Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

[amirm]

It just continues to sadden me to read the ongoing intellectual dishonesty by BOTH sides, i.e., both Arny and Amir. It does nothing to advance the cause; it has everything to do with personality deficiencies. Do either of you ever bother to look in a mirror? Do you recognize your own boundaries? Do you have an ounce of humility?

Hi Ron. Thank you for the advice. Much appreciated. Truth to be told, when we built our new house we did not put any mirrors in it. You know, when you get older and gain some weight, you lose your motivation to look at yourself in the mirror. I personally prefer to go out with my hair messed up than be reminded of how many birthdays have gone by. But seeing your good advice, I will go shopping for some later this week.

As to the rest of your comments, I hate to see anyone become sad over forum discussions. These are some virtual conversations with no impact on the real world. No one has physically gotten hurt, no dogs mistreated, or food taken from hungry children. That's why when someone calls me names, chastises me, etc., I let it "just go past me." I am not going to get emotionally wedded to any such discussion.

Seeing how the impact on you is different, I am compelled to also ask you to look in the mirror, reflect on this post, and see if an audio discussion is worth getting sad about in that manner. To help get you in better mood, how about watching this hilarious video of one of my favorite comedians?

Look, bottom line: nothing, I repeat, nothing, has been proven and nothing is conclusive. Allow me to put either one of you on the stand and it would be easy pickings to cross-examine, impeach and completely discredit your testimony. At best, and this is a stretch, all we have is new data. Credibility and reliability of the data have not yet been established and, at this time, cannot be established. What an enormous waste of intellect and energy. Phew.

Hmmm. Cross examining us? I guess it is good news that you are a lawyer and not in Steve's business or you would be threatening us to give Arny and I a gynecological exam!

I think this calls for a second dose of Rod Man (this one starts slow but really gets going):

 

[jkeny]

Has nothing to do with the topic for my part. It is clear there is personal animosity between Arny and Amir. When both were taking part the tone changed somewhat. And nothing since then has contributed a thing. It goes back some years it appears so I assign blame to neither party in this particular thread. But it would be nice to stop with the petty bickering on tiny little points that fit with the term angels dancing on the head of a pin.

I am all for good tests and the tinier the differences the more constraints on doing the test rightly and well. Forum tests will never match academic research or even corporate funded testing done well. It can serve for some purposes. Finding new pscyho-acoustic principles and proving them is not likely one of them.

As for DBT being hurled as a curse or spell that is one reason I take little part in Hydrogen Audio forums. They will ban many forms of reasonable evidence while being quite slack in DBT's. DBT like any other test done poorly or done with too much bias is not going to give useful results in an objective sense. That is why I complained about the various test files so much. Level mismatches and timing mismatches are way too sloppy and too easily avoided. Just throwing out DBT and calling it good does no one any good.

I agree with everything you say up to your last statement. Nobody is saying to throw out DBT - what is being asked for is consideration about how to bring it to a level of rigour where it's results are useful. If this can't be achieved for audio forum style tests then let's call them what they are - anecdotal reports - same as subjective anecdotal reports. If you are instead arguing for something else like holding onto flawed tests because it's just difficult to let go, then I would argue strongly against this status quo position - but I don't believe you are arguing for this based on your posts in here?

Edit: I forgot to say that I disagree with your first statement also but you express it as your opinion so that's fine

 

[esldude]

I agree with everything you say up to your last statement. Nobody is saying to throw out DBT - what is being asked for is consideration about how to bring it to a level of rigour where it's results are useful. If this can't be achieved for audio forum style tests then let's call them what they are - anecdotal reports - same as subjective anecdotal reports. If you are instead arguing for something else like holding onto flawed tests because it's just difficult to let go, then I would argue strongly against this status quo position - but I don't believe you are arguing for this based on your posts in here?

Edit: I forgot to say that I disagree with your first statement also but you express it as your opinion so that's fine

Well, I didn't mean it the way you read the bold sentence though I can see how it would seem that way. By throwing out DBT and calling it good I intended the idea I see on HA. Make a DBT in some willy nilly half baked fashion and calling it a good test.

We are never going to agree on calling any honest even simple DBT equivalent to anecdotal reports. It isn't a matter of hanging onto the status quo. There are forum tests done in blind fashion for some purposes that need not meet all the guidelines of BS 1116 which are useful and are not equivalent to anecdotal reports. We just aren't going to agree on that and I do not buy your reasoning on that.

 

[Ron Party]

If you didn't understand the nature & ramifications of this thread from the start, don't blame me for your failing.

Hail to the King!

 

[Ron Party]

Hmmm. Cross examining us? I guess it is good news that you are a lawyer and not in Steve's business or you would be threatening us to give Arny and I a gynecological exam!

Good one!

 

[jkeny]

Well, I didn't mean it the way you read the bold sentence though I can see how it would seem that way. By throwing out DBT and calling it good I intended the idea I see on HA. Make a DBT in some willy nilly half baked fashion and calling it a good test.

Ok

We are never going to agree on calling any honest even simple DBT equivalent to anecdotal reports. It isn't a matter of hanging onto the status quo. There are forum tests done in blind fashion for some purposes that need not meet all the guidelines of BS 1116 which are useful and are not equivalent to anecdotal reports. We just aren't going to agree on that and I do not buy your reasoning on that.

Well, I've been calling for controls to be included in these tests & everybody would then at least have some other results that could allow the test itself to be evaluated. This is far short of the BS116 standard but is a long way further along then the usual DBT test. I have called for this from very early in the thread.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The accumulation of such DBT results is portrayed as proof (or very close to it) - do you deny this? How many times have you read the suggestion by some "O" that a subjectivist go do a DBT & then report back to be even considered.

The two statements above, one in italics the other in bold, point to examples of two very different things. The first (italics) is the one you've been arguing against, and yes, I deny that's what's been happening here, on this forum, with this group of people. I can't say if it is prevalent outside of this forum, I don't hang out on hydrogen audio. The second? Honestly, John, I don't know if you make these constant side trips because you're cleverly trying to re-direct the argument when the path you're on runs short of substance, or if you're just unable to stick with a line of reasoning long enough to see it through.

Well, I've asked you above a question which addresses this same point that you are making - "proof" it is perceived to be by many. You may choose now to diminish this perception but do you deny it is rampant?

The misunderstanding of "proof" or even evidence, is rampant in the audiophile community in general. It's not isolated to O or S, and is certainly not exclusive to, or even particularly prevalent in the case of DBTs.

Good, glad you are getting something out of it, although I suspect you are trying to be sardonic.

Unfortunately that requires no effort on my part.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Sure, Tim, carry on - I'm not bothered arguing with you, yet again!

 

[maxflinn]

This thread needs renaming, IMHO.

It should be titled - 'intellectually dishonest efforts to discredit blind-testing'!

 

[amirm]

This thread needs renaming, IMHO.

It should be titled - 'intellectually dishonest efforts to discredit blind-testing'!

First, I am going to ask everyone to tone the personal remarks/negative commentary. It adds nothing to the conversation, nor does it hide the real intent behind the post.

Second, the thread is created to discuss the results of double blind tests. The tests were run by me, one of the believers of double blind testing with years of conducting the same under my belt for real, not to win forum arguments. No one under my watch is going to discredit double blind tests. Confusing this thread with damnation of double blind testing comes across then as a debating tactic that I hope we leave at the door rather than rallying around it.

 

[thedudeabides]

The misunderstanding of "proof" or even evidence, is rampant in the audiophile community in general. It's not isolated to O or S, and is certainly not exclusive to, or even particularly prevalent in the case of DBTs.
Tim

So how can you claim, as you have done in the past on numerous occasions (DBT testing to verify subjective and all that), that the "O" perspective is anymore valid that the "S" side, within the context of judging sound quality and the enjoyment of music thereof?

 

[Orb]

First, I am going to ask everyone to tone the personal remarks/negative commentary. It adds nothing to the conversation, nor does it hide the real intent behind the post.

Second, the thread is created to discuss the results of double blind tests. The tests were run by me, one of the believers of double blind testing with years of conducting the same under my belt for real, not to win forum arguments. No one under my watch is going to discredit double blind tests. Confusing this thread with damnation of double blind testing comes across then as a debating tactic that I hope we leave at the door rather than rallying around it.

Worth noting was also to show benefit of trained-experienced listeners (including done casually over the forum) in this scenario.

Just my 2cents to recent posts.
This thread was never about egos in the case of the OP (personally I feel Amir does not have an ego, just a strong personality-mind and Amir would not had done his job without it),but of course it involved some history with Arny due to the "narrative" presented regarding this subject over the years.

Thanks
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So how can you claim, as you have done in the past on numerous occasions (DBT testing to verify subjective and all that), that the "O" perspective is anymore valid that the "S" side, within the context of judging sound quality and the enjoyment of music thereof?

I haven't claimed that. Your opinion is every bit as valid as mine. If you begin to describe your choices as better -- more musical, more natural, more life-like -- when all the data says that there is no audible difference, or that they are more distorted, that's when I push back.

DBTs? I honestly doubt that there is ever going to be enough scientific or commercial interest in this stuff to generate enough DBTs to prove anything.

Blind listening? If you're hearing something sighted that is immeasurable or unlikely, I think it's a good idea find out if you still hear it -- same equipment, same conditions -- blind. If it disappears with sight, that doesn't prove that it doesn't exist, but it will tell you a lot about what you actually hear consistently in your system. It can tell you a lot about what matters. It's perhaps the most powerful tool for critical listening because it turns off a plethora of influences that are unrelated to listening.

That's what I claim.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

First, I am going to ask everyone to tone the personal remarks/negative commentary. It adds nothing to the conversation, nor does it hide the real intent behind the post.

Second, the thread is created to discuss the results of double blind tests. The tests were run by me, one of the believers of double blind testing with years of conducting the same under my belt for real, not to win forum arguments. No one under my watch is going to discredit double blind tests. Confusing this thread with damnation of double blind testing comes across then as a debating tactic that I hope we leave at the door rather than rallying around it.

Amir,

You presented the positive result of a blind test, happily most people debated them, including some different interpretations of your summary of the differences.

Debating the problems of poorly carried tests that only returned negative results is not a negative commentary to discredit blind tests - it is a must IMHO. Avoiding the subject will not help the debate of your results. It would be nice to have a separate thread on it.

 

[arnyk]

In this case experience is speaking.

The smiley means joke. OK.

"Can" is not the same as "will." When in school and your teacher gave you a multiple choice quiz, did you know the answer everytime because he affected the outcome?

Big difference that you must not know and whose lack of understanding tells the whole story: In school the students are told the right answers or how to reliably find them. In a listening test involving subtle differences that may not be audible, nobody may be able to find the right answers by just listening. School isn't exactly like a listening test and a listening test isn't exactly like school. Conflating the two indicates not appreciating the obvious differences.

Which is why I said if you want to screw up the outcome of a listening test, simply go upstream and cook the test. I gave examples of this already. It is that bias which is insidious. It is hidden behind the mask of "DBT."

Lots of things are hidden under masks, such as all of the techno-filth that is hidden under the mask of sighted evaluations. Stereophile, anybody?

Many of your examples seems to show a lot of bias and hostility against accepted science.

I explained why claims of intentional cooking of DBTs are often not true. No answers. Obviously my posts have zero credibility with you Amir so I will not waste my time any further. You can libel expert experimenters like JJ all you want, but then explain why you hired him? ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr6XiYxD10E

 

[arnyk]

Debating the problems of poorly carried tests that only returned negative results is not a negative commentary to discredit blind tests - it is a must IMHO.

Given that there are far more poorly carried tests that only returned positive results, where is the negative commentary on them?

In fact the most common "proof" that a DBT was carried out poorly is the fact that it returned a negative result, no matter how well it was executed or how ludicrous a positive result would have been, all things being known that were known.

 

[thedudeabides]

Blind listening? If you're hearing something sighted that is immeasurable or unlikely, I think it's a good idea find out if you still hear it -- same equipment, same conditions -- blind. If it disappears with sight, that doesn't prove that it doesn't exist, but it will tell you a lot about what you actually hear consistently in your system. It can tell you a lot about what matters.

Tim

Thanks for the clarification. Well stated and makes perfect sense.

 

[amirm]

The smiley means joke. OK.

Not that part.

Big difference that you must not know and whose lack of understanding tells the whole story: In school the students are told the right answers or how to reliably find them.

When taking a quiz you are given the right answer??? Which school is that Arny? I trust you misunderstood what I wrote.

In a listening test involving subtle differences that may not be audible, nobody may be able to find the right answers by just listening. School isn't exactly like a listening test and a listening test isn't exactly like school. Conflating the two indicates not appreciating the obvious differences.

A quiz in school is a test as is a listening test. You teacher watching over you completing your quiz knows the answers. But clearly people can't guess it from his actions or there would be no reason to give tests.

 

[esldude]

A quiz in school is a test as is a listening test. You teacher watching over you completing your quiz knows the answers. But clearly people can't guess it from his actions or there would be no reason to give tests.

Please guys just give it a break with the dueling absurdities. Yeah, in school with 20-40 students taking a test all on a different question likely and all considering different answers it is completely comparable to a Clever Hans situation. Yeah of course it is......really it is............or at least it would take one really really Clever Hans to telegraph multiplexed input, and to keep all the responses straight in his head.

 

[thedudeabides]

Lots of things are hidden under masks, such as all of the techno-filth that is hidden under the mask of sighted evaluations.

Can you tell us what you really think?

Oh. I forgot. You told me awhile ago that I was ignorant and mistaken. Sorry my Lord.