Here's a 5 minute video introduction on the workings of the human ear.
Who'd have guessed that the thickness of the tympanic membrane is on average one 700th of a millimetre?
Articles You Feel Should be Shared
I’ll kick off with a recent posting by the remarkably clear-sighted and even handed Archimago.
Once again cutting through layers of mostly deliberate confusion, obfuscation and denial.
Production, Reproduction and Perception - the 3 pillars upon which everything in our audiophile world stands, is my new mantra.
So simple it’s surprising that no one else pointed it out earlier.
Be sure to also check out his follow up blog from Wednesday, 11 March 2020.
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2020/03/musings-audio-music-audiophile-big.html?m=1
Once again cutting through layers of mostly deliberate confusion, obfuscation and denial.
Production, Reproduction and Perception - the 3 pillars upon which everything in our audiophile world stands, is my new mantra.
So simple it’s surprising that no one else pointed it out earlier.
Be sure to also check out his follow up blog from Wednesday, 11 March 2020.
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2020/03/musings-audio-music-audiophile-big.html?m=1
89 responses Add your response
"Why does this happen? One reason is more trust between purchaser and sellers, meaning more loyalty to brands. Most ads today have more meaning to users as marketers have access to data that allows them to create highly targeted ads. Secondly, programmatic approaches make it possible to benefit from proven ad strategies and increase their potential in real-time."
They haven't yet quite figured out how to get into our heads, but they're definitely getting there. But is there anything actually wrong with it? I guess it all depends upon the sincerity of the advertisers, which on past form has not always been a model of trust and integrity. |
Huge article about advertising. Right now ads there are things that can boost your business, only you can interract how effective it would be. If you want to know what is programmating media buying read this article |
Here's yet another informative video from our friends at Audioholics. How to Achieve Realism in Audio with Dr Edgar Choueiri. The good Doctor's findings might surprise some of us here. Some of his comments certainly made me think. Here he is with Matthew Poes and Don Dunn. https://youtu.be/rPmiyOeTUdM |
Here's a couple of interesting YouTube clips courtesy of AsapSCIENCE. Both have some good illustrations to demonstrate the sometimes strange relationship between sound and perception. It's quite clear to me that our eyes can play a considerable part in the processing of what we hear. Just why this happens is a little odd though. It's as if either our brain cannot resist feeding in extra information to 'help' with sound processing, or that it insists that visual information must take precedence over what we hear. Can You trust Your Ears? https://youtu.be/kzo45hWXRWU Will This Trick Your Ears?https://youtu.be/w40XcUP5KrI and another here on that relationship. Can Music Save Your Life? https://youtu.be/w40XcUP5KrI |
Audiophile Turntable 101: Acoustic Research AR-XA TESTED In case anyone has not seen this previously, here’s a hugely informative 50 minute YouTube video by M. Zillch to enjoy. Perhaps the most informative of its kind. Some of the fascinating demonstrations shown here are not advisable to try at home with a modern turntable. On the other hand they might make you think again about the so-called advances in turntable performance over these past 60 years. https://youtu.be/1rgK0YMsJXM |
Loudspeaker Isolation. Here's an interesting article from IsoAcoustics inc looking at that thorny question of spikes versus lossy decoupling. Despite reading like an advertisement for their own products they claim to have scientific data from research conducted at the NRC (National Research Council of Canada). They even provide a link to download a White Paper in PDF form. It's certainly an interesting read that might go some way towards explaining the differences between the isolation provided by spikes and more lossy decoupling methods. https://isoacoustics.com/isoacoustics-speaker-isolation-technology/ |
Parlogram Auctions Here's an unusually informative YouTube channel I stumbled upon. This one is based mainly around the Beatles on vinyl and goes into considerable detail. I always wondered why the original albums sounded different to some of the recent reissues. Well it's explained here on a video of the 2014 mono vinyl box set that the fashion back in the 1960s was to cut most records "loud and hot". That way they would sound good on almost anything at normal volume levels. The downside might be increased distortion at high volume listening levels. https://www.youtube.com/user/Parlogram |
The Best Linn LP12 Set Up Guide Ever Setting up your LP12: Volume I - 3 by Peter Swain of Cymbiosis. These 3 downloadable PDF guides from the Cymbiosis website should be mandatory reading for anyone thinking about buying into an LP12. These are exceptionally well written with very clear instructions and are fabulously informative. Peter is unusually quite candid about his experiences too. I thought I knew most everything about the LP12 set-up but after reading these it's obvious that I don't. If these had been available some 15 years ago my experiences with the deck might have been better. They would certainly have saved me some time but alas all I had was the official Linn set up manual. The Linn is the perfect turntable for anyone with enough time (and confidence) to want to spend hours playing around with setting it up. Owners of older decks might be interested in some of Peter's suggestions regarding the use of newer parts - especially those in regard to maintaining that all importantly famous LP12 bounce. https://www.cymbiosis.com/download/setting-up-your-lp12-volume-i/ |
@mijostyn, 'What we listen to are illusions, illusions of musicians playing real instruments and singing.' Good point. As time goes by we seem to be getting increasingly immersed in illusion trying to pass off as reality. From the printed page to our smartphone screens, TV sets and workstations - it's all an illusion of a relationship becoming increasingly removed. Covid 19 has only made it worse. Thankfully with audio we do have a fixed fundamental point of reference, the recording itself. All that any playback system can do is to attempt to play back the original recorded signal as faithfully as possible. The biggest challenge falls with microphones and loudspeakers and their attempts to capture and mimick naturally occurring sound radiation patterns. We cannot, and should never blame playback systems for not being able to deliver what was never captured in the first place. As for individual interpretation, well that's another issue altogether - one of biological capability and psychological interpretation. One that, although currently beyond our means to measure adequately, is not one needed to determine playback fidelity. The job of the playback system is accurate playback. What the listener then does with the signal after it leaves the loudspeaker is only an individual personal matter. @millercarbon, We're not in the creation business are we? We're only on the consumption end, and as such we look to the industry to provide the best products they can. What do you suggest we should be listening to and learning from? Isn't it better to leave that to the professionals who have both the time and resources to do a better job than we ever could? |
Siegfried Linkwitz is one of the great contributors to audio science. His directions always made sense and it is very hard to argue with his basic premises. I think he may have been miss stated. A speaker has to have the same dispersion pattern at all frequencies. A criteria Magnepans and certain ESLs meet better than any other kind of speaker. I'm not entirely sure but I think it would be possible to design a horn system that way. This is probably the reason the K horn is so compelling in spite of it's phase and timing errors. Linkwitz's experimentation with dipole sub woofers was an attempt to create the dispersion pattern of his dipole speakers. Anyway, some great articles and Youtubes here. What we listen to are illusions, illusions of musicians playing real instruments and singing. Illusions are plastic and depend on the perception of the individual which is at once complicated by other motives and emotions but as has been demonstrated under the right conditions surprisingly uniform. I think most of our differences are based on opinions formed under the wrong conditions. |
Some more stuff on cables worth bearing in mind if the sneaky cable propaganda ever manages to slip by your critical faculties. It can happen to anyone. Subliminal programming works, and is all around us. Some of this targeting is good, and some is not so good. We're all being constantly targetted into overload and then it's not always easy to sort out the truth from fiction. ------- First the infamous article from 2008 by Matt Buchanan. Audiophile Deathmatch: Monster Cables vs. a Coat Hanger. https://www.google.com/amp/s/gizmodo.com/audiophile-deathmatch-monster-cables-vs-a-coat-hanger-36315.... ------- Then a more recent update to see if the notorious Coat Hanger could be defeated by some modern audiophile cables. Cable myths: reviving the coathanger test by Christian Thomas https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.soundguys.com/cable-myths-reviving-the-coathanger-test-23553/amp/ ------ And here’s Audioholics’ founder Gene DellaSala clearing away all those pesky psychological cobwebs for the rest of us in just under 9 minutes. Are Perceived Audible Differences in Cable Performance Real or Psychological? https://youtu.be/wrmNvQIl-D8 |
mozartfan, This is from the LX521 Characteristics & Specifications page:
There's a bit more detail of his using SEAS drivers for his most advanced design on the page. https://www.linkwitzlab.com/LX521/Description.htm |
The article won’t be everyone’s cup of tea as SL didn’t pull his punches, but I think it’s well worth 10 or 15 minutes reading time.
Excellent find, , Thank you for bringing us some meat on the bones opinions froma legendary expert as is the highly respected Dr Linkwitz. Section 15,, thats whats most of interest for me. I love how his opinions line up with some of mine. B&W's,,I won't go there,,,, Magneplanars,,won't go there. Dr Linkwitz mentions the Wilson line as perhaps, the best we can hope for,,,but surely does not go to the point of recommending Wison as *the best*. He can't. Why? Besides my prejudice that i hate Wislon speakers as much as I hate many other lines, at least the other highly colored /highly distorted lines are not like the Wilsons. The Wilons to me are a ~~joke~~ for a ideal speaker,, Thet are ~~~ laughable. You needa forlift to move them,,and price tag,, you will need to sell some TESLA stock to buy a pair. For me, the Wilson's do not exist. I am very surprised Dr Linkwitz did not mention the fact that SEAS has always made the finest drivers, and their top of line are the most musical drivers made today.. Very surprised. I think Linkwitz is more about theory, and lacks a bit of ~~fidelity~~ in his opinions. How could he fail to mention SEAS at the very last sentence??? Anyone? In my 40 years, no other speaker presents music as does SEAS,,that is under a rasonable price factor,,I would love to hear Jadis' speakers, vs the SEAS. But then again Jadis' lines have tto be excluded, due to both critical factors 1) weight/size 2) cost Leaving SEAS all alone as Top Dog |
Kinda rambling and disorganized, doncha think? I mean he wrote like five thousand words. Yet all he really said was we can't make up with reproduction what wasn't originally captured in the recording. Nor should we try. Is that even news? Yeah that was my initial impression,,glad you could sum things up, in short. All I am trying to acheive in my modificatiosn is cleaning/clearing/defining the sonics. This is what is needed most, folks trying this mod vs this mod,,cap A vs cap B, resistor A vs resistor B, tube A vs tube B, and so on,,interconnect A vs interconnect B, etc etc. Real time opimnions based on acutal A/B testing. This is the purpose of all my YT uploads , all of which are presented here, for anyones curiosity. This way they can have some idea of what might /might not work in their idea of acheiving a Class A high fidelity sound. I can tell you the Gold Lion KT88's did not present music as did the Svetlana 6550's. Vocals/some mid FQ's were more realistic in the Svetlana 6550's. I believe I read in my researches, another audioplihe mentioned he did not care for the GL KT88's , right off, no need to *burn in**, that was my impression as well, in just less than a minute, i felt the voicing for female vocals was not as realistic as the chinese KT88,,The Svetlana 6550 were even more clearer vs the chinese 88's. |
Whatever happened to the quality of reproduced sound in the home? Siegfried Linkwitz ALMA Int 2014 Here’s a fascinating 50 year recap by the great man. It’s always interesting to read his views but some of the following have stuck in the memory. For example, without giving too much away, it’s fair to say he didn’t like passive crossovers or ports, and seemed to be quite fond of Magneplanars: "The typical loudspeaker comes with fundamental flaws, which critical listeners try to correct by room treatment. The solution would be a loudspeaker with spectrally neutral radiation in all directions. Such loudspeakers are extremely rare. In general, the quality of reproduced sound in the home has reached a plateau that is uninspiring to the Apple and Google generation. ---- But 3 areas of loudspeaker design remain as hurdles to obtaining the highest quality in sound reproduction: 1 - Vented boxes. They introduce group delay distortion and color the bass. 2 – Passive crossover-equalizers. They decouple the power amplifier from the transducer and give up motion control. They interact with the transducer. 3 – Frequency dependent directivity. Box loudspeakers radiate omnidirectional at low frequencies and beam at high frequencies. They feed more energy at low frequencies into the room’s reverberant field than at high frequencies. (Why should the off-axis response of the loudspeaker matter? It determines how the room becomes engaged with how the room becomes engaged with the stereo illusion). ---- Fundamental Questions: 1 - Can loudspeakers and listening room disappear from auditory perception? My answer to all 3 questions is YES! * Radiation pattern ’The Magneplanar uses large radiating panels and a long high frequency ribbon is not an acoustically small radiator and therefore has radiation lobes. It makes its interaction with the room difficult to predict. It also suffers in bass volume capability. Never-the-less it comes close to my ideal loudspeaker concept." ----- The article won’t be everyone’s cup of tea as SL didn’t pull his punches, but I think it’s well worth 10 or 15 minutes reading time. http://www.linkwitzlab.com/ALMA%2714/Sound_quality.htm |
| Post removed |
Any thread that triggers Mr. Pebbles to respond in <11 minutes without even following the link (or he would know it was just a forum thread, not an article), must be a good thread. I have nothing to add yet, I just don't know how to follow a thread without posting in it ... yet :-) djones512,416 posts07-05-2020 9:54amYes, I've seen some of those as well. Here's a thread from that hated sight ASR on fuses affecting sound. It's not a blind test. geoffkait23,245 posts07-05-2020 9:58amI wouldn’t use the word bogus... |
Blind test is some play for marketers and debunkers....The two sells their products, the debunkers their concept of science and technology, the marketers their own concept of science and technology... They are Janus brothers.... How can someone could prove to me that all my created controls non conventional methods, homemade creations and tweaks, that change all my audio system in the last 2 years, like day and night, were illusory placebos? Or worst, vain bragging.... You cannot explain the listening apprenticeship trough which i was going with an incremental increase of S.Q., one week after another, by the auto genesis in me of conditioned hallucinations.... And speaking of the auditory limitation of human has nothing to do to the listening learned habilities, they are not measurable in Hertz.... Those who sell snake oil exist, but all vendors dont sell snake oil, and debunkers exist, and they are not all deluded by their obsession either to proove me wrong, thanks God! A blind test cannot test the hundred of changes i implemented in my audio system in the last 48 months....Sorry.....I can fool myself few times about a change, but not about a hundred.... Think about it before throwing up your "explanation" and proof with blind test.... Why not begins the process to increase the quality of your own audio system by yourself before negating this possibility with blind testing? But being by myself in the work of making my system great with cheap low cost methods i need neither two, the debunker and the marketer.... :) |
| Post removed |
djones51, Good link. So the conclusion was that even if a fuse was placed in the signal path of a loudspeaker, it was likely to have negligible effect under normal conditions? If I ever got tired of this place I might consider jumping ship to Audio Science Review. Those guys do really seem to know their stuff so I’m not sure what use my experiences could offer them. Anyway, time for another article on blind listening. This one is from 2012 by engineer/scientist/staff writer Justin Colletti on trustmeimascientist.com. Great balanced article, here are just a few extracts. Can You Hear What I Hear? A Guide to Listening Blind Justin Colletti "Compared to the much of the animal kingdom, human beings have pretty terrible hearing. We have poor powers of echolocation, especially for sounds that come from behind us, we can only hear a relatively narrow bandwith of 20Hz-20kHz, and we’re easily fooled by illusions. ...... But perhaps the most convincing tricks are the ones we play on ourselves. Expectation is one of the most powerful forces in shaping our perception, and it’s the reason that the same wine tastes better if we’re told it costs $90 instead of $10. The same goes for our stereo systems. Because of this, I’m a strong believer in the value of blind listening tests. Engineers tend to love them, because they help us to test our ears and to identify which of our choices have meaningful effects and which amount to audio placebo. Marketers of expensive audiophile snake oil, on the other hand, tend to hate blind listening tests. This is because they tend to show that dubious products like specialty power cords and bags full of magic pebbles have about as much impact on your sound as well, a bag full of rocks. But to be fair, what’s impressive about these products is that in a sense, they do work — In much the same way that placebo medical treatments work. They work because we believe the story. Our minds long for convincing narratives, and we find them everywhere we look. This isn’t a matter of willpower, either. It’s a matter of science. Even the smartest and most objective among us are amazingly susceptible to suggestion. .... In test after test, even trained listeners have trouble telling codecs apart when they’re created at 160kbps and up, and I’m not yet aware of a study where blind listeners were able to tell 320kbps files apart from CDs. ...... http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2012/03/03/can-you-hear-what-i-hear-an-mp3-test-and-a-guide-to-li... |
| Post removed |
Yes, I've seen some of those as well. Here's a thread from that hated sight ASR on fuses affecting sound. It's not a blind test. https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/fuses-do-affect-sound-the-question-is-how-muc... |
djones51, I wonder if you saw the follow up by the same poster? Prog Rock Man not surprisingly faced the some backlash from various affronted parties, so in answer he started another post on Head-Fi. This time he wanted to demonstrate that there were cases in audio where blind listening tests did reveal a clear preference (ie one well above 50% accuracy or random guessing) for one piece of equipment over another. These mostly featured loudspeakers. ------- Are blind tests bogus? Examples of blind tests with positive results. Prog Rock Man Sep 20 2010 1 - A blind test of speakers, passed by the subject. Interestingly, the subject failed to identify different crossovers, one more expensive than the other. http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/axiom-blind-listening-test 8 - PSB speaker blind test, the top of the range speaker won http://www.psbspeakers.com/audio-topics/Birthplace-of-Good-Sound 9 - ABX Comparator. A series of blind tests of different kit and cables. Starting with the cables, differences were found with video cables over very long runs of 100 feet in comparison to a 6 foot one. 12. "Some amplifiers do sound different" report c1984 https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...ts-did-show-amplifiers-to-sound-different.23/ Two amps, an apparently well run test and the cheaper amp wins! ------- There you go, another article that might be well worth checking out before contemplating any possible potential system upgrade. It doesn't take long and could save you some money and the heartache of disappointment. Once again thanks to Prog Rock Man and our audiophile friends over at Head-Fi. https://www.head-fi.org/threads/are-blind-tests-bogus-examples-of-blind-tests-with-positive-results.... |
As your friendly local testing guru, can I say for the umpteenth time any test, even a controlled test, has no significance because of the situation in audio system that so many things can go wrong with the test and usually do? You think you’re in complete control but you’re not. This is especially true for a test with negative results. Which is ironic perhaps because that’s usually what pseudo scientists tell you will happen. Would a determined pseudo skeptic lie about the results of a test? Well, duh! Maybe. That’s why tests for big projects, e.g., Government projects, are performed by independent, experienced testers, you know, someone without an ax to grind. |
I dont understand this obsession with blind test at all.... The goal of an audiophile or of anybody that want to increase the S.Q. of his audio system is to implement various methods of controls and tweaks that amount to a a regular incremental increase in S.Q. in a period of weeks, months, and years.... Do you need a blindtest to compare your own system before any controls methods and after? Even for one slight increase after a change, who need a blindtest? Learning to listen to music and learning to listen to the sounds go hand in hand and they are a process in time....The learning process dont need blindtest at all....People who want to sell something need it, marketters or debunkers...... Awake yourselves.... :) |
| Post removed |
Testing Audiophile Claims and Myths Following on from my posting above I feel I should bring to attention this thread which has been running on Head-Fi for a good while now - over 10 years to be exact. The original poster, Prog Rock Man has compiled a record of various blind listening tests that have come to his attention and their conclusions. I hope neither he (nor Head-Fi) will mind me sharing his valuable hard work here. This is exactly the kind of endeavour that could be of enormous value to all potential customers of audio equipment. For that, we the consumers owe it to ourselves to at least consider the findings. A word of warning to those unfamiliar with the history of controlled blind listening tests, after all press and dealers are unlikely to point them out, the following may come as a considerable shock. Here’s just a few of his summaries: http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx A test of interconnects and speaker cables found that no one could pick out the differences between a series of wires from ‘blister pack $2.50 to $990 speaker cable. All the results were even with approximately 50% going for the cheap and expensive options. -------- 3 - Do all amplifiers sound the same? Original Stereo Review blind test. A number of amplifiers across various price points and types are tested. The listeners are self declared believers and sceptics as to whether audiophile claims are true or not. There were 13 sessions with different numbers of listeners each time. The difference between sceptic and believer performance was small, with 2 sceptics getting the highest correct score and 1 believer getting the lowest. The overall average was 50.5% getting it right, so that is the same as you would expect from a random guess result. The cheapest Pioneer amp was perfectly capable of outperforming the more expensive amps and it was ‘striking similar to the Levinson‘. As an extra to this and for an explanation of how amps can all sound the same, here is a Wikipedia entry on Bob Carver and his blind test amp challenges http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver#Amplifier_modeling ------------- 8 - Secrets of Home Theatre and High Fidelity. Can We Hear Differences Between A/C Power Cords? An ABX Blind Test. December, 2004 A comprehensive article with pictures and the overall result was 73 out of 149 tests so 49% accuracy, the same as chance. http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...s-12-2004.html ------- 18. DIY Audio forum, confessions of a poster. 2003 A forum member joined and confessed that "Then I started to hear about some convincing blind tests and finally conducted my own. I was stunned at the results. I couldn’t tell a $300 amp from a $3000 in the store I was working at. Neither could anyone else who worked there." Then he did his own blind test on a mate between an Onkyo SR500 Dolby Digital receiver and a Bryston 4B 300 wpc power amp and a Bryston 2 channel pre-amp owned by his mate. The ’red faced’ mate could not tell the difference. http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/12752-blind-listening-tests-amplifiers.html ------- 20. Cowan Audio, an Australian audiophile and a blind test between CD players 1997 A $1800 un named (they were reluctant to name it) versus a $300 Sony which resulted in both only guessing and getting about 50%. William Cowan stated that a sighted test before hand made them say "This will be easy, lets get on with the blind test". Ooops! http://www.cowanaudio.com/ ------- 31. AV Science forum, Observations of a controlled cable test Nov 2007 A blind test between Monster cables and Opus MM, which as far as I can find is $33,000 worth of cable http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=941184 but the owner of the very high end kit and cables was unable to tell the difference. ------- 35. The Wilson ipod experiment CES 2004. Stereophile Jan 2004 Tenth paragraph down. A ’trick’ blind test where a group at a consumer technology tradeshow thought they were listening to a $20,000 CDP, but were actually, happily listening to an ipod and uncompressed WAV files. http://www.stereophile.com/news/011004ces/ Sight really does have a major role to play in sound! ------ And many, many more examples. Whilst loudspeakers have clearly been reliably identified via blind listening tests, the same cannot be said for cables, DACs, CD players, amplifiers, Hi-Res files etc. The implications of this are enormous for the entire industry and should not be repeatedly swept under the carpet. The consumer is always at liberty to buy whatever components he/ she may wish to, just as long as they are clear it is unlikely to be on the basis of any identifiable sound quality improvements. Once again I would like to give my thanks to the original poster over on Head-Fi, Prog Rock Man. Thanks again. https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/ *and now for the inevitable brickbats from all those with various vested financial interests in disputing, denying or decrying the findings by any means possible. But not necessarily a blind listening test! |
cd318 Talking of outsiders looking in, here’s an extract from an article by ’Bad Science’ author Ben Goldacre. “I give you the editor of Stereophile, a respected hi-fi magazine of 33 years standing. He’s talking about blinded tests on amplifiers: “It seems," he says, "that with such blind listening tests, all perceived subjective differences ... fall away ... when you have taken part in a number of these blind tests and experienced how two amplifiers you know from personal experience to sound extremely different can still fail to be identified under blind conditions ..." Now I’m getting worried. Here comes the money shot. "... then perhaps an alternative hypothesis is called for: that the very procedure of a blind listening test can conceal small but real subjective differences." Ouch. "Having taken part in quite a number of such blind tests, I have become convinced of the truth in this hypothesis."“ >>>Ben Goldacre is a piece of work. Typical pseudo reviewer/scientist. IMHO. Perhaps he should change his name to Ben Wiseacre. 😀 I know the guy JA from Stereophile and he’s right. Blind tests are at best inconclusive due to all the things that can and do go wrong. Ben Goldacre should not quit his day job. At least the name of his blog “Bad Science” is apropos and ironic. Ouch, |
djones51, Yes, it's just one of those quirky takes on the subject from a mainly neutral outside observer. It's not necessarily an indictment of all audiophiles, more of a warning against the perils of puting the equipment before the music and the dangers of lapsing into the "so-called lunatic fringe". Talking of outsiders looking in, here's an extract from an article by 'Bad Science' author Ben Goldacre. ---------- Blindingly obvious: hearing is believing Ben Goldacre Fri 3 Feb 2006 So let's talk about the high end hi-fi industry. I wrote about their very expensive power cables last month, ranging from £30 to a whopping £1,800, for what is, after all, a kettle lead to connect your stereo to the three pin power socket in the wall. The various manufacturers claim that their cables will filter out radio frequency interference in the power cable, and that this will improve the sound. I doubted this, and the outpouring of bile that was subsequently vomited in my direction (references on badscience.net) surprised and delighted even me. But what was most interesting, to students of this stuff is that the angry outbursts came primarily from the natural constituency of Bad Science readers. Several were deeply wounded. Homeopathy was one thing, they said, but this time, I had clearly got it wrong. And that was when I started to notice the frightening similarities between the thought processes of the alternative therapy fans and the hi-fi freaks. Both make an appeal to personal experience, as the highest and most valid form of measurement; both use mystifying, scientific-sounding terminology in their publicity material; and both use the appeal to authority. But the most striking parallel is the widespread notion in the hi-fi community that blinded trials - where you ask listeners to identify a cable without knowing if it's cheap or expensive - are somehow intrinsically flawed. This is exactly the card that the alternative therapy community have been playing, almost since blinded trials were invented. I give you the editor of Stereophile, a respected hi-fi magazine of 33 years standing. He's talking about blinded tests on amplifiers:"It seems," he says, "that with such blind listening tests, all perceived subjective differences ... fall away ... when you have taken part in a number of these blind tests and experienced how two amplifiers you know from personal experience to sound extremely different can still fail to be identified under blind conditions ..." Now I'm getting worried. Here comes the money shot. "... then perhaps an alternative hypothesis is called for: that the very procedure of a blind listening test can conceal small but real subjective differences." Ouch. "Having taken part in quite a number of such blind tests, I have become convinced of the truth in this hypothesis." What voodoo is this? If there is a difference to be heard, then you will hear it. -------- The full Grauniad article can be found here. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2006/feb/04/badscience.uknews |
| Post removed |
