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

 I am simply exposing a repeat violator of Audiogon policies. Is it not a violation to come back here with another username, when a previous one was banned? Not once, not twice, but at least 16 times that I am aware.

thespeakerdude

... Listening to lots of different systems does not give you experience ...

kota1

Yes it does, listening to lots of different systems does give you experience ...

Of course @kota1 is correct. What we experience very much matters. That is problematic for those who apparently want to define our experiences for us, as evidenced by their "arguments" in this thread that are increasingly subject to deletion.

 

@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.

+1 @prof 

 

Isn't the point of making these topics to discuss. I hope the op was realistic about what the replies may be. Why even have a forum if it's an echo chamber? 

For developing speakers, today, far more time is spent measuring than listening in professional market speakers. That is because we do know how to translate measurements into what is heard and it is far less variable.  I can't comment on consumer speakers but expect for the big ones with resources that is also the case.

Cin Dyment @thespeakerdude :

For developing speakers, today, far more time is spent measuring than listening in professional market speakers

How do YOU know?

Also,

That is because we do know

Who is “we”?

 

 

 

@prof If you say (as loud as you can) that you do not hear difference between cables, I would suggest you that you try two very different ones, lets say Cardas and Nordost. After that, if you still cant hear no difference, I would call you a lucky guy and would say that you have just saved lots of money.

The ’problem’ with your perspective and the way you communicate (you in general sense,its not personal ) is that you are not doing the same with people who claim that they hear the difference. You demand ’proof’ or either offer ’explanations’ why this person perception cant be trusted. Why would we than read about ’anylizers’, blind tests,psychoacoustics, mass psychology, etc, all in favour to your biased perspective?

Now, if that is not ’snobbery’ than its plain rude and ill mannerd behaviour.

As for the Asr crowd, the prevalent notion there is same towards cables (no differences) tubes (they ’distort’ so cant be good), vinyl (cheap digital is way better) dacs (they all sound the same if the specs are ’right’) and so on... and anything that costs more than few hundred bucks is a scam...

Now, dont get me wrong. We are all aware that audio gear has obscene prices and that lots of it is simply not sounding very good and that there is lots of marketing bs. and that there are lots of people who are caring more about the brand or the price than about performance...but they (ASR folks) are going into extreme...and thats fine, for them, or anyone who shares such perspective...but try to write there that  you hear the difference between cables or that you have all tubed system and than tell me who is hostile or with whom you cant have discussion in a civil way?

Imho, this not the argument beetween two different types of opinion, but between two very different types of behaviour

@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.

 

little less conversation...

a little more listening to audio systems, please

All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me
A little more bite and a little less bark
A little less fight and a little more spark…

only measurements and we're left in the dark

 

What ever happened to high Fidelity cables? That guy all of a sudden just shut his doors and stop making product. Nobody has stepped in to fill his void. I wonder why? He probably had one of the best sales pitches out there for Trine his cables. I really wonder if the magnets made a difference. I’m skeptical and he was the only one that I considered trying. I spoke to him on the phone one day and he wanted me to buy used sad that he had that was near the top of his offerings. I think he wanted to thousand dollars for the cable  But would not take them back if I didn’t like them. It was either I took the deal with no return or no deal. That in itself made me skeptical so I didn’t do it. I really wonder why nobody has started making cables with magnets, now that he’s out of business . 

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.

Missionary at work …..

@amir_asr, I have a few questions regarding measuring equipment. Genuine questions, not “poking the bear” nonsense. 

 

1. Can unit-to-unit variations significantly affect measurement outcomes?

As we know, all of the individual components in any particular model have specified tolerances, typically ranging between +/- 1% and +/- 20%. Is it possible for a measurable performance difference between two random samples of the same model to result if some of those tolerances stack up one way vs. another, and, if so, can the measured differences be audible?

If measurable differences between two otherwise identical units are possible, then what would be the random sample size necessary to generate a reliable prediction of worst-case, average, and best-case performance?

2. Does a unit’s chain-of custody or provenance impact your confidence in the results of a unit’s test results being truly representative of the model?

Some of the units you have tested were provided directly by the manufacturer or distributor, raising the question of whether or not you received a “golden sample” for your testing. Some of your test units that were submitted by members were discontinued years ago, and many of those were provided by individuals who bought them used in unknown condition. Does either of these situations lead to any additional scrutiny with respect to those units being representative samples?

3. How audible will the difference between an electronic component producing 0.1% THD and one producing 0.001% THD be when played through a transducer generating between 1.0% and 2.0% THD?
4. Will the difference between a 90 dB S/N component and a 120 dB S/N component be audible in a typical listening room with a 30 dB background noise level?

Thanks in advance for your insight.

prof

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" ...

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.

In your next post, you opine:

...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 commit the sin you blame on others. All your words can’t conceal that.

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."

 

 

 

 

Propaganda…. More Missionary work….

 

I am fully aware you are not writing this for me. I cannot be “saved”. And admittedly I won’t read it anyway. Hopefully you are saving a “poor soul” today. One poor soul saved at a time. Good luck

 

P.S. I know what you are doing, and why you are doing it. And YOU know what you are doing, and why you are doing it. Please stop playing the innocent/ generous card. Anyone with average IQ can see what you do. 

prof

What POSSIBLE evidence can you bring to someone like this, that they are wrong?

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.

@prof , as nice as I can say, please read my previous post again. I have no problems what so ever if you claim that you do not hear something or if your perception is different than mine (if you feel that something does not sound the way I hear it, or if you do not like it)

For that reason we have very different sounding gear and very different sounding systems. Some we like, some other we dont.If we all would ’believe’ that what others say or like to be ’right’ than we all would have the same systems and that is obvioulsly not the case. After all, even the people who ’believe’ that they can ’hear’ everything that you are suspicious about, change their gear or general sound of their systems from time to time, for various reasons. Sometimes because their perception or attitude toward sound reprouduction has been changed, again, for various reasons.

When doing so, its probably because they heard something or some piece of gear that changed their previous perspective.

Now, who am I to tell them, or to anybody that they are ’wrong’ ? Even among friends, we often do not have the same tastes or opinions or the systems that sounds the same. There is some loosly based general consensus what makes some system sounding ’good’ but even that is open to interpretation. There are lots of heated (and more often than not, pointless) discussions about what sounds ’right’,simply beacuse we all have different references, different tastes, different rooms and different experiences with hi fi gear.

So, if you say that your perspective toward sound is very different than mine, I do not mind, maybe we can share our experiences and point to what we hear differently. 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.

After all and that should be said from time to time, to all ’normal’ people this may sound as lunacy, grown men arguing or spending crazy money on wires or what ever else, in time when anybody can obtain decent sounding gear that reproduce almost all music we hear for much, much less money and certainly with much less frustrations.

So, if your perspective is one of the ’normal’ folks, I appologize, because its completely understandable (for them or for you perhaps) that all what we are talking about here is ’crazy’ or ’impossible’ to hear or even to exist. But, if you are already ’involved’ in hi fi and you have experienced things that are discussed here I simply cant understand why would you claim that other people, with different perspective from you are suffering from delusions. Now,again I repeat, thats is something that I would consider rude, in given context

And you, @cleeds why are you here, in this particular topic? What is your reason for participating?   @prof is putting forth very valid arguments that would be accepted by any professional interested in a factual outcome.  You may take issue with his response to other's beliefs as is your right but can you fault his methodology and back that up?

@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).

 

 

@tsacremento 

@amir_asr, I have a few questions regarding measuring equipment. Genuine questions, not “poking the bear” nonsense. 

Appreciate the constructive tone.  :)

1. Can unit-to-unit variations significantly affect measurement outcomes?

I don't think so.  These devices are not mechanical as to require assembly line alignments and such.  We (I and membership) have done some spot checks have confirmed that random units purchased matches my test results.  There have been a few exceptions.  I once tested a Schiit pre-amp (?) where one channel had 10 dB lower SINAD than another.  Schiit reached out to me and offered another unit without that deviation.  I guess in a perfect world we would buy another unit on our dime and re-test.  But I took Schiit's word that the unit selected was picked at random.

This concern used to come up a lot in the past.  When it heated up a lot, I had Topping reach out to me saying they would pay for me to buy every product of theirs I had ever tested to see if the performance was different.  I have a lot of respect for their ethics in this regard and chose not to do that. But their offer stands.

As to part variations, yes, this exists.  Fortunately for most components, the actual value is not critical.  A 1000 microfarad power supply filter will do its job whether it is 20% lower or higher in value.  In a few places, this matters a lot and there, companies pick high precision 1% parts and such.  In addition, we have design techniques such as feedback which eliminate a lot of variations from output of the audio device.

Finally, there are other people making measurements similar to mine now.  A fellow in China who goes by the alias L7Wofl for example, reviews chinese gear, testing other samples than me, with results that correlate excellently with mine.

Net, net, I don't think this is a factor to be worried about especially in the context of large variations in offerings from different companies.  Other answers below.

@thespeakerdude

That is because we do know how to translate measurements into what is heard and it is far less variable.

You can’t tell how a speaker sounds simply by how it measures. There is 0 possibility or we would all by buying speakers from mail order catalogs of graphs. More proof you don’t have a system, and are making stuff up ad lib.

 

 

@tsacremento 

2. Does a unit’s chain-of custody or provenance impact your confidence in the results of a unit’s test results being truly representative of the model?

For the vast majority of cases, no. Most of the reasoning was explained in my last response.  Let's remember that if there is an issue with Golden samples, it would affect other reviewers far more than me because they exclusively get samples from manufacturers.  In my case, a large number of products for test come from members.  A good portion of these are purchased new and drop shipped to me.  And large percentage of used ones are current products.  I occasionally test vintage products or discontinued ones because they are available on the cheap on used market.  Manufacturers are welcome to challenge the results of any used product tested but I have yet to encounter one.

@tsacremento 

3. How audible will the difference between an electronic component producing 0.1% THD and one producing 0.001% THD be when played through a transducer generating between 1.0% and 2.0% THD?

The nature of distortion is different in electronics vs speakers.  For example, speakers have no self-noise (passive ones anyway) whereas electronics do.  This is why you can put your ear next to a tweeter and hear hiss and buzz.

On pure distortion front, speakers produce their most distortion in bass region where we are not critical anyway.  An amplifier distorting will do so at all frequencies.  Have an amp clip and you can hear it on any speaker even though it may not reach the bass distortion of said speaker.

There are stated of the art speakers and headphones that have clocked 80+ dB SINAD which is the limit of what I can measure for them. 

That said, detecting non-linear distortion is not easy for most listeners. So you could say that maybe people can't hear even elevated distortions 1 to 2%.

Here is the thing though: the only reason a piece of electronic generates 0.1% THD is due to sloppy or bad ideas in design.  It is almost never the case that it is done to make the equipment cheaper.  Indeed, by far, the situation is the reverse: you pay far more money for a gear with more distortion and noise!  You pay more to get more noise and distortion.   Yet you can buy a device from companies that care that have provably inaudible noise and distortion for very reasonable cost.  We learn about this by measuring.  If we didn't, we would be going by marketing words of expensive gears and not objective, reliable data.

 

@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.

 

 

 

 

 

thespeakerdude

@prof is putting forth very valid arguments ... You may take issue with his response to other’s beliefs as is your right but can you fault his methodology and back that up?

I’ve quoted the ill logic he increasingly employs. There can be no better proof than that!

This is his latest use of ill logic in an attempt to conceal his previous use of ill logic:

prof

You know very well the point I was making ...

Nope, it’s not my job to try and read his mind.

@tsacremento 

3. Will the difference between a 90 dB S/N component and a 120 dB S/N component be audible in a typical listening room with a 30 dB background noise level?

This is a misconception.  I actually published a paper on this a few years back based on peer review journal article and research at AES.  Our hearing sensitively is highly non-linear.  60 dB at 20 Hz will be silent to us where as -5 dBSPL is audible at 3 kHz!  So to know if room noise is an audible barrier, you have to perform a translation and then superposition it on top of our hearing sensitivity.  This work was done based on survey of listening rooms and here are the results as I post in my article:

As you see, room noise drops exponentially with increasing frequencies. This is because it is so much easier to block high frequency noise.  Low frequency noise on the other the hand, easily travels through walls and even concrete!  Your meter will be happy to pick up noise from freeway from miles away, yet your ear will not.

As you see in the above graph, we can build rooms that are completely silent even though they could have bass noise 30 dB.

Using this research, we see that if we want to have reference quality maximum loudness (measured at 120 or so dB in live unamplified concerts), we need about 20 bits of dynamic range or 120 dB.  Put inversely, ideally you want your system to have a noise floor of -120 dB.

Now if you are listening in a living room, then such constraints can be lowered fair bit.  But why?   You can buy a $100 DAC that performs this well, once again proving that achieving full transparency in electronics doesn't cost much money.  Just requires careful shopping and not following marketing statements of fidelity but reliable measurements.

@thyname no there is no rule against coming back 16 times. 

 

Accounts

When you create an account with us, you guarantee that you are above the age of 18, and that the information you provide us is accurate, complete, and current at all times. Inaccurate, incomplete, or obsolete information may result in the immediate termination of your account on the Service.

You are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your account and password, including but not limited to the restriction of access to your computer and/or account. You agree to accept responsibility for any and all activities or actions that occur under your account and/or password, whether your password is with our Service or a third-party service. You must notify us immediately upon becoming aware of any breach of security or unauthorized use of your account.

You may not use as a username the name of another person or entity or that is not lawfully available for use, a name or trademark that is subject to any rights of another person or entity other than you, without appropriate authorization. You may not use as a username any name that is offensive, vulgar or obscene.

We reserve the right to refuse service, terminate accounts, remove or edit content, or cancel orders in our sole discretion.

I would never believe anything from you sir nor any one else for that matter. 

I do not follow blindly like your cult at ASR. @amir_asr 

 I recently tested three JPS Labs cables.  I listened to all three and they sounded different from my generic cables.  Bad news for fans your camp is that the generic cables sounded better in all these tests.  Thousands of dollars in cabling beat by less than $50 in generic cables.  Are you going to believe this assessment?

amir_asr

... Somehow you are too good for it whereas the rest of the industry is not ... Instead of trying so hard to stay confused, why not pay attention ... If you can’t reliably tell the cables apart, then don’t come and ask others to chase ferries. If you can, then you would have done something really useful ...

More ad hominem, appeal to authority, and bandwagon fallacies  from a measurementalist. As for the "chasing ferries" remark - you’re getting more and more colorful. Perhaps science is not your calling.

 

 

@amir_asr, thank you for taking the time to provide clear and unvarnished responses to my questions. Much appreciated.

From reading through many test results on the ASR website, it appears to me that achieving ultra-low SINAD performance is almost trivial for good line-level electronics, but not so much for power amps. Am I not interpreting the test results correctly, or is this true? If true, is this issue due to the amount of gain required?

Thanks again.

@amir_asr ’I listened to all three and they sounded different from my generic cables. Bad news for fans your camp is that the generic cables sounded better in all these tests’.

 

Sorry, but these are all great news. First, you have listened something, than, there are differences, and most important, the cheapest cable was the ’best’. Does it mean that we all should buy generic cables? I guess even you would not suggest something like that. As long as there are others cables to try, depending on our will and budget, we might (or not) find something better

I have never met anybody who wants to spend more money on something that sounds worse. Why on earth would you claim that I or anybody else should be sorry about that particular result?

I know of many such cases, where less expensive products (cables or gear), even from the same brand, sound better than their more expensive, newer or so called ’better’ products

As for the ’blind tests’. Believe it or not, I know of few cases whrere with my open eyes I could not tell the difference between two very different products. After I lived and listened them for a while I could, easily, in the context of my system. They were of the same price and I could care less which one I would buy at the end

 

@prof We are not discussing ethics or moral philosphy. Perception of hi fi is prone to interpretation, Hi fi set up does not have some objective standard that can be measured or set as a goal to achieve. In that regard we may have very different views on how we interpret what we hear. But, dont patronise me by telling me that is all product of my vivid imagination. 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?

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?

 

@tsacremento 

From reading through many test results on the ASR website, it appears to me that achieving ultra-low SINAD performance is almost trivial for good line-level electronics, but not so much for power amps. Am I not interpreting the test results correctly, or is this true? If true, is this issue due to the amount of gain required?

As a general rule, it is easier to achieve great performance where heat, and large amount of current and voltage is not involved.  Fortunately, amplifiers are finally catching up.  High-performance class D and a few class AB amplifiers have come very close to performance of state of the art DACs and achieved assured transparency.   Look at the vanishingly low distortion in this new Hypex amplifier:

And that is at 5 watts.  Increase the power output and SNR shoots way up with it:

There is a premium for this level of performance but nothing remotely like what high-end companies charge for far lower performance.

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

And, yet, 'your camp' (as A.would say) chooses the easy road by calling those claims as non existant. Imagine if you go to see the doctor about some pain you are experiencing and that he sends (even ig he did some tests) you home and tells you that that is only your imagination. Would you have trust in such 'scienece'?

 

By the way, the Asr did not invent nothing new. Long before them, there were many people who claimed that wires in general are not important. Than, what about power cables? Even today there are lots of people who claim that is scientifically impossible that they can affect the sound. I belive them. Its just that they do not know. Somebody else obvioulsly does know how to do it. Me, no...but I can recognise what it does in my system...despite or because my very consistent bias

 

As for the 'audiophiles' who are following Asr...or even others who have different perspective...I would suggest to anyone to follow only his 'taste' and his opinion. It is always nice to hear different thoughts and experiences and sometimes we can use other people advices, but at the end we are making the hi fi system for ourselfs, by our own standars, references, conditions and possibilities.

Finally, it would never cross my mind to login on Asr forum and than try to 'explain' them how I think that they are wrong...unlike some of them do....but, than, it must be becuse 'science' is on their side? Where did I hear something like that before?

@cleeds 

More ad hominem, appeal to authority, and bandwagon fallacies  from a measurementalist. As for the "chasing ferries" remark - you’re getting more and more colorful. Perhaps science is not your calling.

I am not a scientist.  I follow science.  You disdain the profession.  What do you expect to be called? 

And I am not a measurementalist.  I am all about what I can prove, not what I can fantasize that can easily be disproven.  Measurements are repeatable and provide valuable insight.  Why else would you hate them?  You must feel the mist of audio science brushing against your face.

As I keep saying, and evidenced by numerous reviews, I perform far more listening tests than all of you do, combined.  But I do so in ways that are defensible, not catering to marketing claims of companies and acting like their PR agencies as you are.

Really, in just about every post I provide evidence.  Do you just believe in power of words to overcome facts?

@alexatpos 

Sorry, but these are all great news. First, you have listened something, than, there are differences, and most important, the cheapest cable was the ’best’. Does it mean that we all should buy generic cables?

You should but not because of my listening tests.  Because we as engineers and people who understand how audio products work, and decades of research into what kind of listening test is valid and what is not, point to generic cables performing their function way beyond call of duty.

Think about it.  The cable is most harmless item in your audio gear.  A power cable has bandwidth way, way beyond what it needs to convey mains power.  It has no distortion of its own.  It is as pure as it can get relative to your electronics and transducers.  Yet folks focus on them and spend thousands of dollars on them.  Why?  Simple: they don't know how to perform an unbiased audio listening test.  I showed you how folks testing Pianos do that.  Talent shows routinely use blind testing.  So do people who test foods.  Do they all belong to a cult?  Really?

So no, don't go wasting money on premium cables because you think they sound better.  My testing actually shows in some cases that their cables are actually worse when it comes to noise!  Fortunately we are all too deaf to hear those artifacts but we can prove that company claims are just wrong.

 

@alexatpos 

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

If you say aliens land in your backyard every night, you don't get to claim that we need better radars to detect their arrival.  You need to first prove what you claim to be there, really is.  Science has provided that mechanism for that.  It is called controlled testing where the only variable is sound.  You involve many other factors and senses and then ask that science go and prove based on sound alone, that what you heard is real?  You have to be joking.

There is currently no research going on to validate what you all claim to hear.  None.  Why?  Because you have not provided any evidence of something real.  Do that and science will happily investigate.  Stick to your biased testing and we know why you arrive and wrong conclusions.  We don't need to advance the science any more.  We have known for decades that people say they hear things sighted that vanish when tested blind.  And that is that.

Put more directly, you need to advance your testing methods.  Science is years and years ahead of you.  To the extent you have no use for such science, then science doesn't owe you more work.  It certainly doesn't need to spend money chasing people's imagined effects.

 

@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.

 

 

 

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

 

The first thing science will always do is validate the claim. The claim will never be assumed to be correct without validation. 

Blind testing is used in audio product development to validate results and improve the quality of listening tests.

@thespeakerdude 

The first thing science will always do is validate the claim.

This is a step in the right direction, you need to validate your claims. You should start by using links when you make claims as a third party validation. Of course the first step is to validate your claim that you even have a system. Start by listing it in the virtual system. Otherwise you aren't being scientific AND:

The claim will never be assumed to be correct without validation. 

​​​​@thespeakerdude , this is the first step to becoming credible, start validating stuff in future posts. I will overlook your previous claims that were never validated.

 

 

When compact disc came to the masses in the early 80’s, it seems to me that audiophiles heard problems with it, before it was identified to be jitter.

@kota1 for reasons only known to you you have issues with me. Feel free to direct message me and rant all you want. Be respectful and don’t make your issue everyone else’s issue as you are doing. It is disrespectful to everyone else here. Only you can make the actions of not making your beef everyone else's problem.

@amir_asr you sound like a jackass. my cult is no cult fool.

I let no man lead.

I make my decisions and you are a fool. 

At the risk of sounding obvious, I don't believe your cult either.  The difference between us is that I can live in your universe anytime I like.  You choose to never live in mine.  One of us is more enriched in that manner.

I assume you don't go to a doctor either when you get sick.  That ought to be cult too since your lay intuition doesn't validate what you believe.  You may think you catch a cold from cold weather but they know that it is from a virus.  

Or maybe you tell me that anyone off the street with none of your experience or education in your field, can go toe to toe with you.  And call you a cultist when you disagree with them.

Such was life when humans lived in a primitive state.  They only believed what they could touch and feel.  Many of us have evolved to trust decades of research/science.  But when it comes to audio it seems, deniers walk the earth all the time.

So do what you want.  But please don't talk to me about it.  Remember again, I can act like a subjectivist anytime I choose.  Nothing you tell me is new or unique to you.

amir_asr

I follow science. You disdain the profession.

Oh no, not at all, you could not be more mistaken. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

I am all about what I can prove ...

If so, please be careful about whom you accuse of disdaining science.

Measurements are repeatable and provide valuable insight. Why else would you hate them? You must feel the mist of audio science brushing against your face.

What on earth are you talking about?

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.

 

@amir_asr

I am not a scientist.

+1, I never saw a scientist asking for a donation every time they hit the send button. I applaud your transparency about this.

Because we as engineers and people who understand how audio products work, and decades of research into what kind of listening test is valid and what is not, point to generic cables performing their function way beyond call of duty.

What we? This is you posting this, not we. You never spent decades of research, you never made a product. As for listening tests yes, there is published info about this, you would hate it though, it takes too much time and effort.

The cable is most harmless item in your audio gear.

Terrible, the CD is way more harmless. Cables can act as a choke point for the music.

Yet folks focus on them and spend thousands of dollars on them. Why?

Uhhh, because they felt they were worth it? Amir, don’t you get that every high end cable vendor offers return policies? You are worried about a problem that doesn’t exist, you can refund a cable that fails the pepsi challenge. You gotta make this stuff up to justify what you need to do to drive traffic to your site. Without someone to blame how else can you justify your website? If you were the least bit serious you would avail yourself to the methods you tell everyone else to do. Set up a panel of trained listeners and get on with it.

 

I don’t agree with the tone of the discussion from both camps with personal judgments being hurled, and demands that one side is ultimately right and that the other side should switch their position. I think we should strive to accept that other perspectives exist and be okay with that, while being curious to understand how others arrive at their perspectives.

Getting off my high-horse now….

@kota1, @amir_asr , there is an opportunity here. What about conducting a blind test by a panel, with oversight by representatives of both camps (preferably the cooler heads), and conduct a series of tests? The tests could include they typical controversial subjects:

• Generic power cords vs extreme premium power cords
• Comparison of burned—in gear vs new gear (separate tests for cables, amps, DACs, etc)
• Test of vibration control vs no vibration control
• Test of generic USB cable to extreme premium USB cable
• Measurements of all of the above tests and corresponding analysis

How cool would that be. With the proper controls in place, with the proper panel to ensure equal representation of predispositions and biases, and with the proper governance, if these tests were done and published, this would be referenced for many, many years to come. It would be referenced by all review sites and pro review publications alike - for many years. It would finally advance decades of debate and inform our knowledge in a particular direction. The goal would need to be focused on advancing our knowledge rather than trying to be right.

@amir_asr: people would have a huge respect for you if you pulled off such an ambitious endeavour. Think about reaching out to subjective pro reviewers to cooperate on conducting this series of tests. You need to have others on the governance panel or people will simply claim you designed it seeking a particular result to serve your interests. The results could be highly disruptive in terms of how we think of HiFi.

I know Amir you might argue, been there, done that. Tests done decades ago, etc. just did a blind test last Saturday, etc. But not in such an open way, with community involvement.

A lot of your naysayers would have to shut their mouths if you put your money where your mouth is and led such a community-led endeavour. And just maybe, you might learn something too.

I for one would be so excited if someone took a challenge like this on - it would demonstrate true leadership in the world of HiFi IF done correctly with community engagement.

The gauntlet has been thrown down!