Why HiFi Gear Measurements Are Misleading (yes ASR talking to you…)

Those things are called "reality". If you want to be a part of "reality" please post your system and pics online, otherwise you have 0 facts, fundamental or otherwise.

Whatever gear thespeakerdude happens to own has no bearing on whether his statements are true or not.

 

@prof : so, you mean you own the Devore speakers?

Huh?   No I ended up choosing Joseph Audio Perspective speakers.   Still love the heck out of the Devore sound, but wasn't ultimately a good fit for my room.  What possible point do you think your question makes?

 

And I am very curious: why do you pretend to be something / someone you are not? Everyone knows where you belong in the Great Debate. Do you have the testicular fortitude to say it? 

 

What in the world are you on about?  You just asked for an example of a subjective oriented thread in which I participate...I give you a WHOPPER of just such a thread, and now you are dancing around to some weird conspiracy theory or something?

What...I've spent the last 5 years on that thread exchanging only subjective impressions of gear...but it was all in the service of a cover for my Secret Identity in which I don't REALLY care about the subjective impressions that fill that thread?

You are clearly not here for a meaningful or serious exchange.  So long...

 

 

P.s. I don’t read your posts.

You CLEARLY read each of my posts in this thread and follow up asking me questions directed at what I’d written. But then tell me "you don’t read my posts."

Do you imagine you are fooling anyone at all?

 

I am not a hypocrite.

Given you were lecturing Amir on decorum, I think you fit that definition quite well. One could add "liar" (for claiming not to read my posts when you clearly do - in fact you are still even QUOTING my posts!). And of course: Troll. Collect ’em all....

 

 

If one thing is now predictable in the audiophile world, it's that any discussion of ASR in forums like this will result in reams of misunderstandings, misrepresentations.   I mean..just...wow...this thread is like a straw man menagerie!

I've been a member of Agon for a long time and still enjoy this place for discussing the subjective aspects of audio.   And I'm often defending subjective impressions and reports on ASR.    But threads like this remind me of why I'm so glad ASR also exists.

 

 

 

@thyname 

 

First: please interact like an adult.  Thanks.

 

For the below: please point to one single “subjective aspect of audio” thread you still enjoy and participate in. I am genuinely curious 

 

 

You don't come off as "genuinely" interested in your post to me, but it is curious that you've been here a long time yet seem unfamiliar with my many posts describing the sound of equipment.   I have for instance a years long on-going thread - currently almost 76,000 views! - in which I report my subjective impressions of many speakers as I audition them:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/contemplating-devore-speakers-and-others-long-audition-report-of

 

 

 

 

@nyev

I appreciate the philosophical spirit in which you made your original post and have presented your view in the thread.

However, the reasoning in your OP is very problematic. It is a version of the "They called Galileo crazy" argument.

"They" (in the modern reference, now it’s science) thought something wasn’t possible but "it turned out they were proven wrong!"

Yes, that is true sometimes. But you should see the issue immediately: HOW was anyone proven correct? By....The Science! Right?

In other words, by strong, rigorous methods of empirical inquiry! That is how we weed out the justified claims from all the competing ones!

There are countless ideas that people believe, but the only rational way to sift through which ones are likely or true is to wait for the strong evidence any claim demands!

Remember that for literally EVERY crazy idea anyone has ever proposed, every bit of pseudoscience, every spiritual claim, every wild "cure," claim you can find at your run of the mill New Age Festival, you will always find people saying "You shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss this, science hasn’t explained EVERYTHING you know, and people like Galileo were thought crazy at first too!!!!"

It is THE go-to hand-wave in defense of bunkum. And that should be a huge red flag for you.

So the problem isn't that you are necessarily wrong in what you may happen to believe; it's that your reasoning can be used "in defense" of literally anything, and hence it’s not much of a reason to help justifying believing anything in particular.

Since people can make up any claim they like, and also people can imagine all sorts of things, when faced with a dubious claim, for instance a technically controversial claim in audio, the rational stance isn’t to say "so it’s ok to believe this because who knows if it will be found true via science in the future." It’s to WAIT for science (or engineering) to sift THAT claim out of the countless other competing claims, as actually being true or justified.

And also, if CURRENT electrical and psycho acoustic theory and practice points to a claim being highly unlikely, then it makes sense to want some rigorous evidence in favor of that claim. Anecdotes are not that evidence.

BTW, you say you’ve distinguished all sorts of things in blind tests, including USB and AC cables? Can you describe your test protocol?

 

 

 

 

@prof I will not pretend I read your reply.

 

Of course you didn't.  Your trollish behavior was obvious in every post.

Now, I'm not sure what some people get out of such behavior on forums, but...hey...if you choose to keep sitting yourself in the dunking cage to throw out ham-fisted "critiques" and attempts to insult...don't be surprised if you keep getting dunked ;-)

 

 

@prof : don’t be shocked. We both know what I mean. Are you still in good terms with master? All the good work you are doing here must pay dividends and must not go unnoticed by master 😉

^^^^ This from the guy trying to "tut tut" Amir for being insulting.

 

Grow up.

 

please describe your test protocols you conducted in choosing your current speakers vs. the Devore speakers you must surely conducted when choosing your current speakers

 

If you bothered to read my posts that I linked to you’d know the answer: No blind test. All sighted conditions.

Which means I happily admit some forms of bias may be playing part in my impressions. But I’ve defended why I’m fine with that many times on ASR. Unlike, say, the case of super high priced USB cables, it is not technically controversial that different speaker designs sound different. In fact it is well documented in theory and practice. So, while sighted bias can always play a roll, it is not at all implausible to be hearing distinct character differences between different speaker designs.

If you think you have found some "gotcha" (which is all you care about) you haven’t a clue.

If you find this confusing or seemingly inconsistent, it’s because you see things as "either/or" and don’t care to understand a nuanced position where both objective and subjectivity play a roll. So, check your own dogmatism.

 

So, you admit this, but, at the same time, you questioned someone’s findings without posting proof of blind test? I call this hypocrisy. Please correct me if I misunderstood 

You aren't trying to understand.  You glossed right over the fact I already gave the answer.

But for anyone else reading:  As I said, the difference is:  the proposition that different speaker designs will be quite audible is not only uncontroversial: it is well established in practice, theory and also via classic scientific methods (e.g. blind testing of speakers).

That is NOT the case for many of the more controversial claims in audio, such as that expensive USB cables will sound "better" than properly functioning cheap USB cables, or similar claims.

Therefore it makes sense to treat the more controversial claims more skeptically.

Of course such obvious differences will be hard to spot if someone is wearing black-and-white blinders and can only see in an "either/or" manner.

@prof : I would appreciate it if you answered my few questions 

 

P.s. I don’t read your posts.

I have never heard a haze when listening to an SS amp,

Likewise.  I've done plenty of listening to SS and tube amps, never heard this SS "haze" of which he spoke.

Some people project their own impressions as some objective truth, as if just claiming something means it's true and "has to be explained."

Amir showing up here is like Richard Dawkins dropping in to a Church revival ;-)

 

 

 

 

@nyev

 

But over time, and not a heck of a lot of time, say 2-3 weeks of “living with” a component, I find that I can arrive at a more stable and true subjective assessment of a component. One that personally, I find goes beyond what the measurements can tell us.

 

The thing is, if you are starting with a flawed methodology - in your case sighted listening - using the same flawed methodology over a longer time doesn’t yield more reliable results. Biases can modify, or settle in over time, and you may be attributing this to the gear rather than changes in your perception, which has been Amir’s point.

The thing is most of us really don’t want to be told...or learn...our perception isn’t reliable. We stake so much on it. But, reality doesn’t bend to our desires, human foibles are what they are.

Now in talking about blind testing like this the hackles will often go up "hold on, so you are telling us we can’t rely at all on our perception? Now we have to blind test everything or we can’t have an opinion or do this hobby?"

No. Not exactly.

First of all, clearly our perception IS relatively reliable. We get through the day using our senses. And blind testing is not easy, and depending on the gear can be utterly impractical. I don’t think any audiophile HAS to engage in blind testing or pay attention to audio science. We can all do whatever we want.

HOWEVER, the fact is we have biases and they are relevant. If we don’t acknowledge that variable, we are simply being ignorant.

So given blind testing (and often, measuring) is impractical for many audiophiles, how to navigate these problems? One way is to just say "look, I don’t care about measurements or blind testing, I’ll go just on what I seem to hear." Fine and dandy for anyone who wants to do that. But IF you are going to take your impressions and make claims to other audiophiles based on those impressions, especially if they are dubious claims in light of generally accepted technical theory and practice, then you shouldn’t be surprised if some audiophiles hold a skeptical opinion and point out they would prefer more rigorous data - e.g. measurements/listening tests controlling for biases - before they accept such a claim about said piece of gear.

So nobody has to do blind testing to conclude what they want, but IF we want to be more careful about conclusions - learning from what the scientific method has to tell us - THEN it makes sense to look for evidence that is less susceptible to run of the mill sighted bias effects.

And, though blind testing may be inconvenient for most of us, there is plenty of engineering, testing, science out there ALREADY done by competent people, that we can look to when trying to evaluate a claim about equipment.

So, the way I navigate the problem of the impracticality of blind testing everything, vs recognizing the variable of human bias is basically a heuristic like ’Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.’

So, if someone tells me they auditioned some Wilson Audio speakers and some MBL speakers and they describe the differences they heard, I’m perfectly happy to provisionally accept they heard those differences. Sure, could be some bias involved, but it’s also extremely likely they heard real sonic characteristics in each.

That there are audible differences between speakers is well established by theory, practice, experience, measurable evidence and even listening tests controlled for sighted biases.

That’s not the case for some of the claims in high end audio, though. The claim that an expensive USB or AC cable will likely alter the sound from any cheap (competently designed) cable IS quite technically controversial. Many knowledgeable people (the ones not selling such stuff) will explain why this his highly unlikely given how those things work. So...for THAT type of claim I personally will raise the bar for the evidence. I’ve had the personal experience of "hearing obvious sonic differences" between cheap AC and high end AC cables, but when I performed blind tests where I didn’t know which was being used, none of the sonic differences were there at all and my guesses were random.

So when an audiophile swears up and down he heard something "so obvious" when changing a USB or AC cable, I’ve learned that we really can have very strong but erroneous impressions (something science has told us for a long time).

It won’t matter if the anecdotes pile up, because they are all using the same method that allows for sighted bias. I’ll wait until I see measurements showing actual changes in the audio signal and/or people able to reliably pass blind tests for choosing between such cables.

Neither you, nor anyone else here, needs to have the same criteria I do.  Follow your bliss.   But there ARE good reasons for having such criteria and it shouldn’t be seen as some sort of heresy for which the skeptical person is made a villain, just by giving this reasoning.

 

Cheers.

 

 

 

 

 

Tube always has inferior freq. response to SS amp and higher distortion but most people will favor tubes due to its more musical nature. 

 

On what do you base this claim?

I myself like my tube amps, but so what?  The vast majority of audiophiles use solid state amplification and are very happy with it.  (And that includes many who have compared with tube amps, or who had previously owned tube amps).

 

The "haze" that you keep speaking of remains completely anecdotal so it doesn't really address Amir's points about how to reliably make such determinations.

 

prof,

If I remember correctly, you had stated you could not hear any difference in cables.

Yes.  So far.  Once I've controlled for sighted bias.

Without controls, I can "hear" differences like anyone else, because I'm human.

Can you demonstrate you can hear differences between cables...when you aren't allowed to peek?  (That is, when you aren't allowed to know which cable you are listening to?)    There isn't much evidence out there of people being able to do this.

As for my hearing, I've been using hearing protection for many decades and I have exceptional hearing for my age.  Plus my job depends on my being able to identify extremely minute differences - literally matching the subtle "air tone" between room recordings, or playing back 20 tracks listening for the tiniest artifact that might be flagged by a mix, etc.  So I don't get to just say on the internet that I can hear things others can't: I'm in a rubber meets the road scenario where I have to demonstrate it.

Further, if you look at my long thread in which I report on speakers I've audtitioned, the consensus is that I have been quite accurate.

So...if you mean to go the route of "prof just doesn't have sensitive enough hearing" it will not be very fruitful for you. 

If that is the case, I am not sure I can take your words seriously.

Cool.   I'll take your words more seriously when you produce some objective evidence for your claims about solid state amp "haze" or if you can show you can reliably identify between cables under conditions controlling for your imagination - that is, when you aren't allowed to peek. 

 

@andy2

 

You seem to be backtracking now from your previous claim which was:

 

"Why then SS amp ALWAYS has a haze where as tube amps always has a transparent sound "

(emphasis mine)

There is no evidence you’ve given to support this. The last SS amp I had in my system to compare to my CJ tube amps was a Bryston 4B3 and there was no "haze" that you mention to that amp, nor to any other SS amp I’ve ever heard.

And if anything it is more transparent than the average tube amp (which can include many expensive tube amps - see Stereophile measurements).

Whether we are talking about beginner audiophiles or audiophiles who have managed to acquire top end gear, it’s still the case solid state generally seems more popular and I see no consensus at all on this "haze."

A lot of audiophiles project and generalize their own impressions as some form of "truth" which makes these conversations a bit fraught.

 

 

@amir_asr

Problem is, when most of you are put to blind tests, you flunk being able to tell the source from the compressed one. And no, resolving system has nothing to do with it. The fact that you say that tells me you don’t know what it takes to hear such differences. As a trained listener in this domain, I can tell differences with just about any headphone on any system.

Yes, this is, I find, one of the most common myths among audiophiles. Whenever someone raises skeptical doubts about claims made about, say the audible character of cables, the response if the skeptic doesn’t agree is the "ears or gear" - either you don’t have the hearing acuity the Golden Eared Audiophile does, or your system just isn’t "resolving enough" like you need a "super resolving system" to hear these differences.

There are various problems with this idea:

1. Subtle sonic differences, if real, can be heard across a large range of transducers. Sure we can get to something like the worst laptop audio or whatever, but it really doesn’t take THAT much to produce speakers on which you can hear very subtle differences. I’ve worked in tons of different studio conditions, different monitors, headphones of varying quality and ALL have allowed me to hear and make the subtle changes I need to for my job. Give me an old pair of radio shack minimus 7 speakers and if I do a subtle EQ tweak to bring out the upper mids, you will hear it!

 

2. The type of sonic differences often ascribed to (for instance) cables is often fairly dramatic - the "highs opening up" the bass becoming more punchy or extended, more forward in tonal balance, more laid back etc. These are all qualities, if that obvious, should be audible on most speakers. It’s why different mastering is obvious on most speakers, from cheap to expensive.

 

3. We have audiophiles reporting these "obvious sonic differences" across a wide range of systems and speakers. It’s not just the well-heeled audiophiles with the Super Resolving Systems. Just go to the typical amazon page for some set of audiophile cables (even not expensive ones) and you’ll see audiophiles with very modest systems reporting "obvious differences" with the cables in question.

From this you have either two implications for those making the Resolving System demand:

A. It’s a red herring to demand that someone must own a Very Resolving System in order to evaluate whether a cable is making a difference.

Or:

B. If these differences aren’t obvious on less resolving systems, plenty of those audiophiles with modestly ’resolving’ systems are imagining they are hearing differences between cables. Which would only emphasize the problem variable of listener bias in the first place.

 

 

Your tone and how you almost bully people into listening to you is rather rude. Hence why virtually every audio forum on the web has labelled you all kinds of silly names.

Or...many people are triggered by having their own subjective conclusions challenged.

"How dare Amir tell us what we can and can not hear!"

It's taken personally, so often the response is to go ad hominem on Amir, call him names or dogmatic etc.  When often it is the more "subjective-based" audiophile who is closing his ranks around his beliefs.

Amir has actually responded quite civilly to those engaging him likewise.

And his response was even quite measured to those implying he is dishonest or colluding.

I certainly don't mean to paint anyone as a saint, Amir included.  But there is a lot of assumptions made that I find come from a bias on the "subjective" side, where they see what they think are pushiness from ASR, while turning a blind eye to the type of ad hominem and insults from "their own side."

 

This is a subjective hobby after all, isn’t it, or do you guys just sit around and look at charts, graphs and oscilloscopes. I enjoy the music more because I don’t worry about how my equipment measures.

 

The same could be said about non-audiophiles, who don’t even bother putting the amount of effort you have in to what they listen on. People just listening in laptops, iphones, earbuds, enjoying music and getting on with life.

But we audiophiles care about sound quality, and are also fascinated by audio gear (which is why sites like this exist).

The degree to which anyone is fussing over something will vary among individuals and have little to do whether one is in the "measurements camp" or the "listening only" camp; it will depend on the individual or even what particular stage they are at (e.g. in "upgrade/auditioning equipment" mode or sitting back enjoying the system mode).

So, sure you can find ASR members who spend a lot of time fussing over measurements (doesn’t mean they aren’t enjoying their system too). You can also find plenty who just bought some gear based on the available measurements and...that’s that. They just sit back and enjoy.

Alternatively you can find plenty of "subjectivist" audiophiles who endlessly fuss over their speakers/amps/DACs/tubes/cables etc "breaking in" or all manner of tweaky stuff that you won’t find ASR members worrying about. And you can also find more subjective members who aren’t fussing like that and are just enjoying their system - some change their gear a lot, other’s don’t.

So there isn’t any in principle sense in which looking at measurements means someone isn’t able to just enjoy their system. You may enjoy reading a subjective review about equipment, someone else may enjoy reading how a particular thing measured. It’s all good.

after all, remember, for 25 odd years scientific researchers assumed that reports of audible meteors were figments of the observer’s imagination!

 

So...because you can point to something science might have gotten wrong, the lesson is...anything goes? If someone makes a claim that is, on the basis of the current science, outrageous, does the fact science has been wrong at points mean there’s no basis to doubt anti-scientific claims?

See...this is the mushiness of such a position. Perpetual Motion Machines are impossible based on current understanding of physics. Yet someone claiming they know a guy building Perpetual Motion Machines in his basement can also say "Don't be so skeptical!  Remember...science has been wrong before! Remember the meteors!"

Does that for even a moment give more credence to the claim someone is really making Perpetual Motion machines? Of course not. You can’t use anomalies where science got something wrong...which by the way is always corrected by science!...as if science doesn’t really have an excellent grasp on many things.

People are ripped off every day of the year by people selling things with the tag line "It Works! And Maybe Some Day Science Will Catch Up To Our Discovery. They Called Galileo Crazy, Remember!"

The reasonable approach isn’t to believe something dubious "because maybe science got this wrong." It’s rather to wait for solid evidence, if necessary scientific evidence, showing THAT phenomenon is real vs the countless propositions that are false.

 

@tempostarship

 

I’m not sure if you meant it this way, but your post could imply that a "skeptic" or "objectivist" is the one not having an open mind.

To be clear, that is far from the case. Whether it’s Amir or me or some other like-minded folk, we are open to ANYTHING that is true! That is the whole point of doing rigorous inquiry. We simply ask for good evidence for a claim, especially if it’s an extraordinary claim relative to current generally accepted theory or practice.

Given that countless wild claims are made every day, what other approach could be more reasonable? One should always be "open minded" in the sense of being open to any evidence for some new thing, and ready to overturn any current beliefe we have based on good evidence. But that should always be in the context of how plausible a claim is, and what type of evidence has been provided. We have built bodies of hard-won...and PREDICTIVE knowledge....by being very, very careful this way. If "open mindedness" is not tempered by critical thinking this way, then being "open-minded "may as well be a synonym for a lack of critical thinking about claims - to be vulnerable or gullible.

For instance, if I claim I could sell you a perpetual motion machine, which would solve your energy bill permanently, how "open minded" do you think you should be to the truth of my claim? Wouldn’t your skepticism...and a high demand for evidence, be quite warranted?

It is a mistake to presume skepticism or demands for good evidence equates to close-mindedness.

 

 

 

cleeds,

Amir does listen to much of what he reviews. You know it.

And in the instances he does not, when you say Amir merely has a "wordy rationalizations to justify that - undermines whatever science he’s trying to pursue."

That is a completely unsupported claim on your part. He may well have a perfectly good justification. It’s like if you claimed that I need to come to your place to see your Perpetual Motion machine, and if I point out that current understanding of physics suggests your claim is so unlikely it’s not worth my while to make such a trip. The reason for not bothering to "go see your perpetual machine" would BE based on currently understood science!    You could try to dismiss my reasons as some "wordy rationalization" but that does NOT actually address the REASONS. It’s just a dismissal of an argument using a lazy characterization rather than an actual rebuttal.

Likewise, if Amir doesn't listen to a certain component after measuring, he may well be justified based on all sorts of studies and science that tell us "X won't be audible."

If you want to point to specific examples to make your case, and you can show why Amir was unjustified in not listening...be my guest.

 

 

 

 

That's the logical fallacy of the Exluded Middle. Don't be silly.

 

No it's not.  It was an example of a lazy argument I was flagging one not to fall in to, and therefore leaving it open to you to justify your position.  I didn't foreclose that you had a good argument; I asked for the argument.

 

I've already done that. In my view, a test of an audio component is not complete without a listening evaluation. I understand you disagree, and that Amir disagrees vehemently. So be it.

 

Sure, that's fine.  Except that opinion offers no justification for your characterization of Amir's position, re any specific instance where he didn't listen.  It still hangs in the air looking like a lazy dismissal, rather than engaging his reasons.  Hence...my previous example remains relevant.

 

@assetmgrsc

 

OK, I’ll bite -- who or what is ASR and why should I care?

 

ASR = Audio Science Review:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php

It’s a forum that looks to more objective or reliable ways of evaluating audio gear, essentially taking the lessons from science as to the importance of controlling for variables, seeking more reliable results, etc.

Basically, if an audio manufacturer makes some claims for their product, the ASR approach is to not simply rely on the subjective anecdotes of audiophiles, but to look to measurements first of all to see if they claims are plausible or justified, and also when possible to control for sighted bias for listening tests (blind testing).

The site founder, Amir, is highly technically qualified and knowledgeable, owns some of the best measurement tools you can get, and has produced a huge number of gear reviews - speakers, amps, dacs, phono stages, cables, you name it. ASR has made huge waves in the audiophile community and Amir’s video reviews are filled with appreciative comments for the knowledge and gear evluation he is putting out.

Why should you care?

Well, depends on what you care about. How much do you care whether a claim about a piece of gear is true or not? If you are in the "if I think I (or someone else) hears a difference, that’s all I need" camp, then ASR won’t be for you.

But if you care more deeply about what is really going on with audio gear, to understand it, and use that knowledge to make decisions, then it can be very helpful.

For instance Amir has reviewed expensive cables (USB for instance) from Nordost and other companies, and shown they don’t improve the signal at all, certainly not in any audible way, over readily available cheaper cables. It would be up to you what you do with such information. Some audiophiles will always stick with "what I think I hear" and discard such evaluations. Others (like myself) will use this information to learn what to worry about or not in audio, and I’ll prefer to put my money to gear that is more likely to improve the sound.

 

 

invalid,

Amir doesn't do a perfect job.  He's the first one to point out that, far from running a "cult", his reviews are often put under heavy scrutiny - and criticism where warranted - by ASR members.

 

That statement in itself is subjective.

 

Of course it isn’t a subjective claim. It’s an objective empirical claim. It’s either true or false, and testable.

 

I don’t think ASR has any data on whether something is within or beyond our hearing threshold.

Then you aren’t familiar with ASR. Amir often references studied threshholds for human hearing (including as I recall, tests he was part of producing in developing codecs).

The tests they produce cannot be used to say whether something sounds warm, bright, musical, thin, analytical, has a wide/narrow soundstage ... and so much more.

1. Blind tests can determine if there is a detectable difference in any of those qualities between different gear.

2. I don’t mean this as an insult, but you seem to be projecting your own ignorance of what is known about the correlation of measurements and what we hear. We know plenty about what combination of harmonics create which timbres (how do you think synths have managed to mimic real instruments). Any good mixer understands which frequency changes will influence most of the qualities you mention:

 

I use EQ all the time to alter warmth, body, brightness, thinness, etc.

So if you know enough about frequency response, you can predict to a certain degree how various deviations from neutral will sound (and Amir provides among the best measurements you can get, including for speakers).

You CAN predict what you won’t hear via many measurements. And when it comes to complex outputs like speakers, it may be difficult to totally predict how you will hear something from the measurements, but that is different from the outright denial of the correlation of measurements to sonic character that you seem to be arguing.

 

One more time:

kota1,

Someone's high end acquisitions don't give any more credibility in terms of making technical claims about audio. Someone could own Magico M9 speakers and still be clueless about how audio works.  Also, there is no high end brand of gear that protects someone against the same bias effects that would occur for any other audio gear.

For instance, if you understood how the Klippel Analyzer System that Amir uses worked, you wouldn’t be raising the red herring of measuring the room. The whole point of that analyzer is to REMOVE the influences of the room to gain an accurate measurement of the on and off axis behaviour of the speakers! It's why it's a revolution - you don't need an anechoic chamber to get these measurements!  And from that, those measurements help predict how a speaker might perform in various rooms e.g. if a speaker sends a lot of ragged sound off-axis and you put it in a smaller room especially you are likely to get that mixed in the sound with reflections and it will sound poorer than one with even off axis behaviour...etc. Some speakers will be more finicky than others, and will also be less amenable to EQ or room correction fixes than others. ASR is literally following the best science we have on this!

cleeds,

Do you not see your ill logic in this matter, or are you just funnin’ with us?

I presume you are "funnin' with me.

You couldn't possibly have so misunderstood the point of what I wrote so badly.

Think about it.

Anyone with enough money could purchase any speaker you want to name.  Does that make someone technically knowledgeable? 

Vs.

Someone who owns - and most important! - UNDERSTANDS how to use a Klippel Anlayzer.

And kota1 literally demonstrated the difference between owning hi-fi gear and having a technical understanding (of how ASR measures speakers and why).

 

@alexatpos

I have met many people who are ’technically knowledgeable’ but have no clue how to set up a ’good’ hi fi system and vice versa.

 

Technically knowledgeable about what? About how audio gear works? If so, I’m doubtful about your claim. I’ve never met someone technically knowledgeable about audio gear who wasn’t able to set up a nice system. In fact there are tons of examples in the ASR forum. (Amir being one of many examples - have you seen his system?)

On the other hand, if you are calling these technically knowledgeable audiophile’s system "bad"; who made you the judge? This hints of audiophile snobbery.

We may argue what makes a ’good’ system, but if you claim that you cant hear difference between usb cables (you have mentioned such case before,it was Nordost in question) than the whole point of discussing is pointless

Discussing USB calbes would only be rendered "pointless" if YOU rendered it pointless, not me. I’m skeptical about audiophile USB cables but I don’t close the conversation: I’m open to being wrong and thus open to any good evidence they can sound different. If you refuse to discuss the issue just because someone else has a different view or experience, then that suggests a close minded dogmatism on your behalf. Why be that way? It’s just cables.

But, I really, really cant understand what drives you, (or anybody else that shares your beleifs) in a attempt where you are trying to ’explain’ to people, who have different perspective or experience, that they are ’wrong’?

Why is it confusing at all to you that an audiophile on an audio forum is bringing his perspective? What in the world do you think enthusiast sites like this are for?

In reacting to my views, I believe you are operating on a bias that you don’t see (which of course is the nature of bias). Step back and consider: Many here just assume various cables sound different, including USB cables. So if you or someone else says "I use X USB cable because it sounded better than X USB cable" you wouldn’t blink, nor would many others. It’s not uncontroversial to you to state that USB (or other) cables sound different. But as soon as another audiophile offers a different view - "I didn’t hear any difference" or...gasp...holds the view that it is highly unlikely for a USB cable to sound different!...then you seem disturbed by this and wonder what could ever drive someone to produce such opinions!

Well it’s the same thing that drives you or anyone else to give YOUR opinions. Except you seem to regard an opposing opinion as heretical - not one you want to even have a discussion with, and one that has you confuse that someone would even explain or defend. That is...really weird if you think about it.

Does any consumer needs ’Klippel Anlayzer’ or blind test, or what ever else to determine what he actually hears?

Did you notice how many times I’ve said no audiophile needs to ever even think about measurements or blind testing if they don’t want to?

However, the results of a Klippel Analysis can be correlated with what IS known about perceived sound quality in speakers. It’s been well studied what kind of measurements will tend to be perceived as "better" by listeners...only listening to the sound (and not going by what they see). It doesn’t mean it’s perfectly predictive for every individual, but it IS informative about the sonic characteristics of a speaker, and can be used to predict which speakers will be more problematic for placement in various rooms vs others.

I mean...are you just flat out rejecting any known research and any advancement in speaker measurements? I hope not. And if not...what is the problem with discussing these techniques?

Building a great hi fi system can be delicate endeavour,

Ok. But people have different approaches, and that’s ok, right?

 

and than we have you, the ASR crowd, for whom, most of the gear sounds the same...

I suspect you have an exaggerated notion of what the ASR crowd believes...and what I believe. I think almost every component I have sounds different from possible alternatives. (Cables less so).

 

which is great, but for you...do what you like, be happy and leave others to do the same...

And buried in that proposal is the bias I’ve been trying to point out to you.

Why in the world do you believe I am "not letting others do the same?"

There is literally nothing in what I’ve written denying any audiophile "has" to share the ASR approach, much less my personal approach, and in fact I’ve been explicit about that. You and others here can go on all day on your views of how cables etc sound different. Yet merely explaining my reasons for having an alternative opinion on certain things - e.g. claims made about USB cables - is characterized as some sort of harassment. Like I’m "not letting you" buy whatever you want and enjoy whatever you want.

It might be worth questioning why you take a certain view as a "default" and find yourself so hostile to alternative opinions, seeing them as harrasment, rather than just a civil exchange of viewpoints and approaches.

 

Cheers.

alexatpos,

 

Again, it’s clear that you have a bias operating that is causing you to place a very negative spin on someone else’s perspective. You are seeing "sins" that are not there.

First, I have not "demanded" you do anything.

I have given my justification for how I personally approach claims about audio gear. Yes, some of the justification entails my not simply believing everything you or any other audiophile claims to hear, because I’m aware of the problem of all too human bias in our perception. But why would any mature adult see that as "rude?"

First of all: do you think all opinions, claims and viewpoints are equally likely and justified? Surely that can’t be, right? If I have the opinion the earth is flat...do you think it is wrong..."ill mannered" even to give reasons why that belief is likely in error?

If someone claims to see X-rays, should that be greeted as equally probable? If someone points out why that is extremely unlikely, why should any reasonable adult greet that as "ill mannered" rather than "trying to be informative?"

Why would we have a strange "anything goes, all things are equally probable on anyone’s opinion" in high end audio? That doesn’t make sense, right?

So if an audiophile is saying "I hear a difference between my expensive USB cable and a properly functioning off-the-shelf USB cable"...someone skeptical of that idea would have to explain WHY they are skeptical. That would include appeal to the nature of how USB/digital signals work and why such claims are unlikely, and also to scientific facts about how our biases can influence our perception, to "perceive" things that aren’t there.

If you take such arguments as being out of bounds and "ill mannered" - because they dare to question the ideas of another audiophile - then you are practicing a religious-like dogmatism, a sort of "questioning anyone's personal view or claimed experience is heresy and not to be countenanced here!"

Why be like that?

My son was involved in a study for a new allergy treatment. It was double blinded placebo controlled. We weren’t allowed to know if he was recieving the active ingrediant or the placebo. Why? Because bias effects - imagining side effects, misinterpreting things etc - are well known variables that need to be controlled for.

Would it have been mature of us to say "How DARE you challenge OUR ability to know what we are experiencing! Your lack of trust is INSULTING!"

That would be just a pure misunderstanding of the real problem the study is designed to address, right?

Yet this is just the type of behavior one often sees here lest anyone voice some skepticism which also has some basis on the facts we really can imagine differences and misperceive things, in audio as anywhere else. It’s greeted, as you are greeting it, as if it’s "rude" and some personal attack.

I’m trying to get you to see this bias because it would be much more fruitful for discussions here if you - and others - stop interpreting any challenge to what you believe, even strongly, as an attack or "rude." It really is that type of reaction that sets these discussions off course. It starts with actually admitting "I Could Be Wrong." Which is always my own assumption and why I’m open to any discussion about why I could be wrong.

@thespeakerdude 

 

Yep.

This is the strong bias that so many bring to these discussions.  They view their own opinions on how to evaluate gear as the default - e.g. "The Only Way To Truly Evaluate Gear Is By Listening To It, Like We Do"  and make all sorts of claims based on their viewpoint. 

The fact that view might be opposed to another audiophile's approach here doesn't bother them.  But as soon as an alternative opinion or approach is voiced, it's greeted as some form of heresy or dogmatism or harassment.   It's only seen as a one-way street.

This is what bias and dogmatism do to one's perception.

Personally I'm always happy to discuss any point of view in audio.  If someone thinks I'm wrong it's not a personal attack.  We can (or should be able to) discuss the arguments and evidence for why we hold a viewpoint.

 

Missionary at work …..

Ok thyname.   If we are comparing whose position is dogmatic...

I start with a skepticism about my own perception - an acknowledgement of the fallibility of my perception (and reasoning).  Because this is a feature of being human.  Therefore it seems to me that if I REALLY want to be cautious about

a conclusion, I will want to see this factored in to any proposed method of evaluating gear.

And since I don't have all the time in the world, I want some method of guiding where I put my time and money.  So I'll also look to what is technically plausible, to help scale my skepticism and the type of evidence I will prefer.   It's like if someone told me they just bought a 4K TV at Best Buy, I won't bother being skeptical, it's an entirely plausible claim.  If they said they just bought an anti-gravity machine...then based on the inherent improbability, I'll hold off for stronger evidence than their say-so.

Likewise with things like expensive USB cables.  Insofar as I understand how they work, the type of claims often made by audiophiles - and cable companies - for sonic differences are often implausible.  Therefore I would wait for stronger evidence, in the form of measurable differences to the signal and/or listening tests that have controlled for sighted bias.

Of course I could be WRONG about the technical implausibility of the claims.  I am therefore open to arguments for the claims, which I will put against the skeptical case against them to see how they hold up.  I could be WRONG that I can't hear a difference between A or B.  I can always do a blind test to check (I've done several, some positive for differences, others not). I could be WRONG in thinking that someone hearing a sonic difference between their expensive USB cables was due to their imagination.  I am therefore OPEN to evidence I'm wrong - again someone could show measurable changes in a signal, or show they can detect sonic differences in conditions controlling for their sighted bias.

So..my whole approach STARTS with an acknowledgement of my fallibity in perception and reasoning - something all humans share - and tries to account for this in how I approach claims, and also remains perpetually open to arguments or evidence that I'm wrong.  

There is nothing wrong per se about coming to a conclusion on any subject.  We all have to do that to some degree.   What IS a problem is not having an approach that is open to MODIFYING or overturning that conclusion.   Of not being able to say: "this is how I can find out I"m wrong."   THAT is where the true lack of open-mindedness becomes the problem.

This is basically a version of the scientific mindset.

(And it is the view generally shared on ASR )

Now...please explain your alternative to this.

I've been asking audiophiles in the "Listening Is Supreme" camp for a long time:

What Could Show You Are Wrong?

I've never received an answer.   Not once.

By this I mean: If you feel that the most reliable method of evaluating gear is based on whatever you believe you hear..

1. How can you find out when you are in error?

2. What evidence can someone ELSE bring to you, that would overturn your belief?

3.  What would convince you that your very approach to evaluating gear should be re-evaluated?

From what I usually see among such audiophiles...nothing.  So for instance, if an audiophile believes he hears a difference between a Nordost USB cable and a cheap USB cable, my bringing the SAME method of evaluation won't be good enough to challenge their claim.  If I report "I heard no difference" the reply is inevitably "well then you either have a system that can't resolve the difference, or you don't have hearing good enough to resolve the difference.  But They Are There!  I Can Hear Them!"  And...oh...btw "don't bring measurements in to this, we can't measure everything that I Know I Can Hear."

What POSSIBLE evidence can you bring to someone like this, that they are wrong? They've dismissed objective evidence, and will dismiss any subjective evidence as well, because they can ALWAYS say "Well, if others aren't hearing it, too bad for them, but I Know What I Hear."

 

 

 

 

@prof I think we may have very different view on how science works,

 

That’s quite clear.

 

If something cant be ’scientifically’ proven and yet, ’existst’ (at least by testimonials of so many) than perhaps ’the scinece’ (or better the people who claim that they are ’scientists’) should try to find new methods or tools to examine those ’events’.

"Testimonials" are often not reliable. That’s why the scientific enterprise arose, why it overcame thousands of years of "he-said-she-said" testimonials to actually hugely improve our understanding (and predictions) of the world.

You can find many "testimonials" for literally every pseudoscience, cult, religious, new age, extreme belief that anyone has ever dreamed up. The whole point of science is to lift reliable evidence out of the morass of competing "testimonies."

You are approaching things backwards in this sense - assuming first that people are "hearing things" and then presuming that true, so science has to "catch up" to what you can hear. Whereas science would say first we need to control for variables like sighted bias to FIRST establish you actually CAN hear these things...when you don’t know what is playing.

 

And, yet, ’your camp’ (as A.would say) chooses the easy road by calling those claims as non existent.

No it’s not an "easy road." It’s often a very hard won road. You seem to imagine that being skeptical of a claim just comes out of nowhere, like it’s a whim. The reason many are skeptical about, for instance, high end cable claims is based on hundreds of years of electrical theory and practice, and similar lengths of times in which cables have been produced along accepted lines of theory.

There are videophiles for instance who claim to see obvious differences in color saturation, contrast, sharpness etc with "high end" HDMI cables over capable cheap HDMI cables. It’s not just a whim to be skeptical about this. HDMI cables literally do not work like that - they would not have worked as they have worked, if the theory behind them was THAT wrong. And of course, we have no measurable evidence, just the claims of people who are "sure" they see these things. Science doesn’t have to "catch up" to what some videophiles see. First they need to demonstrate in controlled tests, or show measurements, indicating their claim is actually TRUE. THEN you go looking for the explanation.

Same for claims about various types of audio cables.

You want to talk about "taking the easy route?"

How about "I’m just going on what I think I hear, and that’s that. And even if I’m not an expert, what I think I hear trumps any expert argument to the contrary. I don’t have to explain how I hear this. The expert needs to do all the work ’catching up’ to what I claim to hear."

That’s about as "easy" and lazy a route as can be imagined.

 

 

 

@cleeds

Prof: They view their own opinions on how to evaluate gear as the default - e.g. "The Only Way To Truly Evaluate Gear Is By Listening To It, Like We Do" ...

Hey @prof that’s the logical fallacy known as the strawman argument. In fact, I’ve never seen anyone here make that claim, yet you put quotes around it.

You know very well the point I was making. Have you even forgotten the whole start of this thread?

Stated in the very OP of this thread:

"Takeaway - trust your senses! Science doesn’t always measure the right things, in the right ways, to fully explain what we are sensing. Therefore your sensory input comes first. You can try to figure out the science later."

This is clearly the Start With A Trust In Your Senses approach I’ve been talking about. And it has been echoed in various ways through the thread by others!

The idea is "start with what we believe we hear." That’s the bedrock. And then we can perhaps search for measurements to explain what we hear, but the point is First Trust The Hearing...and if we don’t find measurements support what we hear, well then it’s a problem with the measurements...we’ll have to wait for science/measurements to catch up to What We Can Hear.

This privileging of "Listening" over measurements has been echoed throughout this thread. And I’m sure you know it.

 

It seems to be your mission to convince others that they are wrong. That appears to be the root of the problem here and explains your increasing frustration.

I’m waiting for the day that you ever produce anything but a strawman of what I write, or my view. Your track record of misrepresenting me, or not responding to my actual arguments, borders on heroic.

(And of course all your argumentative replies don’t count as "trying to show why someone is wrong." How convenient).

 

 

 

@alexatpos 

Now, who am I to tell them, or to anybody that they are ’wrong’ ?

Do you live in a frame of mind where there is no knowledge, everything is only ever "opinion" so we can't ever explain why someone is "wrong?"

I hope not.  But if you don't...why do you think for a moment it is in principle "rude" or nobody's place to explain why a claim is likely incorrect?  Why can't one person point out another person may be in error?

But, if you say that my (or of many others) point of view (or hearing) is the fruit of my imagination than I would reserve the right to consider you rude...with exception to of all that people who are not mad enough to even consider getting involved in hi fi in the first place.

Which is just continuing the very problem I described in my post to you.

You are taking any suggestion of your fallibility as "being rude."   Why would you do that?   Aren't you fallible like anyone else...are do you consider yourself infallible?

If you don't consider yourself, and your perception, infallible, why would you consider the suggestion you MIGHT be wrong to be "rude?"  

That would be like in my example of my son in the scientific study - the study takes for granted our fallibility and seeks to account for it - no mature adult takes 'offense' at the idea they could be wrong, which includes...yes...imagining things through various biases.

When I bring skepticism to your claim to hear differences between USB cable I am not simply declaring that you are wrong and that you imagined differences.   It's more nuanced than that.  It's that the claim is inherently technically implausible given how USB and digital signals work, so some level of skepticism is warranted (and the reply to that skepticism would be to explain how the expensive cable would plausibly alter the signal!)

I'm also keeping in mind that we are all fallible and prone to perceptual biases, where we can misinterpret things - for instance misinterpret changes in our attention to sound, which can produce a different impression, as coming from the gear rather than how our brains work.

I have experienced this a number of times myself - experienced "hearing obvious differences" when I knew which gear was playing, but when controlling for sighted bias, those sonic differences were not detectable.

So I'm not declaring that you "didn't" hear a difference.  Only that it is an area of well known controversy and that you COULD have been subject to a bias effect, like any other human being.  Which is why I personally will prefer to wait for more reliable evidence for such claims.  You don't have to.  I'm explaining why I do.

Again, if you see my bringing forth these issues of all too human bias problems as "rude" then you may as well be declaring your own perception as infallible and out of bounds for questioning.

So...why be like this?  Why take the very possibility that you might be wrong as a personal insult?  It doesn't get us anywhere and it's unnecessary and misunderstanding the nature of the conversation and intentions.

 

 

 

 

 

alexatpos

But, dont patronise me by telling me that is all product of my vivid imagination.

*could be wrong.*   Because you are human.

Well, how do we broach possible differences when one side can't imagine they could be wrong about something?    It's basically being faced with dogma, which doesn't help anything.  

 

Again...think of where we'd be if people made the same objections you are making for scientific research.  Science has at it's core attempts to control for human bias - from it's experimental methods all the way up to vetting of the results by other parties (often even they are experimentally blinded to reduce known biases).   It would be ridiculous for scientists and their subjects to reject any controls for bias "because that would be INSULTING and indicate a patronizing lack of trust."   And yet...somehow you think this is the right attitude applied to audio equipment. 

 

On the other hand, here is another food for your thought. Event if it is (only imagination), I find it pretty consistent...hard to believe, isnt it?

Not at all.  If it's a bias effect:  Biases can be consistent or inconsistent.   People are like that. 

BTW, you wrote to Amir:

I have never met anybody who wants to spend more money on something that sounds worse.

And you probably haven't met any audiophile who wants to spend more money on something that sounds NO DIFFERENT than what he/she has, right?  (Unless we are talking just aesthetics/ergonomics or whatever).

This is where folks like Amir and sites like ASR become so valuable.  You can learn about what equipment is LIKELY to make no sonic difference, and see actual rigorous evaluations of gear in support of these ideas.   You get "here is the explanation for why an expensive USB cable is unlikely to alter the signal audibly" and then "let's do a test of this with an expensive USB cable" and the results support the argument being made - the results are predictable on the technical arguments made by Amir and others.

Tons of audiophiles have been very thankful to Amir for saving them money - this is helping them direct their money away from things that are unlikely to make a difference, to gear that IS likely to make an audible difference. 

Neither you nor anyone else needs to make the same decisions or pay attention to Amir's tests and technical explanations.  But can you see why many audiophiles appreciate his efforts?

The gulf between the level of substance and knowledge Amir is bringing to this conversation vs some of the empty sniping from the sidelines is fairly startling to behold.