving at the drag strip on Saturday nights with the family station wagon ready to race while those who removed their hubcaps to lessen wind resistance would be mocked.

 

[shtf]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

Why do you think this is damaging to high end?  Because high enders have to maintain the idea their hearing abilities are utmost instead of the truth, which is their hearing isn't that good and easily fooled?  Or some other reason.

 

I neglected to mention some of the ancillary damages of an industry kept near its infancy from a performance perspective.

 

1.  There are those dealers and distributors who realize the majority possessing this base level state of listening skills and they capitalize on it in audio forums with their bling only, playing tag team with one another about the "performance" of products and making money via their infomercials masquarading as threads in the forums when the gullible are just gobbling it up and the professionals are making money from it and developing a cult of followers.

 

2.  It becomes far easier for charlatans like Bob Stuart of MQA, LTD to introduce a product like MQA with just a few key endorsements to hoodwink the majority into thinking a supposedly new "hi-rez" format can now make cows jump over the moon.  It also becomces far easier for supposedly industry leaders like Atkinson and Harley to "guide" the industry toward a technology like a particular hi-rez format, a certain multi-channel config, etc.

 

3.  It becomes far easier for the science-minded, engineering-minded, and psuedo-science-minded types to become paper tigers of audio forums that mislead the masses into thinking they are the real audio experts and that they have the answers.  When in reality they are potentially more lost than the majority when it comes to real high-end audio performance because they've convinced themselves and many of their followers that listening skills no longer matter and performance we can SEE is all that matters.  In an audio-only industry, mind you.

 

 

[shtf]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

So in essence, you think there are a small number of people who are much more discerning of sound quality differences.  And if we think no improvements are possible, none will be forthcoming as no one will look for them.  Plus that many/most audiophiles could learn to discern more than they currently do.  Which would provide a better market for improved gear rather than designing for the lowest common aural acuity.  You want an arms race of performance with various companies pushing each other to higher and higher levels of good results.  I think I've not misrepresented you here. 

 

After reading between the lines, I'd say that you have sufficiently enough interpreted me here. 

 

Quote

So laying aside Archimago's test for the moment, my question for you would be do you think there is no end to how well humans can hear? 

 

I'd say like many things there are potentially diminishing returns.  If you say the heaviest man on record weighed 903 lbs., does that imply no man can weigh 910 lbs.?  The probability for somebody else to audibly discern more always exists.

 

Quote

If you say you think there is not, then your reasoning makes some sense though just the nature of things means as results become more rarefied it will apply to fewer and few people.  

 

If you think there is a limit, then what do you think should occur if we can make gear known to be faultless and perceptually perfect?

Laying aside whether or not we are there yet.  (my opinion for what is worth is some of our gear does this and some does not). 

 

I think there are some faults in other parts of your post.  One being the assumption no differences were heard.  We don't know the results of that yet. 

 

I’m already aware of some so-called “Audio Experts” who’ve proclaimed for years that all cables sound identical and all components sound identical because ALL retain the fidelity of the input signal.

 

The above is a straw man.  

 

Not sure why you say this.  I know of one who made such claims multiple times.  And BTW, at some point in his sojourn he authored a book entitled, "The Audio Expert".  And as far as I know he maintains quite a following.

 

Quote

I don't know exactly what Archimago had in mind.  I think it was more of an interesting test for people to see if they could hear a difference they thought would be easy.  I think if you asked audiophiles if they could hear the difference in an iPhone and a really good DAC they'd say yes.  This is where you might say well trained listeners could, but most audiophiles will not.  So the results would mislead us if no statistical difference of significance is found.  So following your thinking you believe this is negative.  I'd say, "well if these people can't hear the difference why shouldn't they learn it is true?" I don't think Archimago would claim his test should be used as a basis for determining ultimate performance levels needed for the entire industry.   It might say it was good to know most people can't hear the difference or the difference is much smaller than they imagined.  And again I don't know what the results will be. 

 

I don't know what Archimago had in mind either.  Apart from his MQA papers, I actually know very little about him.  But from what I can tell, he seems like a good joe.  But I also know that he struggles in the listening skill department.  At least when it comes to hearing any differences between a product before and after full burn-in.  As I recall, he claims there is no audible difference.  Yet, even in my earliest days of high-end audio, I cannot recall a single time when I did not hear a sonic difference between a new cable, component, line conditioner, racking system, or speaker before and after a certain burn-in and/or settling-in time period.

 

Quote

I've posted files of various kinds and that was my thinking.  Interesting experience, but given the various listener abilities, and gear, and how much effort a listener may have invested it is not conclusive.  The most recent one with 8th generation copies, is interesting in the sense you are thinking about it. The results didn't indicate people in general could hear a difference.  I could ABX those files.  In time some other people did.  We have to remember a null result doesn't prove no difference.  It is when we get positive results that things are interesting.  In time I determined what it was that let me hear the 8th generation copies vs originals.  And it told me some people gave up or did not know how to listen carefully for a difference.  That will be a problem with any public test that doesn't vet the gear, conditions, or listeners. 

 

Understood.

 

[shtf]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

I think Archimago's idea would be to prevent both 1 and 2 above.  I think he believes we do have the ability to measure performance beyond the acuity of hearing.  And if properly done those measurements can help combat 1 and 2 above.  And those measurements will point to who is doing a better job of producing quality components.  

 

I suppose it could seem he is saying, "we can measure it, so you don't have to listen", and maybe he is.  And if it is true we can produce perceptually blameless products, then he is correct, listening skills don't matter for the simple enjoyment of music.  The skill still worth improving might be that of the fine art connoisseur in this case the fine music connoisseur.  I do think it is worth pointing out this analogy was misused in your earlier post.  A visual art connoisseur doesn't train his skill of visual acuity, so much as his skill in visual interpretation.  Tests like those of Archimago are more about acuity and not interpretation.  

 

Actually, you misinterpreted what I said.  Numerous times I used the phrase "discern / interpret" to imply that I never reference acuity.  But only interpretation.  Which has everything or should have everthing to do with high-end audio.  I could care less how many times a listener passed a hearing test or even if his hearing test results demonstrated he possessed the greatest acuity known.  It matters little when it comes to discerning levels of sound quality.

 

In fact, hearing acuity may be much like measuring.  It's a good source for hearing something, anything, or nothing, but is usually quite useless when discerning / interpreting levels of sound quality.

[shtf]

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

But that probability can be awfully small.  Vanishingly small.  Not impossible, but I think this is pushing the idea too far in audio.   There are documented cases of more than a few people who can hear in some sense 25 khz tones.  We also know this is something less than 1% and only when they are under 30 years old.  This fact wouldn't convince me that for now we need to make everything kosher to 100 khz just in case.  (and yes I know you didn't say something like this)

 

We're talking apples and oranges.  You yourself acknowledged a difference between acuity and interpretation.  Acuity matters not.  Interpretation means everything.

 

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

I think your somewhat misrepresenting Ethan.  Cables excepting misapplied values yes.  The rest has too many ALL's that aren't quite what he has said.  He thinks many components are perceptibly transparent.  More than most audiophiles do.  I mostly agree with him on this. 

 

 

No, I did not misinterpret Ethan.  I've engaged in meaning dialogue with Ethan more times than I care to remember.  Or was it meaningful monologue?

 

Regardless, I was engaging him and it was rather regrettable and sad.

[shtf]

5 minutes ago, esldude said:

The acuity is a prerequisite at some level.  And some measurable effects are beyond interpretation as they are beyond the acuity of human hearing. 

 

Well, yes.  If one were deaf or deaf in one ear or very hard of hearing, then of course.  But I presume we're not talking about that.

 

I know older audio enthusiasts with compromised hearing who when it comes to discerning / interpreting what they hear, can run circles around younger ears with greater acuity. 

 

This is an excellent example of talking apples to oranges.