Comparative Listening Tests

[KlausR.]

You just repeated definitions that we all agree on, avoiding the essential question of my post - the objective of audiophile listening tests and their results.

In the earlier post you said

The objective of audiophiles is evaluating and selecting components to build systems and improving their subjective performance, not to test their sensorial capabilities. The audiophile tests have a control - their outcome.

I agree, for (subjective) audiophiles that is the goal and in the subjectivist’s world that’s ok, and a hole industry is relying on that and certainly doesn’t want controlled listening tests. Objectivists see these issues differently and this industry has a hard time convincing them.

Are you saying that grounding schemes of preamplifiers can change the level of audio signals?

I’m only mechanical engineer, so I don’t know. This point came up when discussing the issue so it would have to be investigated.

 

[KlausR.]

Hi Peter,

I am more curious to know what you would have thought if you perceived a change in volume by listening but an SPL meter told you there was no level difference.

I would not have concluded that what we heard was imaginary, but I would not have excluded that possibility, and to be sure a follow-up test with appropriate controls would have been the only option. I hence would not have assumed anything but in my book the results of sighted listening have no validity whatsoever for the purpose of proving or disproving an effect.


Klaus

 

[JackD201]

Amir, as you so graciously invite all to read bias into those brands you handle, we will simply read bias into those you don't.

 

[KlausR.]

Easy - audio does not have the resources to carry such tests systematically. But sometimes we see some light, suggesting that audiophiles are not just biased fools. For example, look at Hi-Rez, a current hot subject in high-end. AES has a committee on it, but we are still waiting for the scientific truth on this subject, although a recent AES paper concludes that ...

I had a close look at some of the papers listed in this analysis and have prepared a write-up. If interested, drop me a PM.

Klaus

 

[853guy]

(...)On your comment, I am afraid it is ill thought out and misses the point. I am begging for people in the other camp to do a bit of objective testing. Close all of their senses and at least do a one minute blind test to see if what they think they are hearing, is reflection of soundwaves or something else. But no matter how much I ask, no one will go there.

For my part as you say and I mentioned, I have no belief about these outlets doing anything for the sound. However, I am taking a step to buy one so I can physically look at its construction (which looks pretty nice). I will do some measurements like was done by Shunyata. And some others. Plus listening. All the others except last, are objective and can't be biased. The last one can but if it makes night and day difference as folks swear, that should not get in the way. And unlike you all having to do blind tests for free, I had to pony up $300+ for this thing.

You see the difference? Come my way an inch and consider the type of testing that the entire audio research both medical and entertainment approve. To the extent a mountain of words are written here instead of spending a minute doing a better test tells me it is not a matter of time and resources for folks but 100%, certified, unwillingness to face the reality.

People in “the other camp” don’t do testing? “Come an inch (your) way?” Really?

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ined-quot-ears&p=433337&viewfull=1#post433337

I have gone there, Amir. I went more than an inch. I took the fricken ABX test as recommended by yourself and Ethan in the thread linked above. Your response? Take another test.

And no matter how much I asked you to consider whether your bias was influencing your ability to remain objective in correlation of the results, you instead left the thread. (See posts #143, #146, #150, #169, #216, #218, #219, #233 for the irony of your bolded statement above.)

So where are we now?

Same place we were then. You issue a challenge within your domain of “superiority”. Someone takes the challenge. You then take the results of the challenge and overemphasise its significance in order to double-down on your own bias. And despite repeated attempts by myself and others to point out that bias, you instead deflect away from yourself and point to “the others” not going there, just as you’ve done here.

If you really, truly believe purchasing a product to evaluate under sighted conditions, in which you have invested your own money and make yourself vulnerable to post-decision dissonance(1), of which your explicitly stated bias is motivation for performing the evaluation in the first place is a legitimate, unbiased, scientifically valid experiment, the I can only express my admiration for you to so willingly return to your own vomit, despite the fact that some of us here can see the process for exactly what it is.

Help me out. Can you remind me what the word is for someone whose heavily-biased and personally-motivated agenda makes them favour selective exposure in research; uses themselves as the subject for tests they themselves also design and conduct; (therefore) cannot eliminate bias in either the subject, the experimental design, its conduct nor analysis of the results; has overconfidence in the results and overestimates the effects of any experiment due to low statistical power; uses arbitrary inference to draw (false) conclusions; and over-generalises the outcome across domains not within the scope of the original experiment?(2)

It’s “scientist”, isn’t it?

Oh, wait. No. That’s the opposite of what scientists do.

I think the word I’m looking for is “zealot”.

Yours in whatever this post may be worth,

853guy

--

(1) For more on "Buyer's Remorse" see Sweeney, Hauskknecht & Soutar (2000); Rosenzweig & Gilovich (2012); Geva & Goldman (1991).

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=C3486B1AEC8B8262874F61F51DF5EACF.f03t04, http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0024999, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016748709190047W?via=ihub

(2) See Button, Ioanndis, Mokrysz, Nosek, Flint, Robinson & Munafo (2013); Vankov, Bowers & Munafo (2014); Cohen (1962); Sedlmeier & Gigerenzer (1989); and Pan, Trikalinos, Kavvoura, Lau & Ioannaidis (2005), or any number of other studies into bias in experimental design and analysis, but my guess is given selective exposure in research is part of your mechanism for maintaining an existing world-view that reinforces your own sense of superiority, you won’t.

 

[853guy]

However, I have always done one thing with the gear presented....listened with my own ears- and preferably in either a system I am very familiar with, or my own system. I have never just assumed that because the piece in question LOOKS suspicious that it cannot work as advertised. You stated that you attributed nothing to this piece of gear...NOTHING. This without any back ground as far as I can tell.

(...)What do you mean without background? How can you dispense with my decades of training, education and work experience in assessing effectiveness of something like a power outlet? ?

It's never been your background that needs assessing, Amir.

It's your bias.

853guy

 

[jkeny]

I believe Amir is one of the most biased people I have encountered.
From his posts in the past relating anecdotes about his listening experiences, I garnered that he was aware of how very easily swayed (biased) he could be but it appears I was wrong - it seems he was either making up stories or exaggerating elements of a story to 'prove' a point.

Whatever was the case he is a case study in how NOT to do scientific testing & all this goes back to his bias & lack of self-awareness. No matter how much his experimental bias (& lack of knowledge or testing mistakes) is pointed out to him, he unsurprisingly remains enslaved by his bias. One only has to look at how he avoids/deflects from any correction to his posted misinformation or to his misapplied testing techniques. Again, he will avoid answering this post & other posts that specifically point out his misinformed errors

He's a classic example of how someone can be so blinded by their bias & be the antithesis of what they are claiming to be, objective, unbiased, scientific.



I believe that this transparently evident bias combined with his claims of superiority in his hearing & his testing is what galls many people

 

[steve williams]

IMO These last several posts speak volumes for how this community feels about Amir. Everyone is now understanding him for who he really is and the boastful claims that he makes and how he remains the King of Obfuscation and Deflection. Has anyone yet to hear him admit to jkeny and opus that their argument was correct and that he was wrong? Not once. Not ever. Instead he finds it convenient to disappear for two weeks when he was getting his a$$ handed to him by those two only to resurface and continue his arguments as if nothing happened

So as 853guy asks?

So where are we now?

Same place we were then. You issue a challenge within your domain of “superiority”. Someone takes the challenge. You then take the results of the challenge and overemphasise its significance in order to double-down on your own bias. And despite repeated attempts by myself and others to point out that bias, you instead deflect away from yourself and point to “the others” not going there, just as you’ve done here.

If you really, truly believe purchasing a product to evaluate under sighted conditions, in which you have invested your own money and make yourself vulnerable to post-decision dissonance(1), of which your explicitly stated bias is motivation for performing the evaluation in the first place is a legitimate, unbiased, scientifically valid experiment, the I can only express my admiration for you to so willingly return to your own vomit, despite the fact that some of us here can see the process for exactly what it is.

Help me out. Can you remind me what the word is for someone whose heavily-biased and personally-motivated agenda makes them favour selective exposure in research; uses themselves as the subject for tests they themselves also design and conduct; (therefore) cannot eliminate bias in either the subject, the experimental design, its conduct nor analysis of the results; has overconfidence in the results and overestimates the effects of any experiment due to low statistical power; uses arbitrary inference to draw (false) conclusions; and over-generalises the outcome across domains not within the scope of the original experiment?(2)

It’s “scientist”, isn’t it?

Oh, wait. No. That’s the opposite of what scientists do.

I think the word I’m looking for is “zealot”.

None of us could put it into words better than this.

Perhaps Amir might just understand that there is no one here in this community who give a rat's ass about anything he spews. He loves to bathe himself in what he thinks is his glory when someone decide to take him on and he revels in his circuitous never ending arguments.I will remind everyone again about the power of the "Ignore" button. I once again recommend that everyone ignore him. Trolls love to be fed. He is no different. Has anyone ever seen him admit to any part of an argument in which he was wrong. As jkeny says it is ok not to be right all of the time. Not once has he admitted that his argument with jkeny and opus was erroneous. Instead he disappears and lets the heat die down only to enter the argument many pages later as if nothing has happened.

 

[RogerD]

I would use your own ears not Amirs. The system we had at Axpona delivered an enormous soundstage. All things considering, we were quite happy with the systems performance regardless of the square room challenge. And pushing the speakers closer together wasn't an improvement regardless what Amir thinks.

Well maybe I fell for another Amir fable. This is what I do know VAC electronics can throw one of the best holographic,3 dimensional sound stages that one will ever hear(I own 3 of Kevin's big amps). Coupled with the noiseless MB technology and this setup should produce what you Leif describe.

Anyway I'll put Amir on permanent ignore....

 

[microstrip]

I had a close look at some of the papers listed in this analysis and have prepared a write-up. If interested, drop me a PM.

Klaus

Thanks, I will wait for your contribution - I hope in another thread.

I only pointed HiRez as as example of one more situation where listening is preceding the science and measurements. But, probably, as John Curl once said, "In the end we invariably find a measurement that matches what the ear hears and it becomes very obvious to everybody."

 

[microstrip]

(...) I agree, for (subjective) audiophiles that is the goal and in the subjectivist’s world that’s ok, and a hole industry is relying on that and certainly doesn’t want controlled listening tests. Objectivists see these issues differently and this industry has a hard time convincing them.

The "hole industry" does not want controlled listening tests carried in the childish way most objectivists suggest in audio forums because they know they do not match their objectives - exceptional sound quality that attracts the preference of large part the group (not all of it, surely) we usually call "audiophiles". Be assured that they have some controls in their listening tests.

I’m only mechanical engineer, so I don’t know. This point came up when discussing the issue so it would have to be investigated.

OK, unfortunately sound reproduction is an electromechanical business also related to psychoacoustics, and IMHO we can not separate the electrical from the mechanical. IMHO it is the most frequent "sin" of some objectivist's - they consider that all electrical aspects have been solved and have minimal effect in sound quality.

 

[DaveC]

I’m only mechanical engineer, so I don’t know. This point came up when discussing the issue so it would have to be investigated.

As am I, but this is basic enough they even teach it to MEs.

I think we can eliminate gain as an answer, there are no amplification devices and no possible way I can see for voltage to increase as result of a cable.

Assuming the wiring used in the cable is not resistive, which seems to be the case, we can assume a resistance from end to end that's a small fraction of an ohm, and there isn't going to be any sort of resistance from signal to ground that would attenuate the signal and I can't see any sort of grounding scheme affecting one cable more than another.

What seems to have actually happened is you and your friend notice a difference between cables then adjust the levels so the cables seem subjectively similar to one another, as you know preference goes to higher SPLs most often. Then you use that to make a statement that the cables don't sound different based on manipulating the levels of the testing. I'm sorry but that is one of the most biased and intellectually dishonest tests I've ever heard about, if you can't see that your bias manipulated the testing to show the results you expected I'm not sure what else to say besides that was a total waste of time and one of the worst tests I've ever heard about. And the lack of intellectual curiosity, again due to bias, is also mind-blowing.

This is a good example of why objectivists won't even test and when they do it's simply to confirm bias. I often try to get objectivists to test for themselves but this combined with the bias Amir is showing for the Furutech receptacle, makes me think it's a total waste of time and if an observation was offered that the sky was blue and it didn't involve "controlled testing" you would refute that statement.

-----

And Amir even lies about the cost of the receptacle. It retails for $280 and not "over $300". And he could have called up Furutech USA and probably gotten a good deal just so he could test it out as Furutech is generous that way, but instead he needs to claim it's over $300. How can you trust someone who has to lie about the easily verifiable price of a device he plans on testing just so he can exaggerate and make his point seem more valid. As Steve said, this is SOP for Amir, he's into "winning" a discussion more than finding truth imo.

 

[stehno]

This started out as a pretty interesting thread discussion. We are now discussing people's ability to hear, the importance of testing, science, and whether or not we are open minded. I am reminded of what one of my Boston audio buddies recently wrote me: "I don't pay much attention to the opinions of audiophiles who don't listen to live music."

The best post of the day Peter. I totally agree

I feel the same way.

Sorry but this troubled me the moment I read it.

Although on its face or if this was a live music-only forum your (including Peter's friend) comments make sense, sound nice, etc. But with all due respect, if you guys are really committed to this at a heart level, why shouldn't your comments be perceived being just as potentially arrogant, closed-minded, misleading, dogmatic, and just as exclusive as those committed to their pseudo science and its significance to high-end audio?

If for no other reason that there are plenty who listen to live music on a very regular basis and can still lack any ability to interpret what they hear with reproduced music just as the typical pseudo science type.

IOW, listening to live music on a daily basis, though a good exercise in and of itself, is certainly no guarantee whatsoever that such a one knows the first thing about the quality of reproduced music.

IMO, this tenet has the potential of being nothing more than a possible pendulum swing away from an extreme view of perverted science/psychology toward another extreme view that, for its actual as well as potential, could be equally detrimental. Maybe even more so because it's not as obvious as the dogmatic pseudo science type.

 

[jkeny]

As am I, but this is basic enough they even teach it to MEs.

I think we can eliminate gain as an answer, there are no amplification devices and no possible way I can see for voltage to increase as result of a cable.

Assuming the wiring used in the cable is not resistive, which seems to be the case, we can assume a resistance from end to end that's a small fraction of an ohm, and there isn't going to be any sort of resistance from signal to ground that would attenuate the signal and I can't see any sort of grounding scheme affecting one cable more than another.

What seems to have actually happened is you and your friend notice a difference between cables then adjust the levels so the cables seem subjectively similar to one another, as you know preference goes to higher SPLs most often. Then you use that to make a statement that the cables don't sound different based on manipulating the levels of the testing. I'm sorry but that is one of the most biased and intellectually dishonest tests I've ever heard about, if you can't see that your bias manipulated the testing to show the results you expected I'm not sure what else to say besides that was a total waste of time and one of the worst tests I've ever heard about. And the lack of intellectual curiosity, again due to bias, is also mind-blowing.

This is a good example of why objectivists won't even test and when they do it's simply to confirm bias. I often try to get objectivists to test for themselves but this combined with the bias Amir is showing for the Furutech receptacle, makes me think it's a total waste of time and if an observation was offered that the sky was blue and it didn't involve "controlled testing" you would refute that statement.

-----

And Amir even lies about the cost of the receptacle. It retails for $280 and not "over $300". And he could have called up Furutech USA and probably gotten a good deal just so he could test it out as Furutech is generous that way, but instead he needs to claim it's over $300. How can you trust someone who has to lie about the easily verifiable price of a device he plans on testing just so he can exaggerate and make his point seem more valid. As Steve said, this is SOP for Amir, he's into "winning" a discussion more than finding truth imo.

Yep, it's exactly as expected

The most outrageous example of such bias was on Hydrogenaudio when Arny Kreuger stated that if he didn't hear any difference in trial 1 or 2 of an ABX test he just randomly hit selections for the rest of the test to get it over with - I mean not even playing an audio track - just hitting a random A or B selection (they "know" what the outcome is, you see - it's no better than guessing). The excuse given - "life's too short" was the "scientific" reason used for this "controlled listening test". The moderators fully endorsed this approach - I kid you not.

Are these people so unaware of just how deeply embedded is their bias that they don't even think twice about these statements which transparently reveals both their bias & their self-delusion. And the hilarious thing is that they all come with these strong biases hidden only to themselves - sometimes they have to be prodded into revealing them but invariably they expose themselves eventually

I laugh when I see these people talk about controlled listening tests - they really have no clue.

Much the same as KlausR here - a perfect example of two cables which sounded different by all present - perceived as louder. But because he "knew" this was not possible, he ignored it upped the volume & then made the excuse 'even if the cable did increase the volume, what's the point when the volume can just be upped'

 

[microstrip]

Sorry but this troubled me the moment I read it. (...)

IMHO "I don't pay much attention" just reflects one's own weighting system about opinions, not an absolute judgment. I feel the same - considering my musical and sound quality preferences, I do not care about opinions that do not reflect directly or indirectly live music experience of acoustical music. It is why I am always asking for the recording specifics, sorry. Surely IMMV.

 

[ddk]

Sorry but this troubled me the moment I read it.

Although on its face or if this was a live music-only forum your (including Peter's friend) comments make sense, sound nice, etc. But with all due respect, if you guys are really committed to this at a heart level, why shouldn't your comments be perceived being just as potentially arrogant, closed-minded, misleading, dogmatic, and just as exclusive as those committed to their pseudo science and its significance to high-end audio?

If for no other reason that there are plenty who listen to live music on a very regular basis and can still lack any ability to interpret what they hear with reproduced music just as the typical pseudo science type.

IOW, listening to live music on a daily basis, though a good exercise in and of itself, is certainly no guarantee whatsoever that such a one knows the first thing about the quality of reproduced music.

IMO, this tenet has the potential of being nothing more than a possible pendulum swing away from an extreme view of perverted science/psychology toward another extreme view that, for its actual as well as potential, could be equally detrimental. Maybe even more so because it's not as obvious as the dogmatic pseudo science type.

You need a reference stehno, like Peter my reference is also live music, acoustic unamplified music. It all starts with natural tone & timbre and the only way to know right from wrong on that is from live instruments. Attending live unamplified venues is extremely informative and the only way to acquire the necessary experience and information. Yes not everyone is an audiophile and knows what or how to listen to a system and make critical decisions but without a real reference what are you actually judging?

david

 

[Leif S]

Well maybe I fell for another Amir fable. This is what I do know VAC electronics can throw one of the best holographic,3 dimensional sound stages that one will ever hear(I own 3 of Kevin's big amps). Coupled with the noiseless MB technology and this setup should produce what you Leif describe.

Anyway I'll put Amir on permanent ignore....

I'm going to do the same lol.

I'm not one who makes excuses or puts blame on other things. What I experienced at this show with our system(the whole system), I have only experienced one other place. That place also had the VAC electronics, Lampizator Dac, and the only difference was we had a KRONOS TT where the other place had an AirForce TT. I will admit we had a struggle with the room, and a square room to boot. if you weren't sitting in the center, the speakers would become localized depending where you were sitting and could also be track dependant. This is not our speakers but a room anomaly that was extremely difficult to deal with. We did the best we could in the short time we had to set a system of that size before the show started. Did we get the full potential of what that system was capable of......NO WAY. For those who came to the show and were able to sit in the center, hopefully experienced the same huge, live, and in the heart of the performance sensations I experienced.

Many people here on the forums know our products and what they are capable of. My enjoyment will be when Steve Williams and other members here will join us at the L.A. Audio Show to hear this exact same system.

Anyway......

I'm done with Amir!!! I'm tired of him insinuating that everybody but him our idiots. So he is on permanent IGGY!

We did the best we could at Axpona and with that I'm still very pleased with the results.

Goodbye Amir

 

[stehno]

You need a reference stehno, like Peter my reference is also live music, acoustic unamplified music. It all starts with natural tone & timbre and the only way to know right from wrong on that is from live instruments. Attending live unamplified venues is extremely informative and the only way to acquire the necessary experience and information. Yes not everyone is an audiophile and knows what or how to listen to a system and make critical decisions but without a real reference what are you actually judging?

david

David, yes, I'm well aware of this and that's why I said it's an excellent exercise and hopefully a pleasant one at that. And it makes an excellent reference for some but as mentioned, it's no guarantee whatsoever for others. Hence, it hardly qualifies as a minimum qualifier regarding anything related to reproduced music.

But since you probably haven't attended any recent live unamplified music performances and I have, I'm not sure why I'm even engaging in this conversation with you.

 

[RogerD]

I have listened to live music all my life...though intermittently. I know one thing...a good recording has a linear quality,meaning if the bass is correct....everything else will be. The problem is that reproduction is masked by signal interference. You take the majority of that interference away and the reproduction achieves a significant boost in "realism" and that includes tonality.

All this hand wringing of the lack of this or that makes for good conversation...but the information is all there. Knowing how to retrieve it...is key.IMHO

 

[ddk]

David, yes, I'm well aware of this and that's why I said it's an excellent exercise and hopefully a pleasant one at that. And it makes an excellent reference for some but as mentioned, it's no guarantee whatsoever for others. Hence, it hardly qualifies as a minimum qualifier regarding anything related to reproduced music.

But since you probably haven't attended any recent live unamplified music performances and I have, I'm not sure why I'm even engaging in this conversation with you.

Locked in at least once a week wether I want to or not!

david