Trust your ears

[March Audio]

4 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

. Expectation or confirmation bias can work both ways. If someone, by reason of "a scientific background", is convinced that there are no differences to be heard, he/she may not hear them notwithstanding that they do, in fact, exist. While graphs and charts may indeed prove something, the lack of them hardly equates to "nonsense".

That's why you do double blind tests and have controls where therexare known differences (or not)

[March Audio]

5 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

You apparently believe, wrongly IMO, that subjectivists will always hear differences because of expectation or confirmation bias. The subjectivists that I know neither insist nor expect to hear differences with every change they make to their systems. 

Well always is an exaggeration, but the simple fact is that without controls in place, the individuals opinions should be treated with great caution.

 

Here is an example pertaining to speaker evaluation.

 

 

[March Audio]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

Your analogy is bogus. There is no reasonable dispute regarding climate change or the misinformation regarding vaccines or COVID-19. Those are all matters of fact. OTOH, the debate between subjectivists and objectivists regarding whether differences can be heard is both a matter of opinion and one of reasonable dispute, regardless of the latter group insisting that only they can be right.

 

Im afraid that's simply not true.  There has been probably 100 years of objective scientific research into what we can and cannot hear.  It is very far from mere opinion.  How do you think lossy formats such as mp3 and AAC were developed.

 

Subjective opinions can be analysed in an objective and scientific way to obtain accurate data and conclusions.  See the Floyd Toole video above. The problem arises when there are no controls put in place and the influences of bias steer the conclusions.

 

The potential influence of bias is not questioned in any field, except seemingly by some audiophiles.

 

BTW, objectivists don't insist they are right, they just look at actual evidence to form conclusions.  This very much includes subjective analysis - when that data can be trusted.

[March Audio]

1 hour ago, idiot_savant said:

Deep. Can we prove black is white and get killed on a zebra crossing?*
 

 

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

 

*HHGTG, sorry probably not even the right quote, but couldn’t resist 😉

Proof that God does not exist and that black is white.

 

https://youtu.be/iuumnjJWFO4

 

[March Audio]

3 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

Surely, you are not seriously suggesting that people can't hear the difference between lossy formats such as MP3 and lossless Red Book standard audio. And despite your opinion to the contrary, the issue under discussion is very much a matter of opinion based, in the case of subjectivists, on repeatable experience. Accordingly, I see no point in carrying on this "debate" any further. Bye!

I never suggested that for one moment.  The point was that the area of what we can and cannot hear has been very thoroughly researched over many, many decades.  Its not a case of mere "opinion" as you suggested.

 

However as you bring the subject up high bit rate lossy codecs are very difficult to differentiate, and yes that fact has been very thoroughly researched.

 

No the subject under debate is not just opinion.  The thrusts of the OP, ie that of the effects of bias, is very much a proven phenomenon.  So yes trust your ears - but only when cognitive biases are removed.

[March Audio]

deleted

[March Audio]

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Actually, regarding frequency response -- I'd like to see any articles on parametric effects for detecting HF beyond normal sine wave perception.  I have a reason for this, and it is related to my own odd detection of frequencies that I cannot normally hear.

 

Here is what I mean by 'parametric effects', which can be similar to how UHF/SHF amplifiers used to have to work, since there were very few direct amplifying devices that would work well.  A lot of older satellite receivers needed to use 'parametric amplification' because even if there were devices that could work at the high frequencies, they were more noisy than the parametric method.  (noise comes from resistance, not capacitance or inductance.)

 

Parameteric amplification can happen by the 'power supply' being energy from other frequencies instead of being a normal DC source.   The amplification can result from either a 'mixing with gain' or a negative resistance type amplification.

 

Most of the time, measurements appear to be of certain kinds of signals, esp sine wave.   For gain less than one, but still getting past the 'processing problem', the pump frequencies can even be less than the 'out of range' signal.

 

Again, I am just wondering because of my own experience.   I am NOT talking about 'sounding different', but actually detecting a sound that is similar to what I remember that 18kHz signals used to sound like.   I believe that there is room for experimentation (I mean, REAL expermentation, not anecdotal like my own experience.)

 

John

 

Are you referring to hetrodyning?

[March Audio]

Dear oh dear, I think the comedy is lost on some people.

[March Audio]

8 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

At least attempt to struggle to free yourself from the chains. You may be able to see the light. Of course, if you’ve already given up, there is no chance, you’ll see everything as shadows.

I actually think that anotherspin and Summit don't exist.  They are just an illusion.  My mind sort of has pre embedded expectations of stupid stuff on forums. As such can safely be ignored 🤪

[March Audio]

4 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

No, you win.

 

You've succeeded in derailing yet another thread with your metaphysical musings.

Just report his posting.  Chris has already rebuked him once for trolling.  He is just spamming multiple threads with this metaphysical BS. Hopefully he can be removed.

[March Audio]

5 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

There is no metaphysics here. I am only saying that all and any objects are in our subjective knowing. That is, what we hear in audio cannot be wrong, it is right. So we can trust our ears, there is no other valid option, imk. You can think otherwise, I am not asking for consent.

"Any and each object, or thought, or feeling appears in our subjective knowing only. There is no other way for us to know it"

 

"No reason to worry, every-thing in apparent world only seems to be true. How can an object be true if it does not remain stable and changes endlessly every millisecond, morphing from one state to another, being born and disappearing infinitely? The unchanging eternal and limitless knowing subject is the only truth."

 

"If you know an object, it exists for you. If you don't know the object yet, it does not exist for you. You, as knowing subject exist before, during and after you know any object, old or new."

 

All you are doing is spouting schoolboy metaphysics which obviously has zero relevance to this thread.  You have been spamming this irrelevant nonsense across multiple threads as if its some profound intelligent commentary.

 

Its not.

[March Audio]

3 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

You can ignore, no problem.

How about you stop disrupting multiple threads with your irrelevant spam?

[March Audio]

10 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

You're not the mod here - why don't you get on with saying whatever you have of value relevant to the topic? Leave the moderation to OP or Chris.

Im just echoing the opinions of the multiple other posters who think this poster is disrupting thread after thread with his nonsense.  Just take a look above.

 

Its difficult to get on with contributions when they are repeatedly interrupted by this guys metaphysical BS.

[March Audio]

12 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

Why do they need echoing? They don't speak loudly enough for themselves?

 

Not saying that all of what @AnotherSpin is saying is relevant to the thread, it isn't. But hectoring him certainly doesn't improve the thread one iota.

To get the message home to the guy that what he is doing is not acceptable.

 

As @kumakuma pointed out, he has already derailed the thread, probably his objective.  He has already been rebuked by Chris for trolling.

 

You clearly dont think its acceptable, so your complaints to me are disingenuous.

[March Audio]

6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Peter, if you don't have fun here, I highly recommend you take some time away. 

 

It's also not lost on me that @March Audio seems to find his way into every argumentative thread. 

 

People bashing isn't allowed. If you see it, report it.

I think you will find it's the same small number of posters who scream blue murder that their off topic subjectivists comments are called out.

Chris.  As I have asked previously, please don't imply I'm at fault for the behaviour of others.  I just call out people that are disrupting threads.

This was all quite sensible until Anotherspin decided to spam his metaphysics into yet another thread.  It's clearly off topic.

[March Audio]

6 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

Let's not forgot the folks that seem to follow him from thread to thread, nipping at his heels...

Thank you.  This is exactly what is happening.

[March Audio]

6 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

I don't think the subject of the thread is all that controversial. The definition of "ears" in "Trust your ears" might be 😎

 

As an objectively-minded person, I fully trust my ears. I trust my ears to tell me if I prefer something, if I enjoy something, or if I can hear differences, and also if I cannot. To me "my ears" means just that -- my ears and my brain. No other senses should exert an influence, not any preconceived notions, opinions of others, no reviews, or even measurements. 

 

Since I have no way to block all these external influences out of my mind, a good double-blind test is the only way I know to determine what I'm actually hearing. The only way to exclude all the superfluous influences that have nothing to do with sound. It's not that I like taking blind tests, or that I think they are a fun way to spend the time. It's that I've been fooled enough times in sighted/non-blinded tests to know that it is an unreliable way to judge. So, I can fully agree with the subject of the thread, if we can only make a tiny change:  Trust only your ears.

 

 

I agree, especially when you read the OP and understand the thrust of the points he is making.  Some appear to take it as an attack on their judgement when its no such thing.  The effects of bias are an objectively demonstrable fact.  Its being discussed in an objective thread. So Im not sure where all the angst from some quarters comes from, or the misconstruing the debate into something its not.

[March Audio]

15 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I've been asking for citations to Toole and Olive papers because in one of them I distinctly recall reading that their supposedly "untrained" listener group was given a brief orientation telling them what to listen for in terms of flat(ter) frequency response across the audible range.  The responses from these people were then used to "prove" that even untrained listeners prefer speakers with flatter frequency response across the audible range.

 

Lots of people like to cite Toole and Olive for this proposition.  But I think we are all guilty of being less skeptical of what we already wish to believe, and must guard against it.

Listener training does not bias individuals into liking a certain sound.  It just makes them more adept and consistent at identifying certain traits.

 

Differences in Performance and Preference of Trained vs. Untrained Listeners in LS Tests: A Case Study (pearl-hifi.com)

 

4 DISCUSSION

This study reports one of the largest controlled loudspeaker listening tests conducted to date in terms of the sheer number of listeners involved. It is also unique in that most of the listeners (96%) had no formal training and little or no prior experience in controlled tests. One of the most significant findings is that the loudspeaker preferences of these nominally untrained listeners were very similar to those of the panel of trained listeners. The results may finally validate the use of trained listeners on the basis that their preferences can be extrapolated to a larger population of untrained listeners. The notion that the loudspeaker preferences of trained listeners are somehow biased can cannot be used to predict those of reviewers, audio retailers, and the intended (untrained) customer is not supported by scientific data. The differences between trained and untrained listeners are mostly related to differences in performance. The mean performances of the trained listeners based on loudspeakers FL values were 3–27 times higher than any of the other four listener occupations measured in this study. Training and experience in controlled tests lead to significant gains in performance so that fewer listeners are required to achieve the same statistical power. The comparatively poorer performance of the students relative to the other three groups of audio professionals suggests that in field job experience can be beneficial to making more reliable judgments of sound quality. This implies that some form of training may be necessary in order to measure statistically significant preferences using more naïve and inexperienced listeners. Fortunately Bech has shown that very little training (four to eight sessions) is required [1]. The trained listeners were also found to use lower preference ratings than the untrained listeners. However, the loudspeaker rank ordering and the relative differences in preference between them were quite similar for both trained and untrained listeners. This means that extrapolations across different listener groups are possible based on the results from trained listeners. Trained listeners were the least forgiving when it came to rating the technically and sonically weakest loudspeaker in the test (for example, loudspeaker M).

 

You can try out the Harman training software

Harman How to Listen: Welcome to How to Listen!

[March Audio]

11 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

Let's not forgot the folks that seem to follow him from thread to thread, nipping at his heels...

With a perfect example from @manueljenkin above.

[March Audio]

9 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

I agree but the "problem" of subjectivists taking potshots at objectivists in this sub-forum isn't confined to this thread, IMHO.

With a perfect example from @manueljenkin above.

[March Audio]

14 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

It seems to me that the fundamental problem is that many subjectivists want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

They want to be able to freely share their opinions on the rest of the forum without being "harassed" by objectivists AND come into this sub-forum to attack those with a more objectivist view of the world.

 

 

With a perfect example from @manueljenkin above.

[March Audio]

1 hour ago, manueljenkin said:

The only two places where I find this kind of narrow minded conclusions taking place are with audio and some mobile cpu benchmark places. I used to be happy about 3 years ago when people started measuring audio gear, but today despise it because of the extensive manipulation using an extremely narrow input range steady state test sequence, not to mention ignoring all the advancements that happened in the last 20-30 years in our understanding of hearing and its non linearities.

These are all the usual hand waving nebulous statements. 

 

Extensive manipulation? Narrow minded?  Please explain what and why.

 

Narrow input range steady state?  Please explain in detail what this misses?

 

Ignoring the understanding of psychoacoustics.  Please explain whats being ignored.

 

 

Manuel, just because you dont understand or agree with whats being said doesnt mean it lacks objectivity.  In an objective thread you need to come up with cogent reasons and arguments to counter whats been said.  If you are incapable of doing so, or If your statements or arguments dont stand up to scrutiny or cant be justified/verified,  then dont blame others.

 

If you dont like objective discussions, then as Chris pointed out, there are plenty of other purely subjective threads for you to participate in.

[March Audio]

13 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Trust your ears eyes !

Nice anecdote.

 

Under controlled conditions sure, absolutely.  Otherwise you are saying you have no answer to the question.

[March Audio]

11 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Good to know, and to see that others are not alone in making that observation. 🙂

As @kumakuma observed there are a small number of individuals that follow me from thread to thread trying to take a pop at any opportunity.  They are simply individuals that are peed off because I have disagreed with them and or shown their comments to be wrong.

They also thread crap objective discussions because it doesnt fit with their world view.  Please note that this isnt just my opinion, just see the reaction in this thread, and for example in the "Is It Worth It" thread, from others.

 

Is it worth it? - Objective-Fi - Audiophile Style

[March Audio]

9 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 And I suppose you are not when you can't resist unnecessarily repeating exactly the same comment three times like an echo chamber. 🙂

 

 

 

 

Im not what?  It was just an excellent example of the disruptive behaviour @kumakuma , I and others have been referring to.

 

Manuel had nothing relevant or constructive to add to this thread, he just wanted to have a pop.

 

Anyway, can we please get back on topic now?