Comparative Listening Tests
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
- Status
Yes, my comment was tongue-in-cheek as I was simply trying to stress a point.But hopefully you see the point I was trying to make.
I know Stehnni, Peter didn't mean just anyone either or my 6 year old would top the list
!david
I know Stehnni, Peter didn't mean just anyone either or my 6 year old would top the list
david
I think we understand each other pretty well here, David. Let me just say a few more things and then you can have the last word if you like.
The original quote was, "I don't pay much attention to the opinions of audiophiles who don't listen to live music."
I see little to no wiggle room here as the comment doesn't even qualify whether it be amplified or unamplified music - rather just live music. And in light of all this junk science talk, it can easily be interpreted as just a different flavor of the same dogmatic thinking.
Especially in light of the fact that it is entirely possible, however remote, for one to never listen to a live unamplified performance, yet have the most intimate knowledge of reproduced music. It is possible.
Moreover, I've seen too many times in this forum and others those claiming to attend live performances on a regular basis and without batting an eye will claim their own playback system and/or many of our playback systems sound very VERY close to live music. Thus giving indication that their many experiences attending live music performances haven't really helped educate them regarding their ability to interpret what they hear when listening to reproduced music.
Hence, I was compelled to say something when I read that comment.
Sorry Stehno, I would vigorously disagree with that. Where are you reading that in this forum? I and many others have specifically said the opposite. After a live performance, it's always terribly disappointing to return to my system without some degree of despondency. That doesn't mean my system is not enjoyable (forgive the double negative). But anyone who compares their home reproduction system, however fine, to anything other than a facsimile to live music is either delusional or just prone to hyperbole. C'mon man, we're audiophiles. We're crazy, but we're not insane. The key difference in the latter is understanding the concept of what is real and what is not.
No argument whatsoever from me, Marty. We're on the same page. But that shouldn't imply everybody else is on that same page.
And no, I made it very clear in my earlier comments that attending a live performance is very educational / benficial for some but obviously not for all.
steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
To take that one step further I don't believe there is a member here who thinks his system., as good as it might be, comes close to live music. Like David and Marty my reference is live unamplified music. I love my system but it just doesn't come close to the real thing. Not sure why you take offense with that stehno. I could see why if there are members here who feel their systems trump the live event but IMO there aren't
Statement that the cables sound different based on manipulating the levels? Memory isn’t as good as when you were young, I reckon! What I said wasDaveC said:
DaveC said:
Because the sighted tests you are performing are not biased, not for one second?
Btw, while having that cable I made some recordings for an ABX test, if you take up the challenge of a true blind test I would send you the CD.
DaveC's summation of what you did is exactly the same as what you described, initially - it appears not to be DaveC's memory that is the problem but perhaps your reading & comprehension skills?
Trying to switch the focus away from the weakness of your position which is flawed on so many different levels, doesn't work - it doesn't hide your lack of inquisitiveness & curiosity & your simply abysmal approach to what you claimed your 'test' was about - to find out if there was an audible difference between the cables. There was & yet you dismissed this due to your obvious bias. Do you really not see this?
One thing that reproduction can reproduce is the ambient and dimensional quality of the recording venue. Of course to get that at a meaningful level requires high resolving ability,but can bring the illusion of the event to a more realistic level to make any audiophile happy. I don't really want to produce the power or majesty of a full orchestra...(the health of my hearing),but the more dynamic the bigger the thrill.
Thanks but I have nothing to prove. I'm well aware of my biases, have used blind testing and controls, etc... The difference is you seem unaware of your bias.The level difference you heard was a difference between two cables yet you explained it away as a level difference, then proceeded to adjust for it by ear until your subjective perception of the cables evened out. If you want to state otherwise I'd love to hear an explanation for the level difference. My explanation that it was due to pretty much anything else, i.e. human perception, holds more water than a level difference by far. And if it wasn't a level difference the fact is, and I can state this as fact because increased SPL almost always leads to preference, you actually preferred the silver/gold cable for reasons other than level differences. But you refuse to see that or even consider it... instead you hold to a fairly impossible level difference?
Klaus, you heard a difference between cables, preferred one, and then lowered the volume until you didn't prefer it anymore and maintained that cables don't make a difference.
That's correct, RogerD - it seems that it's often forgotten that what audio playback is about (for most of us) is creating a believable illusion, not a reproduction of the event - the scale (the dynamics) of this reproduction needs to be in proportion but not necessarily at the level of the original event.
DaveC said:
I’m very well aware of my bias, don’t worry. This bias would absolutely require controlled listening tests when buying components, these are very difficult to get right, sighted listening is ok when you believe in them, which I don’t, so that’s why I don’t bother at all to listen to components before buying.
If you perceive something louder then there must be a level difference in the first place, methinks. Had I really preferred this cable I would have asked my colleague to get some more of these strands and make me a pair, but I didn’t. Still running the system with stock cables and some good quality pro stuff.
But there's absolutely no explanation for it. Unless you can tell me a reason the cable will change SPLs Occam's Razor favors my theory, in which there was no change in SPL.
DaveC, you're failing to recognise the locked in circular logic that you are encountering in KlausR - he will not answer your question because he is not interested in the question & doesn't recognise his cognitive dissonance.
It must be my poor communication skills. I'll try once more.
If the pseudo science types tell us emphatically that unless I follow their advice I'm lost with regard to high-end audio, I have problem with such dogmatism. If other types tell us they don't pay much attention to those who don't listen to live music, I fail to see any real difference between that dogmatic stance and that of the pseudo science type.
If there was any validity to your guy's comment, then why shouldn't anybody interpret that to say, those who frequent live performances the most have the most validity regardless of their ability to interpret what they hear when listening to reproduced music? Then to take your point a bit further toward its potential, doesn't that also imply the guy who attended 75 live performances last year obviously knows so much more about reproduced music than the guy who only attended 48 live performance?
IOW, if your guy's comment had any validity whatsoever, then the one who attended 75 live performances has every right to say, he won't pay any attention (regardling reproduced music) to the guy who only attended 48 live performances.
IMO, that's another flavor of equally dogmatic hogwash. Especially when there are those in this forum who frequently attend live performances and have little or no idea what quality of sound they're lsitening to on a playback system. But perhaps it's only equally dogmatic hogwash to me.
If I could only choose between a pseudo science type's dogmatic stance of high-end audio and this dogmatic stance of high-end audio, I'd probably choose the pseudo science type's because I can pretty much reject it in it's entirety and move on. Whereas with this, here I am already having to drill down and disect a less obvious but IMO an equally dogmatic stance of another flavor.
Oh, I recognize it...
This is exactly where this was headed from Klaus' first post on this test.
steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
The problem with blind testing is you habe to identify characteristics that you then look for in the blind test. As our friend Don pointed out once you identify a trait you are likely to hear it in both A &B.
Then combine that with the total lack of proper statistical interpretation.
For example "consistent with guessing
" that is an oxymoron. By definition guessing is is inconsistent.
M
Then combine that with the total lack of proper statistical interpretation.
For example "consistent with guessing
" that is an oxymoron. By definition guessing is is inconsistent.
M
steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
- Status
Similar threads
