Separates vs. receiver confirmation (1 Viewer)

[Adil M]

Steve,

I'm willing to pay sub-sub-par prices for your sub-par gear. Please jump ship soon.

 

[Mike Knapp]

Here are a few pearls of wisdom I have gathered from many years of debating similar subjects.
Tests, any test, will color the results. Just the fact that the subject knows they are being tested will alter the results. Ever take a test and miss a question you KNEW the answer to?
If you hear a difference, the test will not remove it (except perhaps during testing due to #1). If you cannot, the test will not allow you to.
Any evaluations must be done on your own system. If you went to a car showroom and they had two identical cars on the floor with the drivers seat in one of them 1" closer to the wheel than the other, you would never know it no matter how many times you swapped. BUT...if someone moved the seat of YOUR car forward one inch while you were in the showroom you would notice it as soon as you sat behind the wheel.
Psychology is more important in the sound mix than measurements.
Test results are only pertinant to the actual people being tested.
Using instruments and technology that is over 75 years old to measure anything is considered ridiculous....except of course when it comes to sound.
Sound is not electricity. Measuring one does not measure the other.
We (humans) do not know everything about anything.
There are no measuring instruments that can distinguish between Beethoven and Mozart except your ears. Trust them.
Carry on!
Mike

 

[Ariel]

i like this thread! this will give me the opportunity to buy your amplifiers cheap.

 

[AjayM]

For me hearing is like tasting. If someone tastes two apples blindfolded they can tell which one is sweeter but the answer to which one is tastier is differs from person to person. DBT tests may be able to tell the listener if there is a difference in the two sounds but which one is better varies from person to person.

A DBT is not used to get preference, only difference (as you pointed out). That is the only thing a DBT can test for (in the audio realm). The argument here is that under these tests (which are done with no regards to accuracy) people can't tell a difference between a cheap mass-produced piece of gear and a high end piece of gear. Basically a $300 Sony reciever will sound exactly the same as a $3000+ Denon 5800.

Andrew

 

[EricHaas]

"Eric, what is objective hearing?"

Pardon my somewhat loose diction. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as objective hearing. Hearing, like all other forms of sensory perception, has an objective and a subjective component. The object is what is actually perceived, and the subject is the filter of the object. In this context, the objective component is the *sound*. Perception is always filtered even in a DBT, but the concept is for measures to be taken to reduce or eliminate certain key subjective elements like product or price bias to get a perception *closer* to the actual sound(object).

See my post above (sandwiched between 2 Larry B posts) that starts with this phrase for an answer to your remaining concerns: "Correct, BUT... The point of a double blind test is not necessarily to prove which people like better...."

"I never gave much credibility to a DBT even though I am a hard core techno type. I just know what satisfies my ears and know how to look for it in a system and thats all I do.

Science is only good for measuring objective quantities but when it comes to measuring subjective quantities (which cannot be measured in the first place) science is not the way to go. If you get too scientific in a subjective category then you become like Jaleel. He is the perfect example of what happens when science is applied to human tastes. He is full of objective scientific test data but no subjective listening experience. His knowledge is perfect for a text book research article at best (thats why there have been so many written) with no place in someone's listening room."

Yes, but your DBT in that case would accomplish something very important. Presumably, you are saying that your friend could tell the two APART in a blind test. That is the purpose of the blind test, not to tell who prefers what. If OTOH neither you nor your friend could tell the two apart, and 100 other people also couldn't, you might have cause for concern about how you spent your money. That is the real point of a DBT.

I have to say that I think Jaleel does have a kernel of a point here. It does seem that audiophiles have a resistence to DBT's because they are concerned that it will somehow show their preference for expensive equipment to be illusory. In reality, remember that the only issue that Jaleel was getting at was, will a DBT show that people can or cannot tell one amp apart from another. Where he may or may NOT be correct is that he says that DBT will show that people cannot tell ANY difference (regardless of preference). But the tests ARE useful. Personally, I'd like to know before I spend my cash whether or not to expect better sound, because I cannot replicate good comparison testing conditions on my own. I suppose if I enjoy an upgrade I should enjoy it without worrying about whether I am being influenced by a placebo effect, but something about my analytical nature wants to know the objective truth.

 

[EricHaas]

"But it depends on the testing - are these audiophiles given 30 second snippets rapid fire, or do they get all the time they want for extended listening of each piece."

Actually, the 30 second snippets are the correct way to do the DBT, and longer listening periods are not appropriate. By using longer listening periods, you introduce another element that impairs the ability of the subject to objectively tell the sounds apart - the limitations of sonic memory. Human sonic memory, though it varies somewhat from person to person, is actually quite poor in comparison to say visual memory, the only exception being our memory for spoken linquistic symbols (words). If you show someone a picture on a certain TV, and the same picture on a different TV the next day, the chances of that person picking up on differences in the picture quality are much better than if you had the person listen to the same song on 2 different sound systems a day apart. If someone listens hours apart, they might, for example, not notice differences in a base line for a particular song, whereas if they listened to a 10 second snippet on one then the same snippet on the other immediately thereafter, the ability to pick out the differences is heightened. The same holds true in reverse - given too long a time interval, the subject may think they remember differences that do not exist.

 

[AjayM]

Actually, the 30 second snippets are the correct way to do the DBT, and longer listening periods are not appropriate. By using longer listening periods, you introduce another element that impairs the ability of the subject to objectively tell the sounds apart - the limitations of sonic memory. Human sonic memory, though it varies somewhat from person to person, is actually quite poor in comparison to say visual memory, the only exception being our memory for spoken linquistic symbols (words). If you show someone a picture on a certain TV, and the same picture on a different TV the next day, the chances of that person picking up on differences in the picture quality are much better than if you had the person listen to the same song on 2 different sound systems a day apart. If someone listens hours apart, they might, for example, not notice differences in a base line for a particular song, whereas if they listened to a 10 second snippet on one then the same snippet on the other immediately thereafter, the ability to pick out the differences is heightened. The same holds true in reverse - given too long a time interval, the subject may think they remember differences that do not exist.

Ahhh, see this is an excellent reason why audiophiles don't want anything to do with these tests. You know the much vaunted medical DBT actually gives you time to digest the drugs you are taking and then measure for the effect, and they do that for weeks at a time.

You forgot one scenerio above...how about listening for 30 minutes, then immediatly switching to the next system? I'm sorry but 30 seconds is not going to give you anywhere enough time to actually use a piece of your sonic memory. At 30 seconds at a time, I bet a lot of people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a $200 rack system and a no-holds barred $250,000 system...now sit down and list to a few pieces of music and then compare and tell me what you think will happen.

Andrew

 

[Norm Strong]

I HAVE conducted DBT. I've also been the subject in several. It's a very sobering experience. I've also done blind evaluations, an even more difficult test.

How would you like to have a different pair of speakers connected to your system, that you couldn't see, and have to make a statement about the quality of the sound? This pair of speakers could be anything from Nautilus to Technics, and you have to go public with your opinion. Not many people are willing to do this, and almost no audio professional would risk it.

 

[Sebastien David]

very good point Norm.

although it has been stated earlier, I think you really make it clear why there is a bias against DBTs in the audiophile community.

 

[Larry B]

Larry-no-space-B:

Larry with-a-space B, I think this proves well within generally accepted scientific methodologies, that there is "something in a name".

ROTFL!

And this reminds me of my favorite quote, which has absolutely nothing to do with audio: "Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes right through to the bone."

Larry-with a space-B

P.S. Are youa aware that I'm "LarryB" (with no space) on Home Theatre Talk? Who are you on that forum? Maybe the moderators will allow us to alter our names to achieve inter-forum consistency.

 

[Alex F.]

What audiophile bias against blind tests? Has there been a poll about this that I have never seen?

As I've posted and detailed here several times in the past, this long-time audiophile has participated in several blind tests, along with other audiophile acquaintances. Participation in such testing quickly reveals the strengths and serious limitations of the tests.

Blind testing typically allows one to focus on only one aspect of a product's sonic performance (you usually start a test looking for one strength or weakness). Unfortunately, very little of a component's overall sound can be determined this way. Only long-term testing can do so.

It's interesting that the advocates here of blind testing are individuals who have never participated in such testing. Also, it becomes obvious that these same folks rarely, if ever, have had significant experience with utilizing high-resolution components. Their experience with blind testing and high-resolution components is usually nonexistent. And their statements on the subject show the results--a lot of useless theorizing and guessing.

Then, armed with no experience on the matters involved, these individuals feel inclined to "inform" others that components sound alike and that blind-testing is the best method for evaluating products. Fascinating.

 

[Ted Lee]

sorry, got back into this thread kind of late.

Science is only good for measuring objective quantities but when it comes to measuring subjective quantities (which cannot be measured in the first place) science is not the way to go.

mark - you stole my question!
eric - it seems like you're approaching a dbt with an angle that's different than mine. to me, it sounds like you're saying dbt's are only useful to tell if there is a difference...not the quality of the difference? in that respect i agree with you.
but it seems impossible to say that we can measure someone's perception of sound and put a scientific measurement to it. i can see no way at all to be able to tell what (if anything) someone is hearing.
to me, the purpose of a dbt would be to determine which component sounds BETTER...which (i say again) is impossible and therein lies the paradox of the whole concept.
maybe i just need to redefine what a dbt really is...
btw - this is one of the most interesting threads!

 

[Mark Austin]

Ted,

And right there you get at the crux of the issue. DBT, can't tell us which unit sounds better, and by how much, but only if there is a difference between the two.

It so astutely points out the uselessness of DBT's in evalauating audio components.

 

[Mark Austin]

What's even funnier is that all our friends aboard HTF that espouse DBT's fail to mention when suggesting such tests is that it ,by design, WILL NOT TELL YOU WHICH ONE YOU PREFER. DBT cannot determine a preference.

 

[AjayM]

Well, a DBT is not used to determine preference in the audio world, it is not used for preference. Obviously if there is no difference then a preference couldn't be made.

Andrew

 

[Sebastien David]

I may be mistaken (correct me if I am), but this thread, or rather this argument, started out with one side arguing you could not TELL THE DIFFERENCE between certain components (in this case amps) and the other arguing that you could. I don't see preference in there! I don't know why people are still arguing about DBT's incapacity to reveal which component sounds better. That, obviously, is impossible, since "better" may mean something different for everybody. This point is moot.

I don't know whether DBT can be used effectively with something like human hearing and audio components. I'M not an advocate of either side. Just trying to contribute by steering the argument out of what I believe to be the wrong direction. I don't think anyone has argued that you could tell which component is better by DBT.

 

[JaleelK]

Emphasis mine.

But I thought everything sounded the same Jaleel? What possible sound quality differences could you be talking about? Please, enlighten us.

Incidentally, doesn't everyone purchase for features, flexibility, and sound quality?>>>

I never said everything sound the same, speakers and processors certainly sound different because they are designed to sound different. My position is, based on the data that I have read, is that most decently built amps sound pretty much the same. There have been people like Tom Nousaine, a very credible audio expert,(some of you are familiar with his subwoofer test and reviews) who has been conducting DBT listening test for years, dumbfounding so-called goldeneared audiophiles by challenging them to tell the difference between things like so-called mid-fi amps vs. high-end amps, expensive cables vs. cheapo Radio Shack cables, high-end CD players vs. mass market players etc. and from what has been reported by him and published by him is that they usually fail to detect differences between high-end amps, cables, cd players etc.

It is evident, that even when differnces are noticeable they're so sublte even audiophiles have to admit that. Now you would think if a person spend $500 on a mass market amp in comparison to a person who spent 6K on a Krell amp should eaisly be able to tell the difference even in a DBT level matched test, but it is evident that they usually can't.

What separate amps like Krell delivers is more power and better able to drive more power hungry type speakers.

 

[JaleelK]

Now we're equating lawyers in with audio as well as the entire medical industry. Anyways, you're right my point was not relevant. Let me word it in a way that I hope you may understand.>>>>>

I making a reference to lawyers because their jobs are to find evidence, present facts and argue the case.

Say you need to go in for open heart surgery (which is something you buy, in this case a service), however a few doctors over there who have never practiced open heart surgery or done any of these things that they are talking about, but have read a couple of papers on the internet about it (about some person who they never met did it), they say you are going to be just fine.>>>

I agree that you will feel better with more experience doctors, however that is not my position in this debate, I'm not a scientist or expert on audio, I have conveyed to you some of the findings of the EXPERIENCED and knowledeable audio experts , in this way, just as a trial attorney would do, find evidence,present facts and argue the case.

Now you have another group of doctors who have done most of the things you are talking about, have actual experience in the real of this surgery, but they say you will have some severe side-effect.

Which one would you believe and trust your life to?>>>

I'm going to trust the doctors with real experience, this is why I'm telling you that most well built amps, CD's player and wires sound alike, based upon what EXPERIENCED audio experts have found in their many DBT.

 

[Legairre]

I never said everything sound the same, speakers and processors certainly sound different because they are designed to sound different. My position is, based on the data that I have read, is that most decently built amps sound pretty much the same.

Jaleel,

You've made several statements regarding how amps all sound the same. In your own words this is "based on data that you have read", not on amps you've actually heard? How can you give advice based on things you have read oppossed to those of us who have actually heard these differences? How can you tell me and others that we're wrong and we're not hearing these substantial differences when you've, by your own words have only read data that states all amps sound the same. This in IMO is a bias you already have towards people saying they hear a difference. If someone asked me if all amps sound the same at least I can give my opinion based on experience. You seem to give your opinion based on articles you've read. I guess you forgot to read any of the artcles/reviews that clearly state how amps sound different.

 

[AjayM]

I agree that you will feel better with more experience doctors, however that is not my position in this debate, I'm not a scientist or expert on audio, I have conveyed to you some of the findings of the EXPERIENCED and knowledeable audio experts , in this way, just as a trial attorney would do, find evidence,present facts and argue the case.
I'm going to trust the doctors with real experience, this is why I'm telling you that most well built amps, CD's player and wires sound alike, based upon what EXPERIENCED audio experts have found in their many DBT.

Again, with none of your own experience to actually back it up, and audio is far from the medical field, you can do your own tests without being arrested (unlike the medical field), yet you don't. If I wanted to rely solely on stuff I read I can find all kinds of impressive material on the web from experts that will tell you that the Apollo moon landings never happened. Ditto for people being abducted by aliens every day. And Elvis sightings, that's a daily occurance as well. All from sane and rational (well most of the time) people. Does that make it all true.
Where are the facts of all of these "many" DBT's? I have yet to see you produce anything on them, no links to real information, nothing about how the test was conducted, no expanded individual results, even a test that's not using junk statistics (if we did a test of an amp 20 times and you properly heard a difference 18 out of 20 times, that is statistically worthless if you want to achieve the normal 95-96% accuracy) etc. That would all be expected in the medical industry (which you love to bring up all the time), but they aren't in the audio side? Or how about the many "well respected experts" who don't even believe in the DBT for audio...
How about this person talking about DBT's for audio
http://www.audaud.com/audaud/DEC/RelativeFidelity.html
This person is a doctor who worked for the UK Medical Research council (who I am sure are very much into DBT's), and this person doesn't believe in them.
Or maybe,
Jon Risch, a respected audiophile on the Internet with rigorous engineering principles, has suggested objective mechanisms for many of these subjectively-perceived differences. More importantly, he has thoroughly denounced standard DBT and ABX tests to be inaccurate measurements of perception. Most forms of these tests, being rigid and timed, put undue psychological stress on the subject thus resulting in a worsening of apparent perceptual abilities.
Doesn't matter at all.
I found a link once to a research group studying the placebo effect and the working of the brain and the ear in relation to audio, with a lot of material about just this specific subject. I'll have to find that.
Andrew