Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

[jkeny]

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

A perfect, Max answer - nonsensical but yet very revealing at the same time. Refusal to test your "beliefs" is part of your MO. Wouldn't be such a problem if you didn't take up so much time making claims on forums (many of them) ad-nauseum & then either modifying the claim, as below or refusing to face up to listening tests. It's trolling, Max as on other forums & you will be ignored by me from now on.

So have you identified different USB cables blind?

Yes, I've done personal informal blind tests - biggest difference noted was between a stock USB cable & no USB cable

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

Well, why waste everybody's time on the Winer thread posting exactly that "all DACS sound the same" from both you & your invitee, Ashley James?? It's called trolling, Max

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.

Max, do you know what negative expectation bias means?

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.

Sure, bye!!

 

[Whatmore]

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.

<snip>

There are plenty of medical tests that rely on patients' perception. How about tests on the effectiveness of anti-depressants?
In any event you are missing the point. The fact that it is the listeners' perception that is being tested makes it even more important to remove the known biases.

 

[maxflinn]

you will be ignored by me from now on.

Thank you, John. Hence forth I will extend you the same courtesy.

 

[jkeny]

There are plenty of medical tests that rely on patients' perception. How about tests on the effectiveness of anti-depressants?
In any event you are missing the point. The fact that it is the listeners' perception that is being tested makes it even more important to remove the known biases.

I agree, with any test, it's hugely important to try to eliminate any known biases so as to raise the sensitivity of the test.

So I'm not really following your train of thought? You said how can pressure be an important bias in audio perception testing but not in medical drug trials?

You cited clinical trials for antidepressants as one where the patient's perceived mood (perceptions) over an extended period is analysed, presumably by questionnaire or some formal method?

I'm sure any clinical trial worth publishing will have a number of controls which identify how to interview the patient & what biases might be needed to be controlled. I'm sure pressure & stress would be one of the biasing factors that the test would try to attenuate. I certainly doubt any valid test would be couched as a challenge (unless it was to analyse the subjects response to challenge).

If you have clinical trials that are contrary to my thoughts then I would stand corrected.

 

[Whatmore]

I agree, with any test, it's hugely important to try to eliminate any known biases for a sensitive test.

So I'm not really following your train of thought? You said how can pressure be an important bias in audio perception testing but not in medical drug testing.

You cited clinical trials for antidepressants as one where the patient's perceived mood over an extended period is analysed, presumably by questionnaire or some formal method? I'm sure any clinical trial worth publishing will have a number of controls which identify how to interview the patient & what biases might be needed to be controlled. I'm sure pressure & stress would be one of the biasing factors that the test would try to attenuate. I certainly doubt any valid test would be couched as a challenge (unless it was to analyse the subjects response to challenge).

If you have clinical trials that are contrary to my thoughts then I would stand corrected.

I see perhaps I didn't explain myself well and possibly used an example that's a bit hard to follow

The fact that there is "pressure" in an audio test is no different to the pressure in other tests carried out regularly in the scientific community. Any number of psychological tests must involve the same pressure (unless they are specifically set up so that the participants are unaware that they are even being tested).

As for drug tests with measurable physical outcomes, here's an example. Many years ago someone very close to me was involved in a clinical trial of a cancer drug. He didn't know if he was getting the placebo or the real thing. He was terrified of the outcome of the test - I see your "audiophile pressure" and raise you infinity-fold. Should those clinical trials be discarded because of the pressure he (and others no doubt) felt?

 

[Whatmore]

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

are you Ralph or Sam

 

[jkeny]

I see perhaps I didn't explain myself well and possibly used an example that's a bit hard to follow

The fact that there is "pressure" in an audio test is no different to the pressure in other tests carried out regularly in the scientific community. Any number of psychological tests must involve the same pressure (unless they are specifically set up so that the participants are unaware that they are even being tested).

And I suggested that any tests in which stress is a biasing factor will attempt to attenuate the influence of this bias. It would be interesting to see just how this is done in psychological tests. The other aspect that I mentioned is that nobody goes out of their way to introduce more stress than is necessary by using the test as a direct challenge - that goes something like this "well you CLAIM to hear this sighted, now prove you can do it blind" - which is the underlying premise of almost all blind tests called for on forum & organised at get-togethers. That's why blind tests are said to be a test of the listeners & not a test of the equipment/device/samples (which are supposed to be the focus of the test). It's really a test of how well the listener can overcome all the factors that are skewed towards delivering a null result.

As for drug tests with measurable physical outcomes, here's an example. Many years ago someone very close to me was involved in a clinical trial of a cancer drug. He didn't know if he was getting the placebo or the real thing. He was terrified of the outcome of the test - I see your "audiophile pressure" and raise you infinity-fold. Should those clinical trials be discarded because of the pressure he (and others no doubt) felt?

Yes, but both the placebo receiving group & the drug receiving group would both be suffering from this same stress & this factor would balance out in any proper statistical analysis of results. Yes, it's difficult to control all factors in tests.

For instance, I'm sure that just the simple act of taking blood pressure causes some small rise in blood pressure when statistically analysed

 

[maxflinn]

This thread is proof that when very small audible differences exist they can be identified using blind-testing. Pressure or not.

I and others elsewhere could also differentiate some of Ethan's loopback files too, using blind-testing.

When knowledge is removed and levels matched, and differences that were present sighted (levels matched), disappear, the logical explanation is that the sighted differences were not real outside the minds of the listeners.

Pressure is a red-herring.

 

[maxflinn]

are you Ralph or Sam

I had to Google that. Very good though

Here's a little vid of them in action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kerUbfOQTW0

 

[esldude]

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.

What happened to playing the ball and not the batter John???

 

[microstrip]

This thread is proof that when very small audible differences exist they can be identified using blind-testing. Pressure or not.
.

Sorry, it is not. Just because it happened once or a few times with a specific item it does not prove anything for ALL the small differences.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

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.

My other hobby, guitars, certainly has its parallels. There are guys who believe that bench-built or small shop (or factory brand custom shop) just have to be better, and the more expensive, the more better. There are those who believe they can hear the kind of glue used to secure the neck to the body, that an audible tone upgrade is guaranteed in moving from a very dense piece of bone for a saddle and fossil walrus ivory, when the physics say that it's all about density and mass and that consistency of density might actually be most important. And that last one is a very strong recommendation for man-made materials, by the way. The last choice of cork-sniffing pickers. There's a staunch anti-Asian crowd, in spite of the fact that the quality coming out of China and Indonesia is very high, and the Japanese have been running neck and neck with the best American manufacturers for years.

This is basic, human, unsurprising stuff. You have to talk to yourself an awful lot to convince yourself that a $10k guitar can really be that much better than a $2k one of the same design and materials. Once you've spent that money, you don't stop talking. You probably get louder.

I'm sure there are a few other hobbies that fit the mold. Thankfully, I only have the two. I don't have to imagine that my swing will improve if I buy a golf club forged from unobtainium mined from the north face of Mount Doom.

Tim

 

[maxflinn]

Sorry, it is not. Just because it happened once or a few times with a specific item it does not prove anything for ALL the small differences.

No worries, you're right, a poor choice of words on my part.

I think it's fair to say that it's evidence of very small differences being identified though, regardless of any perceived external pressure - which I still see as a red-herring, personally.

 

[steve williams]

A perfect, Max answer - nonsensical but yet very revealing at the same time. Refusal to test your "beliefs" is part of your MO. Wouldn't be such a problem if you didn't take up so much time making claims on forums (many of them) ad-nauseum & then either modifying the claim, as below or refusing to face up to listening tests. It's trolling, Max as on other forums & you will be ignored by me from now on.

Yes, I've done personal informal blind tests - biggest difference noted was between a stock USB cable & no USB cable

Well, why waste everybody's time on the Winer thread posting exactly that "all DACS sound the same" from both you & your invitee, Ashley James?? It's called trolling, Max

Max, do you know what negative expectation bias means?

Sure, bye!!

John

while we at WBF value your input we also value the opinions of others

I will caution you once again in your mannerism of talking to people as it borders on personal attacks, something which we do not tolerate here at WBF

I trust that this admonition will not invite further ones on your part

 

[jkeny]

Apologies, Steve, result of frustration with shifting sands.

 

[Ronm1]

I don't have to imagine that my swing will improve if I buy a golf club forged from unobtainium mined from the north face of Mount Doom.

Tim

Only if you are wearing THE Ring, Tim.

 

[Orb]

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.



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.

Unfortunately Max that is probably a bit too large an assumption regarding USB cables when one considers the complete chain/environment/quality-build termination.
BTW doing the J-test (with latest equipment) shows large jitter differences but this is of course in Frequency Domain and complete chain, switching to eye pattern related test/view shows again discrepancies between various USB cables.
Some cables are very much worst than others, and unfortunately price in this regard is not an indicator of performance.
I remember Paul Miller mentioning one of the best cables he had was £5/m, however ironically this cable is no longer available, and their blind group tests (not rigorous scientific test but still blind-controlled from someone who worked in research science in his time before audio journalism/audio development tools) correlate somewhat to measurement/build design-implementation.

Staying out of the rest now on blind test/ABX as I would had thought everyone on here has had plenty to say on this already including me
Cheers
Orb

 

[esldude]

In this business of long term listening vs blind short term testing, it is a matter of weighing the evidence, and zeroing in on the answer.

JJ's list of things for a 'scientifically valid' blind test are an attempt to make it so anyone repeating a given test will almost surely get the same result. So the information gained by a test is rock solid. And it would be the gold standard.

Going fully in the other direction if I am comparing music with a 25 db boost below 200 hz to flat response I don't need much of anything to reliably find that. I can do that sighted, long term, and with considerable volume mismatches listening to one version today and another next week or blind in 2 seconds with money on a bet putting pressure on the choice.

But as differences get smaller which is going to serve me better? On which side of the scale does the evidence weigh out most heavily. You have said there is not much evidence for long term sighted listening while insisting anything less than JJ's version of blind testing is equally invalid. I just don't see how the evidence weighs out that way. With large enough differences a certain amount of paired down testing is quite sufficient.

Something confirmed with testing that meets JJ's list of requirements is a small level difference being easily discerned and usually judged as higher sound quality. This was pinned down rigorously, but much less rigorous testing like done on forums is sufficient to show it. Obviously you aren't proving something new nor anything actually all that close to the margins of audibility if level differences are in the .5 db to 1 db range. Yet it is enough to surprise people who haven't done it just how reliably you detect that blind, and also how it is usually missed one is louder than the other.

So blind testing that misses some of JJ's requirements isn't useless it is less precise, and less certain. It may fail to work on genuine audible differences once those differences are small enough and near enough to being inaudible. For many purposes it is sufficient, and it is valid.

When you start to weigh out the evidence long term listening has very little, blind level matched comparisons seem to jump ahead in discriminating ability just with those most basic removals of biases and influencing factors. Heck if people are a bit open minded quite a few with strong opinions have been taken aback if you simply get them to listen sighted and level matched when comparing gear. Taken aback that some substantial differences they held to be evident suddenly shrink tremendously with simple level matched comparison listening. So the more of JJ's list you manage the better, but to act as if leaving one off makes it fully invalid is simply not a very reasonable approach considering all the evidence. And that is without introducing the evidence from psychology about the effects of sightedness which weigh against sighted listening.

 

[maxflinn]

Unfortunately Max that is probably a bit too large an assumption regarding USB cables when one considers the complete chain/environment/quality-build termination.
BTW doing the J-test (with latest equipment) shows large jitter differences but this is of course in Frequency Domain and complete chain, switching to eye pattern related test/view shows again discrepancies between various USB cables.
Some cables are very much worst than others, and unfortunately price in this regard is not an indicator of performance.
I remember Paul Miller mentioning one of the best cables he had was £5/m, however ironically this cable is no longer available, and their blind group tests (not rigorous scientific test but still blind-controlled from someone who worked in research science in his time before audio journalism/audio development tools) correlate somewhat to measurement/build design-implementation.

Staying out of the rest now on blind test/ABX as I would had thought everyone on here has had plenty to say on this already including me
Cheers
Orb

Hi Orb, I have lots to say about digital data transfer and the marketing/advertising behind the products involved with it, and it seems that you do too, however perhaps this isn't the right time nor the right thread. Maybe we can exchange views on it all another time

I agree that the whole blind-test thing has been exhausted, and I'm inclined to leave that be too, I'll try anyway

 

[jkeny]

Ys, esldude, I agree with what you say - as the differences become smaller the need for implementing the controls becomes greater.

We are now mostly at the stage in audio development where we are talking about small differences - so this is the de facto area we are interested in - hence the growing need for these controls. Say that these two controls are the most influential & therefore should be the first to be eliminated. Why would you then assume that all else is of no significance for small differences? It just seems to be a large leap of faith. Maybe it's because the other are difficult to implement? But are they?

It's relatively easy to implement a blind test, a bit more difficult to properly implement level matching in tests. So one way to prove that you aren't just blindly taking a leap of faith is to implement maybe the next easiest control - positive & negative controls. Probably less difficult to implement than level matching but it is something that is never seen to be done in forum organised blind tests. It' not that they aren't known about - many (including J_J) have suggested such controls for a long time & still nobody seems interested in implementing them. The question is why?

These positive & negative controls are like a supervisor in the test, in that they examine the whole listening procedure (people, equipment, material, etc) doesn't have a propensity towards returning false negatives or false positives. As I said before, it's the equivalent of ensuring your measurement equipment is fully working & sensitive enough to use for the range required to measure - it's a calibration step, if you like.