Let me get to the point. I don’t trust anyone who claims to hear differences but are afraid to put their claims to a proper level matched ABX DBT. And so far you have dodged the question multiple times here. Anyone can claim to hear anything. And apparently you will believe it on faith. But if the differences are real that can be demonstrated with a positive result in a proper ABX DBT. If someone posed this question to me they wouldn’t have to ask twice. The answer is yes I’d be happy to demonstrate that everything in my system that I claim makes an audible difference does so under double blind level matched conditions.
so you believe anyone who says they can hear a difference no matter how dubious the claim. I believe anyone who can reliably demonstrate they can hear the difference in a proper controlled test. We just have different standards for what we believe
|
“Double blind test are not practical for everybody in his OWN room with his OWN gear and his OWN listenings habits ..”
I understand the practicalities of it. I actually do them. My brother had a great saying. “You don’t have to cut yourself to know you bleed.” You don’t have to do your own DBTs when they have already been done over and over and over again with the same results. You acceptedthe results from the one study you cited that used DBTs. Why would you not accept the results of the multitude of tests debunking cables, power cords and other such tweaks? And as for practicalities, it’s not really so impractical that one can’t do them. I somehow manage on a fairly regular basis.
|
“thats good for you. We can agree to disagree. That’s perfectly fine I don’t have anything to prove to you. Even if someone did you are stuck to how you feel. Take care.”
I am genuinely happy for you that you enjoy your stereo. But your last remark strikes at the very heart of this matter. You have continually tried to give your beliefs credibility by attacking the credibility of those such as myself with very different views. You want to agree to disagree but you also want to characterize me as “stuck in my position.” A mischaracterization that I suspect makes you feel better about your own beliefs. Because there is something unsettling about someone who has such different beliefs but can’t be discredited or dismissed some how some way.
There is a very easy test to see if someone is stuck in their position. Let’s try it. It goes like this.
What would it take to persuade you that you are wrong about cable sound and power cord sound? Answer that question honestly and I will do the same. And then we can see who is stuck in their position.
|
“ I’m not attacking your credibility I’m just never going to agree with you.”
let’s take this moment to think about what it means to be stuck in one’s position. It is often mistakenly believed that open mindedness and skepticism are diametrically opposing ideologies. They aren’t. True skepticism is the ultimate form of open mindedness. It means being open to possibilities that something might be true or that something might not be true. Including our own current beliefs. I don’t take the position that I would never agree with you. I take the position that my disagreement with you is subject to change should new compelling evidence come to light. But evidence needs to be verifiable and repeatable. Not anecdotal.
|
Basic competent cables are audibly transparent as are basic competently designed and built amplification. Same for anything digital at red book or above. Power cords and numerous other after market tweaks don’t affect the sound. This is not based on jealousy, a lack of experience or hatred of high end audio. These are facts based on solid science. There is a mountain of evidence in support based on numerous controlled studies designed to objectively determine human thresholds of audibility of various forms of distortion. We also know through years of research that we can not reliably compare an aural memory to real time sound perception. Unless comparisons are done level matched, time synced, double blind with quick switching then the results are prone to be unreliable. Science doesn’t care how we feel about objective reality. One either accepts that or not. I care deeply about sound quality. I do not dismiss anything out of jealousy, anger or hatred. If these things really made a difference I would want to know it so I can make well informed choices as an audiophile. But if impressions about sound quality are made under uncontrolled conditions based on long term aural memory I want verification under proper conditions. I want to know objectively what does make a difference and what does not.
|
Basic competent cables are audibly transparent as are basic competently designed and built amplification. Same for anything digital at red book or above. Power cords and numerous other after market tweaks don’t affect the sound. This is not based on jealousy, a lack of experience or hatred of high end audio. These are facts based on solid science. There is a mountain of evidence in support based on numerous controlled studies designed to objectively determine human thresholds of audibility of various forms of distortion. We also know through years of research that we can not reliably compare an aural memory to real time sound perception. Unless comparisons are done level matched, time synced, double blind with quick switching then the results are prone to be unreliable. Science doesn’t care how we feel about objective reality. One either accepts that or not. I care deeply about sound quality. I do not dismiss anything out of jealousy, anger or hatred. If these things really made a difference I would want to know it so I can make well informed choices as an audiophile. But if impressions about sound quality are made under uncontrolled conditions based on long term aural memory I want verification under proper conditions. I want to know objectively what does make a difference and what does not.
|
I did not say anyone was delusional. I hear the same differences in non level matched, non time synchronized, non quick switching, non bias controlled comparisons as you and everyone else does. But the accept the science that tells why we perceive those differences when no actual differences in the sound exist. If that objective information conflicts with your beliefs it’s up to you how you want to reconcile it. Personally I want to know what really happened s audible and what is a byproduct of flawed auditioning. That informs my choices.
|
Pointing out the non intuitive nature of human biology isn’t hate. Nor is it a personal feeling. It is kind of ironic though that the typical response is that somehow I am an inferior listener. We are all humans and we are all subject to how the human auditory system perceives sound. It does strike me as problematic that science is seen as a “camp.” What do you think scientists in the field of psychoacoustics have been continually getting wrong for the past 100 years? Isn’t that conflict a cause for examination of one’s personal beliefs? Historically speaking how often have hobbyists been onto something that an entire field of scientific studies have been getting wrong for an entire century?
|
“ I'm at the point where I refuse to deal with anyone who says they can't hear a difference in cables, power cords, fuses, etc...
Of course they do.
It's the same old thing, over and over and over and over.”
Do you think you could reliably identify those differences you believe you and everybody else hears in a proper double blind listening test? Speaking for myself I am quite confident that I can identify any and all differences in sound that I believe to be real in such a test. Further more if I were put to the challenge and failed to reliably identify differences I believed to be real that would give me cause to reconsider my beliefs. |
It’s not a straw man Calvinj referred to “a scientific measurement camp.”
|
“We are not in the same business here ...”
I’m not in any business here. I work in film not in audio.
”Since you came here you seems to be in the business of debunking audiophiles , style James Randi;”
again I’m not in business here. But when I look at the state of the hobby it is clear that there aren’t enough voices in it calling out the shady and dubious products on the market. Those products dominate the market. Here we have a thread that attempts to rationalize the existence of audiophiles such as myself by trying to dismiss us as haters of high end audio, jealous of audiophiles who buy expensive cables and power cords etc. Or lack any experience with “real” high end audio. I chimed to debunk that mischaracterization of audiophiles such as me that don’t buy into high end cables and power cords. I’m not jealous. I used to own “high end” cables back when I believed in them. It’s not an affordability issue it’s an issue of spending money ineffectively. It’s not about hating high end audio. I am quite passionate about audio and music. It’s certainly not from any exposure to “high end” audio. I have heard many a million dollar plus system over the years at shows, dealerships and the hom s of affluent audiophiles on four different continents. And I am not the only one.
“myself i am neither a subjectivist waiting to be debunk by you , nor an objectivist with scientism blinders ... I am interested by fundamental questions about sound, music, mathematics and hearing ...i believe everyone of good faith ... And it is better if the person is rational for sure ...”
I’m just an audiophile who is passionate about sound quality and music. But I am also a skeptic who believes in science and seeks genuine expert advice. There are a lot of posers in the audiophile world and few genuine experts. I don’t believe everyone in good faith. Dishonesty abounds in this world. I know enough about how humans hear, process and remember sound to understand how we can honestly reach erroneous conclusions about sound and I accept those limitations in myself.
|
I am certainly not parading as a scientist . One does not need to be a scientist to have a basic understanding of science. I don’t parade as a scientist but I listen to them, look at their research and give scientists and their work the credibility it is due. I am certainly not an objectivist. If logical fallacies are going to be pointed out then ad hominem needs to be called out here. It ain’t about me. My questions stand unanswered. So I will ask again. What do you think scientists in the field of psychoacoustics have been continually getting wrong for the past 100 years? Aren’t the conflicts between your beliefs and the large body of research in psychoacoustics a cause for examination of one’s personal beliefs?
|
Electrical audio signals are not particularly complex. Determining whether or not there is a change in an audio signal is pretty simple as well. Same goes for proper listening comparisons to determine whether he thresholds at which various types of change in an audio signal are audible.
|
”It doesn't seem to have worked that way for you, does it?”
Sure it did. I don’t perceive sound any differently than you or anyone else. I resolved those conflicts by accepting the objective data and accepting the realities about how I hear and process sound.
|
There’s no debate in science about the nature of electrical audio signals. In the world of electrical signal transfer and processing it’s about the simplest thing there is. You want complicated? Signal processing via satellite for real time GPS that literally has to calculate the effects of special relativity because the speed at which the satellites travel create micro mismatches in synchronization due to time slowing down at faster speeds. That’s complicated. Audio signals from 20 hz - 20 kHz is really simple in comparison. And none of those far more complicated technologies are using “high end” cables or power cords. They use gear and materials based on their measured performance. And it works.
|
“Psycho-acoustics is the science who put the right question here , and the answers are complex and multidisciplinary , never simplistic as claimed by the two opinionated groups above ...”
What are the competing theories in psychoacoustics pertaining to well established thresholds of human hearing or the current models of how we process and store aural memories? I was not aware of any actual theories in psychoacoustics that challenge the current body of studies that have already established those thresholds of human hearing or any theories that challenge the current models of how we filter and steer focus when listening and how that information is further filtered through data reduction and additional steered focus. Can you point us to any literature in the field of psychoacoustics that talks about these competing theories?
|
>>> I don’t perceive sound any differently than you or anyone else. >>>
>> am pretty sure this is questionable, at least. >>
how so? Do you believe that you and other audiophiles have developed some form of audio perception that works differently than what was the product of millions of years of evolution? Do you think that somehow your ear physiology has been some how reconstructed or that your brain functions that process sound have been re-wired? What makes it questionable? What makes you think you are exempt from human biology?
|
“human hearing in many ways is not extensively understood or measurable, and there certainly are individual differences...the process is the same, but the results are different...”
based on what? As I mentioned before I try to pay attention to actual scientists in the field of psychoacoustics and the actual studies. According to scientists such as James D Johnston and Floyd Toole among others we know a great deal in deep detail about what humans can actually hear and can’t hear and have a pretty detailed map of how that correlates to measured performance in audio gear. In so far as the electrical audio signal in particular is concerned it is very well known as to what makes an audible difference and what does not. It does get more complicated once it’s about sound waves in three dimensions. What scientific sources are you getting this conflicting opinion from that states human thresholds of hearing are not so well understood? Honest question. Even in the world of high end audio we do have some substantial differences of opinions among top scientists. But none that I know of regarding thresholds of audibility. So honestly, if you know of any conflicting opinions from the scientific community I’d very much like to know about it.
|
“ so that deeper soundstage. Airy decay. Tighter bottom end bass. It’s all human biology. lol 😂 “
Do you think you can reliably identify these differences in a proper ABX DBT?
|
“As demonstrated by the first of the article in my post above , we dont understand exactly how the human hearing beat the Fourier threshold and the Gabor limits ...
https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html “
ok let’s cut to the chase. You are citing this study as evidence in support of your position. Does that mean you accept the study and the protocols and methodologies used in this study as a reasonable standard for valid data? Let’s just focus on that for the moment.
|
“how so?
If you do not know it by now, I guess you never will.”
does that stop you from explaining it and answering the questions I asked?
|
“ I don’t put much stock into folks that can’t hear the difference. As long as I can hear the difference that’s enough”
I didn’t ask you to put stock in me. I’m asking you if you put stock in yourself. Do you think *YOU* can reliably identify those differences in a proper level matched ABX or ABChr DBT? Can you really hear the difference without knowing in advance which is which?
|
“ Lets cut the chase i have no reason to doubt their methodologies “
cool. So you accept the use of double blind listening tests as a valid protocol. So do I. And when audiophiles can produce repeatable verifiable evidence in the form of double blind listening tests with positive results I will accept their claims on the audibility of interconnect cables, power cords and other similar claims. That’s the difference between a legitimate scientific study like the one you cited and anecdotal evidence that was subject to multiple variables, had no meaningful controls and is unverifiable or repeatable.
|
“ Lets cut the chase i have no reason to doubt their methodologies “
cool. So you accept the use of double blind listening tests as a valid protocol. So do I. And when audiophiles can produce repeatable verifiable evidence in the form of double blind listening tests with positive results I will accept their claims on the audibility of interconnect cables, power cords and other similar claims. That’s the difference between a legitimate scientific study like the one you cited and anecdotal evidence that was subject to multiple variables, had no meaningful controls and is unverifiable or repeatable.
|
“Nice description of a parlor trick. It's a sad commentary that people take it upon themselves to deceive others and at the same time, conduct ABX tests under their conditions and not the way Harmon, Toole, Barton and the other real experts did it back in the day. They just use their terms and phrases and twist things.”
Actually Toole and Olive essentially did exactly the same test using speakers. And they published the entire experiment in the peer reviewed AESJ. This is a very common method used in many clinical studies. So is that a sad commentary on how science does research on human perception?
These tests should inform audiophiles about the nature of how we perceive sound. If the mere existence of these tests anger you maybe you should think about why. Maybe it just hits too close to home and threatens your belief system. And your anger is just a defense mechanism trying to protect your emotional investment in your beliefs?
|
“ So how did this thread become about cables and and a pile on by Cable Deniers like @andrewdrouin @scottwheel and other Audioholics subscribers.”
The thread is still about the bogus rationalizations for the existence of audiophiles such as myself. Cables and power cords are just examples. We can switch out cables and insert DACs, SS amplification and a number of other things if you like. It’s still the same issue.
“High end audio is not cables well all cables. There are high end cables. But when I think of high end audio I think of brands like like Gryphon, Atma-Sphere, AGD, ARC, Simaudio, Pass Labs, T&A, Sonus Faber, QLN...Not Roskan, Pioneer, NAD, Marantz, well the stuff you buy at Best Buy or Crutchfield.”
So you base what is high end on status symbols? It’s the name on the label and the store? You do know that Magnolia, the stereo branch of Best Buy sells Martin Logan right?
|
“But Magnolia doesn’t sell the good Martin Logan models…”
So high end is about the status of labels and the prestige of the stores that sell them. Owners of the “good” Martin Logan’s can relax for now. Their status is not in danger
|
“@scottwheel no one is piling on you. You just want to push how you feel on those who will not agree with you. Agree to disagree and move on.”
where did I say anyone was piling on me? What happens if I don’t agree to disagree? 😎 but please don’t try to tell me what *I* want. It’s obnoxious. You want to challenge the merits of my position great. Do so using facts and logic. But ascribing fake motives to me is a bit of a dick move.
|
“@scottwheel let it go. Time to move on. The rest of us are willing to trust our own ears and not yours move on”
Is it your ears you trust or your eyes? I’ll move on when you drop the cliche excuses and ad hominem arguments. Keep doing it and I’ll keep calling you on it.
|
“Did you hit your head recently?”
Are you this much of a dick in person or only online?
”The procedure I mentioned was done in an appropriate way whereas the one I addressed was not.”
can you cite the difference? My prediction is you dodge that question because there was no difference and you fire back with more dickish insults.
“that, and Barton was part of the team you mentioned, which may explain your misunderstanding.”
There was no misunderstanding. Feel free to show me otherwise. Not holding my breath
|
“scottwheel 20k. Lol. Anyway. You are not interested in hearing differences. You wanna win arguments. lol. Whatever man.”
you didn’t even bother to make excuses. But you did fall back on the same B.S. and just make crap up about me to fit your fantasy. I’m quite interested in knowing what makes a difference. That reality doesn’t fit your narrative so you literally have to make crap up like that. If the cables I use are in any way coloring the sound I am very interested in knowing about it. And if anyone can demonstrate it with reliable, repeatable evidence I definitely want to see it.
|
“No need to. But since you seem to have selective memory, go up this page to what andrewdourin said @ 2:27pm. That is what I was comparing it to. That, and you sure like to use the dick a lot in all manner of variations. Grow up some, lad.”
if nothing else you are predictable. I called this answer out before you posted it. There was no difference between the alleged parlor trick and what Toole and Olive did. Keep on trying to make it about me. You clearly can’t make it about testing protocols
|
“I will add that anyone participating in a DBT typically has a dog in this fight. They either want or dont want to hear a difference. The results can be tainted accordingly. The objectivist have created just as viable a market by taking a vocal position as have the subjectivists.”
whenever possible I do my own auditions and comparisons blind. I do have a dog in the fight, I want results that are the least tainted that I can get.
|
“Nothing is accomplished by lying to a group of listeners in a double blind. The fact the listeners, presumably, heard differences proves nothing other than the human tendency to believe what others (audio professionals) tell them. I hope no one is actually stating that the results from such a test are worthwhile.”
I think that was the point. Human tendency to form opinions on sound quality that are not actually based on sound. I guess audiophiles can either learn from it or get angry at it. Given the rampant lying by manufacturers of so many products it seems to be very much on point
|
“exactly. @scottwheel is hell bent on telling folks that they should trust their own ears!”
I am an advocate of judging sound quality by ear. But just by ear.
”WHAT SENSE DOES THAT MAKE?”
maybe it’s just me. I think it makes perfect sense.
|
“The protocols were completely different.”
No. they were nearly identical.
”One did nothing but try to elicit unfavorable results, rejoicing in his deception (he never changed a thing),”
and here is where you show us it’s about ego not knowledge. When one has an ego based emotional investment then one sees results as favorable or unfavorable. In both cases the results simply were informative. The protocols were IN FACT exactly as you say for BOTH tests. In the Toole Olive test THEY NEVER CHANGED A THING. You should get your facts right before talking about head injuries incurred by others.
|
“Once you know better (and obviously a few people here certainly DO know better), you can't go back....”
Know better? Please elaborate. I can’t go back? Could you be more specific? Can’t go back from what to what?
”someday you'll probably learn.”
Always looking to learn. What specifically do you think I will someday learn?
These are honest questions. No hostility. Just trying to get a clear understanding of what you are telling me.
|
“@scottwheel , if you truly want to learn something, perhaps you should stop trying to be the smartest guy in the room and listen to what others are telling you.”
Im listening. You were saying something about “no going back.” Can you elaborate? You also said some day I will probably learn? What is it you think someday I will probably learn?
|
“ It’s expensive so it must be snake oil.
We don’t know better so we must be told our faults.
We are gullible
They don’t have experience with high end low noise gear.
They are smarter than us and they are gonna show us what we did and are doing wrong.
They comment on how and why and the way we spend our Money.
They should tell companies what to charge”
Everything above that you attribute to me is complete fabrication on your part. where did I mention anything about the prices of equipment or tell anyone how much they should spend or tell any company how much they should charge? What do you know of my personal experience with any gear? Where did I call anyone gullible? Where did I say anything about being smarter than anyone? Why are you just making the crap up about me? I’ve called you out on this a few times now.
|
It is truly amazing how many of you think you can speak for me and what *I* believe about things that have never been mentioned.
|
“Now Analog Scat is just whining how put upon he is.”
Actually it’s just sheer astonishment the degree to which folks will make things up in their heads to defend their belief system. You guys are going to hang on to your narrative no matter what. No I at you are going to let any reality get in the way.
Put upon? Hardly.
|
“You clearly said that double blind test is the only way to accept any hearing experience as valid...”
Not what I said. When done well they serve as objective evidence of real audible differences or lack there of. Sighted anecdotal evidence is simply unreliable and doesn’t work as evidence. Particularly when the anecdotes run contrary to accepted knowledge.
I don’t think anyone here is actually thinking about what I am saying. It looks like they are trying to force what I say into their safe stereotypes to protect their beliefs. The idea that there can even be an audiophile who has actually had extensive experience with “high end” tweaks, cables, amps etc. And is perusing state of the art audio regardless of price. And is genuinely committed to finding out what affects sound quality and what does not. And does not share their beliefs is just plain scary. My position can’t be written off as a lack of experience or jealousy or narrow mindedness.
|
“being so aggressive and publicly calling people you don’t know dicks sure doesn’t help.”
Respect is a two way road. It was a response to a remark about having a brain injury. And I called that out as a dick move. It was a dick move. Honestly I don’t care. But manners will be met in kind. Good or bad.
|
“Nope. You started with using "dick" as an adverb on 11-30-23 @6:08pm and I asked if you hit your head recently on 12-01-23 @12:06 pm.”
just checked. I don’t see a single post on 11/30 where I used the word dick
|
“By the way scottwheel it would have been way more useful to explain why the BACCH filters you already own are an acoustic revolution instead of pushing people in their corner with the urgent use of double blind test as the only way to validate an experience they already claim as their own meaningful experience , nevermind if they are right or wrong ... ...Respect must be “
I thought I did explain the BACCH SP. As for validating other peoples’ experiences that comes down to two things. What is the likelihood of one’s observation to be the result of the actual sound? How committed are you to having personal experiences accepted as objective reality? If some one tells me they went to the grocery store and bought groceries I’m not going to question it. If someone says they can make themselves invisible I’m asking for evidence. If the response is “How dare you ask for evidence! Who are you to question my abilities?!” I don’t demand anyone do any do anything. I just make it clear that if someone expects me to believe something that I am skeptical of I want something more reliable than anecdotal evidence. Apparently that’s outrageous.
|
“There is a big difference between double blind test public protocol and simple blind test in private setting used in your own audio optimization process in an incremental number of steps , with all the time you want , all the repetition you wanted , with the music you pick which is well known to you ( for me albums i know for fifty years) and within an acoustic set of conditions you have put yourself together and which you know very well, all this in complete relaxation...”
I use single blind protocols for the majority of my shootouts. Works perfectly fine for their purpose.
There is nothing about an ABX DBT that should inhibit a listener from identifying differences. There’s no time limit, no tricks and no agenda other than identifying audible differences as well as they can possibly be identified. There is no hidden agenda in a well designed ABX DBT. They are designed to maximize sensitivity to audible differences. You have A and you have B. You know exactly what A and B are. They are time synchronized and level matched and allow for quick switching. This allows listeners to listen to both as much as they want to identify the unique characteristics then the listener can quick switch to X to detect a shift or no shift. The listener can take as long as they want and focus on each individual characteristic of the sound. Wider sound stage? Easy to hear a shift with a quick switch. Deeper bass? Again easy to hear with a quick switch. ABX is not a weapon. It is a tool that informs us.
|
“ Well, I do have a BACCH in my 2 channel room. But, it’s kinda weak/flacid/quite lame in comparison to the latest acquisition for my multichannel room.”
would you have a screen shot of the measurements? You might not be getting sufficient XTC. Is your room lively?
“Get the Sony STR-AZ7000ES 360 reality audio receiver...it is truly a breakthrough in audio.”
I am always open to new tech. So far I have been very unimpressed with Dolby Atmos. Particularly with upmixes. Not sure what any tech can do better than the BACCH and the BACCH works with the vast body of stereo recordings in existence. No up sampling. And when I test it for accuracy it is pretty much perfect
|
“ What is simple with a cable had no sense in a room with a cheap homemade device change ... Simple blind test is enough in private ... Any advocating of Double blind test complex protocol AGAINST any audiophile claims value is preposterous and ideological ... I hope you see it ?”
no I don’t see it. There are programs that allow users to easily do ABX DBTs. And it’s not “against an audiophile’s claims.” ABX DBTs are not for or against any claims.
|
“It doesn't matter where in the world you reside as all posts are in chronological order received (CST). Do you think anyone fell for that? Like I said earlier, you think in funny ways.”
Ok so you didn’t figure it out tells us a lot about you.
|
“I agree with ya....I wouldn’t agree to any kind of blind whatever in some random dude’s closet with random tracks back to back. I have done blindtests in my room, where i know a) the resolution of this room is quite high, i.e. i’ve got the acoustic fields ACDA panels that deliver resolution levels a notch above anything i’ve heard (some of Dennis Foley’s proprietary stuff). Anyways, audible differences in cables are quite subtle above a certain quality threshold of build/layup/materials and you need a high resolution room to hone in on such subtleties. b) There are 2 instruments i’ve been playing for... coming up on 40 years. On specific tracks that i know very well which showcase these instruments, i am a highly skilled listener (understandably) for this purpose.”
Whichcables did you compare?
|
