$10k golden ears AMP challenge! (1 Viewer)

[mike_decock]

I hadn't told him how disappointing I found it after the SP-10. He called me up a few weeks later to say that he was confused and that his system wasn't giving him any pleasure, that he was hardly listening to it. How could it sound so lifeless when an AB test proved nearly inconclusive?

I've read this before (somewhere) and it has led me to a question about "anecdotal evidence".

A DBT may provide evidence which indicates that there are no audible differences (I don't need to be reminded that a DBT can be conducted over weeks/months/years). However, if a large enough number of people provide the same, subjective, anecdotal evidence contrary to the scientific evidence, should you take it into consideration?

Granted this is just a single incident, but if the anecdotal evidence comes from a sufficiently large number or subjects to discount individual biases and preferences, does it have any "scientific" value?


-Mike...

 

[AjayM]

You see lots of articles referencing DBTs in general, references which you claimed objectivists never give in your general comments about objectivists and DBTs.

No..no...a few posts ago you made the assertion that you are trying to help us not buy expensive amps that we don't need. What does a wire DBT have to do with picking out an amp? Kind of goes back to my silly asprin analogy, I wanted proof that the generic is just as good as the "boutique" asprin, because you've seen lots and lots of articles going over this same exact subject matter, and I get an article about a DBT on cough medicine. Also nowhere have I said anything negative about DBT's, I don't put as much weight into them as you do...but I believe they have their place, especially in R&D of a product. Past that I think their benefits are largely overblown.
Andrew

 

[Yogi]

Saurav said:

RobertR, one more question for you - someone asked you for the link to the Stereophile article you mentioned, which says that one should spend less money on speakers in order to have more money left over for cables. I'm very interested in reading this article too, so I would really appreciate it if you could post the link to it. If you've already done that and I missed it, I apologize.

And that in no way implies that you aren't a gentleman. You are one of the most level headed members in this forum, not to mention one of the most knowledgeable. I have a great regard for you, so don't take my comments personally.

 

[Patrick Sun]

It's not about money.

It's about perceived value.

 

[AjayM]

A DBT may provide evidence which indicates that there are no audible differences (I don't need to be reminded that a DBT can be conducted over weeks/months/years). However, if a large enough number of people provide the same, subjective, anecdotal evidence contrary to the scientific evidence, should you take it into consideration?

Granted this is just a single incident, but if the anecdotal evidence comes from a sufficiently large number or subjects to discount individual biases and preferences, does it have any "scientific" value?

Probably not...lol

For every paper you find written about how the DBT is the final end-all be-all in the choosing of audio equipment, there is probably another paper written how it's important but it shouldn't be the final piece (a few of them are mentioned much, much earlier in this thread) and then there will be another about how a DBT is just a waste of time when it comes to audio.

Examples like that above just go to show them that much more (but watch, it will be discredited very quickly anyways).

Andrew

 

[RobertR]

if the anecdotal evidence comes from a sufficiently large number or subjects to discount individual biases and preferences,

It's not valid to assume that a large number of anecdotal experiences does away with bias. If that were true, we could assume that the millions of Bose buyers adds up to an objective evaluation of their performance. Also, there was an incident in Europe several years ago where many people claimed ill effects from drinking Coke, even though there was no objective basis for those effects:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/383337.stm
The "ill effects" people experienced were not objective evidence of high dioxin levels.

 

[RobertR]

It's not about money.

It's about perceived value.

Agreed, Patrick.

 

[mike_decock]

If that were true, we could assume that the millions of Bose buyers adds up to an objective evaluation of their performance.

/me puts on his flame suit...

My first pair of speakers were some Bose bookshelf speakers. I thought they sounded pretty good. I graduated to Mirage, PSB and GR Research later on and I've seen plenty of Bose-bashing in my day.

Every once in a while, I'll pass by some Bose speakers in a store and give them a listen. You know what, they don't sound terrible. Even that Wave radio puts out surprising amounts of bass and although it's a little "one-note", it doesn't make me ill to hear it.

Objectively, Bose probably ain't all that bad and for the average consumer who wants something better than a boombox or the speakers in their TV, it's not a terrible choice to make.

I've just come to perceive Bose as providing poor value.


-Mike...

 

[Saurav]

Yogi,

so don't take my comments personally

I know, I was kidding I understand what you mean now.... I stopped following this thread somewhere around the 400 post mark, so I didn't know if Robert had posted the details about that Stereophile article or not.

 

[RobertR]

I didn't know if Robert had posted the details about that Stereophile article or not.

Since you are a gentleman like Larry, Saurav, and not prone to stamping your feet and whining "give it to me now", I will inform you that finding the Stereophile article is quite time consuming, since I have to comb through quite a few issues.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

This puzzled me because on the AB test we both agreed the differences were subtle, yet the long term pleasure somehow wasn't even close.

Great post. This is exactly what I have been saying. Longer term listening is required to hear a lot of the more subtle details of sonic differences of components.
We also found this to be true in the recording studio. As you work with a microphone for a long period of time, you begin to better understand its character.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Objectively, Bose probably ain't all that bad and for the average consumer who wants something better than a boombox or the speakers in their TV, it's not a terrible choice to make.

I respectfully disagree, because a more educated consumer will purchase some Paradigm entry level speakers and get 10X better sound than Bose.

 

[Saurav]

I'm sure it is. You could maybe try searching their online archives if you remember any key words or phrases. In any case, my life doesn't depend on it I'm just pretty curious, that's all. If you do find it, I'd appreciate an email.
Thanks,
Saurav

 

[Saurav]

I respectfully disagree, because a more educated consumer will purchase some Paradigm entry level speakers and get 10X better sound than Bose.

Unless that educated consumer needs a speaker that absolutely has to fit into a 6"x6"x6" volume (for whatever reason) and absolutely has to be white (again, for whatever reason), and then the Paradigms won't meet his requirements

 

[RobertR]

Objectively, Bose probably ain't all that bad

This page indicates otherwise:
http://www.intellexual.net/bose.htm

 

[Lee Scoggins]

It's about perceived value.

That's absolutely correct Patrick.
Here is where I think many consumers understandably miss the boat like the Bose buyer I discussed above.
If more consumers were educated about high end brands, then there would be more awareness of what is important in the product feature set like cabinet construction, etc.
Moreover, many high end mfrs offer great entry level products for a fraction of the flagship product's price.
The Bose customer may not know about Paradigms, for instance and the relative great value they offer.
Further, they may not know that good quality independent audio shops will let them take speakers home for audition with a credit card swipe.
Part of the problem lies with American's emphasis on major brands. It seems that an easy short-cut to research is to gather brand names and just rely on that. Of course, Bose and Monster and Polk (some good speakers, some really bad) and many other mediocre brands spend the money on marketing but are all style and no substance. The other part lies with the mainstream press like Consumer Reports (which I have found highly inaccurate on about everything even vacuum cleaners) that only test "major" brands.
Sure there is a lot of hyperbole and arrogance in high end audio, but there is a tremendous amount of substance. We see speaker cabinets, for instance, utilizing aerospace engineering and automotive paint techniques and other advanced technology.
As I have said many times, this technology "trickles down" into great entry level products.
Also, perceived value changes with a person's "utility". I think nothing of someone buying a $5K Audio Research preamp because they may really enjoy great two channel sound. Others may want to buy an entire HT setup for the same amount of money...who cares? let 'em both have their fun.
And don't dismiss us audiophiles who do have a substantial investments in their system.
My system glows in the dark and keeps it value surprisingly well. You can't say that about most cars.

 

[Manuel Delaflor]

Patrick Sun:

Agreed, Patrick.

Nah!! You don't agree! Dont play such games! :wink:

 

[Chu Gai]

Here is the proof that RobertR wanted regarding the aliens from the planet Zoltar...

There might've been less of claims such as this is audibly superior to that had individuals who design things like amps and the people who reviewed them been better schooled in areas such as experimental design, psychological aspects of perception, properties and limitations of human hearing, etc. However people do rather quickly learn what it takes to make a buck or two as evidenced by noted hospitals actually sponsoring such things as 'aura manipulation', reikii (sp?), etc. A cash cow is recognized quickly and promptly milked.
Now let us move towards the 1K post total shall we?

 

[Manuel Delaflor]

Chu Gai,
I think that is exactly what happens. If a terminal patient believes that he needs to clean his aura to feel better... please let him do it. You do know that the subjective factor is currently a research project in some (orthodox) medicine schools, right? Often believing in something make people feel better, it doesn't matter if that believing is the aura, god, reiki, the planet zoltar aliens or, yes, that their Mark Levinson sounds "better" than a Sony.
As Patrick said, "It's about perceived value."
I have argued here that the subjective component of a perception is normally excluded as "non existent or non important" by the old scientific paradigm. Still, science is an incomplete account of what we call "reality" if it doesn't deal with that subjective component.
Of course, Im not saying that we all need to believe in any fantasy around, but that we need to understand the subjectivity and its role in our "well being". Apparently Im the only one in this thread that feels fascinated with the incredible amount of differences that are perceived when one expects something. The difference of sound between a "boutique" amplifier (good term Robert) and a regular one is very real. Real in the sense of this subjective component of reality, not "real" in the limited conceptualization of regular materialistic reductionism.
And I shall insist that this phenomena needs study.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Still, science is an incomplete account of what we call "reality" if it doesn't deal with that subjective component.

Well said.