Separates vs. receiver confirmation (1 Viewer)

[Mark Austin]

Thanks for the article Ajay.

 

[Alex F.]

Well, there we have it everybody. All this time Jaleel has been making statements based on second-hand information. He selectively finds information that, taken out of context, will indirectly support his preconceived notions. He then uses a peculiar brand of logic to "prove" a point.

By his own admission he has never owned nor even dabbled with amplifiers, CD players, or cables. Hence he is not, by definition, even a hobbyist. His mission is simply to aggravate others who do enjoy this fun hobby.

In the future, I suggest we try to avoid responding to his attempts to take forum members off topic and ruin a serious discourse.

 

[RicP]

In the future, I suggest we try to avoid responding to his attempts to take forum members off topic and ruin a serious discourse

This is probably the best advice we can heed.

Jaleel is simply a Nousaine disciple, unable to think for himself or even create his own subjective experiences on which to draw opinons from. Everything he knows and believes is because someone else told him. In a way it's sad that someone has such blind allegiance, but it's the way he chooses to believe, so that's fine.

 

[Ted Lee]

guys! let's be careful not to turn this into a jaleel-bashing thread.
as crazy as he sounds (just kidding jaleel ) he's entitled to his opinions too.

 

[EricHaas]

http://www.hometheatersound.com/letters/2001_08.html
Link Removed
http://www.surroundfreak.com/info/h_believers.htm
http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminar...AudioMyths.pdf
http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html
www.visi.com/~asm/Newsletters/asm_feb_97.PDF
http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Schn...Schneider.html
http://www.oakland.edu/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and...?msg_id=006DtZ
http://www.uiuc.edu/ro/pcug/m-sims1.html
http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/EARS.htm
http://www.oakland.edu/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm
http://www.oakland.edu/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm
http://www.meta-gizmo.com/Tri/adv/DoubleBlind.html
http://www.modernrecording.com/artic...av/link17.html

 

[Mark Austin]

I guess Dunlavy had a change of heart.
With $500/meter interconnects of his own. LOL!
http://www.dunlavyaudio.com/products...nnectpict.html

 

[RicP]

Dunlavy is a hypocrite just like most of the others who claim there are "no differences" yet turn around and sell their own "special" product for $500-$1000.

Eric,

I'm not sure what the point of all the links were, unless it was just a DBT themed list?

At least 2 of the ABX links you had showed absolute differences between CD players AND amplifiers, and this is a quote from one of the links...

Unfortunately in audio there is a tendency to take polarized viewpoints on certain subjects. There is a group that believes not only all amplifiers sound the same, but all electronics too. And, of course, there are those who can find the most drastic of differences out of those things that have virtually no differences at all. My experience is that amplifiers definitely do sound different, although one must be careful when relating the magnitude of those differences

Of which I am in full agreement.

 

[EricHaas]

"I'm not sure what the point of all the links were, unless it was just a DBT themed list?"

Exactly. It was a DBT themed list. I actually intended to come up with a point and counterpoint list of links. However, I ran a google search under "double blind test" and "amplifier" and these are the links I found which contained data or commentary relevant to the thread topic. Just because most of the links are slanted toward the view that people cannot tell a difference does not mean I endorse that view. That is why I posted the links without comment. I thought to break up the monotony of reading rather preordained opinions without any citations to anything outside the thread, I would do the opposite. Feel free to post your own links. The more information the better!

 

[RicP]

Gotcha. In that case....good list! Some were rather interesting.

 

[Mark Austin]

Eric,

I think that goes back to your first entry on this thread. You stated that there was no evidence, or data to back up each sides claims. Well, the link provided by Ajay sums up real nicely why visual data doesn't carry much weight in these discussions. One side doesn't feel the method of testing is representitive of what it's supposed to test. Therefore all the links, and theories based on said tests again don't go to proving the point. What you have entered is more of a shouting match, where one side makes a blanket statement about something to get a rise/reaction out of the other. It happens all the time.

I also think you are expecting too much if you think most, if any, of the posters in this thread are necessarily trying to persuade anyone. Most people are on one side of the fence, or the other. Those like Jaleel with his full right to his opinion, never test anything themselves but make claims based upon what they have read. Then there are others of us that say/believe the opposite that have had experience with our own systems.

 

[EricHaas]

Mark,

I agree with most of what you say. I do want to offer an observation though. For people who believe in DBT's, basing an opinion on personal sensory observation is not only unnecessary - in fact, it is inappropriate. Therefore, I cannot agree that Jaleel has to offer an opinion based on his own listening. The fact that you guys do and he doesn't reflects as you say a difference in philosophy on the subject, but certainly doesn't make him wrong and you right.

A few other issues to ponder about DBT's. First, I cannot agree with everything L. Mirabel writes in Ajay's link. His central thesis against DBT's seems to be that you cannot factor out the subject's bias for or against people being able to detect sonic differences. However, this criticism is actually irrelevant to the way that most of these DBT's are conducted. With a DBT, you purposefully select as subjects ONLY those who believe that they CAN tell a difference. And then you do not simply have them listen to 2 samples and ask if there is a difference or not. Instead, you take the person who says there is a vast sonic difference between a $5000 amp and an $800 amp, and you let the person (under blind conditions) listen to lots of samples from each amp. You then determine if the subject can reliably tell which is which. Whatever other problems there may be with this methodology, Mirabel's concern is not one of them.

Second, I would ask that you ponder this - why are amps and cables so often picked on by these skeptics, but not speakers, sources, or room acoustics? Is it arbitrary, assuming arguendo that each component contributes significantly to the sound, that speakers, room acoustics and source quality are given their due credit by the skeptics, but not cables and amps? It would seem arbitrary to me, IF there is no truth to what they are saying.

Finally, and directly related to the last point - why do DBT's usually validate that people can tell speakers apart but only validate this for amps and cables in a small percentage of cases? If I grant your point that DBT's are totally flawed and worthless, then the results would be a random mish-mash of confused data. They would not show ANY trends. But they DO show statistically significant trends - specifically, they show the ability to judge between speakers under blind conditions, but rarely between amps or cables. That suggests either of two things: 1) the skeptics are 100% correct and there is no difference among amps and cables, or 2) the differences with amps and cables are LESS than the differences with speakers, and therefore the testing methodology simply is not good enough to identify them consistently. It is certainly possible, and totally logical, that a given testing procedure might be more than adequate to identify one's ability to distinquish equipment that has major, pronounced sonic differences, but totally fails where the differences are more subtle. Food for thought.

My present thinking on the subject is that I am skeptical of those who claim MAJOR sonic differences by switching amps and cables. But I remain open-minded.

 

[Ted Lee]

i think speakers are easier to differentiate and that's why they often have higher success ratios in dbt's. even i can (i think) tell the difference between say a cerwin vega and a infinity speaker. speakers are just more capable of being sonically "unique".
i had a friend who worked with me at good guys. he could, consistently, tell from outside the sound room which model of speaker (from the same manufacturer) i was playing inside. i could never pull that off myself. that really opened my eyes to the fact that some people just have a better ear than others.
i think you also see a lot of criticism of cables because they can get so outrageously priced that people are quicker to try to debunk them.

 

[Mark Austin]

Eric,

I will respond to more of your post, but I have to leave for a bit, and wanted to respondto at least this before I left.

For people who believe in DBT's, basing an opinion on personal sensory observation is not only unnecessary - in fact, it is inappropriate.

That is the whole thing. A DBT in audio relies completely on personal sensory observation. Hearing is subjective, and relying on auditory memory in DBT's brings the subjectiveness back into it, that's why it's not a real, reliable DBT, and therefore worthless. If you can't take out the subjective input, which medical DBT's successfully do, then the first goal in an audio DBT is not met, and that is to make a purely objective determination.

 

[AjayM]

My present thinking on the subject is that I am skeptical of those who claim MAJOR sonic differences by switching amps and cables. But I remain open-minded.

Personally I would doubt any claim of a MAJOR difference while still staying in the same general ball park of equipment. I just upgraded from a Denon reciever (a 3300, a good quality piece of gear) that was being used as a pre-pro to a B&K pre-pro. I did hear a difference, and it was for the positive, but I wouldn't call it anywhere near a MAJOR difference. Now I would call it a major improvement over the old Kenwood $200 pro-logic reciever I bought 7 or so years ago. I have a set of Adire 281's as my main speakers (which I and many others feel they compete very well with speakers costing in the $2-3k range), if I upgrade to a set of $4k speakers I won't see a MAJOR difference. Actually one of the better upgrades I did to my system was to EQ the subwoofer, another one was to analyze my room acoustics and mess around with that. But again, I would consider those the icing on the cake not the cake mix itself.

Andrew

 

[Mark Austin]

Eric,

Quote:

Well said. I agree totally.

 

[JaleelK]

That is the whole thing. A DBT in audio relies completely on personal sensory observation. Hearing is subjective, and relying on auditory memory in DBT's brings the subjectiveness back into it, that's why it's not a real, reliable DBT, and therefore worthless. If you can't take out the subjective input, which medical DBT's successfully do, then the first goal in an audio DBT is not met, and that is to make a purely objective determination.>>>
If I was to agree with your argument here, my question to you is, do you think sighted,non-level matched listening test are more reliable than DBT level matched? Or do you have another method of determining if differences exist between two audio sources?
http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=64
http://www.revelspeakers.com/i/listening_lab.pdf
non pdf version http://www.mastersonaudio.com/features/20010115.htm
Also, if you go above links you will find how they have proven that sighted listening test are unreliable in determining if audio differences are truly detectable, they PROVED here in these listening test, when they went from blind to sighted the results were dramatic.

 

[AjayM]

Also, if you go above links you will find how they have proven that sighted listening test are unreliable in determining if audio differences are truly detectable, they PROVED here in these listening test, when they went from blind to sighted the results were dramatic.

Is this kind of like the information how all the high end audio companies are starting to go under? Where is the information pertaining to these tests? What was tested? Who were tested? What were the conditions of the test? etc. All these two documents are (which are the same for the blind test information) is more internet crap.
I know what I'm going to do, I'm going to do a DBT between one of those $500k systems one of my dealers have setup and a $20 clock radio. Then I'm going to do the test sighted. Then I'm going to draw pretty graphs to show that in my DBT a difference between audio components can be heard first, and that even in my sighted non level matched test the results were exactly the same as the "proper" DBT. I'm not going to publish any of the information about what was used in the test, who were tested, under what conditions, etc. Then I'm going to get an MD (from MIT!) friend of mine to put his name on it (since it obviously has to come from somebody with a PHD). Then people could use that information in threads like these "Oh I saw it on the internet, so it must be true" and I'll revolutionize the world of audio.
Andrew

 

[Legairre]

jaleel,

I'm still wondering how you can tell me and others there's no difference in what we hear based on (by your own omission) something you have read not actually experienced. Your opinions aren't even your own, there someone elses. That's like saying "Pepsi is better than Coke, but I haven't actually tried either one of them". If you haven't tried it how can you make that statement. A more valid statement would be "from what I've read Pepsi is better then Coke, but I can't say from personal experience". IMO yours statements on amps should be the same "based on what I have read all amp sound the same". If your beginning statement at the start of this thread had state begun this way. I think this would have ended a long time ago. If I've listened to several amps and can tell a difference how can you tell me I'm wrong, because you read an article that says so, but haven't actually experienced it?

 

[Mike Knapp]

Also, if you go above links you will find how they have proven that sighted listening test are unreliable in determining if audio differences are truly detectable, they PROVED here in these listening test, when they went from blind to sighted the results were dramatic.

A DBT is not the right tool to judge sound with.

You wouldnt use a wrench to drive nails but you have no problem using the wrong tool to judge sound. All of your senses effect your hearing (perception is the key here...perception IS your reality)...eliminate any of them (including the knowledge of what you are listening to) and the test becomes instantly bogus.

Food tastes better when presented beautifully and in a pleasant atmosphere. Your hearing is also effected by the other senses. I am not a pair of ears, I am a human being! I am a system unto myself, quit trying to separate my parts when you test something.

Mike

 

[EricHaas]

"I'm still wondering how you can tell me and others there's no difference in what we hear based on (by your own omission) something you have read not actually experienced. Your opinions aren't even your own, there someone elses. That's like saying "Pepsi is better than Coke, but I haven't actually tried either one of them". If you haven't tried it how can you make that statement. A more valid statement would be "from what I've read Pepsi is better then Coke, but I can't say from personal experience". IMO yours statements on amps should be the same "based on what I have read all amp sound the same". If your beginning statement at the start of this thread had state begun this way. I think this would have ended a long time ago. If I've listened to several amps and can tell a difference how can you tell me I'm wrong, because you read an article that says so, but haven't actually experienced it?"

Grrrr. I do not agree with everything Jaleel has said in this thread, and I may not even agree with his over-arching opinion, but this argument has been repeated now so many times and it is WRONG. This argument totally begs the question, because it assumes the truth of its premise. You guys are all saying that non-blinded personal home listening tests are a scientifically valid way of ascertaining whether differences exist among components. Jaleel is saying that such observations are scientifically worthless, and that only properly blinded testing conditions have value. If Jaleel were to go out and buy a bunch of amps and comment back to the thread that he either could or couldn't hear the differences in his home system, he would be doing what you guys are asking him to do, but he would be *totally* contradicting his central argument. According to his argument, whether you agree with it or not, his own personal listening experiences (and all of yours) are *irrelevant*.

BTW, most of what we "know" - in fact maybe 99% - comes not directly through our 5 senses, but is information we read or hear about second hand. I do not have to stand at the center of a nuclear explosion to understand a bomb's destructive force. And how ludricious it would be for people to tell me that I cannot say anything about the destructive potential of a nuclear bomb because I have never experienced it firsthand. DBT's are something that very few people ever have a chance to participate in. And since Jaleel believes that only DBT's will produce a valid result, this constant assertion that he must offer opinion from personal listening experience is absurd.

No offense to anyone BTW. Just expressing my honest reaction to some of the posts here.