Audiophiles Who Don't Trust Their Ears...

[ddk]

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...

What is scientific listening and why would anyone need it in this case? What do you substantiate in blind listening that you don't in sighted besides a preference of A over B? Is all reliable scientific methodology blind?

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?

No one said that people are unbiased, what I call nonsense is that biases override our faculties and prevent one from making appropriate decisions, i.e. correct for the listener. And comments like this " scientically accepted, reliable testing methodologies used in all fields of science" having anything to do with one preferring box A over box or widget B.

david

 

[Goliath]

Goliath

For me the hobby is about preferences. I want to like my system and how it sounds.

Me too, and I agree, no blind testing is necessary for listener enjoyment.

We listen using eyes, ears, knowledge - all the senses etc so for purely subjective purposes there is nothing to prove. Just enjoy your system.

The problem comes in when audiophiles make objective claims about the sound quality they hear as a function of the audio equipment.

Are you advocating removing all biases and prejudices from the listening experience or just for selecting gear?

When it comes to listener enjoyment only my perceptions need to be pleased, so I wouldn't care about removing biases - they are included in the "listening" experience.

If the goal was to listen to the sound only i.e. Using the ears then I would listen blind.

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.

Not at all. When I "listen" I use all my senses, just like everyone in casual conditions.

However it is a falsehood for one to claim that one trusts their ears - you are trusting the eyes, brain, knowledge, all the senses,

If you trust the ears then by definition that is a blind test - only about the sound, using only the ears to discern the sound (sound waves).

Instead audiophiles trust all kinds of clues, biases, knowledge, visual cues - mood swings, day dreams, memory, the list goes on and on while "listening" with eyes, brain and yes, also the ears.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

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.

While I don't meet contradictions between sound quality and measurement result.

Here possibly talk about choise between "coloured" and "dry" (with minimal distortions) sound only.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

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.

blind testing clouds the mind with distractions of stress and confusion, occupies brain capacity and attention, and lowers the minds ability to concentrate optimally. optimal sensory attention occurs when there is the least distraction and maximum comfort.

I have zero use for Blind testing related to choices I make relating to things audio or music.

 

[amirm]

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?

Not at all. I am saying that the story you told us cannot be used as a reliable data point any more than me telling which way the single toss of coin would turn out.

We can fix this by a fair bit by repeating the experiment a few times and alternating randomly whether we did or did not change anything. This improves the odds of him hearing something real from 50-50 to a much higher confidence level. If for example he got 8 out of 8 times right, then the probability of him guessing is less than 1% so we are golden in believing him. We may still be wrong but the odds are hugely low.

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?

As I suggested above, the fix would have been simple and not that onerous. Just repeat the test a few times and do it with or without change.

The key here is not be tempted to believe an outcome that we favor when we would not in another situation (coin flip).

A great example of this by the way is the "Crazy Ivan" move in the great movie The Hunt For Red October. Can't find a clip unfortunately.

Jack Ryan: Has he made any Crazy Ivans?
Capt. Bart Mancuso: What difference does that make?
Jack Ryan: Because his next one is going to be to starboard.
Capt. Bart Mancuso: Why? Because his last was to port?
Jack Ryan: No. Because he always goes to starboard in the bottom half of the hour.
[Mancuso looks at a clock, and sees it's near the half-hour mark]

A bit later:

Capt. Bart Mancuso: How did you know that his next turn would be to starboard?
Jack Ryan: I didn't. I had a 50/50 chance. I needed a break. Sorry.
Capt. Bart Mancuso: That's all right, Mr Ryan. My Morse is so rusty, I could be sending him dimensions on Playmate of the Month.

I can't tell you how many times I have taken a blind test and got the first 2-3 answers right but then for the life of me, could not repeat that success. Clearly it was by chance that I got it right 2-3 times.

 

[Goliath]

What is scientific listening and why would anyone need it in this case?

A blind test - ie using the ears to hear changes in sound waves/soundfield as a function of the audio gear as opposed to changes in stimulus in the brain as a function of biases, prejudices, mood swings, day dreaming etc, etc, etc, Placebo, etc.

What do you substantiate in blind listening that you don't in sighted besides a preference of A over B? Is all reliable scientific methodology blind?

Possibly "hearing" day dreams, mood swings, changes in memory, level mismatches, bias overloading, etc, etc, etc, what was read in the magazine/website, expectations - all of these possibilities exist given the casual nature of the "listening". You know, using the ears, the brain, eyes, knowledge, etc.

Yes, blind testing is universally employed in science - all fields of science and for good reason.

No one said that people are unbiased, what I call nonsense is that biases override our faculties and prevent one from making appropriate decisions, i.e. correct for the listener.

You need to brush up on psychoacoustics and psychology. You can call it nonsense if you'd like, but it's established fact.

And comments like this " scientically accepted, reliable testing methodologies used in all fields of science" having anything to do with one preferring box A over box or widget B.

If you prefer A to B then that's fine, prefer away. If you claim the gear affected the sound (ie physical sound waves), then you are making objective claims in need of support. This is usually where audiophiles fall flat on their faces.

Track record to date when supporting audibility claims in controlled conditions where the ears are concerned are, well, not so good. However while peeking .. knowing, expecting, feeling ... different story. ; - )

 

[Mike Lavigne]

A blind test - ie using the ears to hear changes in sound waves/soundfield as a function of the audio gear as opposed to changes in stimulus in the brain as a function of biases, prejudices, mood swings, day dreaming etc, etc, etc, Placebo, etc.



Possibly "hearing" day dreams, mood swings, changes in memory, level mismatches, bias overloading, etc, etc, etc, what was read in the magazine/website, expectations - all of these possibilities exist given the casual nature of the "listening". You know, using the ears, the brain, eyes, knowledge, etc.

Yes, blind testing is universally employed in science - all fields of science and for good reason.



You need to brush up on psychoacoustics and psychology. You can call it nonsense if you'd like, but it's established fact.



If you prefer A to B then that's fine, prefer away. If you claim the gear affected the sound (ie physical sound waves), then you are making objective claims in need of support. This is usually where audiophiles fall flat on their faces.

Track record to date when supporting audibility claims in controlled conditions where the ears are concerned are, well, not so good. However while peeking .. knowing, expecting, feeling ... different story. ; - )

Goliath,

strong statements. can you describe in detail a specific case where you made a specific buying decision with blind testing....and how you did it.

i'd like to learn how you managed all the details of doing it.

thanks.

 

[Goliath]

blind testing clouds the mind with distractions of stress and confusion, occupies brain capacity and attention, and lowers the minds ability to concentrate optimally. optimal sensory attention occurs when there is the least distraction and maximum comfort.

Ah yes, stress - these excuses only appear to manifest when there are no clues or crutches to assist you in discerning the sound based on only the sound. No stress at all in casual listening for some reason. Blind listening can be as comfortable as you like - you just can't know what you are listening to. Stress is often cited as an excuse to avoid blind listening because deep down the individual won't be able to back up his claims. It's an excellent escape clause. ; - )

I have zero use for Blind testing related to choices I make relating to things audio or music.

Neither do I, unless I wanted to discern the difference in sound between audio gear based on only sound. I don't make my choices based on only sound, but on looks, feel, street cred, reputation etc, so blind listening is not relevant in my decision making.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Ah yes, stress - these excuses only appear to manifest when there are no clues or crutches to assist you in discerning the sound based on only the sound. No stress at all in casual listening for some reason. Blind listening can be as comfortable as you like - you just can't know what you are listening to. Stress is often cited as an excuse to avoid blind listening because deep down the individual won't be able to back up his claims. It's an excellent escape clause. ; - )

in other words you don't really have a good response.

Neither do I, unless I wanted to discern the difference in sound between audio gear based on only sound. I don't make my choices based on only sound, but on looks, feel, street cred, reputation etc, so blind listening is not relevant in my decision making.

another non answer then.

you take this strong position then wilt at the prospect of dealing with it.

 

[Goliath]

Goliath,

strong statements. can you describe in detail a specific case where you made a specific buying decision with blind testing....and how you did it.

i'm sure you actually practice what you preach.

thanks.

I don't make any objective claims about audio gear changing sound, so blind listening is unnecessary. Only my perceptions need to please me. Audiophiles often make objective claims about sound quality which is the problem - usually accompanied by zero supporting evidence apart from "I heard it, I said so", which is why we have all this melodrama in the first place.

 

[Goliath]

in other words you don't really have a good response.

Well, you appear to be in denial of the points I raised, which leaves you in a rather precarious position. Stress is only invoked when there is a very real possibility of not hearing a difference that was otherwise claimed in casual sighted conditions. It is a tactic used to absolve one from supporting ones claims. An awfully convenient one at that.

you take this strong position then wilt at dealing with it.

Wilt, in what way? I told you that blind listening does not factor into my purchasing decisions because my decisions involve more than just sound. It also involves brand choice, street cred, feel, looks etc. All valid reasons for choosing audio gear.

What part of the above do you have trouble grasping?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I don't make any objective claims about audio gear changing sound, so blind listening is unnecessary. Only my perceptions need to please me. Audiophiles often make objective claims about sound quality which is the problem - usually accompanied by zero supporting evidence apart from "I heard it, I said so", which is why we have all this melodrama in the first place.

define 'objective claims'. no reason to even comment unless I understand what comment you are interpreting as an objective claim. most comments by audiophiles about gear refer to preferences, or perceived characteristics....and those listeners would not view their comment as an objective one, they would describe it as subjective.

 

[microstrip]

I don't make any objective claims about audio gear changing sound, so blind listening is unnecessary. Only my perceptions need to please me. Audiophiles often make objective claims about sound quality which is the problem - usually accompanied by zero supporting evidence apart from "I heard it, I said so", which is why we have all this melodrama in the first place.

Most audiophiles know how to interpret other audiophiles claims and opinions in audio forums. We know each other for long and have a similar culture. We agree and disagree a lot. We enjoy our exchanges of opinions about our systems that were assembled in non blind conditions. We were never described a high-end system assembled in adequate blind conditions in this forum. So of the two evils I know which to pick.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Well, you appear to be in denial of the facts. Stress is only invoked when there is a very real possibility of not hearing a difference that was otherwise claimed in casual sighted conditions. It is a tactic to absolve one from supporting ones claims. An awfully convenient one at that.



Wilt, in what way? How am I wilting?

you push blind testing then deny it applies to you.

you believe in it and use it, or you don't.

which is it?

if you push it at us then show us how it works for you. or is it just fodder to troll with.

 

[Gregadd]

Asking a lay person to give a technical explanation of his subjective impression hardly seems fair.

 

[Goliath]

define 'objective claims'. no reason to even comment unless I understand what comment you are interpreting as an objective claim. most comments by audiophiles about gear refer to preferences, or perceived characteristics....and those listeners would not view their comment as an objective one, they would describe it as subjective.

Claiming the sound (as in physical sound waves in air) had changed as a result of the audio component, not due to subjective perception.

Audiophiles hardly ever pull the perception card when discussing audible claims of sound quality. They attribute the sound (physical waves in air) to audio gear. "I heard x", not as a result of my perceptions changing, but due to "y" (cable, DAC, power bracelet, etc).

If you claim the sound had changed not as a result of your subjective perceptions but as a function of electronic gear, cable, (whatever) then you are making objective claims and audiophiles often make those claims. All the time, in fact.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Claiming the sound (as in physical sound waves in air) had changed as a result of the audio component, not due to subjective perception.

Audiophiles hardly ever pull the perception card when discussing audible claims of sound quality. They attribute the sound (physical waves in air) to audio gear. "I heard x", not as a result of my perceptions changing, but due to "y" (cable, DAC, power bracelet, etc).

If you claim the sound had changed not as a result of your subjective perceptions but as a function of electronic gear, cable, (whatever) then you are making objective claims and audiophiles often make those claims. All the time, in fact.

here is a very nice spot for you......where you will be with like minded fun loving folk. see item #8 on terms of service.

 

[Goliath]

you push blind testing then deny it applies to you.

you believe in it and use it, or you don't.

According to whom? I don't need to drive a Ferrari in order to know it handles better than a Yaris on a race track. I don't need to listen blind in order to understand and appreciate its effectiveness in perceptual testing.

I'm cognisant of the fact that subjective perception may not be an unerring representation of reality. I'm aware that biases can distort what we perceive. I recognise blind testing for what it is. Your argument lacks any form of credibility I'm afraid.

if you push it at us then show us how it works for you. or is it just fodder to troll with.

Once again, there is no requirement for me to listen blind in order for blind testing to be effective. That's a logical fallacy.

 

[treitz3]

Hello Goliath and good afternoon to you. Please drop the perceived attitude and post with a little bit more respect toward our members. The last comment you wrote in post 130 was deleted because it was off topic and a personal attack that is against our TOS which can be reviewed here >>> http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?1207-Terms-Of-Service

You can attract more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.

Tom

 

[PeterA]

I don't make any objective claims about audio gear changing sound, so blind listening is unnecessary. Only my perceptions need to please me. Audiophiles often make objective claims about sound quality which is the problem - usually accompanied by zero supporting evidence apart from "I heard it, I said so", which is why we have all this melodrama in the first place.

Can you site an example of an objective claim made by an audiophile that he then only supports by saying "I heard it, I said so"?

I, and perhaps many here, agree with you that "blind listening is unnecessary" because like you, I don't try to make objective claims about audio gear. I have made subjective observations about gear that I have heard in my system and in others.

I once wrote in another thread that I heard the sound of my amplifiers changing during the first hour or so after being turned on. I took a lot of heat for writing this. Some asked me to prove it. They asked me how I could be so sure. I responded by writing that I was sure because I heard it. It was clear, to me at least, that this was not some objective claim on my part, but simply my subjective observation based on my personal experience with my amps in my system over many years of listening. And yet, I am sure that my critics thought the same thing that you are writing in your post, i.e., that I had "zero supporting evidence apart from "I heard it..." Well, that is good enough for me, because it was just a subjective observation that I wanted to share. Others have had the same observations. What a ruckus that one caused.