I agree that long-term listening has its place and purpose, but one guy's home-grown comparison of ABX and long-term listening shows almost nothing. It certainly doesn't reveal any fallacies.
Tim
Audio Science: Does it explain everything about how something sounds?
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
- Status
I agree that long-term listening has its place and purpose, but one guy's home-grown comparison of ABX and long-term listening shows almost nothing. It certainly doesn't reveal any fallacies.
Tim
Ok, so you admit accepting that your human perceptions change and adapt with time to stimulus...but you are convinced it is the amplifier that physically changes the soudwaves>ear audibly, during this time, yes?
Sorry Peter, but unless audible threshold changes in the soundfield are shown, that simply isn't logical or reasonable.
Nor am I sure how that would relate to Sciences purported inability to explain audiophile beliefs about sound.
I wasn't arguing that because I didn't know. But since you have subsequently mentioned it, are you now saying you are immune to the power of suggestion? If so, how did you determine this?
I am not criticizing your lack of scientific expertise, however, the thread happens to be specifically about the Science of audio! That's going to be tough to avoid in discussions unfortunately.
cheers,
AJ
Thank you stehno. I have read with interest this entire thread and have learned a few things. Surprisingly, the first question that I asked in the OP, namely, "Does this highlighted sentence, in my original quote above, seem confrontational, controversial and "(hugely) inflammatory to the other camp"? Are the objectivists, or anyone for that matter, offended by this phrase? I'm curious and want to learn if and why this might be." has not really been answered. I was curios to see if Amir's rather strong assertion had any merit. Instead, posters in this thread have focused on the last question of my post about Audio Science and whether or not it can tell us everything about what we hear.
Regarding Audio Science, only after I asked directly mid thread for Amir and Tim to define the term, did I actually get a better understanding of what the term means. I have learned the important role of listening tests in Audio Science. I have learned that Audio Science involves both objective testing and measurements and the results of subjective listening tests. Listening is often used to confirm what measurements tell us. My previous opinion that science should and does have a huge role in the design and development of audio equipment is confirmed and that there is a role for the end user if he wants to learn more about his system and room. But many simply want to enjoy their music and leave the science to others, and that is fine too.
I have learned about the advantages and problems with both short and long term listening for evaluating equipment and how the equipment and the listener change over time. Though there is also some disagreement about that. Very interesting, actually.
I do not think there is any consensus about whether or not Audio Science can tell us everything about what we hear. It seems a majority think that it can tell us a great deal but not everything. It is interesting that this thread is very long and active, but the discussion is only by a few of the same members and it has become very argumentative. When disagreements occur, one side demands evidence or proof of some assertion. Well, that is pretty hard for a hobbyist in his home to provide without the proper equipment or expertise to do so. For most of us audiophiles, our opinions are based on our own observations of what we hear. Our listening rooms are not laboratories.
I agree with those who have noticed a change in tone at WBF. And this thread and some other recent ones have contributed to that. But I have learned something about the hobby and about some of the members of this forum. And I think those are good things.
I am surprised that a few members, who post quite regularly on other topics, some of which are science or technically oriented, have not been active on this particular thread. The thread has struck a nerve, I think, in that it has exposed some fundamental differences of opinion.
One troubling thing though is that, unlike other topics such as proper cartridge/tonearm set up, turntable drive types, speaker/amp matching, or the latest product from a favorite manufacturer, threads like this one actually take me further away from music and more toward thinking about the hobby as a science and gear thing rather than a music enjoyment thing. This gives me pause and more than a little concern. My good audio buddies and I never discuss topics like this when we get together to listen to music, and perhaps, it is no coincidence that they are not participating in this thread.
Edit: I have also learned from some recent posts questioning my comments, that some people just like to argue.
You may have missed the word "simply" in my last statement? "This shows the fallacy that ABXing is simply superior to long-term testing!"
By agreeing that long-term testing has it's place you confirm my statement - ABXing isn't SIMPLY better than long-term listening - it s case-dependent.
I have always said that I feel ABXing is of no value for a lot of the audible issues that we currently face in audio reproduction. These issues are less of the frequency/amplitude differences of the past & more to do with issues that are not readily narrowed down to a simple A/B snippet comparison - they require listening to a longer portion of a track to form an opinion. This is a problem for ABXing as there are more issues about perception which come into play.
I've seen it argued that if it requires training to spot differences in ABXing then what's the point - the difference is of no consequence to normal everyday listening. And there is a certain myopia to this - it's assuming that the difference we hear in an ABX is the sole effect of the anomaly on our auditory perception - in other words, just because we have isolated & identified an audible difference by focussing on it's most obvious presentation, doesn't mean that it's restricted to this audibility - it may be affecting all of the music.
Secondly, people in these discussions seem to be under the assumption that we can be aware of everything in the audible field when we listen i.e that any differences/flaws will be immediately apparent. I posted the chapter on auditory attention that anyone who has this mistaken belief should read where the research shows that we are very limited in our auditory abilities in this regards & can only focus on one auditory object, at a time. That means when listening intently in ABXing we are listening to just one facet of the sound & missing everything else. This should give everyone pause for thought about ABXing. As my quotes reveal from the Gearslutz guy the many aspects of this test that had to be just right in order that he achieved a positive result:
- identifying the tell which is a big job which requires lots of dedication/commitment "It took me a **lot** of training. I listened for a dozen wrong things before I settled on the aspects below."
- Allied to this is identifying the correct source material
- Focus & tiredness during testing - he took long breaks between tests
I have seen people suggest that this identifying of the "tell" is not necessary, one can simply just go on gut feeling & that this often shows people they can discern a difference even though they are unaware of it. I would doubt that there can be too many examples of this actually working compared to the number of failures in using this suggested method. And, at the end of the day, what would it show - a difference that we aren't aware of? What benefit does this confer on the listener (unless they actually then brought into consciousness the difference during long-term listening
)?So let me sum it up as follows - not all audible differences are suitable to ABXing.
I know ABXing isn't the only blind testing & preference testing may well be more suitable
Oh no they don't
I just avoid replying to them & report any trolling & there has been a lot of it recently & it continues before our very eyes
Edit: And continues, ad naseum.
I intend to post, once I've had a chance to read it - being on vacation for 4 weeks made me miss a lot of content; and every time I say it's time to read it, the thread gets longer
Actually, I just started reading it, from the end...
Long term viewing melodrama episodes being compared to controlled listening tests???
Apples vs Oranges.
cheers,
AJ
Very good observations, Peter. All of them. And I appreciate your sharing them.
This one observation above I find very interesting and never thought of that before. Very perceptive. Any thoughts on why this might be?
Indeed.
I discovered the same back in my early days of internet usage, on the usenet group rec.audio.high-end. It was populated by many knowledgeable and technical people, and these kinds of discussions were legion. A I read, I found many aspects of the classic "objectivist" stance compelling (I was studying Theoretical Physics at the time after all) and I started to come round to the idea that many things that I thought made a difference probably didn't. The more I read, the more I believed that basically every digital source connected to virtually every powerful enough amp via not-broken cables would sound identical. It made a lot of sense to me. Still does in my head.
Except, I enjoyed the hobby less. Other people enjoyed their systems more, other people listened with excitement to each new cable and tweak, bought new albums as they convinced themselves that every change was bringing them closer to musical nirvana whereas I, smug with the satisfaction that I knew better, listened less and less. This went on for a few years but after one trip to a hifi show, I finally cracked. I called my dealer, started borrowing cables again, started putting isolation devices under my components, changed source and amp and blah blah blah, and my enjoyment increased again. I stopped reading the newsgroups, listened to more music, and got on with my life.
These days, I still find the objectivist stance (quite) compelling in many areas, but I'm as wary of anyone who suggests that everything is already known as I am anyone who says "this is objectively better because my ears say so". I enjoy reading about the scientific aspects of the hobby, I enjoy reading about the tests people are doing, I even enjoy the back and forth between members who are far more knowledgeable about these subjects than I will ever be, but it all amounts to nothing when I sit and listen to my own system. I don't care whether my cables are making a positive difference or not, I don't care whether the cereballs I put under my components are doing anything at all, I don't care whether people can't tell an amp from a wellington boot in a blind test, I don't care about any of it. I draw the line at cable raisers and other things (for now), I still think some people are lunatics, but I'm not smug any more. The objectivists may be 100% correct, but I still trust my ears in long-term listening more than anything else. Cognitive dissonance? Always a danger perhaps, but I don't care. I'm just here to enjoy myself.
So you are an advocate for objective controlled blind tests then. Where one trusts their ears and listens. Long term.
Not the zero trust in ears, must view it/touch/know/etc/etc. camp. Cool.
Hmmm. The rest of your post almost lead me to believe you were in the pseudo-subjectivist camp.
cheers,
AJ
Absolutely, it's about enjoying the illusion & feeling connected with the performance emotionally
The notion that somehow we don't use our brain & it's malleability in blind testing just astounds me "If you can not blind hear things, then you are involving a highly variable process (your brain) in the evaluation of the component."
The notion that somehow we don't use our brain & it's malleability in blind testing just astounds me "If you can not blind hear things, then you are involving a highly variable process (your brain) in the evaluation of the component."
So you are an advocate for objective controlled blind tests then. Where one trusts their ears and listens. Long term.
Not the zero trust in ears, must view it/touch/know/etc/etc. camp. Cool.
Hmmm. The rest of your post almost lead me to believe you were in the pseudo-subjectivist camp.
cheers,
AJ
I'm not in a camp, I don't think either side has the monopoly on the truth.
I am indeed an advocate for objective controlled blind tests, but I don't necessarily believe they are the last word in enlightenment either. They give a certain amount of knowledge, there can be no doubt about that, and I'm on record elsewhere as saying that if I couldn't tell the difference (blind) between a 2000 Euro cable potential purchase and wire coat-hanger, I'd want to know that. I hope, at the very least, that reading around the objectivist position has given me a more nuanced and, dare I say, cynical view, and that I'm less likely to be swayed by groupthink, etc. when testing new stuff. I'm not immune of course, nobody is really, but I try to be more thoughtful about this stuff. I don't wave my hands and disregard the results of blind tests, I try to bear them in mind when I'm listening myself, and ask myself harder questions. It's not the same, of course, but that's where the "don't care" part comes in.
So yes, I agree in the trust your ears approach, but only with the awareess that the brain has a huge, mostly unconscious factor here and is screwing with you and your perceptions all the time.
I'd also cheerfully admit that there's more to this hobby for me than pure sonics. I'd really struggle to buy a piece of high-end gear that didn't look the part, even if it sounded exceptional. I have no qualms in admitting this, I have no qualms in admitting that eye-candy, pride of ownership, all that stuff is an integral part of the hobby and my enjoyment of it. Even if it doesn't directly affect the sonics it may have an effect on my brain's enjoyment of it, and the must view, touch, know is part of that too for me. I'm happy with that, but that's a different thread.
I agree with you, and the message has become a lot more nuanced over the years, so this would indeed seem to be the "educated objectivist" view now. But 20 or 25 years ago, smart people who write in a manner similar to posts we'd see here put forward very convincing and scientific-sounding arguments that they did indeed sound the same, or if not they were broken. This is why I don't "believe" everything I read, and why I'm sceptical of anyone claiming full knowledge of anything. Knowledge and understanding are advancing all the time, that's what science is after all.
I understand your comment about being liberated from fretting, and I can agree with that too. I fret a lot less about certain things now, but I regret money that I spent on tiny changes in digital sources (for example) that would have been better served on speakers or room interaction. That's some learning I wish I'd gathered earlier...
Yes, that's a much more balanced view & I see that you even recognise that in blind tests we drop the influence that sight/knowledge might have but introduce other influences that can affect the outcome & are "not well understood"
I think we have come to an understanding - I simply cannot trust a test where there are many "hidden influences" & so many ways of doing the test incorrectly.
AJ,
I am not asking that question. I made an observation that my amps sound better after they have been on for a while. I notice this if listening from cold. When I turn them on and leave the room for an hour and then return to listen, I don't notice this change with further listening. I conclude that the changing sound of my system during this first hour or so has something to do with my Class A amps reaching some operating temperature before the sound stabilizes. I can not explain why I observe this, nor can I prove if or why this happens. I can not explain why Pass Labs notes this in their manual. I don't really care why it is happening, only that I observe it and change my listening habits as a result. With this experience, it changes my behavior and I usually turn my amps on a few hours before I plan to listen and then leave the room and have dinner or do something else. I always turn my amps on for a few hours before any critical listening.
You can ask for explanations as often as you like, but I can not provide you with any. Perhaps you should contact Pass Labs.
I think I have been pretty clear about my observations. I never said that I was immune to the power of suggestion, only that I do not think I am hearing the changes with my Pass amps warming up simply because I also read it in a Pass manual. I am not alone in this observation. If you want to continue to press me for proof or suggest that I am asking questions that I am not, you will not get anywhere with me. Sorry.
Other Forum Members,
I think part of the problem in these discussions, and it is certainly one of the aspects that I find so frustrating, is that a few of the science minded members who are posting in this thread are asking for, and sometimes demanding, scientific proof from hobbyists who are not qualified or equipped to provide any. It is becoming tiresome. I think this is why there was so much frustration with Amir in his threads about Harmon. There is a combative tone to the discussion, and quite a few members, it seems, would prefer to spend their time doing something else. Frankly, I don't blame them. I think they simply want to listen to their music on their systems and share observations in forums in the hopes that their experiences may add something to the discussion. If it is no longer fun, people will just tune out and go sailing or something.
This is a nice post, tomelex and a good example of what I have learned from reading this thread. I never thought much about blind, short term A/B testing versus longer term listening before this thread. I now have a better appreciation for both and of trusting one's perception. Very interesting topic, that. The problem is, that in a practical sense, it is just quite difficult to do quick, unsighted, A/B testing in one's home. It can be done, but it is difficult. Given more opportunity, I would like to do more of it to see what I can learn, but I think I will always also do longer term listening just because it is easier to do at home and it sometimes takes me a long time to decide if small differences are worth changing components for.
And then there is the difficulty of comparing things like two cartridges if one only has a turntable capable of using one arm.
I do plan on comparing two turntables (one belt, one DD, same cartridge and arm) in my system using the two input switches on my phono stage. That should make it possible to do quick switches, though I don't know about the isolation platforms under the tables. That might require longer term listening after moving two 100+ lbs tables on and off the one platform.
In the best of all worlds, one could have multiple components of the same type, say electronics, DACs etc all hooked up for easy A/B testing. And then listen to one's choice longer term also to confirm the choice before an upgrade. But this is not always possible, for obvious reasons, and so people are left to use the methods they have available.
Then we are in complete agreement.
If one wants to find out how something sounds, to their ears, then listening to it via a controlled test required.
If one wants to simply experience that same thing, then no test at all is required.
Therefore, there is no conflict between rational people and (true) subjectivists. Because a subjectivist needs no scientific explanation or test whatsoever. The experience is all that matters.
The so called "camps" is a false dichotomy. It isn't between subjective and objective at all.
It is between rational people and highly irrational ones, who don't know the basic meanings of words they use and associate themselves with, such as 'sound", "hear", "listen", etc, etc...and "subjective".
In this very thread, you see folks who insist that long term staring at, touching, knowing about, etc, etc, etc...is "listening". "Trusting their ears". Very elementary failures of logic, reasoning and critical thinking. In a "Science" thread!
And so it goes....
cheers,
AJ
Last edited:
- Status
