pkane2001 Posted June 16, 2020 Author Share Posted June 16, 2020 12 hours ago, fas42 said: My experience has shown that the circumstances that blind tests are conducted in will be enough to completely undermine the optimisation that the hobbyist has applied to his particular situation. IOW, the blind tests never actually test what they purportedly are attempting to reconcile - the abyss in understanding between the two camps remains just as wide and deep as it ever has; and will remain so, until greater overall understanding evolves ... You've obviously had a huge amount of experience conducting blind tests, Frank! Can you please share any of the results and procedures here, so we can try to reproduce your findings? sandyk 1 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
fas42 Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 11 hours ago, pkane2001 said: You've obviously had a huge amount of experience conducting blind tests, Frank! Can you please share any of the results and procedures here, so we can try to reproduce your findings? Paul, what I mean here is that the organisation of the gear so that a blind test can be carried out will often suffer from the observer effect - will take require a bit of care to ensure this is not the case. Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted June 17, 2020 Author Share Posted June 17, 2020 31 minutes ago, fas42 said: Paul, what I mean here is that the organisation of the gear so that a blind test can be carried out will often suffer from the observer effect - will take require a bit of care to ensure this is not the case. That is true. Setting up a blind test can be hard, especially with speakers and headphones. -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
Popular Post AudioDoctor Posted June 17, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 17, 2020 Bias effects everything... So yes, it effects audio test results. pkane2001, 4est and sandyk 2 1 No electron left behind. Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted June 17, 2020 Author Share Posted June 17, 2020 This head-fi thread doesn't rise to the level of a real study (or meta-study), but summarizes a lot of the blind tests and attempts at blind tests, especially ABX, that have been tried. These mostly demonstrate that the audiophile-reported huge differences between cables, DACs, amps, and various hi-res formats are not so huge or obvious when proper bias controls are put in place: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths-the-original-compilation.769887/ Quote from the conclusion section: "If hifi is all about sound and more specifically sound quality, then we should, once the other senses have been removed be able to hear differences which can be verified by being able to identify one product from another by only listening. But time and again we cannot." -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted June 18, 2020 Author Share Posted June 18, 2020 This is an article from The Institute of Engineering and Technology, a publication subscribed to by over 140,000 professional engineers according to their own stats: https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2011/11/audio-and-technological-mythology/ A short quote that agrees with the other studies shared in this thread: Confirmation bias plagues the audio business. The brain is only too ready to accept that making a small change to an audio system – such as plugging in a new cable – results in a perceptible difference in performance. The article goes into a few of the audio myths, such as AC power cords, burn-in for electronics, bi-wiring, analog vs digital, etc., in more detail. -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
sandyk Posted June 18, 2020 Share Posted June 18, 2020 10 hours ago, pkane2001 said: The article goes into a few of the audio myths, such as AC power cords, burn-in for electronics, bi-wiring, analog vs digital, etc., in more detail. It should be obvious to many that The Institute of Engineering and Technology, a publication subscribed to by over 140,000 professional engineers has their own set of expectation biases . Quote The article goes into a few of the audio myths, such as AC power cords, burn-in for electronics, bi-wiring, analog vs digital, etc., It's more of the usual " if we can't measure it, then it's not there" syndrome that you also appear to subscribe to .😋 BTW, this area of the forum is supposed to be about Objective proof, and is not intended to be another vehicle for attacking what Audiophiles report about your so called " Audio Myths" , many of which should be quite provable if properly conducted DBT sessions were performed. Audiophile Neuroscience 1 How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file. PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020 Link to comment
fas42 Posted June 18, 2020 Share Posted June 18, 2020 Paul's doing an excellent job of developing tools that help with understanding what might be happening when the SQ is below par - I applaud what he has contributed to the community! 👍 Eventually, methods will be developed so that numbers can be applied, relatively straightforwardly, to what people are hearing - I'm always looking out for any serious research into getting closer to this goal; now and again something looks promising, but then it disappears into obscurity - there is little overall interest, it seems; far easier to keep beating the "it's all in their heads!" drum, 😜. pkane2001 1 Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted June 19, 2020 Author Share Posted June 19, 2020 3 hours ago, sandyk said: It should be obvious to many that The Institute of Engineering and Technology, a publication subscribed to by over 140,000 professional engineers has their own set of expectation biases . It's more of the usual " if we can't measure it, then it's not there" syndrome that you also appear to subscribe to .😋 BTW, this area of the forum is supposed to be about Objective proof, and is not intended to be another vehicle for attacking what Audiophiles report about your so called " Audio Myths" , many of which should be quite provable if properly conducted DBT sessions were performed. Considering all the studies I've shared are about subjective evaluation and biases involved in doing them, measurements are not involved. So, perhaps you're showing just a bit of your own bias in trying to attack me on things that I explicitly didn't bring up or say in this thread? And even going so far as to diagnose a "syndrome" that I apparently "subscribe to" that has no bearing on this discussion? -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
sandyk Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 6 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: So, perhaps you're showing just a bit of your own bias in trying to attack me on things that I explicitly didn't bring up or say in this thread? NO ! If you hadn't felt the need to post the part I mentioned, I wouldn't have felt the need to respond. You were demonstrating your own prejudices by saying that. Quote The article goes into a few of the audio myths, such as AC power cords, burn-in for electronics, bi-wiring, analog vs digital, etc., Audiophile Neuroscience 1 How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file. PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020 Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted June 19, 2020 Author Share Posted June 19, 2020 Just now, sandyk said: NO ! If you hadn't felt the need to post the part I mentioned, I wouldn't have felt the need to respond. You were demonstrating your own prejudices by saying that. Alex, enough. You're not adding anything to this discussion but smoke. I didn't mention measurements. I shared an article which explicitly mentioned myths and audiophile biases. Their words, not mine. What I posted was a description of what's in the article. I didn't make it up. You don't like it? Argue with facts and examples in the article and not with ad hominem attacks . opus101 1 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
sandyk Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 23 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: Alex, enough. You're not adding anything to this discussion but smoke. I didn't mention measurements. I shared an article which explicitly mentioned myths and audiophile biases. Their words, not mine. What I posted was a description of what's in the article. I didn't make it up. You don't like it? Argue with facts and examples in the article and not with ad hominem attacks . Your post #56 was deliberately provocative , Anti Subjective, and presented no facts or corroborating measurements of your own. daverich4 and opus101 2 How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file. PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020 Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted June 19, 2020 Author Share Posted June 19, 2020 Just now, sandyk said: Your post #56 was deliberately provocative and presented no facts or corroborating measurements of your own. I Please stop. -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 On 6/17/2020 at 10:32 PM, pkane2001 said: This head-fi thread doesn't rise to the level of a real study (or meta-study), Agreed (premise 1) ^^^ On 6/17/2020 at 10:32 PM, pkane2001 said: but summarizes a lot of the blind tests and attempts at blind tests, especially ABX, that have been tried. Agreed (premise 2) ^^^ On 6/17/2020 at 10:32 PM, pkane2001 said: These mostly demonstrate that the audiophile-reported huge differences between cables, DACs, amps, and various hi-res formats are not so huge or obvious when proper bias controls are put in place: Conclusion ^^^? See premise 1 Summit 1 Sound Minds Mind Sound Link to comment
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 8 hours ago, pkane2001 said: Alex, enough. You're not adding anything to this discussion but smoke. Smoke? Perhaps. But maybe bias is also reflected in 'mirrors'...and yes that includes me too 🙂 Sound Minds Mind Sound Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted June 19, 2020 Author Share Posted June 19, 2020 17 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: Smoke? Perhaps. But maybe bias is also reflected in 'mirrors'...and yes that includes me too 🙂 Of course everyone's guilty of bias. That's what the studies so far clearly illustrate. Despite this, there is a way to move forward, and that's one of the main reasons for this thread: 1. Help recognize that our preferences often are affected by things that have nothing to do with sound that are often subconscious and not under our control 2. Figure out a way to remove as many biases as possible from affecting the outcome of a preference test -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted June 19, 2020 Author Share Posted June 19, 2020 47 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: Agreed (premise 1) ^^^ Agreed (premise 2) ^^^ Conclusion ^^^? See premise 1 Read the individual tests and their results. The conclusion was not mine, it's a summary of the comments in the post I shared. His final statement is: The clear conclusion is that ABX testing does not back up many audiophile claims, so they become audiophile myths as they show cables do not inherently change sound. Any change in sound quality comes from the listeners mind and interaction between their senses. What is claimed to be audible is not reliably so. ... If hifi is all about sound and more specifically sound quality, then we should, once the other senses have been removed be able to hear differences which can be verified by being able to identify one product from another by only listening. But time and again we cannot. You and Alex seem eager to read bias into my own posts. And while I'm sure I'm biased, here, I'm just trying to share information that I found useful. Considering the post is a summary and an analysis (with references) of various blind tests undertaken by the audio community, including manufacturers and retailers, this is an important data point in this discussion. Teresa 1 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 5 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: Of course everyone's guilty of bias. Maybe, at least potentially 5 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: That's what the studies so far clearly illustrate. The 'studies' (like the Head FI thread or opinion piece you linked) don't clearly demonstrate anything beyond opinion, IMO....and biased conclusions 5 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: Despite this, there is a way to move forward, and that's one of the main reasons for this thread: see post 64 5 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: 1. Help recognize that our preferences often are affected by things that have nothing to do with sound that are often subconscious and not under our control Sometimes, if borne out by actual real experiments 5 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: 2. Figure out a way to remove as many biases as possible from affecting the outcome of a preference test Yes , if done in an unbiased way that is methodologically valid Sound Minds Mind Sound Link to comment
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: Read the individual tests and their results. None that I read seemed convincing to me. I am happy to reconsider on a case by case basis. 2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: The conclusion was not mine, it's a summary of the comments in the post I shared. Who cares apart from the individual forum posters. On 6/17/2020 at 10:32 PM, pkane2001 said: This head-fi thread doesn't rise to the level of a real study (or meta-study), sandyk 1 Sound Minds Mind Sound Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted June 19, 2020 Author Share Posted June 19, 2020 Just now, Audiophile Neuroscience said: None that I read seemed convincing to me. I am happy to reconsider on a case by case basis. Who cares apart from the individual forum posters. This head-fi thread doesn't rise to the level of a real study (or meta-study), Considering that I didn't claim anything about their validity, you can stop arguing with me about them. But perhaps you can comment on the other 15+ (published and peer-reviewed) studies posted in this thread that demonstrate similar findings? -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 Just now, pkane2001 said: Considering that I didn't claim anything about their validity, Then why mention them? Just now, pkane2001 said: But perhaps you can comment on the other 15+ (published and peer-reviewed) studies posted in this thread that demonstrate similar findings? Pick any one you like and happy to discuss Sound Minds Mind Sound Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted June 19, 2020 Author Share Posted June 19, 2020 Just now, Audiophile Neuroscience said: Then why mention them? Pick any one you like and happy to discuss Why? Because they are all actual data points summarizing the results of many attempts by audiophiles trying to perform less biased listening tests. Most, if not all, were performed by audiophiles who believed they could hear huge differences, and yet failed to hear them without visual confirmation, i.e., in a blind test. These results are easily predicted by the other, more serious and controlled studies already cited, so they seem to fit into the overall pattern of this thread: biases have a strong effect on preferences in uncontrolled listening testing. Teresa and sandyk 1 1 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: Why? Because they are all actual data points Yet you said they were not necessarily valid. Are we supposed to be swayed by invalid data points? 3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: These results are easily predicted by the other, more serious and controlled studies already cited, so they seem to fit into the overall pattern of this thread: biases have a strong effect on preferences in uncontrolled listening testing. If easy, pick one and show us how easy it is Sound Minds Mind Sound Link to comment
Popular Post pkane2001 Posted June 19, 2020 Author Popular Post Share Posted June 19, 2020 Just now, Audiophile Neuroscience said: Yet you said they were not necessarily valid. Are we supposed to be swayed by invalid data points? I'm not trying to sway anything or anyone. I'm posting information that I find useful in my own study of audio and proper listening test construction. The studies I shared here I reviewed and found useful. Feel free to provide relevant information related to the subject here or start your own thread, but stop attacking me and my motives. sandyk, Teresa and daverich4 2 1 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
Popular Post Audiophile Neuroscience Posted June 19, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 19, 2020 11 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: I'm not trying to sway anything or anyone. I'm posting information that I find useful in my own study of audio and proper listening test construction. The studies I shared here I reviewed and found useful. Feel free to provide relevant information related to the subject here or start your own thread, but stop attacking me and my motives. Paul, I am merely pointing out you may be suffering from the very condition you are exploring. I applaud your interest in bias. However, the conclusions you shared in the opinion piece and head fi post are just opinions that would appear to support your confirmation bias IMO. If you care to discuss individual studies, okay. But the whole "clinical studies show you will have brighter teeth in just two weeks" doesn't cut it, you must examine each study. You were the one stating it was easy. That's not my experience You obviously want me out of this thread. Bedtime here, anyway. 🙂 Summit, Teresa and sandyk 3 Sound Minds Mind Sound Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now