Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

[maxflinn]

Guys, let's not forget that this thread is specifically about using blind-listening to determine differences.

If the question is - is there a difference - then it's certainly my opinion that listening blind is by far the best way to find out.

If the question is - how should I listen to/enjoy/decide on, my HiFi - I'd say however you like.

 

[jkeny]

Guys, let's not forget that this thread is specifically about using blind-listening to determine differences.

If the question is - is there a difference - then it's certainly my opinion that listening blind is by far the best way to find out.

Max, the problem is that blind & level matched are the only criteria you believe in for valid test which makes your opinion counter-scientific & worthless (if you are ACTUALLY trying to determine differences)

 

[maxflinn]

In your opinion, John.

 

[jkeny]

In your opinion, John.

No, afraid not, Max - in the scientific community your view is anti-science & therefore worthless, according to the BS-1116 document you were referred to earlier & refuse to read.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

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.

That's not stress or some other trivial factor invalidating the test, Amir, that's a difference so subtle that only a listener who knows what to listen for and where to listen can hear it. To all others, the files are transparent. The fact that you, and a handful of people who were told what to listen for, did hear a difference means that the test was, indeed, effective. The fact that the files were transparent to those who were not trained to ID the differences, means that the differences were extremely subtle. It sounds like semantics, but it is perception.

Tim

 

[maxflinn]

John, you only take from science that which in your mind reinforces your agenda, but ignore it when it doesn't.

An example being your 'belief' that USB cables can sound different even though science dictates that they cannot.

And your belief that sighted listening is sometimes superior to blind in terms of proving audible differences exist - a purely faith-based position.

You're really not best placed to lecture on science, to be fair, having demonstrated that you place faith above it.

No offence.

 

[jkeny]

John, you only take from science that which in your mind reinforces your agenda but ignore it when it doesn't.

An example being your 'belief' that USB cables can sound different even though science dictates that they cannot.

You are a self-confessed dullard when it comes to technology & science, Max & yet you make statements like "All DACs sound the same" & "all USB cables sound the same" citing science as your criteria. You don't understand the basics of the explanations which have been given many times. Which means that every fresh day you start the same argument again as if the explanation was never given to you. You came from the PinkFishMedia forum where an apt analogy was made of fishes swimming around a bowl - every time they came around the bowl, they had forgotten what happened (was said) in the last 10 secs.

You refuse invitations to listen to DACs & USB cables that you can judge with your own ears, stating that you are not interested. Yet you claim I have a "belief" that DACs & USB cables can sound different? Are you sure you can cite anything about science for your claims?

Unfortunately, the same MO is in operation here & I'm sure you will be soon reporting posts, as you did on other forums, if you have not done so already.

 

[jkeny]

..
If John had not jumped on the long term testing as a better method than Amirs test (initially he did then decided that Amirs test was flawed and not valid and then that finally long term listening is not valid and is flawed, while some of us see a blind test, level matched as good enough-include me in that group after a while,.,,if I got all this stuff straight in my head now) I wonder if we would have got to over 740 posts, anyway, we do like these types of threads here on wbf as the participation here shows.

Eh, can you show me where I jumped on long term testing as better than ABX tests?
I stated that Amir's ABX lacked some controls positive & negative(which is probably the reason why investigations began into IMD, resampler errors, cheating, etc. - some, if not all of these could have been sorted by including controls in the test)

Yes, Tomelex that "good enough" is just not good enough for proof which just seems to be so hard a pill for some to swallow. And any & all attempts at pointing out this flaw are met with accusations of me criticising all blind tests. No, wrong - only the half-arsed ones. If you remember one thing I have said all along just remember the phrase "half-arsed blind tests are not good enough as proof of anything".

I've always said they are anecdotes & not even as much fun (especially for the participants) as the anecdotes that come from sighted get-togethers.

 

[Whatmore]

Is it called Max?

Anne, it's called Anne

 

[jkeny]

John, I have been on this forum for a long time, and I can tell you that all X will sound the same if they are the same enough.

Wow, now that is profound - I will need to ponder that one for a couple of weeks to sink in. You see sometimes long term stuff is better than short term - no wait, maybe I'm wasting my time pondering that long-term when a quick A/B test would do, instead?

And that requires extensive tests which folks like Pass and Boulder etc and others know how to do but don't tell you about it. Clearly, you would say that consecutive serial numbers of your stuff sound the same, but I bet if we measure effectively we can see that there are differences, but they are so minute as to be inaudible, even to Amir.

Tomelex, do you really think that any manufacturer does a set of tests that FULLY characterise their equipment & are just hiding the results?

PS, In the morning I will read the replies with interest over breakfast.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

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.

No.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim, I didn't realise you had an elk

It's actually a caribou, and given the content of the last couple of pages, it's a shame he doesn't like red herring.

Tim

 

[Whatmore]

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.

I think the parallels are quite strong. In both tests the experimenter is trying to control for influences that are known to bias the results. I don't see the relevance of the "voting every few seconds" comment. Except perhaps that there is a lot of actual evidence that fast switching helps discern difference so I'm not really sure why people see this as a disadvantage

In both cases there are diagnostic tests, no-one is asking anyone to "guess" anything

In both cases, the results are published for the world to see (having said that, you did the test of your own accord and no-one made you publish your results so it's hard to see how that was an issue).

And finally, the audio tests are somehow not valid because of the pressure of the test itself, but medical tests are not invalidated by this

 

[Whatmore]

It's actually a caribou, and given the content of the last couple of pages, it's a shame he doesn't like red herring.

Tim

One of my favourite Pixies songs

 

[arnyk]

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.

Wine and food tasting comes to mind.

It's a bad metaphor because audio is the one of the few hobbies I know of where so much is made out of so many tiny and non-existent differences.

 

[maxflinn]

You don't understand the basics of the explanations which have been given many times. Which means that every fresh day you start the same argument again as if the explanation was never given to you.

John, it is you who doesn't understand that USB cables cannot sound different and ignore the explanations why, not me. It is you who, in the complete absence of any evidence to the contrary continues the same argument that they can.

You refuse invitations to listen to DACs & USB cables that you can judge with your own ears, stating that you are not interested.

Surely, given everything that's been said on this thread of late, you're not still suggesting that the casual, sighted listening you're talking about will prove or, enable one to judge anything? Only blind-tests can prove anything, John, and in the case of USB cables such testing is pointless because they simply cannot sound different. Any sighted differences that you or your buddies in Dublin have found between USB cables can only be due to placebo. A simple blind-test would demonstrate this.

Modern DACs that should emit distortion levels below audibility shouldn't sound different either, though I personally wouldn't state that they cannot.

Blind-tests such as the ones Vital hosted demonstrate this.

 

[jkeny]

Whatmore,
Amir was telling you that drug trials use physical diagnostic tests as part of the drug trial to ascertain if the drug is actually have the desired effect - they don't use the patients perception as the criteria for evaluation.
Audio trials mainly use the listeners perception as the evaluation tool although I've seen MRI scans being used to tell what's happening in the brain while listening. Earlier in the thread links were given to the Auditory Neuroscience Laboratory, at Northwestern which specialises in the use of measurements of Auditory Brainstem Responses (cABR) as a direct correlate of what we perceive we hear. "cABRs provide a window into how behaviorally relevant sounds such as speech and music are processed in the brain. Temporal and spectral characteristics of sounds are preserved in this subcortical response"

Interestingly, it shows that trained listeners (most musicians) have stronger neurological responses to sounds than others & retain this response into older age (even if the training was done early in life) whereas the rest of the population have decreasing responses. This affects abilities such as pitch tracking, the discrimination of speech in noise (which is dependent on pitch tracking) & also correlates to our reading abilities. See here

 

[jkeny]

Wine and food tasting comes to mind.

I don't have much experience of either hobbies - I just know what I like although some of my tastes have changed over time.

It's a bad metaphor because audio is the one of the few hobbies I know of where so much is made out of so many tiny and non-existent differences.

Well you did create an ABX test, ArnyK & perpetrated this testing for tiny or non-existent differences, no?

 

[jkeny]

John, it is you who doesn't understand that USB cables cannot sound different and ignore the explanations why, not me. It is you who, in the complete absence of any evidence to the contrary continues the same argument that they can.

I know your argument by heart - it carries a digital signal & therefore either works or doesn't. This is so simplistic that I realise you can't understand the explanations already given hundreds of times so I'm not bothered doing so for the next hundred & one turns around the fish bowl

Surely, given everything that's been said on this thread of late, you're not still suggesting that the casual, sighted listening you're talking about will prove or, enable one to judge anything? Only blind-tests can prove anything, John, and in the case of USB cables such testing is pointless because they simply cannot sound different. Any sighted differences that you or your buddies in Dublin have found between USB cables can only be due to placebo. A simple blind-test would demonstrate this.

Hey, I never said the invitation had to be to a sighted test, a "simple" blind test is just as easy to organise although it wouldn't have the rigour needed for scientific validity, it would suffice as strong evidence according to your criteria. So, yes blind criteria, check, level matched (obviously USB cable can't change the level), check. There you go a perfectly "valid" test in your eyes, do you want to attend?

Modern DACs that should emit distortion levels below audibility shouldn't sound different either, though I personally wouldn't state that they cannot.

As has been pointed out to you ad-nauseum, the old get-out clause "should" & "competently designed" only works in a perfect world, with perfect equipment, where every DAC, USB cable, amplifier will sound as good as the next one unless designed to sound different. But, Max, we live in the real world where nothing is perfect. Interactions between these imperfect devices can often give rise to issues that haven't been catered for in the design of the devices.

Blind-tests such as the ones Vital hosted demonstrate this.

Even Vital admits that negative bias is much more of an issue than he would have credited it to be when he did these hosted get-togethers. This is the problem, Max, after all the criteria that everybody accepts as necessary, you still claim such get-togethers have some ability to "demonstrate" anything

As I said, every morning you return as if yesterday's discussion hadn't happened.

 

[maxflinn]

Hey, I never said the invitation had to be to a sighted test, a blind test is just as easy to organise although it wouldn't have the rigour needed for scientific validity, it would suffice as strong evidence according to your criteria. So, yes blind criteria, check, level matched (obviously USB cable can't change the level), check. There you go a perfectly "valid" test in your eyes, do you want to attend?

No thanks. I've no interest in partaking in pointless tests, the outcome of which is certain.

So have you identified different USB cables blind?

As has been pointed out to you ad-nauseum, the old get-out clause "should" & "competently designed" only works in a perfect world, with perfect equipment, where every DAC, USB cable, amplifier will sound as good as the next one unless designed to sound different. But, Max, we live in the real world where nothing is perfect. Interactions between these imperfect devices can often give rise to issues that haven't been catered for in the design of the devices.

Maybe some DACs actually do sound a little different. It's not something that overly concerns me.

Even Vital admits that negative bias is much more of an issue than he would have credited it to be when he did these hosted get-togethers. This is the problem, Max, after all the criteria that everybody accepts as necessary, you still claim such get-togethers have some ability to "demonstrate" anything

The first was a very rigurous ABX test. Differences were reported sighted - which means no negative expectation bias was at play - but they vanished with the removal of knowledge.

As I said, every morning you return as if yesterday's discussion hadn't happened.

You don't see it, John, but you're describing your own behaviour.

Anyway, I'm bowing out for a while now. I'll let you have the last word.