Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

[thedudeabides]

So here's a recent incident and I would like recommendations from the "O" crowd on how I would make a purchasing decision.

The issue is auditioning a new / needs break in preamp.

It has teflon capacitors, which most folks would agree need several hundred of hours of break in.

Please describe the specific (non sighted) steps that the "O" crowd would take to conduct a ABX / DBT test against my then current reference (avoiding the use of long term memory) to determine if I should buy the "new" preamp or not. All other variables need to remain constant.

I live in a very small community in Wyoming and there are no dealers within 500 miles of where I live.

PS: The "new" preamp has one 6922 tube and it has a substantial impact on the overall "sound / performance" of the unit. In addition, I have asked twice, over the past year or so, if anyone on this forum has made a purchasing decision based on ABX / DBT or other "O" based tests. One forum member (the same in both instances) responded that they did.

Assuming this is representative (and I think it is), why are certain people so obsessed with this methodology when it is rarely, if ever, used as the basis for purchasing anything audio?

 

[Orb]

Amir -- I know you didn't hold up BS1116 as a standard, and I understand that you have not held that any test that does not follow BS1116, or JJ's controls, is no better than sighted listening. It is John who has doggedly pursued that argument, with some support from Orb and micro, I believe. I don't think anyone else has joined them at that extreme, but I've come in and out of this thread. I easily could have missed it.

Tim

err,
where have I been extreme Tim?
I think my position is pretty clear in why trained listeners are required for subtle ABX, I posted advice how to listen that has helped a couple here, I posted many times in the past about biases and how they need to be monitored-weighted-modelled including for blind comparison testing, the possible variables that need further investigating relating to this thread, what the scope and limitation are of such tests, and much more.
Now I appreciate you do not agree (came across like that in earlier posts) but that does not mean I am "at the extreme", maybe ask yourself without bias why you feel like saying that
Ok very last sentence rather cheeky but we all need to consider our internal biases/fixed POV including me, you, and everyone else who wish to be involved in such discussions.
BTW look at when I started clarifying BS1116 when you and Arny started arguing about its validity; again that is not necessarily my position apart from it showing as Amir says best practices and many credible papers (and as I said all telecom research) use it or reference it, especially for subjective listening training-methodology-scope-focus.
Orb

 

[thedudeabides]

I feel a "closed thread" coming on. Again.

 

[Orb]

I feel a "closed thread" coming on. Again.

Sorry I should had let it go... but I could not
Cheers
Orb

 

[still-one]

I feel a "closed thread" coming on. Again.

IMO that should have occurred about 900 posts ago. This has become a swap swizzle.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Assuming this is representative (and I think it is), why are certain people so obsessed with this methodology when it is rarely, if ever, used as the basis for purchasing anything audio?

if somehow we could actually know how much serious music listening is done by each participant here on WBF, I have a theory that we might see an inverse relationship between posting in technical threads and where those people rank on that serious listening time scale.

and there is not one thing wrong with such a thing.

except it would show what the priorities are for those who frequent the technical threads.

so when you ask why people who actually purchase high end audio gear never use ABX it's because they are not the ones talking about it. they could care less about it. so being obsessed with ABX/blind testing has nothing to do with audiophiles. period.

 

[amirm]

if somehow we could actually know how much serious music listening is done by each participant here on WBF, I have a theory that we might see an inverse relationship between posting in technical threads and where those people rank on that serious listening time scale.

and there is not one thing wrong with such a thing.

except it would show what the priorities are for those who frequent the technical threads.

so when you ask why people who actually purchase high end audio gear never use ABX it's because they are not the ones talking about it. they could care less about it. so being obsessed with ABX/blind testing has nothing to do with audiophiles. period.

There is no conflict in my life between enjoying music and evaluating my hearing skills, and developing my technical knowledge. Indeed, I consider these "hobby within a hobby." I am sitting in our living room right now watching TV and typing these posts. It is not a time that I can devote to music listening as I also enjoy watching TV and interacting with others in the hobby.

I am not here to tell you to perform ABX testing before buying your gear. But I hope you likewise are not telling me that I shouldn't do double blind testing lest I want to be a non-audiophile .

We have had pretty important developments as of late in the history of such testing. Those developments are exciting in themselves as they break new ground. And a shift in the type of discussion from here on. It certainly will short circuit countless posts for me in the future.

If these threads are bothersome, how about creating ones that you like to counter it? Create a thread on a new artist you have discovered. A new record you have bought that has been exceptional. You can also create threads on your subjective evaluation of gear. If there is no topic of interest to explore, and we have one here for the rest of us, that should be OK with everyone.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I was only responding to 'the dude's' question.

there are subjects which serious audiophiles feel are 'anti' to their hobby and comfort zone. an ABX thread that dominates posting activity on the general forum for 6 weeks is like a turd in church.....it will clear it out quick.

the forum must live with the consequences of activity like that. it is what it is.

maybe it's just summertime and many of the regular audiophiles on WBF are 'gone fishing'. or maybe they are somewhere else. time will tell.

the issue is fun, what you think that is, and where you find it.

 

[Whatmore]

if somehow we could actually know how much serious music listening is done by each participant here on WBF, I have a theory that we might see an inverse relationship between posting in technical threads and where those people rank on that serious listening time scale.

and there is not one thing wrong with such a thing.

except it would show what the priorities are for those who frequent the technical threads.

so when you ask why people who actually purchase high end audio gear never use ABX it's because they are not the ones talking about it. they could care less about it. so being obsessed with ABX/blind testing has nothing to do with audiophiles. period.

I'm sure you don't intend it but your comments come across as incredibly elitist and just a tiny bit condescending

 

[BlueFox]

I'm sure you don't intend it but your comments come across as incredibly elitist and just a tiny bit condescending

I didn't see that. I read it is as some people spend their time listening to music, and others spend their time splitting hairs over irrelevant issues.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I'm sure you don't intend it but your comments come across as incredibly elitist and just a tiny bit condescending

well......

I find that other web sites now have much more audiophile activity than WBF. I'm pulled toward those other places where there is activity which is more in line with my interests. I like WBF and see that the balance here is moving away from the hobby that I am a part of. before I bug out I felt it was fair that I at least voice my concerns.

I could give a rip about this or any other thread. I could care less if Tim and the other techies post all day. Amir is right, that activity does not stop anyone from doing their own thing.

but the effect of this thread and the viewpoint of the most active posters here right now is causing audiophiles like me to not be active here. so no matter if I ignore this thread or not, I can't ignore the absence of activity that I want to interact with. listening focused audiophiles don't want to share their turf with objectivists. it's too bad it's like that......but it's like that!!!! whether I personally like it or not.

in 2010 Steve asked me to be a part of WBF to help it get credibility and relevance. I've done that, and I'm doing that now.

so call me elitist or any other name you choose, but forums have to choose who they serve. and trying to please everyone is a delicate balance which appears to not be working. and please understand, I'm not judging the merits of anyone's perspective, I'm only commenting on what sort of environment causes what sort of interest to what group. and whether losing interest from that group is important to WBF.

I'm invested in WBF, and care that it's relevant in my hobby. but hey, I'm only one guy with an opinion. so don't pay attention to me.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I have seen you posting on another forum, and there aint much activity there but I do see it is more in line with what your interests are. I don't think there is anything wrong with being involved in several forums personally. I do find it interesting that a thread like this draws comments from some that just have to say they don't like the thread or its about to be killed or its going nowhere when obviously it is very active and has been quite civil, where in the past, some that have left the forum would have torpedoed it early on. Infact, they still on another forum refer to this forum and comment about stuff there that happened at this forum, so this forum DOES hold a high place and I like this forum a whole lot. And a whole lot better now. Mike, I do enjoy your posts and they are well reasoned so hope you can also continue to have this site on your list.

thanks. I'm still here.

personally; I like having an objectivist factor involved in the forum (as I've said repeatedly). I think it raises the bar of the posting. but that 'hair-shirt' approach does not fit many audiophiles preferences and so the cost is high and maintaining the attraction of listening enthusiasts is a delicate matter. people don't want to be regulated, they want to let it all hang out and indulge. they don't want the thought police to tell them how it is.....even if only in threads they are not participating in. it's like going to some bar and getting preached at about drinking. you might not frequent that bar too much.

we will see over time how it all plays out.

 

[Ron Party]

What are you talking about Arny? Wait, don't answer. Let's ask others:

Guys, since the inception of WBF, have any of you seen me "pushing results of sighted evaluations?"

Pushing? Literally, no. But depending upon how you define the term *pushing*, not sure. In this regard, you may recall your questioning the validity of blind testing WRT JNDs: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3323-Do-blind-tests-really-prove-small-differences-don-t-exist

 

[arnyk]

This is the reason I didn't ask you Arny. You do not give consistent answers. In this thread we are discussing results of double blind tests and you keep asking about sighted tests. That is "attempt to distract." That was not bothersome to you but me asking the entire community if they know me to be doing what you are saying is a distraction?

Come on Amir, you've been accurately accused of using distraction as a debating trade tool on other forums by so many people so many times that one might think that you might even think seriously about stopping. ;-)

Right now I'm a little amused by the apparent current ongoing efforts to one up the conformance to rigorous experimental controls of people that were doing DBTs for decades when the one-uppers were still staking everything on sighted evaluations.

I think the most telling thing I see going on here right now is that almost nobody is posting ABX logs for their own DBTs. If people were really that interested in a search for truth, they'd be doing a little searching of their own. Its all just abstract discussion.

 

[jkeny]

......
I think the most telling thing I see going on here right now is that almost nobody is posting ABX logs for their own DBTs. If people were really that interested in a search for truth, they'd be doing a little searching of their own. Its all just abstract discussion.

Arny, please explain why you want people to do this ABX test & produce logs for a test that you yourself has stated you distrust - can be so easily gamed, needs proctoring?
Only the masochists among us might enjoy that experience?

You are missing the whole point of the debate, either intentionally or not - it's not about the results, it's about the test, which by your own admission you consider flawed & easily gamed with a number of possible tells that have nothing to do with the difference, if any, between RB & high-res files.
If you yourself are interested in a search for truth, then surely this is the aspect that you should be focussed on, not imploring more people to perform a test that is flawed in your eyes?

 

[jkeny]

Pushing? Literally, no. But depending upon how you define the term *pushing*, not sure. In this regard, you may recall your questioning the validity of blind testing WRT JNDs: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3323-Do-blind-tests-really-prove-small-differences-don-t-exist

Thanks for the link, Ron - I didn't know about this thread & so far it's an interesting read. Haven't seen any pushing in it so far by Amir - honest questioning, yes which seems completely logical to me but then I might be considered biased

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

If you just want to say that removing some biases appears to be more useful than removing no biases but it gets us nowhere as far as trusting the result, then yes, I can agree with you. But it is the reliability of the result that we are ultimately interested in, no?

Nowhere? Controls and protocols are always evolving, usually, but not always, getting better. Those that have been discussed here and held up as standards have limitations. If we go this far, we can trust no result. We can just assume that all results are imperfect, because they are, declare them all equally invalid, and choose which results to trust based on the source or the outcome. Not much point in running tests, though.

I suggested positive & negative controls as a means of short-circuiting/bypassing this lack of attention to other possible biases in operation in a blind test. Do you object to this? If not, then we are in agreement & can move on, OK?

I would never object to anything with the potential to remove bias and avoid errors, John. Thanks.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Nowhere? Controls and protocols are always evolving, usually, but not always, getting better. Those that have been discussed here and held up as standards have limitations. If we go this far, we can trust no result. We can just assume that all results are imperfect, because they are, declare them all equally invalid, and choose which results to trust based on the source or the outcome. Not much point in running tests, though.

You are not evolving your test with the new controls that arise, Tim, you are wilfully ignoring existing known controls that are there to try to ensure that the result is sensitive & reliable & not skewed.

I would never object to anything with the potential to remove bias and avoid errors, John. Thanks.

Tim

Ok, we agree then, phew! And I hear a big PHEW from the gallery

 

[Orb]

Intermodulation distortion measurements back in 1990s.
Ok first thanks to Stereophile for keeping such an extensive database of their reviews with measurements.
All this talk about IM being cues in the past made me decide to have a look at the main CD products developed by such as Rotel/Philips/Panasonic/etc.
And interestingly all of them had low IM for the 19khz+20khz test signal, before anyone complains that this is not ultrasonic tones please remember a little while ago JA showed with actual measurements that even cheap and small products ultrasonic IM behaviour is pretty comparable to the 19+20khz and negligible for IM in the audioband when taken into account with "normal level" tones rather than at 0-to-6dbfs ultrasonic signals (which would be silly to use in perception tests on real world products).

Some examples (lets not go down road of boutique):
http://www.stereophile.com/content/panasonic-prism-lx-1000-cdld-player-measurements
http://www.stereophile.com/content/philips-cdr880-cd-rrw-cd-recorder-measurements
http://www.stereophile.com/content/rotel-rcd-955ax-and-rcd-965bx-cd-players-rcd-965bx-measurements

Yeah they do have other measurement notables though
Edit:
And here is Creek Audio Integrated that was nothing special with IM 19+20khz internationally recommended test:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/creek-4240-special-edition-integrated-amplifier-measurements
Even at just below clipping into 4ohms are -66db below the 0db IM tones.
Reducing watts a bit further from clipping and IM result much cleaner.

Cheers
Orb

 

[arnyk]

Arny, please explain why you want people to do this ABX test & produce logs for a test that you yourself has stated you distrust - can be so easily gamed, needs proctoring?
Only the masochists among us might enjoy that experience?

The more people who run the test and produce consistent results, the more I trust the results. What I'm seeing is hours and hours being spent typing posts justifying not spending 6 minutes running enough trials to be interesting. The biggest sign of distrust I see in the tests run by one of your own is the fact that nobody is trying to duplicate his results.

You are missing the whole point of the debate, either intentionally or not - it's not about the results, it's about the test, which by your own admission you consider flawed & easily gamed with a number of possible tells that have nothing to do with the difference, if any, between RB & high-res files.

Well that is obviously some people's idea of what the debate is about - debating the subject to death without spending even a minimal amount of time actually experiencing it. It takes 6 minutes to do a set of trials. A lot of the questions being asked would be answered if a few people would get their hands dirty. I see a widespread overestimation of personal ability to do abstract reasoning.

Furthermore, AFAIK this forum is has not been informed of a previous DBT series of tests that was a far better test - the files are in this archive: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/b35feharwc7doty/AADTO9LPjXt9KwuBTPbBa1JZa?dl=0 This one has a full set of training files - I guarantee that everybody will hear a difference, and if they pursue the matter with even minimal diligence, not so much.

Here's a news flash that includes a truth about life that I don't see a lot of understanding of: Nothing in this world is perfect. But, some things are far better than others, and a well run DBT is far better than a sighted evaluation.