penguins have excellent hearing and spatial sensitivity...
WHY IS THERE SO MUCH HATE FOR THE HIGH END GEAR ON AUDIO GEAR?
It seems like when I see comments on high end gear there is a lot of negativity. I have been an audiophile for the last 20 years. Honestly, if you know how to choose gear and match gear a lot of the high end gear is just better. When it comes to price people can charge what they want for what they create. If you don’t want it. Don’t pay for it. Look if you are blessed to afford the best bear and you can get it. It can be very sonically pleasing. Then do it. Now if you are also smart and knowledgeable you can get high end sound at mid-fi prices then do it. It’s the beauty of our our hobby. To build a system that competes with the better more expensive sounding systems out there. THOUGHTS?
429 responses Add your response
I am very surprised that nobody discover that i post from Antartica... It is the reason why my signal noise level is so good... But the vibration control here is mandatory on suddenly earthshaking flowing ice ... The acoustic room is very good between each whistling blizzard ... My only public for double blind test would be indifferent pinguins ... but when you are alone in what is like another planet you dont mind about "true science" ... You listen music happily deluded by sounds qualities nevermind their source ... ... By the way reverberation here is a new problem to solve because the speed of sound is slower in cold temperature in my large huge room ...... Good evening i must keep the stove running ..😊
| |
“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.”
| |
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. Eitherway, I did it primarily just to see the look on a ASR cult member’s face and aid with his subsequent rehabilitation. There were 2 other dudes observing the whole spectacle and laughing hysterically when i hit the 20/20 times. 😁 ASR dude probably thought me a voodoo practitioner/grand wizard as he walked out in defeat. There is a YT channel called Alpha Audio where a couple of geeks do all kinds of listening tests, measurements, etc on different tweaks (fairly entertaining). I bet the ASR cult goes nuts when it sees that channel.
| |
I can add to my point after the article i mention above about the aural memory this interesting french doctoral thesis titled : Acoustic characterization of relationships between https://theses.hal.science/tel-01105122/document There is no singular storage memory place in the body, it is not localized and not decoupled from the general set of gestures in our habit behaviour... We remember the best what we had learned to produce in our daily context or routine especially when associated with an emotional content experience ... ... Then the difference between a device and his absence for a meaningful evaluation of his effect need a context which is not alien to our daily routine and interpretation context to be valuable, the opposite of what ideological objectivist ask for systematically for any small difference which is beyond ridiculous ... It is why simple blind test in work specific stages in a personal journey work better than public double blind test on a stage theater ... I did my work , i dont ask other people to put a show to make a point... i trained my ears without the need to prove anything ... My acoustical musical experience is enough ...I dont sell products nor did i sell an ideology ...
| |
I did not need these programs because i only use homemade solutions and i dont buy cables or costly tweaks or costly gear upgrade... It is way easier to use simple blind tests multiple time in the working optimization context way easier and more useful than ONE public stage show ... Anyway i see no valid reason to use that with my modified 10 bucks Schumann generators now for example ,save to convince you after a public test to buy some 😊...And anything is further from my intention than arguing with people about qualitative effect i gain from my device in specific constrainted acoustic context and pushing them toward expansive devices i ask for experiments in their private home at low cost ... I see it as a meaningless crusade asking for more for the average people out of a laboratory ... Sorry... You answered all my argument save the main one : I favor multiple simple blind tests in the same acoustical context and relax routine of the listener-tweaker and i dont see the need for most audiophile of anything more save for the scientific laboratory of the industry or for objectivist crusaders show ... You completely put aside my point about aural memory and routine behaviour in a known environment and put aside completely the difference between a step by step incremental process of multiple changes of parameters and devices in a known acoustical working environment and a public stage show about a singular minute change out of any known habitual working context ... Simple ... For aural memory and behaviour : https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-04675-8 Common sense dictate such observations i made ... Repeating your line as a preacher dont change common sense ...
| |
“ 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. | |
Then we use the same ...And i never ask anybody here to be believed to pass a public double blind test and not even a private simple blind test ... Guess why ? 😁 Double blind protocols may be applied with company sponsors or with costlier products ... It make no sense for me in AN INCREMENTAL mostly acoustic process ... 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 ? I dont need double blind test in official setting to test my cheap chinese modified Schumann generators location grid (each one on or off) and their ability to change my perception of sound ... Unvolontary blind test by accident and chance and voluntary blind tests were enough ... They happenned by forgotting to put some of them on or by conscious testing decision, then I did them and it work perfectly well ... It c would be impossible to organize that in any other room anyway , especially as a public show for the sake of what objectivist call "science" at the singular which never exist in any other way than a belief ......( dont suggest to me cartoon comic objection as the way the earth is no more seen as stationary )... Then i read many double blind test mandatory proposition as an ideological discussion about divided groups opinions about the efficiency of official or homemade products ...Because most of the times it will be a show , and a show impossible to entertain and organize anyway for the average guy as myself ... Simple blind test informal work totally well and are enough for each one of us in private ... The aural memory is not located in a specific place in the body or brain but is associated with multiple places and more than that on multiple levels and associated like a set of gestures to all the body and not only the separated brain and is associated to an acoustic context too where it work then optimally ... Then aural memory is more accessible in a routine habit in a very well known acoustic environment and in habitual relaxed circonstances ... Uprooting a listener is impeding the aural memory especially about debatable minute sound details separate meanings ... But multiple simple private blind tests in the opposite to a public singular double blind test protocol test are in my experience necessary and impose themselves without any ideological need , simply by the nature and in the context of a cumulative incremental step by step process of optimization ... Those who urge in a strong manner about Double public blind test are not in an optimization process which asked for a very long duration in months and years as mine was and with hundred of changes , they are in an ideological crusade... It is very easy to verify by the appeal of any "crusader" to "science" in the singular mode...i trust science only in the plural modes ...Not ideology ... Sound quality is a complex phenomenon which cannot be determined by double public blind test in any way, they for sure can be and had been used in official acoustic experiments context but a laqboratory is not a stage ... ... Not understanding that is not understanding what is sciences ... Simple private blind test are enough and done by almost everybody unvolontarily or not ...There is no real debate here only subjectivists against objectivists... I put my interest in acoustics with an s ...
| |
“ 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 | |
“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. | |
@scottwheel , Hmmm, so you are a BACCH guy eh? Well, that lets me know that you have an adventurous & rambunctious spirit (i.e., you like to explore a bit more than these timid purists...Timid’s the keyword here 😁). 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. Get the Sony STR-AZ7000ES 360 reality audio receiver...it is truly a breakthrough in audio. f you have difficult speakers, run its preouts into a chunky power amp. It is only around 3k though, i.e., petty change in comparison to what’s being charged for the crap sold by the diabolical dealers around here. Get 2 more speakers for a total of 4 speakers and prepare for audio nirvana like never before...It’s Sony! They have the engineering clout to make every high end manufacturer look like an imbecile at charity prices. You may sell your Bacch real quick. | |
I think you have not understood what i am saying ... First i do not have to put my money where my mouth is ...😁 I dont play game ... I for example used simple blind test myself ( not double blind) with my small grid of Schumann generators (10 bucks each) and i pass it for my own education and working .. I dont sell this ... And there is no known science about this as much as i know .. ... Second i dont like the expressions "golden ears" not much as "tin foil hat" they are insults .. Any person with his hearing trained with acoustics concepts in a room by simple experiments learn something ... No need to have "golden ears" ... 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... Any audiophile working on his system use or MUST use simple blind test ... Public blind test protocols may be interesting and revalatory on some aspects of a product , but they are more a show and very difficult to put in place rigorously and do not demonstrate anything of great value save in a statistical way ... For any individual experience they are useless ... Simple blind test is on the opposite a necessary tool for all of us because very simple to use as a tool ... I dont sell product, i dont recommend gear and by the way i dont buy tweaks, save at peanuts cost, i created my own devices homemade at no cost and i dont suggest anything as fundamental save acoustics concepts and simple experiments which are more important than any price tag components .. i dont feel the need to prove anything to anyone... My 700 bucks speakers and headphone system speak for me to my ears ... There is no reason and no no need to appeal to double blind test protocol in room design and for acoustic tuning and tuned devices as Helmholtz resonators and other acoustic devices... And when i tune by ears the damping load of my speakers and my coupling/decoupling sandwich of materials to control vibrations and resonance i never need a blind test ...😁 When we need your ears , you dont doubt them you tested them by using them , your taught them in experiments even with simple blind test when the work ask for it ... The final result need no public proof ... I dont need to give proof to advise people as i did for years here to study basic acoustics BEFORE upgrading ...( and basic acoustics is not few costly panels on a wall by the way )
| |
“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. | |
| Post removed | |
@mahgister , it doesn’t have to be the only proof....but, why wouldn’t a golden ear bat have the courage to pass a blind comparison on a subjective tesimony he provided? For example, i have passed cable comparisons 18/20 to 20/20 times on my rig (highly statistically significant). It helped zip the yapper of a ASR educated moron who lives in my town. He’s a very reformed cat now. Lol Put your money where your mouth is boys (When the going gets tough, the tough get going!).
| |
@nonoise when start talking like @scottwheel does now. I’m done. The language the overly aggressive commenting when it is unnecessary completely loses me. Someone trying to force their opinion on you so bad that they don’t see how disrespectful they are being to other forum participants. The sad part is that he doesn’t even see it. Most people on this thread have been doing audio 15, 20, 30 years and all of the sudden he has all the answers to all the audio riddles? GOH! | |
scottwheel77 posts
So this is the one you can't find. Tells us a lot about you. All the best, | |
We can discuss... But discussion is a meeting between people who spoke with one another without prejudices... Asking for a double blind test as only proof for any subjective testimony given in good faith in a hobby site about anyone using something in his audio system /room is asking too much from a too high chair ...😁 It is a hobby site not a pseudo-scientific or even a serious circle about electrical measurement as a hobby ... Speaking about the gear is a hobby , and measuring and speaking about the electrical specs verified as the only valuable information over anything else is another hobby as playing with tools is another hobby .. ... My own hobby is more about acoustics and music ...Way less about the gear piece listenings than the average subjectivist hobbyist, or way less about the electrical specs verified and presented as unique guarantee for a good S.Q. as the average objectivist hobbyist ... We must respect the experience and beliefs of the other people ... It is not so hard to do with only arguments, no insults...
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 winned ... Helping people is not giving them an ideological lesson first and last but a true useful information ...
| |
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. I really didn’t wanna partake in this thread but your oh so holy attitude was getting too much for me to ignore. No one owes you anything in the way of "proof" no matter how much sophistic effort you put into your flimsy premise that we have to be able to verify and repeat it for you to believe it. No one. All the best, | |
“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. | |
nothing scary scottwheel…your views have been expressed here by many, many times, for many years… you make some good points… though many of us have a different experience and point of view… its just very repetitive, and being so aggressive and publicly calling people you don’t know dicks sure doesn’t help. This is an old endless debate that has never changed anyone’s beliefs. We are all happy with our music systems so all is well. | |
| Post removed | |
I am sure that you are not jealous, petty , narrow minded more than most of us anyway , and you are serious as we are ... This does not means that all i did in my room incrementally had no value for me because i used simple blind test and not Double blind test with controllers ... Insisting so much on double blind test mark you as an objectivist attacking subjectivist crowd here ...It is inescapable ... Why not criticizing double blind test protocol as being impracticable in individual audio optimization with a specific system/room/ears ? Accepted knowledge as you said dont bother itself with the difference a piece of shungite on an amplifier can do compared to a piece of quartz, does it means this experiment is preposterous because i did not wait for James Randi double blind test to perceive it ? The actual state of science so extraordinary it appear technologically by the way is primitive compared to what we can foresee with a small imagination grounded in the last decades discoveries ... Now read me right , i think sound qualities exist and are improved for perception by psycho-acoustics discoveries applied in audio ... This dont means that i cannot made my own experiment which will have a value for me not for all others ...
| |
“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. | |
| Post removed | |
“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. | |
It’s not amazing at all. You’ve made dozens of posts in the space of just a few weeks, and you’ve made yourself very clear. You’re consistent. You’re a troll, and now you’re transitioning to the claim of being a victim. Who exactly do you think you're fooling? | |
You clearly said that double blind test is the only way to accept any hearing experience as valid... I claim that any audiophiles in an incremental process of tuning his system with electrical,mechanical or material and acoustical devices use or must use simple blind test as part of his audio system optimization ... There is no claim of universal validy if i claim that my experience suggest that cable X in my system Y in a room Z for my ears make some qualitative change ... There is only a claim of a change in me and for me in some specific complex set of electrical,mechanical and acoustical conditions impossible to repeat probably in some other conditions and for some other ears , thats all ... Using this audiophile claim of personal experience , right or wrong , to discredit any speech about any experience , save one validated by double blind test is not science it is debunking strategy about marketing of some cables , or debunking strategy against someone claim ... Objectivist are deluded by gear properties as much as subjectivists are because replacing ears subjectivity by electrical tools specs is as deceptive ... Psycho-acoustics concept and experiments rules the gear and the tool, not the reverse ... Then debunking a claim is not so simplistic as using a double blind test ... Especially if someone knows the difficulties related to the complex protocol behind it ...And even with this protocol applied, we cannot debunk someone claims generally ...Double blind test work statistically not so much in individual case ... In any incremental optimizing work as listener in his room , it is enough to do simple repeated blind test in my experience ...I did them as any designer do also ...I dont need double blind test to know what work for me and what did not work ... And i dont need to sell anything as an audio company does... Audio company can use double blind test as marketing ploy ... I dont need that test, i just need to listen to the "new" device they sell after their test to evaluate the level of change and the degree of change in relation to his price in my own system with his one peculiarities and needs ... If the change is illusory i dont think they will make much money ... Audio company make money with the look of the gear, and publicity and sometimes a good design well evaluated for his price or overcharged ... Dont need a double blind test to guess that before buying ... Forgot double blind test and buy psycho-acoustics books and books about hearing and make some simple experiments ...Dont conflate acoustic experience with a limited set of electrical measured specs as some deluded objectivists do ...
«Measures dont say all the truth, because all measures, known and unknown, are not equals»--Anonymus designer «Is the form of the universe a one side surface or a two side surface ?»-- Anonymus cosmologist
| |
| Post removed | |
It is precisely what my post suggested if you read it ... His idea about sound qualities came from scientism not from science ... And using double blind set as a Procustean bed to do it make of him an indisclosed objectivist ... 😁 | |
@mahgister "scottwheel is right about that, he never explicitly claim the above criticisms of audiophiles" It has been done implicitly. @cleeds "sealioning" Exactly. | |
What I'm looking for is value at every price point. Value is individually determined. What I don't like is that I can't often find the most value within each price point because the market is inefficient for hifi products. Thus I end up guessing as most of us do. What I'd love to see are permanent HiFi listening centers that have quality listening rooms with lots of gear to compare spread out at 4 or 5 locations in the US. Thus we would not have to listen to gear at shows in crummy rooms that don't allow for a direct comparisons between gear or at dealers with limited gear alternatives. Just a thought. | |
Yes but this does not contradict my point , because humans can be trained and are specifically trained in visual experiences , wine tasting , as in music and acoustic or speech recognition etc ... All of what is perceived can be explained today or tomorrow by sciences but this fact dont means that the explanation will be the actual accepted scientific explanation ... There is no consensus in hearing theories actually , only a basic consensus around the technology ... We perceive the sound of an amplifier all together the same way in a general way of speaking yes, but if i change a cable or put a piece of a shungite chunk on the amplifier or instead a piece of quartz, some will perceive a change , and some will claim that it is impossible to perceive a change because of Maxwell equations, Helmholtz hearing theory and Fourier mapping of sounds ... Instead of training their ears they will shut down any other possibilities ...But all these theories are not enough to understand sound perception as it is , even if they could be and they are actually the basis of very useful technologies ... Remember when people thought that seeing without eyes was impossible ? Now it is possible for everyone becoming blind with a training ... It is the samething with sound , we can now "see" sounds with our hands with a vibrating object in our hand ( a balloon) ...
| |
Your effort to play the victim here probably fools no one. If you have a complaint about a user, take it to the moderators. @scottwheel is a troll practicing "sealioning." It's not new or original.
| |
| Post removed | |
To this which was in his opinion put in his mouth he replied :
scottwheel is right about that, he never explicitly claim the above criticisms of audiophiles... He is right because alas! subjectivists crowd reacted emotionaly and assimilated him with an objectivist (because he seem to be one for sure even if he does not states it officially ) and then reacted accordingly ; but the objectivists crowd reacted generally no less emotionally but with an ideological stance conflated with sciences ...
For example Scottwheel stated :
If i translate this sentence above by analogy : a rainbow do not exist as colored because the colors are not in the water droplets in the air...They resulted from the way the brain filtered light though a particular medium ...They are then illusion waiting to be debunked ...A so simplistic reasoning is expressed by our scottwheel about sound qualities ...He forget the brain creative contribution in reading a sound source vibrating body qualities which are not mainly a deception and in all cases as his debunking use of the double blind test method is trying to prove ...
He forget the non linear working brain filtering noise and working in his own time domain by some interpolative process to perceive the recognized symbolic form image coming through the medium of the various physical invariants related to the specifically located resonating source body ... In speech this is a person... In music this is an individual instrument speaking his language ...A violin or a person dont matter ... In sound audio it can be a vibrating source as an amplifier which sound can be modified by a change around or in or on the amplifier and perceived as a change in quality by a listener, audiophile or not ...
Simple blind test is useful in a designing incremental process ...i used them myself with my embeddings controls design ... Double blind test has a value statistically only and in specific conditions ...
Using double blind test to debunk an individual claim in a short span of time in specific alien contextual hearing conditions is a debunking business as James Randi claimed to do ...Not science ...
| |
| Post removed | |
Where are you, @millercarbon ????? Come back!!!!!!!!!!! (Or @millercarbonknowsmoreaboutausiothanyoupricks ???)
| |
