Comparative Listening Tests
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
- Status
Wasn't that wonderful? Those Yvettes are the most pleasing speakers to my eyes that Wilson has produced. Let's touch base in person at the next show. Love to compare notes as we go along.
Sounds good. I will be at the LA show.
Tee hee.
We just need to be mindful that Amir is just one of a number pseudo science / psychology types. We also have Klaus right behind Amir with his pro gear and his inability to discern what he hears, and with his objective to demonstrate that if we hear distinctions between cables or other products, it most likely is our imagination. Then there's Amir's buddy Ethan Winer claiming all cables and all components sound identical and all retain the fidelity of the input signal. Klaus will deny this but he too believes the exact same thing. IOW, if there is no sonic differences between cables (as Klaus claims) that implies they all sound the same. Additionally, Ethan wrote a book entitled, The Audio Expert.
BTW, Ethan Winer uses "pro" gear and guess what? So does Klaus. Would you like to know why these pseudo science types use "pro" gear? Because of their performance!!! Duh? But if all cables and components sound the same why do they buy pro gear for their performance? That's an excellent question and I'm glad I asked. Since they lack any listening skills whatsoever, the only performance that matters to them is durability. You see, pro gear is supposedly installed at the recording studio, then perhaps moved from one hall to the next and then back again. Cables plugged and unplugged over and over. Maybe it's delivered to a live concert and then back home again. IOW, "pro" gear in their eyes performs exceedingly well when it takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'. I know of one Ethan clone who will buy any cable so long as it's under $35 and says "Pro" somewhere on the label.
The pseudo science / psychology types have discarded their untrustworthy ears for their supposed "trustworthy" eyes. In an audio-only industry. And they have substituted the absolute sound for measurements as the new holy grail. Scotty, beam me up.
That's high-end audio to the real pseudo science type. And there are many like these, not one.
+1
Although these guys even refused to contemplate that a product that is used in the pro studios can make any difference...if,that is,it doesn't look to the eye that it could! Here I am once again talking about the Shakti Hallographs that are utilized in the pro world and in the high end audio arena. So very blinkered!!
I just finished reading it till its fermeture. In audio there's never a closure, it always keeps evolving. ...Except our hearing with age, for most of us.
But the loudspeakers use better parts, better designs, better drivers, the turntables keep looking cuter and cuter, the LPs are pressed more delicately and sound better, the CDs is forever getting better sounding (better musicians, better recording engineers, better mics and mixes), the audio signal transfers are getting clearer with less and less distortion and colors, the pro audio measuring gear keeps adding more refined features, audio scientists are studying new psychoacoustical waveform variations, new relationships between measurements and accurate sets of ears, new radiations between musical impulses and human emotions.
? Comparative Listening Tests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Yes that's why just ignoring his posts won't work as his acolytes will respond.
I agree about these pseudo science types - they have given themselves over to a belief in science (without understanding fully what science is about).
They seem to be deeply afraid of being wrong (as we see here) & as a result only trot out what has the acceptance of their like-minded group - look at ASR for perfect examples of this. Every idea that threatens to disturb their comfort blanket is derided & abused (no wonder they are afraid as this is the treatment that would be meted out to them should they express such a thought).
They also use a tactic that few see through - it's one that has been well honed & hence it's deviousness is almost invisible - they insist on tests which are notoriously difficult for revealing the differences which many can hear - the ABX blind test & Amir's insistence that the measured difference must be shown at the output of the DAC.
Both of these "tests" require a great deal of knowledge in order to do them in a way that has any hope of revealing differences - in the case of measurements, it also requires some very expensive equipment & knowledge - in the case of ABX tests it requires knowledge about how to properly conduct sensory tests. Yet these two aspects are continuously called for & the simplistic mantra of "just closing your eyes" used to justify home-based ABX testing & the other mantra, "it's the analogue waveform that we listen to" to justify that only measurements from the analogue outs will do. These sound bytes are intended to fool the less technically minded as they sound so logical but they are intellectually dishonest.
I've pointed out that using this logic they should be insisting on measuring the speaker output as this is what we really listen to. of course this is seen as ridiculous as it would be too difficult to tease out downstream subtle differences in these measurements - DOH!!! - isn't that the point.
Rather than admit the fallacy of what they are insisting on, they employ this tactic over & over. It's time to stop this sort of intellectual dishonesty by calling them on the questions they won't answer, every time they try to slip into their well practised role
Last edited:
Hi there. No, I did not miss them. I just skipped past them after the first line.
Did you say something related to the topic of this thread?
Yes. Your bias negates your pretensions to scientific credibility. There you go... one line. That better?
For those reading past the first line, Nassim Nicholas Taleb put it thus: "The (zealot) pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited (...) their main skill is capacity to pass exams written by people like them".
For further reading on pseudo-science (scientism) and pseudo-intellectualism as a counterfeit for robust statistically-defined thinking, more here (warning: content covers politics, Ivy league experts and low-carb diets): https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577
Blah blah blah,
853guy
P.S. You can skip past these posts as often as you wish, it won't stop your scientism being what it is, nor dissuade me from pointing it out.
Well said & applies to me too - I've been doing this for a long time now & got banned from ASR for doing this - exactly as Taleb states - Amir calls me a scorpion
Could this be a more accurate example of what Taleb says?When ASR started I had hopes that it might bridge the gulf between what is perceived & what can be measured but I was badly mistaken - it widened the gulf instead
steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
I still believe that Mivera cleaned Amir's clock and made valid points about using state of the art current day tests not tests done in 1992. True to form that even when a thread is closed Amir always has to have the last word. Nothing new going on over there
steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
That's a badge of honor John. Wear it proudly. I guess that you weren't one of those "happy members" who "like to discuss audio and to come there and have fun and be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously"
Can’t resist to tease you once more, so here goes.
Where exactly did I make such a claim?
So far I did not see any controlled listening test that shows the cables sound different, so this is all I know and until I see such evidence I don’t believe in cables making a difference.
You’re glad you asked? Then ask again because the answer is plain wrong!
What is performance?
This is performance
and this
and this
and this
If you need to know more about the relevance of these measurements I recommend JA’s AES paper:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=7171
as well as the many papers relating to loudspeakers by Toole and the Harman team.
You see, my pro gear is installed in our living room, in the kitchen, in the study, and not moved around at all. Cables are plugged in once and stay in place. How does it sound? Just in case I don’t like what I hear, I simply grab the remote
and use the 10-band parametric EQ built into each speaker (having both IIR and FIR filters) with a few million adjustment points to fine-tune to whatever sound is desired. THAT is performance. BTW., I'm running the speakers on the red line in the group delay graph, i.e. zero delay throughout the operating range. The filter generates a delay of 2 video frames hence the position of that line further up on the vertical scale.
stehno said:
Where exactly did I make such a claim?
So far I did not see any controlled listening test that shows the cables sound different, so this is all I know and until I see such evidence I don’t believe in cables making a difference.
You’re glad you asked? Then ask again because the answer is plain wrong!
What is performance?
This is performance
and this
and this
and this
If you need to know more about the relevance of these measurements I recommend JA’s AES paper:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=7171
as well as the many papers relating to loudspeakers by Toole and the Harman team.
You see, my pro gear is installed in our living room, in the kitchen, in the study, and not moved around at all. Cables are plugged in once and stay in place. How does it sound? Just in case I don’t like what I hear, I simply grab the remote
and use the 10-band parametric EQ built into each speaker (having both IIR and FIR filters) with a few million adjustment points to fine-tune to whatever sound is desired. THAT is performance. BTW., I'm running the speakers on the red line in the group delay graph, i.e. zero delay throughout the operating range. The filter generates a delay of 2 video frames hence the position of that line further up on the vertical scale.
So, you will use an oxidized multistrand cable of copper as long as it has the acceptable R, C and L because no one has proved it sounds poor with known and accepted blind tests?
Do you consider that the science derived from the preference tests realized by Harman are the only truth in speakers?
That the findings of other audio scientists, such as Siegfried Linkwitz, are not valid?
Klause, Does your remote control the amount of resolution that your three systems produce? I would be very interested to see measurements indicating how your various systems sound different from each other and can you share with us the frequency measurements of the favorite system in your house? I used to own the SME 309 tonearm but after comparing it to the SME V by sighted listening tests, I preferred the latter. I then upgraded the 9" V to the 12" V-12 arm. It sounded better during my sighted evaluation, but I have also seen published measurements indicating a reduction in tracking error with the longer arm. Many people think the SME arms are flawed, based on subjective listening. Do you have objective measurements showing why you chose this arm over others?
That is scary stuff, very dirty tactics, and completely unfair to Mike. I would quit that forum and refrain from posting on it immediately, if what you write is true. I had no idea it could get so bad.
Klaus, when i was a pro musician, I used to use pro gear in one place...the studio. The pro gear I still own, I use as re-enforcement for volume only if I am playing in front of a larger audience. Would i use the same gear to listen in my home to reproduced music....heck no! IMHO,the SQ is nothing special at all!! Interestingly, you may remember that years ago Mesa Boogie ventured into the home audio world...with a neat little tube amp, they quickly realized that this arena was not one that they really wanted to play in. ( Don't get me wrong, I think their gear is superb ( and I still own some of it ) ....for what it is designed to do!!) I guess YMMV.
microstrip said:
Just checked my 16 years old speaker ICs, can't see any oxidation whatsoever.
These are the only scientific tests I know of, should you know of any other, let me know.
What findings, what tests, in what peer-reviewed papers?
Toole found in his tests, that flat on-axis response is preferred. Here's what JA found in his tests and subjective reviews?
The issue has already been raised by Mike - they will dismiss the measured differences as below audibility even if he does manage to produce them. It's the usual m.o. & uses the Fletcher-Munson curves as a weapon rather than a tool for understanding. Amir's understanding of psychoacoustics starts & stops with this curve. They are incapable of thinking about the measurements they use or the assumptions they make - as Mike says the Jtest is inappropriate as a general purpose test - i twas designed to stress SPDIF receivers for a particular weakness of the SPDIF protocol & has just been used since then for most jitter testing.
KlausR,
Sorry, I asked very direct questions, you answered avoiding them with sideway responses. No need to reply any more, I will also consider you come here just to tease and provoke, not to debate anything with interest.
So nobody but Harman has ever done useful testing? Wow...
If you can't find some major issues with some of Harman's testing, like comparing ML speakers vs conventional in exactly the same position using the same amps, not accounting for acclimation in preference testing, etc then IDK what so say...
Technical perfection a la Harman does not guarantee good results ime, it does not mean you'll have a 3-D immersive soundstage that represents the recording venue instead of your listening room, the speakers will disappear, you'll have proper bass impact and dynamics, be able to retrieve subtle details, have a very low noise floor, etc... basically all the things that make a system engaging. Not that parameters like even frequency response and what they consider good "spin-o-rama" measurements aren't important, they definitely are, but imo their testing is not comprehensive and does not cover enough aspects of what creates a good system. Your posted measurements do not convey what your system sounds like, it could easily be very good or very bad.
- Status
Similar threads
