Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

[amirm]

What about the pressure that participants on drug trials feel?
Does that invalidate the results ?

I don't think there is any parallel here. They are not being asked every few seconds to vote. And their results publicized for the world to see as was the case in me running these tests.

In drug trials I imagine a lot of emphasis is on diagnostic tests showing efficacy as opposed to just asking the patient to guess if they are getting better or not.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

You're missing the point. Just because a test is blind doesn't in itself mean that it is a valid test. If interfering variables haven't been accounted for -- see Recommendation ITU-R BS.1116-2 (06/2014) -- then it is a flawed test. Now you and others have argued that sighted listing is also flawed, so as I was saying, the choice then becomes between two flawed test protocols.

No, I'm not missing that point at all. But perhaps you're missing mine, that all flaws are not equal and the possibility (hope? I'm really beginning to think some people very desperately want all blind test results to be discredited) of flaws does not make listening methodologies equal. Sighted listening is not a flawed test. It is no test at all. It is casual listening with all of your prejudices fully engaged, an invitation to hear what you imagine you should hear, what you want to hear, not what is there. You guys have come up with nothing that could bring blind, level-matched listening down to that wholly ineffective level.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

My statement was a response to a statement, John, not an entire document. As quoted, it is a call to prove a negative. Is that not what the author meant? Is there a more complete context I'm missing? Expand the context; expand the quote. Read what you post before you put it up, and understand what it is saying when standing on its own. If this statement is representative of the document, I'm not interested in investing time in the rest of it. If it is not representative, I await clarification.

Tim

Yes Tim, this document was written by the E.T. himself to test human capability to understand his communications. Fortunately John, Amir and me could borrow the personal and unique copy from Steven Spielberg. But we are not allowed to post clarifications on its interpretation ...

 

[thedudeabides]

Sighted listening is not a flawed test. It is no test at all. It is casual listening with all of your prejudices fully engaged, an invitation to hear what you imagine you should hear, what you want to hear, not what is there.
Tim

So are you and others saying that if I audition a component over an extended one to two week period of time (multiple listening sessions comprising numerous hours) using a wide variety of material and make a judgment (like / don't like what I hear), this judgment is based on prejudice, imagination, and inherent personal bias and not a valid basis for making a purchase decision?

PS: A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[jkeny]

Yes Tim, this document was written by the E.T. himself to test human capability to understand his communications. Fortunately John, Amir and me could borrow the personal and unique copy from Steven Spielberg. But we are not allowed to post clarifications on its interpretation ...

Indeed, Tim is "awaiting clarification" from whom, I wonder E.T or Spielberg? Normally people read a document to understand it but Tim has stated he's not interested in reading it.

He's in good company with Max, though, who lives in Ireland, & believes that all DACs sound the same. He has been invited many times to come to an audio get together which we host regularly in Dublin (a city he says he visits often). He demurs saying he's not interested as all DACs sound the same

BTW, here's a quote from Vital (from another forum) who is an open-minded type but never heard any differences between DACs & had many get-togethers in his place at which nobody heard any DAC differences. He posted this after he finally, with perseverance, heard differences in Winer's 20pass loopback file. "Actually I think I've learnt this lesson:
My negative expectation bias needs as much caution as the expectation bias I am concerned others don't account for. I knew this, but it was Adam's positive result that gave me the impetus to keep trying, and possibly opened my mind to the possibility of success"

An admission that Max seemed to find unpalatable & fell out with his former pal, Vital, & Max left that forum, PMed me some abuse (for which he later apologised, after I PMed him) & joined here shortly after on the same day as Ashley James (who thinks all DACs sound the same). And both started quizzing me on a thread I had started about Winer's test.

Oh, I just noticed other common ground between Max & Tim - they both use AVI speakers

This is the first time I've seen someone, Vital, on an audio forum openly change & admit that his negative expectation bias was probably preventing him from hearing differences & needs as much consideration as sighted expectation bias. Seems that this one bias can flip what one hears (or doesn't hear) - pretty powerful one. So I guess this is "nothing that could bring blind, level-matched listening down to that wholly ineffective level."

Now question is why nobody at Vital's meetings heard any DAC differences at his 2 meet-ups - one blind & one sighted? His system? Group pressure? All DACs sound the same? The question remains open.

 

[microstrip]

So are you and others saying that if I audition a component over an extended one to two week period of time (multiple listening sessions comprising numerous hours) using a wide variety of material and make a judgment (like / don't like what I hear), this judgment is based on prejudice, imagination, and inherent personal bias and not a valid basis for making a purchase decision?

thedudeabides,

I am puzzled. Why are not you including the phase of the moon, one of the more insidious sources of error in listening tests taking less than one month?

 

[amirm]

You guys have come up with nothing that could bring blind, level-matched listening down to that wholly ineffective level.

Tim

As differences get smaller Tim, it becomes trivial to make the test totally ineffective. Indeed this thread is an example of this. Had I not passed these tests, people would have said the files were transparent whereas we know they are not.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

just once I'd like to see one of the people who I know actually spend time listening support Tim's perspectives......just once.

I'm not saying that Tim does not listen; only that I don't know him.

no one that I know invalidates sighted listening. lots of guys behind keyboards do thou.

I wonder why that is?

 

[Whatmore]

just once I'd like to see one of the people who I know actually spend time listening support Tim's perspectives......just once.

I'm not saying that Tim does not listen; only that I don't know him.

no one that I know invalidates sighted listening. lots of guys behind keyboards do thou.

I wonder why that is?

People tend to hang out with like-minded people so not surprising at all really.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

People tend to hang out with like-minded people so not surprising at all really.

exactly, precisely, my point.

I happen to hang out with audiophiles, music lovers, and listeners. over the last 20 years.....lots of them.

 

[maxflinn]

So are you and others saying that if I audition a component over an extended one to two week period of time (multiple listening sessions comprising numerous hours) using a wide variety of material and make a judgment (like / don't like what I hear), this judgment is based on prejudice, imagination, and inherent personal bias and not a valid basis for making a purchase decision?

PS: A simple yes or no will suffice.

I realise you've asked Tim this and not me, but I guess I'm one of the others so ...

No.

However, I'd say that if one were to be comparing *two components and the goal was not to determine which you prefer, but to determine whether there was audible differences between them, then I would say that short-term, knowledge removed & level matched comparisons would be a far better, much more reliable way of doing it than the way you described above.

*Assuming of course that any audible differences between these two components would be expected to be at the most, very small.

 

[RogerD]

Some of these threads I decide to not post after a certain point,but I'll just throw out a opinion. Since I voice and tinker with my system a lot, I think I have learned to listen for certain things like hash and high frequency harshness,as well as low frequency inarticulation,among other unwanted charateristics. Since I listen almost everyday,I can tell usually in the first 10 seconds or less if a change has made a improvement. Being able to understand the what and why is very important and this hobby is a learning experience. If I make a change it is from experience,or from others,or some technical piece that I have read. The point is there is always a reason for my reality,it my not fit the other persons,but knowledge and putting that to gain is the one great things about this hobby.

 

[jkeny]

Is this the only hobby where owner satisfaction surveys, test drives, freely offered, measured differences & unpressurised owner's reports of usage & listening are all deemed to be irrelevant by some.

These same people claim that we have to try to turn ourselves into human instruments in order to prove that the differences stated or measured are real or above audibility. Who then, & this is the real clincher, ignore the difficulty of doing this & ignore the necessary criteria to even approach becoming human instruments & instead choose a couple of pet criteria. It really is a transparent, agenda driven, attempt at showing all X sound the same as demonstrated by the flawed "tests" they are so fond of quoting.

 

[RogerD]

Is this the only hobby where owner satisfaction surveys, test drives, freely offered, measured differences & unpressurised owner's reports of usage & listening are all deemed to be irrelevant by some. These same people claim that we have to try to turn ourselves, with great difficulty, into human instruments in order to prove that the differences stated or measured are real or above audibility. Who then, & this is the real clincher, ignore the necessary criteria to even approach becoming human instruments & instead choose a couple of pet criteria, instead. It really is a transparent, agenda driven attempt at showing all X sound the same as demonstrated by the flawed test they are so fond of using.

Everytime I have a piece of equipment recapped or modded the tech tells me the square wave is perfect. Then it's my job to verify that he is right. How do I do that? Well the mechanics are pretty involved,but the basics lighten the task. There are distinct markers for audible sounds. The king of markers is clarity,and that is a known commodity,since our world exposes us to it everyday. The trick is to understand what effects these markers,and that is only done by study,and experience.

 

[jkeny]

Everytime I have a piece of equipment recapped or modded the tech tells me the square wave is perfect. Then it's my job to verify that he is right. How do I do that? Well the mechanics are pretty involved,but the basics lighten the task. There are distinct markers for audible sounds. The king of markers is clarity,and that is a known commodity,since our world exposes us to it everyday. The trick is to understand what effects these markers,and that is only done by study,and experience.

I agree, Roger, experience, study, constant learning & willingness to be wrong are attributes I pay particular attention to in this hobby & some of the things that I enjoy about the hobby. The music is paramount but our perception of hearing, & the how our audio systems (down to the level of the electronics) interact with this perception is of huge interest to me.

 

[thedudeabides]

thedudeabides,

I am puzzled. Why are not you including the phase of the moon, one of the more insidious sources of error in listening tests taking less than one month?

I am puzzled also.

It's my money and I will select the methodology to determine if I wish to purchase a component or not.

 

[RogerD]

I agree, Roger, experience, study, constant learning & willingness to be wrong are attributes I pay particular attention to in this hobby & some of the things that I enjoy about the hobby. The music is paramount but our perception of hearing, & the how our audio systems (down to the level of the electronics) interact with this perception is of huge interest to me.

I wonder how many pages a thread on building the perfect sound system would be? Something for everybody.....psychoacoustics,room treatment,attribues of sound and their influences,advances in electronics design,what makes the perfect speaker....ah one can only dream.

 

[thedudeabides]

Is this the only hobby where owner satisfaction surveys, test drives, freely offered, measured differences & unpressurised owner's reports of usage & listening are all deemed to be irrelevant by some.

According to some, the answer is obviously / sadly yes.

I like to read posts where people tell me I am mistaken in determining my system's musicality, and my ability to emotionally connect with the music.

Let's try this. Those that fit the above will henceforth be called "MUSIC BORGS".

PS: Why folks on this forum continue to respond to Tim and his ilk is beyond me.

 

[Whatmore]

Tim, I didn't realise you had an elk

 

[jkeny]

Tim, I didn't realise you had an elk

Is it called Max?