Are we expecting a little too much from all this?

[mpmct]

"... I've had the opportunity to listen to and use a lot of amps from common consumer stuff up to pro. There are differences that are audible, but they are pretty subtle. Subtle enough that psychological bias is a big question. ..."

 

Bias is a big thing. None of us here suffer from it of course. ;-)

Last consumer testing I was involved with ( again, for one

of largest US companies, so lots of $ on the line ) ...

We needed to quantify current customers' abilities to complete

assigned tasks in the context of a redesigned monthly bill.

We put seven different redesigns in front of 20 current customers,

all of whom spoke English ... um, make that American, as a first language.

The scientist in charge of the test assigned letters, not numbers,

to each of the seven example bill redesigns, to avoid bias in that regard.

Moreover, there were a handful of letters he did not use, to avoid bias in that regard too. Guess which letters those were. ;-)

 

[tfarney]

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against big. I wish there were some big active speakers out there!

 

Tim

 

[alfa]

Having been through listening to cd players,speakers,amplifiers,cables and power options and agonising through choices and decisions I can say with certainty that every component in the chain makes an audible difference.At first i thought the amplifier was the least critical but i was wrong.I also believed big powerful amplifiers were better,wrong again.

It is about cost, personal taste and system synergy.

Furthermore, people have varying degrees of tone deafness.

I have come full circle and looking at my source component again.

Part of my quest is musicality together with detail.

Impossible?or getting closer with technology.

 

[audiozorro]

Alfa, everything you said is true with the possible exception that ‘I also believed big powerful amplifiers were better, wrong again’ (though they may definitely be wrong for you). But, you later correct this by mentioning system synergy, obviously amps must be matched to speakers.

 

‘I have come full circle and looking at my source component again.’ Ivor Tiefenbrun (Linn Products) would be proud since it’s all downhill from the source. The problem (if there is a problem) is that our audio hobby is not static, it is forever changing and hopefully for the better. When it comes to audio equipment, the best (if one can truly identify the best) is not the best for all times. So settle for the excellent and, when you’re able or feel like it, try to improve that which you find is not excellent.

 

The first part of your sentence is most true ‘It is about cost, personal taste’. Your previous purchases and past experiences have a large influence on future changes to your audio system. If you are enjoying the music more and more you’re probably on the right track.

 

 

[watchnerd]

Great masters? What about great performances?

 

It's all well and good that we have higher resolution recordings coming out now but, as is so often the case with audiophile labels and recordings, the medium is emphasized to the expense of the musical message with B-level performances.

 

I often get more enjoyment of listening to *mono* 1950s Mercury Living Presence recordings in regular old 16bit lossless (and the original recordings were, what, 8-11 bit equivalent?) than I do some modern hi rez recordings because these past performances are so good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[watchnerd]

"He told me that the configurations that had lower jitter sounded better, but more than that, they allowed him to more easily track the beat of the music."

 

This makes no sense to me.

 

Even on a system with blatant wow and flutter errors that affect pitch and tempo, like a crappy old tape deck with a well-worn cassette, anybody with even a bit of musical training can figure out time signatures and follow musical beats.

 

Was this a double-blind test?

 

[tfarney]

""He told me that the configurations that had lower jitter sounded better, but more than that, they allowed him to more easily track the beat of the music."

 

This makes no sense to me.

 

Even on a system with blatant wow and flutter errors that affect pitch and tempo, like a crappy old tape deck with a well-worn cassette, anybody with even a bit of musical training can figure out time signatures and follow musical beats."

 

Wasn't there something in the post you quoted above about how powerful the brain can be? I suspect this is an example of the brain exerting its power over reality. PRaT (Pace, Rhythm and Timing) is usually, IMO, the worst kind of gobbledeegoop masquerading as specifications. It is attributing to a piece of equipment that which belongs to the musician, and your point is well taken: Thousands of musicians have learned to play complex, polyrhythmic music by listening to cassette tapes, records on cheap turntables and worse. Our toes tapped accurately through it all. A piece of audio kit did not make this man's foot tap more accurately, his expectations did.

 

Pace, rhythm and timing is a function of the performance. Music is musical. Gear is hardware for the reproduction of the above. If one wants to be involved in the PRaT, they'll have to learn to play an instrument a bit more demanding than a DAC.

 

Tim

 

[cfmsp]

 

[soapbox mode: ON]

 

why is it that when someone suggests an idea that flat-earthers don't 'get',

the typical response is either to attribute that difference to someone's brain fooling them,

or to attempt to discount the idea by suggesting that the opinions were NOT double blind tested?

 

FWIW, as far as I'm concerned, DBT doesn't prove the lack of existence, in any event.

 

I can easily get why someone could more easily follow the beat with some music than others.

And it has NOTHING to do with identifying time signatures. I can admit to NOT always

getting what the PRAT crowd were referring to. Believing that the whole idea was a figment

of someone else imagination certainly did/will not help someone 'get' it.

 

I just can't get why people want to insist that others can't possibly be perceiving something

just because they can't/don't.

 

Frankly, it is insulting and does nothing to advance the cause of open discussion on a forum

such as this.

 

I read the entire thread titled 'pointless' something-or-other over the weekend. I was shocked at how clear it became that the nay-sayers add next to nothing to a conversation, instead mostly trying to shut down ideas with which they don't agree.

 

Whom do they serve by attempting to discredit all ideas other than those in agreement with their own limited views?

 

Other than manufacturers whose products cater to a certain niche and require

disbelief of contrary ideas, what does one gain by trying to convince others that their

perceptions cannot possibly be true?

 

[soapbox mode: OFF]

 

More than one audio forum have Double-blind-testing free zones. :-0

 

i'd vote for it here!

 

respectfully,

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cfmsp]

 

Tim says:

 

"PRaT (Pace, Rhythm and Timing) is usually, IMO, the worst kind of gobbledeegoop masquerading as specifications. It is attributing to a piece of equipment that which belongs to the musician..."

 

 

Let me start by saying that I am NOT a card-carrying member of the PRaT brigade.

 

OTOH, I respectfully disagree with your words above and am sharing my views here. When people refer to PRaT they likely are referring to the equipment's ability to convey the pace, rhythm and timing present in the original performance. It's NOT a specification in any way, shape of form, it's simply another aspect of performance (difficult to measure) that some are interested in and/or sensitive to. Sorta like 'imaging and soundstage', in the sense that some care about it, while others don't, but to dismiss it out of hand as gooble-de-gook is to miss a chance to appreciate another aspect of music reproduction.

 

 

I'm no expert, indeed a barely a convert, but it's very easy to postulate a theory as to what about audio reproduction would affect the perceived PRaT. Imagine mismatched impulse responses across the frequency spectrum - wouldn't some instruments now sound slightly 'out of sync' with others.

 

For sake of argument, let's assume that we can all agree that some level of out of sync-ness (I'm referring to the best here) could result from improper music reproduction, no matter how gross. If you agree that it's possible, then all you need to agree to is that some listeners will require less gross errors in music reproduction to illicit unpleasurable listening experience. Those with acute sensitivity will notice anything that is out of kilter.

 

I believe it was the pianist Schnabel who said:

"the notes I play no better than many others, but the pauses between the notes, ah, that is where the art resides".

 

As for the brain 'fooling' others into imagining there are imaginary issues with PRaT within music, I would argue that maybe the brain is 'fooling' us by ignoring those micro-timing issues, in essence our brains may be serving the music by resolving the poor timing during the perception.

 

just a thought,

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[watchnerd]

"I can easily get why someone could more easily follow the beat with some music than others."

 

Sure. But the discussion wasn't about some music vs other music.

 

The discussion was about the ability to follow a beat with or without a jitter reducing device.

 

 

 

[watchnerd]

"I just can't get why people want to insist that others can't possibly be perceiving something just because they can't/don't."

 

There are a few questions involved:

 

1. Did they actually perceive it? DBT testing is designed to help identify this.

2. Was the perceived difference due to thing A, or some unknown thing X?

3. If A, great. Knowledge can be advanced, and quality improved for all, by knowing that A is the cause.

4. If the unknown X, then more research needs to be done to find out what X might be.

 

In such a way, progress can be made. Far from stiffling the discussion, such questions advance it.

 

It's an attempt to differentiate scientific causes from placebo-induced causes. That doesn't mean that people who like placebos shouldn't go on using them if the enjoy the effect. But it does put a burden of proof on those who make claims that a given a placebo is something more that that.

 

I could say, "My speakers sound better to me when I paint them blue." This is a subjective statement about what I perceive, and there isn't much point in arguing it. Now if I said, "Everyone should paint their speakers blue for better sound", I'm making a claim to what *others* should be able to perceive, and that requires a higher burden of proof.

 

 

 

 

 

[cfmsp]

 

for sake of clarity, allow me to re-state.

 

I can easily believe that some music (specifically, music not subjected to jitter, e.g.) could be more easily followed (the beat, that is) than other music (which was subjected to more jitter) by some individuals.

 

In a similar vein, I believed that others could hear difference between cables (years ago) before I personally was able to do so (with some cables), ditto for solid-state amps, etc.

 

thanks for your respectful reply to my 'soapbox derby entry'.

 

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[watchnerd]

"Imagine mismatched impulse responses across the frequency spectrum - wouldn't some instruments now sound slightly 'out of sync' with others."

 

I can see how a certain instrument might perceived to be more lifelike if its sound output resides within a portion of the spectrum for which a transducer has better rise time, but I don't see how (and maybe this is a vocabulary difference) this is "out of sync."

 

Rise time differences would have to be enormous and completely unacceptable for a note not to be played at the time marker (e.g. 02:31 or whatever) at which it was captured on the master.

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys - Let's remember this site is very laid back and should increase our enjoyment of this wonderful hobby. Nobody wins when we all leave the site with a headache. We aren't talking about open heart surgery here. When a doctor thinks the left ventricle works better on the right side then I think we have an issue.

 

For some people double blind testing is the only way to advance the hobby. That's totally cool with me. For others using their brain and ears are the only way to advance the hobby. That's just as cool with me. Somewhere in the middle are people who mix the two when it's convenient for them or when something is extremely compelling. If it works for you that's fabulous.

 

I will say the original post mentioned much about the importance of bit perfect output. In my opinion if you're going for the most accurate reproduction you have to start with bit perfect output. There certainly is nothing wrong if you don't care about bit perfect signals, but the most accurate reproduction is impossible with an inaccurate source. The most accurate may also not be enjoyable for some readers. That's totally fine as well. I think it's a somewhat dead end to give up on bit perfection and try to increase accuracy of the sound further downstream. Increasing enjoyment of the music is possible for some, but not accuracy once the source is compromised.

 

 

[cfmsp]

 

thanks for your multiple thoughtful replies.

it's late here on the east coast, and Chris sounds like he might not trust us

to keep this conversation reasonable, so I'll not reply again tonight.

 

cheers,

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

[daglesj]

.....but some of this is the classic mistake of forgetting its the music thats important not so much the equipment.

 

I've listened to say Jumping Jack Flash on at least 50+ different audio systems over the years ranging from the cheapest of tape decks, transistor radios, giveaway turntables to my Meridian setup.

 

Its always sounded just like Jumping Jack Flash and its always got my foot tapping no matter what.

 

A good tune is a good tune no matter what its played on.

 

I think some folks get so invested in their equipment they spend their time listening to the equipment rather than the music.

 

[tfarney]

Take double blind testing out of the conversation altogether. Let's simply apply logic.

 

We're talking about data timing errors measured in picoseconds. Errors that, by most objective accounts (ie: not audiophiles or their vendors) fall below the threshold of human perception. Errors so subtle that we've been told we can't hear them because our systems are not more resolving than those of most audiophile journalists; errors so glaring that we've been told they can effect the beat of the very music itself.

 

Which one is it?

 

Pace, rhythm and timing is a function of musical performance. The most resolving hifi equipment can only clarify the attack of the notes, and even the worst transient response is not bad enough to effect the pace, rhythm or timing of the music. All of you know this if you'll only think about it a bit. If someone has trouble keeping the beat to a muddy old cassette tape, the problem is their sense or rhythm, not the fidelity of their equipment. A double blind test would be revealing, but it's hardly necessary.

 

Tim

 

[cfmsp]

 

 

Tim,

 

You say a Double Blind Test would be revealing, but I'm not so sure.

 

How would it 'reveal' that it's not possible for jitter-related 'timing' issues to be heard by anyone?

Wouldn't you have the test the entire population of so-called 'golden ears'?

 

I'm no A/B/X expert, and I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, but can't DBT only prove that a difference can be heard, and not that a difference can NOT be heard?

 

just intellectually curious, and certainly not trying to fan flames here.

 

respectfully,

clay

 

ps, apologies for the double negatives...

 

 

 

 

 

[Ashley James]

These are completely reliable, they are the only infallible way to prove audible differences exist.

 

However no one is going to hear jitter or timing related issues, they might hear that one DAC sounds better than another, but they definitely won't know the reason. Jitter is simply a tiny piece of the jigsaw and cannot be discussed in isolation.

 

What is true is that no everyone taking blind tests hears subtle differences between pieces of equipment, while there are many audiophiles who believe they can hear substantial differences between things that scientists not only show they can't, but also provide conclusive proof of how easily we are fooled and we fool ourselves.

 

Ash

 

 

[sastusbulbas]

Ashley James wrote,

However no one is going to hear jitter or timing related issues, they might hear that one DAC sounds better than another, but they definitely won't know the reason. Jitter is simply a tiny piece of the jigsaw and cannot be discussed in isolation.

 

This is not true, one can hear jitter, try taking any early or late 90's jitter device such as by Monarchy Audio, Theta etc and add it to a system known to have high jitter levels. Back in those days people reported hearing differences when such items were in circuit, blind tests showed differences could be heard, and differences could be measured.

 

Due to such development most DAC's are now quite good at suppressing jitter, usually dismissed as not a problem these days as no one seems to remember what it did and at what frequency it should have been suppressed.

 

[audiozorro]

A good tune is a good tune no matter what it’s played on. Just like a good movie is a good movie regardless of the screen.

 

I know the television shows and movies that I used to watch during the ‘50s and ‘60s on B&W sets were every bit as thrilling and emotional as those on the colored sets in the ‘70s and ‘80s. But generally, when you watch or listen to content on state of the art video or audio equipment, its no contest.

 

I do not need a large home theater system to enjoy Casablanca, North by Northwest, or Gone with the Wind. But the large home theater system can enhance the experience. And it is just as true that a tearjerker on a small 14-inch television can bring you to tears.

 

 

[BobH]

If eight out of ten cats prefered the nutritionally superior 'Jitterless Kitty Chunks', and this was proven in extensive, scientifically conducted, Double Blind Tastings - what would you feed the other two cats?

 

Double Blind Testing, in the world of audio replay, is nearly always defined as being a scientifically conducted test for difference. The problem occurs in interpreting the results. If 90% of the 'contestants' cannot tell the difference then it is correct to draw a positive conclusion that would be accurate for them. It would not, however, be possible to draw a negative conclusion for the remaining 10% unless a further test were done. This test would have to be run in order to prove to them that they could not tell the difference, even though they maintained that they could.

 

IMHO such a subsequent test would be a complete waste of time because you would be telling someone, who is convinced they can hear a difference, that they can't. Even if you proved it to them, what then? Would they not buy the DAC they preferred because you proved to them that it was no better than the other one. Or would they continue to maintain that your proof was somehow invalid and buy their first choice anyway? I strongly suspect it would be the latter! And ultimately, why would they be wrong to choose, for all the wrong reasons, the product they preferred?

 

In the world of the manufacturer who is trying to ascertain which of two possible products/methods is likely to be the most successful, I can see the point of testing, if the decision comes down to such a fine margin. In the world of the consumer it matters not one jot. Nobody is going to tell ME what I can, or cannot, hear. Thank you very much!

 

I agree with the original poster that, as consumers, it is not necessary to get involved in such pedantry. Oversampled, non-oversampled, jitter reduction, tank-sized power supply, enough wattage to bend the fabric of time - who cares? Which one sounds best to me? Can I afford it? Job done!

 

The usefulness of discussions such as these, however, should not be lost in the storm of pro's and con's and buried under the weight of oft-repeated assertions. The differences of opinion, (insert 'fact' if it troubles you! ), provide us with a lot of information and experience from which we can all benefit. From this forum, I now know about the possibility of jitter reduction making an impact on what I hear - stick it on the tick list! Some people say upsampled is best - stick it on the tick list. Some people say 16/44 is all you need, some say 24/192 is awesome - stick it on the tick list! Some people say active speakers are better than passive ones - Uuum... whatever!

 

The bottom line is that where a possibility for sound improvement exists, then checking it out will hurt no-one and may well be the breakthrough you've been looking for in your system. Whether it is right or wrong, proven or unproven, sound or just plain barking, it doesn't really matter. Double Blind Testing too often seems to be introduced as a discussion stopper - it's not/can't be proven so that's an end to it. I just don't think it's very helpful.

 

The discussion is important to the group- the conclusions are our own to make!

 

[Ashley James]

I'm not sure I'd agree Audiozorro because I have a business partner who keeps restoring old TV sets for fun. The most recent was a mid fifties Ecko Transportable of about 14" and an option for certain models of Rolls-Royce. Transportable meant that someone who "worked out" could just carry it from one mains socket or car battery to another. I was made to watch several programs and part of a film called Plan 9 from Outer Space. Nothing about the experience led me to believe that a great Movie would be enjoyable on an old, small TV set.

 

I think we get used to the luxuries of modern living and listening and don't really want to go back, even if we think we do.

 

Ash

 

[Ashley James]

Bob I agree with everything you say but don't accept a dismissal of blind listening tests. The problem is that we do make mistakes, sometimes costly ones. We're also in an Industry that has suffered years of interminable "golden eared" bullshit spouters, therefore we need some means of comparing what we've got with what we might buy. Just listening to things with breaks in between when they may not even be level matched is utterly hopeless by comparison.

 

I wonder if there had been more respect for double blind tests, just how many people would have forked out daft sums of money on RCA cables, Mains cables and Speaker cables for instance.

 

It's easy to show ears make mistakes and this is good and simple way of checking up on them, if it doesn't produce a meaningful result, that's good and if it does that's good too.

 

Ash

 

[BobH]

Hi Ash,

 

I'm inclined to agree with your view of DBT's, although I stand by my comment that if you prove me wrong I may not be man enough to either admit it or learn anything from it! Within the context of forum discussions however, and in the complete absence of published, peer-reviewed double blind tests of audio replay equipment, I still fail to see the value of using them as an aid to persuasion. Getting manufacturers to agree to such testing might be an interesting exercise!

 

At the moment magazine reviews are easy. A group test of like-priced products will furnish the reader with the reviewers opinion of which is best. The reader may even get an insight into the various strengths and weaknesses of each. Between price points, however, the more it costs - the better it is. And the introduction of an answer to a hitherto unknown problem is going to meet with the usual barrage of 'ayes' and 'nays'. Yes, a DBT may well give us all the answer we need but until it gets done, and published, it isn't a valid counter-argument to either camp.

 

If I do it on my own computer, using software, (as opposed to letting a dac do it for me), I can tell the difference between a file upsampled from 16/44 to 24/88 and the same file upsampled from the same 16/44 file to 24/96. Science says I'm talking rubbish, but I can hear that the 24/96 file is less dynamic than the 24/88 file. Whether this is the result of the mathematically easier 'guessing game' used to get from 44 to 88, as opposed to the DA-resample-AD process carried out to change it from 44 to 96, I do not know. I do know I can tell the difference. The 24/88 file keeps my toes a-tapping, the 24/96 file sounds flat by comparison.

 

If you prove to me that I can't tell the difference, in a DBT, I would still do it because I 'think' it is better and my contention is that I would still be right. Misguided maybe, but for me it would still be the right thing to do. To steal the quote, "If it sounds better, it is better".