Audiophiles Who Don't Trust Their Ears...

[treitz3]

If audiophiles trusted their ears they would listen blind.

Hello Goliath. To me, that is not an audiophile who trusts their ears.

Tom

 

[PeterA]

Audiophiles who don't trust their ears? Probably the vast majority of them. They trust their eyes, knowledge ... + biases, prejudices ... etc, etc.

If audiophiles trusted their ears they would listen blind. Using the ears. Only about the sound. However that's not what happens. No, we have audiophiles who need to peek around, know, expect, feel, fidget, move around in order to "listen" effectively.

No trust in the ears at all, it seems.

Trust in the ears yes, but more trust in the eyes. Imagine turning on your amps, placing an LP on the platter and lowering the stylus in the lead in groove, then finding your seat, all without using your eyes.

I really do not think it is possible to remove sighted biases while enjoying music in the home environment. Who would even want to?

 

[Audiophile Bill]

I think a combination of ears and measurements makes most sense to me. The "only measurements" argument is totally flawed IMHO. People do not agree on what sounds the best to them - you can see this in action with different target curves that can go from flat to a -9db linear function from 20hz to 20khz as well as other more extreme targets. Often "flawed" measuring components with extra distortion are preferred by audiophiles - just look at the Kondo brigade - the Ongaku has something like 5% thd on specs. Some people actually enjoy speakers / rooms with excessive bass gain. Audiophiles love vinyl and tt's, which is technically a flawed medium on measurements compared to bog standard digital. Lastly, there are traits of a system that are not readily explained via the standard measurements such as depth and width of soundstage being changed by a preamp, timbre of the system that is beyond frequency response, layering of instruments - most of us recognise that occasion when there seems to be more space between instruments and one can follow them independently, 3-dimensionality - when some components manage to project an image forwards and backwards in the room.

Therefore we can't merely rely on looking at measurements. My dad always enjoys a system that is very bass heavy and tilted down in the treble, one of my main dealers likes high resolution and finely detailed with extended high frequencies, some like the bbc dip, some like heavily coloured SETs etc.

 

[Gregadd]

I think the term"blind" listening is a misnomer. "Blind" indicates ignorance to a particular variable which can sometimes be obtained by obscuring our vision. More common it is achieved by withholding the knowledge. When evaluating small differences in equipment "going Blind"(pun intended) can help. When we listen all variables are in play.

 

[Andre Marc]

Audiophiles who don't trust their ears? Probably the vast majority of them. They trust their eyes, knowledge ... + biases, prejudices ... etc, etc.

If audiophiles trusted their ears they would listen blind. Using the ears. Only about the sound. However that's not what happens. No, we have audiophiles who need to peek around, know, expect, feel, fidget, move around in order to "listen" effectively.

No trust in the ears at all, it seems.

Interesting post!

There is NO doubt that price and visuals ABSOLUTELY can skew what audiophiles "hear". Manufacturers know this VERY well.

 

[PeterA]

Playing a record blindfolded might be tricky, but you can always ask someone else to conduct the test while you remain unsighted!
Can you really not think why an unsighted comparison between two components might be useful?
Keith.

Of course I can, I was just having fun with the idea posed in that post.

Here is a specific example of where it might be very useful. One turntable, two identical arms and cables. Two different cartridges. One person listens, the other switches lowers one or the other of the two arms. However, the levels need to be matched, loadings may need to be adjusted, etc. It can be done. But if you have only one arm and two cartridges, it can't be done quickly and without knowledge unless someone else mounts the cartridges while you leave the room. That requires much more time and listening. It is easier with some components like preamps. But you need someone else to do the switching or a remote which can do the switching.

I think there is a place for measurements and listening and unsighted evaluations and other's opinions. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to conduct a proper unsighted test in one's listening room, especially for components like speakers, turntables, tonearms, cartridges, racks, room treatment and cables. I takes too much time to change around the components. I have switched cartridge loading settings for people as they listen to see if they can hear differences. I have attempted to do other evaluations without looking at the components, but it is impractical to say the least.

I have measured my room's frequency response and measured the effect of different cartridge loading settings on the frequency response from my listening seat. These plots are useful. Measurements are critical to setting up an analogue front end. But listening is also critical. The more data/information one has, the better. I have done all sorts of analog adjustments while someone else is seated in the chair unaware of what I was changing. That process can work.

The problem really is simply how impractical it is to do unsighted listening evaluations of most gear at home. It is compounded if you want to do quick A/B/X testing at home with most components. It is much more practical to do these kinds of tests at testing facilities that have the proper equipment and listening panels and protocols. The problem is that most people want to hear this stuff for themselves in their own systems. Without a great deal of effort and many people helping, there is no way that one could compare in his own system two or more speakers without knowing the switch was taking place.

I am in the process of comparing two of my cartridges. With only one arm, this requires about 30 minutes to switch the cartridges, adjust the settings and then many hours of listening to the same familiar music. I don't know of a better way unless I had two of everything and could switch sources with a remote in the dark while both cartridges are playing identical records on identical tables and arms.

So, back to the OP, I think it depends on what you are asking of your ears. If it is to evaluate whether or not you like a component or system, then yes, I trust my ears to do that. If you are asking your ears to tell you which system has a flatter frequency response, my ears would probably be able to tell me that also. But I don't think I could trust my ears to tell me consistently over time if something in the sound of the system has changed or not without the advantage of sight or other information. So I guess it depends....

Edit: One short story. I had made a minor change to my system. I asked a friend to come over. I turned off the lights and he actually closed his eyes while I led him to the listening seat in the dark. After about a minute, he said, "You changed something, didn't you. The system sounds better." I had not told him anything. But he said he heard it clearly. I don't know if entering the room and being asked to shut his eyes prompted him to hear something, but I trust that he heard a difference with his ears only, and that he thus was able to trust his ears to that degree. He could not identify, though, by listening alone, what the change was that I had made. So I guess he could trust his ears up to a point.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Compare the frequency graphs of carts?
OMG, just stop already. If you like it, trust your ears, trust your judgement, and just trust your credit card/chequebook.

 

[Goliath]

Hello Goliath. To me, that is not an audiophile who trusts their ears. Tom

Sure, you put your trust in peeking, priori knowledge, expectations ... all manner of clues etc in order to "hear".

No trust in the ears. Plenty of trust in the brain.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I agree with Peter and, on this point, with Keith. Frequency response charts are interesting and useful (even with complications about off-axis response and time step and other sources of confusion).

I would be very happy to see the frequency response charts of cartridges. That way, when I hear brightness in a cartridge, I will be able to see the rising high end on the chart and prove my ears are correct. : )

 

[Goliath]

Trust in the ears yes, but more trust in the eyes. Imagine turning on your amps, placing an LP on the platter and lowering the stylus in the lead in groove, then finding your seat, all without using your eyes.

You clearly misunderstand the purpose of a blind test.

I really do not think it is possible to remove sighted biases while enjoying music in the home environment. Who would even want to?

No need to think. Not knowing what you are listening to eliminates a great deal of perceptual biases in play and this is all well known.

Who would want to do this? Anyone who wants to listen to only the sound, not the sound, and visual input, biases, prejudices, non audio cues etc etc.

If it's about preference, then you only need to satisfy your perceptions and nobody else's, so no blind testing would be necessary.

 

[ddk]

You clearly misunderstand the purpose of a blind test.



No need to think. Not knowing what you are listening to eliminates a great deal of perceptual biases in play and this is all well known.

Who would want to do this? Anyone who wants to listen to only the sound, not the sound, and visual input, biases, prejudices, non audio cues etc etc.

If it's about preference, then you only need to satisfy your perceptions and nobody else's, so no blind testing would be necessary.

You write as if we're all the same, incapable of making correct assumptions and blind testing the gospel of audio truth. This is absolute nonsense, this is your opinions or maybe your own traits, please don't portray them as universal truths.

david

 

[amirm]

Edit: One short story. I had made a minor change to my system. I asked a friend to come over. I turned off the lights and he actually closed his eyes while I led him to the listening seat in the dark. After about a minute, he said, "You changed something, didn't you. The system sounds better." I had not told him anything. But he said he heard it clearly. I don't know if entering the room and being asked to shut his eyes prompted him to hear something, but I trust that he heard a difference with his ears only, and that he thus was able to trust his ears to that degree.

If you flip a coin and I guess head and I am right, would you trust that I am able to tell which way a coin flips?

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

I have no bad hearing ability. In my opinion, of course

However I don't trust ears due it depend on health, mood, tiredness, etc.

Most simpler way found the best apparatus is measurements.

Here can be two problems: inaccessibility pro certified measurement tools and ability provide proper complex of measurements.

Last one is important part. Impossibly measure only one feature. Need measure in full playback range, including ultrasound.

If fix these troubles - select the best apparatus almost is not problem.

Also via measurements possibly tune apparatus+listeming room for the best result.

 

[Goliath]

You write as if we're all the same, incapable of making correct assumptions and blind testing the gospel of audio truth.

Well, all human beings with a functioning brain are susceptible to bias and the audiophile track record of hearing differences between gear absent typical confounders in casual bias overloaded listening conditions is rather shocking.

We know audiophiles need to peek, know and expect in order to "listen" effectively but have major difficulties when using their ears only, listening to sound. For decades and decades...

So, do we take unsubstantiated, subjective error-prone unscientific casual sighted "listening" over scientically accepted, reliable testing methodologies used in all fields of science?

Hmmm...

This is absolute nonsense, this is your opinions or maybe your own traits, please don't portray them as universal truths.david

Opinion? That people are biased creatures?

That sighted cues and non-audio cues can influence the sound we hear? That blind testing can be effective at reducing/mitigating bias while listening?

What exactly do you feel is nonsense?

 

[DaveyF]

I have no bad hearing ability. In my opinion, of course

However I don't trust ears due it depend on health, mood, tiredness, etc.

Most simpler way found the best apparatus is measurements.

Here can be two problems: inaccessibility pro certified measurement tools and ability provide proper complex of measurements.

Last one is important part. Impossibly measure only one feature. Need measure in full playback range, including ultrasound.

If fix these troubles - select the best apparatus almost is not problem.

Also via measurements possibly tune apparatus+listeming room for the best result.

So for those who do NOT trust their ears, I ask this...are you sitting there listening to your system, hating the sound, BUT loving the measurements, LOL. Guys, have to say this, the hobby is about music...the enjoyment of music. If the music doesn't move you, and therefore the gear we use to reproduce the music isn't assisting in this, then something is very wrong, IMHO. Personally, I use my ears and nothing else. When I look at measurements, like the excellent ones that John Atkinson is known for, they are no more than a sideline to me. Not something I would ever rely upon to make a purchase of any audio gear...that job always falls to my ears.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Exactly, you may well still prefer the cartridge with the poorer response ,but at least you know why .
Keith.

But this the whole point. When you say poorer response - according to whom? Like I said already - the definition of poorer ultimately resides with the end user and designer unless the desideratum is flat, in which case this would be easier to evaluate. Anyway - I personally think there are more useful measurements for cartridges outside of frequency response.

 

[PeterA]

You clearly misunderstand the purpose of a blind test.



No need to think. Not knowing what you are listening to eliminates a great deal of perceptual biases in play and this is all well known.

Who would want to do this? Anyone who wants to listen to only the sound, not the sound, and visual input, biases, prejudices, non audio cues etc etc.

If it's about preference, then you only need to satisfy your perceptions and nobody else's, so no blind testing would be necessary.

Goliath, I think you missed the attempt at humor in my post. After reading my post #93, do you still think I misunderstand the purpose of a blind test? I see how it can be helpful in selecting gear. It is just difficult to properly implement such a test in one's own listening room. I do turn off the lights when enjoying my system at night. It helps me to imagine that the performers are there in the room and also that I am not listening to someone else's system. It also lets me focus on the sound and the music with fewer possible distractions.

For me the hobby is about preferences. I want to like my system and how it sounds. It makes it more enjoyable for me. I usually also want to know what I am listening to, especially the composer and the piece of music. Are you advocating removing all biases and prejudices from the listening experience or just for selecting gear?

I think you are describing the way that you prefer to select gear for yourself. I am describing the way I prefer to enjoy listening to music for myself.

I prefer a system that measures well and sounds good. And I would find it very interesting to be able to listen to a few different complete systems in my room without knowing the first thing about them and while being blind. But I do not think that it would be possible to set such an audition up. I agree with you that I am the only one who has to be satisfied by the performance of my own system.

 

[Goliath]

Personally, I use my ears and nothing else.

So you're an advocate of blind listening, eh?

 

[PeterA]

If you flip a coin and I guess head and I am right, would you trust that I am able to tell which way a coin flips?

No. I suppose he was just guessing also.

Are you saying that you know for sure that my friend did not hear a difference in my system after I made a change to it? I was simply recounting a story of a friend hearing my system without the advantage of seeing whether or not I had switched a component. People are always suggesting that one simply leave the room when a friend makes a change and then to come back to see if he hears a difference. I'm sure this is a very flawed method, but absent rigorous testing in a facility, is it not better than sitting sighted and observing the change before one listens for a difference?

 

[FrantzM]

So for those who do NOT trust their ears, I ask this...are you sitting there listening to your system, hating the sound, BUT loving the measurements, LOL. Guys, have to say this, the hobby is about music...the enjoyment of music. If the music doesn't move you, and therefore the gear we use to reproduce the music isn't assisting in this, then something is very wrong, IMHO. Personally, I use my ears and nothing else. When I look at measurements, like the excellent ones that John Atkinson is known for, they are no more than a sideline to me. Not something I would ever rely upon to make a purchase of any audio gear...that job always falls to my ears.

I believe that you may need to re-read Barry's excellent posts. I would call them definitive on the matter.