Trust your ears

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, Teresa said:

I have a question: why is a thread called Trust your ears in the Objective-Fi forum?

 

I must say that the same question crossed my mind, and I was somewhat concerned that my replies might be Off Topic. 🙂

[AnotherSpin]

3 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

I don't have any friends as rich and extravagant as your friends.

 

 

I agree, I trust my ears (with long term listening) even when the results don't seem logical! Such as preferring music from my $254 Yamaha Blu-ray / SACD universal player more than digital files played through my $800 Teac UD-501 DSD USB DAC. I have no doubt that the DAC in the cheap Yamaha player is much cheaper than the DAC in the 3 times more expensive Teac DAC. It doesn't make sense to me, still I have to go with my ears and enjoy the music. 

 

 

I'm also totally content with my audio / video system. I'm a subjective, however I have zero interest in upgrading fuses or trying out $1000 power cables. Please don't put all subjectives in the same basket.

 

No one has ever challenged me, no one tells me I have to upgrade my equipment. If they did I wouldn't feel the need to do what someone else tells me to do, I do what I want. Thus, I have no problem with extravagant spendthrifts whither they are spending on audio equipment, cables, $1,000+ perfumes, purses, body creams or $100 hamburgers.

 

I'm perfectly happy with my $30 per pair Monster cable interconnects, $3 per foot Monster speaker cables, and stock power cords. Music through my system when playing the best engineered and mastered recordings sounds very realistic. In short I am thrilled with my audio / video system. 

 

What other people spend or don't spend on anything doesn't bother me as it is their money. BTW I paid $1 for my perfume from Dollar Tree.

 

And that makes perfect sense. Our contentment lies not in fuses or cables, but within us. When we are balanced and at peace, everything sounds awesome. How much was spent, a lot or a little is irrelevant. Trust your self.

[PeterG]

11 hours ago, skikirkwood said:

 

But the Bluesound Node has a built-in DAC, doesn't it? So are you bypassing that and just sending the digital output to the Modi?

 

I would love to test the sound of a Schiit Yggy, but don't want to pay the restocking fee should I not hear a difference in sound quality. If I ever get down to L.A. from Palo Alto I would love to drop by the Schiitr and do some sound comparisons of their DACs, amps and preamps.

 

Good questions!  I did this a year ago, so you've forced me to go back and double check my memory.

 

The Bluesound Node 2i DAC is bypassed when one uses the COAX OUT, which I do.  But I was wrong about my choice of DAC--I have the Bifrost on my second system, not the Modi.  The original source on the secondary system was ripped CDs on an SSD from a Mac Mini with Amarra, stripped down and using a USB decrapifier (I cannot remember which one, I've had several).  It was easy to choose the Bifrost DAC over the internal Bluesound DAC last year.  But with both sources using the Bifrost into NAD C326BEE and B&W CM-1 with REL T5 sub; I would not assert there's a significant difference in sound from streaming Qobuz on the Node compared to the ripped CDs on the Mac.  This matches your experience.  But as I wrote before, it was easy to dismiss the Node from my more expensive system--Naim Uniti Core, Yggy, Mc C22/MC275, B&W 805 w/DB3D sub. 

 

On the restocking fees--it's funny where price sensitivity kicks in for different people (and I include myself in this boat).  A few hundred dollars is less than the sales tax on the price of your speakers, but physically painful (haha) as a penalty if you don't like the DAC.  I've risked restocking fees 3 times on highly reviewed products unavailable at my local dealer, and kept the products twice.  Given the Yggy's rave reviews, the price delta vs the Modi from the same company, and your great amp/speakers, I think there's an excellent chance you will keep it if you try.

[skikirkwood]

3 hours ago, PeterG said:

 

Good questions!  I did this a year ago, so you've forced me to go back and double check my memory.

 

The Bluesound Node 2i DAC is bypassed when one uses the COAX OUT, which I do.  But I was wrong about my choice of DAC--I have the Bifrost on my second system, not the Modi.  The original source on the secondary system was ripped CDs on an SSD from a Mac Mini with Amarra, stripped down and using a USB decrapifier (I cannot remember which one, I've had several).  It was easy to choose the Bifrost DAC over the internal Bluesound DAC last year.  But with both sources using the Bifrost into NAD C326BEE and B&W CM-1 with REL T5 sub; I would not assert there's a significant difference in sound from streaming Qobuz on the Node compared to the ripped CDs on the Mac.  This matches your experience.  But as I wrote before, it was easy to dismiss the Node from my more expensive system--Naim Uniti Core, Yggy, Mc C22/MC275, B&W 805 w/DB3D sub. 

 

On the restocking fees--it's funny where price sensitivity kicks in for different people (and I include myself in this boat).  A few hundred dollars is less than the sales tax on the price of your speakers, but physically painful (haha) as a penalty if you don't like the DAC.  I've risked restocking fees 3 times on highly reviewed products unavailable at my local dealer, and kept the products twice.  Given the Yggy's rave reviews, the price delta vs the Modi from the same company, and your great amp/speakers, I think there's an excellent chance you will keep it if you try.

 

I've seriously considered getting a Yggy. Right now I have two Modi's - an older multi-bit I use in my main stereo room and a standard one paired with a Magni for headphone listening. I just got an Apple CCK to output digital audio from my iPad to the Modi/Magni to test out Dolby Atmos from a free trial of Apple Music. Some of the Atmos tracks, like Nora Jones, are really incredible. It's easy with this setup to turn Atmos on/off quickly and it's been a lot of fun comparing the standard stereo and Atmos tracks.

 

I'm totally content with the sound of my main system, but it's a good question if I did want to do an update, where should I start? Step one is getting a big rug - my stereo room is all hardwood floors. I had to upgrade from my 22 year old Bryston pre-amp due to it dying and being beyond the 20 year warranty. Extremely happy with my Schiit Freya - never had anything with tubes before. So the question is, would I get a bigger improvement adding a Yggy, or upgrade the power amp. And if it's the latter, then I'd have to decide do between a Vidar or Aegir, and then would it make sense to get two to run as mono-blocks. With the sensitivity of my B&W speakers I'm concerned the Aegir might. not have enough power, but perhaps as mono-blocks that wouldn't be an issue.

 

I have three music sources connected to my Freya. The Modi multi-bit, a Pi with an Allo BOSS I2S DAC attached, and an older Pi with an IQAudio I2S DAC. It's interesting comparing the sound of all three. The IQAudio is the oldest DAC, and still sounds good, but definitely a notch below the BOSS and Modi. But comparing the BOSS and Modi, I can't really say one sounds better, they just sound different. Not a huge difference, but definitely different. Adding a Yggy would make for an interesting experiment.

 

And getting back to the story in my original post, I did hook up my Squeezebox to my Freya a few months ago. It still works, and sounds good, but all of these new DACs sound a whole lot better.

[skikirkwood]

16 hours ago, Teresa said:

I have a question: why is a thread called Trust your ears in the Objective-Fi forum?

 

 

Because this forum's purpose is described as "The space for scientific / objective discussions". And my post contained a story that was an example of confirmation bias, in which people process information in an illogical, biased manner. There is a huge amount of scientific research behind this.

 

So my point, as someone who has a scientific background, is the mantra "trust your ears", ubiquitous among subjective audiophiles, is nonsense, due to confirmation and expectation bias. No need for graphs and charts.

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, skikirkwood said:

So my point, as someone who has a scientific background, is the mantra "trust your ears", ubiquitous among subjective audiophiles, is nonsense, due to confirmation and expectation bias. No need for graphs and charts.

 

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. Rather, they may hear differences after repeated listening sessions over a period of time. OTOH, such an exercise of critical listening may also satisfy them that there are no audible differences. 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".

[skikirkwood]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

You apparently believe, wrongly IMO, that subjectivists will always hear differences because of expectation or confirmation bias. Subjectivists neither insist nor expect to hear differences with every change they make to their systems. Rather, they may hear differences after listening repeatedly over a period of time. OTOH, such an exercise of critical listening may also satisfy them that there is no audible difference. 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 regardless if they, in fact, exist. While graphs and charts may prove something, the lack of them does not equate to "nonsense".

 

There's actually something much deeper behind my concern of the validity of audiophiles pontificating "trust your ears". It's the escalating global rise of the antiscience movement, and how I see the subjectivist movement in the audiophile world to be a part of this.

 

Rejection of mainstream science has become a key feature of the political right in the U.S. And increasingly around the world. Denial of climate change (it hit 101 here in Palo Alto yesterday), the anti-vax movement, and more recently the response to Covid-19 over the last 15 months. The latter causing mass deaths that could have been avoided in the U.S., Brazil, India and elsewhere. 

 

The antiscience disinformation about Covid-19 created all kinds of havoc in GOP-dominant states here in the U.S. Governors prematurely lifting restrictions which led to a second and unnecessary wave of cases and deaths. Miracle cures like hydroxychloroquine being touted from the former President and his minions. It's all antiscience, and the trend is increasing. Facts don't matter, the scientific method of of acquiring knowledge through empirical methods don't matter. People getting their "facts" through lunatic Facebook groups and Fox News. And it's getting worse.

 

I see the same thing happening in the audiophile world. I, like many people, used to believe everything I read in Stereophile or The Absolute Sound. Why wouldn't I? It wasn't until 2015 or so when I started to read about the incredible sound quality jump in $1000 USB cables I started to question this. And ultimately concluded the audiophile "press" is nothing more than a bunch of paid shills for the high end audiophile hardware business.

 

But the audiophile press really screwed up with their glowing recommendation of MQA when it was initially released. Ultimately, a large number of people (including the MQA thread here on Audiophile Style) exposed the Absolute Sounds and Stereophiles for what they are - advertising channels for the audiophile industry. Fortunately none of this will kill people (well, maybe the people upgrading fuses), but I see the belief system of audiophile subjectivists to be very similar to the belief system of the growing antiscience movement.

 

When I read a glowing review of a $1000 power cable in The Absolute Sound, with absolutely no data of any kind to back up the reviewer's points about the increase in sound quality, and then see that smart, educated people believe this, I see a parallel to anti-vaxxers, disbelief in human-caused climate change, people thinking Covid-19 is a hoax...

 

So that's what was really behind my thinking when I did the original post. And as such, why I believe this was the proper forum to post in.

[cab33]

3 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.  

 

I never heard of that.  Can you link to some studies on it?

[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.

 

 

[opus101]

2 hours ago, cab33 said:

 

I never heard of that.  Can you link to some studies on it?

 

Just do a search on 'nocebo effect'.

[Summit]

14 hours ago, skikirkwood said:

 

There's actually something much deeper behind my concern of the validity of audiophiles pontificating "trust your ears". It's the escalating global rise of the antiscience movement, and how I see the subjectivist movement in the audiophile world to be a part of this.

 

Rejection of mainstream science has become a key feature of the political right in the U.S. And increasingly around the world. Denial of climate change (it hit 101 here in Palo Alto yesterday), the anti-vax movement, and more recently the response to Covid-19 over the last 15 months. The latter causing mass deaths that could have been avoided in the U.S., Brazil, India and elsewhere. 

 

The antiscience disinformation about Covid-19 created all kinds of havoc in GOP-dominant states here in the U.S. Governors prematurely lifting restrictions which led to a second and unnecessary wave of cases and deaths. Miracle cures like hydroxychloroquine being touted from the former President and his minions. It's all antiscience, and the trend is increasing. Facts don't matter, the scientific method of of acquiring knowledge through empirical methods don't matter. People getting their "facts" through lunatic Facebook groups and Fox News. And it's getting worse.

 

I see the same thing happening in the audiophile world. I, like many people, used to believe everything I read in Stereophile or The Absolute Sound. Why wouldn't I? It wasn't until 2015 or so when I started to read about the incredible sound quality jump in $1000 USB cables I started to question this. And ultimately concluded the audiophile "press" is nothing more than a bunch of paid shills for the high end audiophile hardware business.

 

But the audiophile press really screwed up with their glowing recommendation of MQA when it was initially released. Ultimately, a large number of people (including the MQA thread here on Audiophile Style) exposed the Absolute Sounds and Stereophiles for what they are - advertising channels for the audiophile industry. Fortunately none of this will kill people (well, maybe the people upgrading fuses), but I see the belief system of audiophile subjectivists to be very similar to the belief system of the growing antiscience movement.

 

When I read a glowing review of a $1000 power cable in The Absolute Sound, with absolutely no data of any kind to back up the reviewer's points about the increase in sound quality, and then see that smart, educated people believe this, I see a parallel to anti-vaxxers, disbelief in human-caused climate change, people thinking Covid-19 is a hoax...

 

So that's what was really behind my thinking when I did the original post. And as such, why I believe this was the proper forum to post in.

 

I really share your concern regarding the increase in rejection of science and alternative facts. I do not however share your concern regarding audiophiles that use their ears when evaluating audio gear and their influence on how music sounds like. SQ is subjective because it's influenced by our personal senses and preference. 

 

The problem IMHO isn’t that someone says that this or that is how I hear it, because it’s clearly a subjective observation or statement. The problem starts when someone states that I have measure this or that and are trying to make the data to looks like objective evidence of a gear’s sound quality. This without any confirming blind testes to support that the data in this type of gear has that effect.    Data is only data and has to be interpreted before they can be said to mean anything. It’s the evidence that support how the measurement correlate with preserved SQ I find lacking in the majority of the so called objective threads.

 

Two important thing to contemplate related to SQ is that: one human hearing is not linear which lead us to point number two: playback is about making it sounds good/accurate/lifelike or whatever the goal is by playing tricks with our auditory perception. One example: no matter if the guitarist IRL is recorded in a studio and only panned out to sound like to be standing to the left of the bass player. If you do a blind test people are going to say that - mission accomplished.

 

[AnotherSpin]

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

[Allan F]

On 6/18/2021 at 2:43 PM, skikirkwood said:

Rejection of mainstream science has become a key feature of the political right in the U.S. And increasingly around the world. Denial of climate change (it hit 101 here in Palo Alto yesterday), the anti-vax movement, and more recently the response to Covid-19 over the last 15 months. The latter causing mass deaths that could have been avoided in the U.S., Brazil, India and elsewhere. 

 

I see the same thing happening in the audiophile world.

 

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.

 

[pkane2001]

9 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

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

 

Does that mean that objective reality doesn't exist and we shouldn't attempt to know or understand it? You can sit forever in Plato's cave and assume that the shadows you perceive represent the best reality you can hope for, and that you'll never be able to break the chains. Or you can try to break out into the light and work towards seeing the world the way it really is. Your choice.

[idiot_savant]

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 😉

[pkane2001]

19 minutes 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 😉

 

Since we are quoting the greatest modern philosophers, here's another one: The truth is out there!

[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

 

[cab33]

On 6/18/2021 at 7:07 PM, opus101 said:

 

Just do a search on 'nocebo effect'.

 

that's just side effects from pills - you give somebody a pil and they have a positive expectation of a side effect, so they report side effects

 

got anything relevant to this?

[opus101]

If you don't see the relevance of nocebo effect to audio (and in particular the necessity of positive controls when conducting controlled listening tests) then I can't help you. As Morpheus said 'I can only show you the door....'.

[Allan F]

2 hours ago, March Audio said:

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.

 

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!

[opus101]

I'm not even sure its a matter of opinion. Subjectivists experience differences, objectivists (presumably) don't. Objectivists like to make audio matters to be about beliefs - 'subjectivists are true believers' 'he's a believer in power cables' and so on but chatter about those beliefs is a distraction. The difference is more substantial, its a difference of experience. If subjectivists have the beliefs that objectivists attribute to them (and I admit that its quite likely that they do ) then those beliefs are formed from their experience.

 

Getting back to the title of the thread - I have a hypothesis that 'trust your ears' isn't anything much at all to do with the 'rejection of science' as the OP has opined. Rather its push-back against the objectivist mantra 'you can't trust your ears'.

[Allan F]

13 minutes ago, opus101 said:

I'm not even sure its a matter of opinion. Subjectivists experience differences, objectivists (presumably) don't...The difference is more substantial, its a difference of experience.

 

I used the term opinion, i.e. opinion based on experience, in contrast to the objectivists' belief that the issue is a matter of settled fact. Now please excuse me while I leave this forum and move to my living room to enjoy listening to music. 🙂

[John Dyson]

2 hours ago, March Audio said:

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.

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