Do we hear differently?

[terryj]

Tim,
I guess my point is more directed towards the DBT-type sessions where there is usually a null result returned i.e no difference found.

Why is it so hard to accept the simple answer?? That they simply COULD sound the same?? There are the hardcore subjectivists that calim EVERYTHING affects the sound, that it is impossible that some things could be indistinguishable, but do all think that?? There are the hardcore objectivists that claim 'nothing sounds different', but do ALL think that?

But I'm also asking why is blind so important? Is it just accepted wisdom or is there a scientific basis for this particular bias being singled out among the many?



Edit: here's an interesting question (maybe) Is there a statistically significant number of blind audiophiles who have cheaper audio equipment then sighted audiophiles i.e they just judge on the sound alone?

Serious, are we stuck on the defintion of blind here?? We can't be can we?

Anyway, I'm just surmising, not holding a hard line on this (although sometimes the discussion backs you into a corner where it seems like you now have to adopt a hard line ), just throwing out some thoughts on a forum that others might think worth considering. Then again they might not be worth considering?

If we take blind, unsighted to mean no knowledge of which unit we are listening to then yes, I think it is no longer worth considering.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Word to the wise: you can imagine differences. (...)

Amir,
Surely. But you are addressing a specific case - judging something your are doing yourself, that you know pretty well you are competent doing. You know how to anticipate the results and this will trigger imaginary differences much easier than just listening for a cable that you have borrowed and will return next day.

 

[jkeny]

Ok, Terry
I was replying to you but then I saw your final remark "no longer worth considering" so I'll desist!

 

[terryj]

Ok, Terry
I was replying to you but then I saw your final remark "no longer worth considering" so I'll desist!

stop it with the silly games!

I answered your direct question. You'd prefer I ignore your posts?

Besides, if you are going to quote me and use that for some justification, then quote me fully. You will see a clearly different statement than the one you put into my mouth.

 

[jkeny]

stop it with the silly games!

I answered your direct question. You'd prefer I ignore your posts?

Besides, if you are going to quote me and use that for some justification, then quote me fully. You will see a clearly different statement than the one you put into my mouth.

Ok, terry, I admit I scanned you post & just saw the last bit so I stopped reading further.
Didn't mean to be playing games!
It's 4:00 am here so I will read more tomorrow probably although I'm busy tomorrow.
Good chatting anyway!

 

[Keith_W]

Perhaps we could agree on something. Would people agree if I said - your blind test results are YOUR blind test results. If you don't hear a difference between transports, or DAC's, or amps, or low rate MP3, or speaker cable, or whatever - then you can't. I believe you! But - you should also acknowledge that it doesn't mean that others don't hear the differences. The problem arises when some people assert that others are fooling themselves when they purport to hear a difference. Yes I admit it - I can hear a difference between amplifiers. Which is why I am using a "nice" monoblock amplifier instead of something I picked up from the local pawn shop. If you can't hear a difference, then don't insist that I can't either.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim-I find it interesting that you have heard so many components that sound exactly alike and therefore you can’t tell them apart. That’s cool because it saves you lots of money. All of your electronics sound just like all the rest of the electronics you have heard and there is no need to upgrade to something that you can’t tell apart from what you already own.

There must really be something to non-scientific DB testing that proves all electronics that meet your measurement criteria sound the same.

Even blind, I still heard differences, Mark. That's why I still don't believe "all amps sound alike." but often enough, the differences were very small, when I had believed they were obvious, sighted. At least once, after listening to a headphone amp exclusively and extensively, sighted, for two weeks, and being absolutely convinced I had to buy one, put an old amp back in the system, a/b'd blind, and thought the old amp was the new one.

What I've become convinced of is not that all amps sound alike, but that expectation bias is very powerful, the differences between well-designed audio electronics, when operating well within their cabilities is very small and that price is almost no indication of performance in audio. And yes, it has saved me a lot of money, and more importantly brought me a lot of peace and freedom.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Even blind, I still heard differences, Mark. That's why I still don't believe "all amps sound alike." but often enough, the differences were very small, when I had believed they were obvious, sighted. At least once, after listening to a headphone amp exclusively and extensively, sighted, for two weeks, and being absolutely convinced I had to buy one, put an old amp back in the system, a/b'd blind, and thought the old amp was the new one.

What I've become convinced of is not that all amps sound alike, but that expectation bias is very powerful, the differences between well-designed audio electronics, when operating well within their cabilities is very small and that price is almost no indication of performance in audio. And yes, it has saved me a lot of money, and more importantly brought me a lot of peace and freedom.

Tim

Yes, Tim, as a personal test this is very worthwhile for you. But as Keith said, it doesn't therefore become a universal truth, that A is better than B or A the same as B - there are still too many biasing factors in your unsighted tests which can be influencing your results. That's the reason for competently designed, scientifically rigorous, DBTs - to try to eliminate these often subconscious biases.

The point is that anything short of these rigorous DBTs are no better than anecdotal reports. As I said it's the equivalent of badly conducted or flawed measurements - it has the sheen of science but actually isn't

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,
Yes, I believe you & see what you are saying - it's the exact opposite of what I'm contending i.e you wanted to find your new purchase to be head & shoulders above everything else but found it not to be the case in blind listening. I congratulate you on your honesty to yourself & your faith in your hearing.

I guess my point is more directed towards the DBT-type sessions where there is usually a null result returned i.e no difference found. But I'm also asking why is blind so important? Is it just accepted wisdom or is there a scientific basis for this particular bias being singled out among the many?

Anyway, I'm just surmising, not holding a hard line on this (although sometimes the discussion backs you into a corner where it seems like you now have to adopt a hard line ), just throwing out some thoughts on a forum that others might think worth considering. Then again they might not be worth considering?

BTW, I'm interested in what devices turned out to be less than you thought when you listened to them blind?

Edit: here's an interesting question (maybe) Is there a statistically significant number of blind audiophiles who have cheaper audio equipment then sighted audiophiles i.e they just judge on the sound alone?

I think the proliferation of DBT null results comes from two things: 1) DBTs are often used to test if a difference can be heard between things that are very close. There's no reason for it otherwise. 2) the audible differences between good electronics operating properly really is very, very small.

A testing example? I hold the Benchmark DAC in very high regard, for a lot of reasons. I had one here on loan a few years ago, a DAC/PRE, actually. For two weeks I listened -- long, short, blind, sighted, comparing it to the DAC and preamp built into my active speakers based on the same Wolfson chip. It's transparent to my ears. They sound the same. Sometimes I could hear a difference, but every time I went back to switching between them blind, I couldn't ge it right any more than chance. I almost bought one anyway, for the headphone amp. I could hear that difference. It just wasn't worth the $1800.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yes, Tim, as a personal test this is very worthwhile for you. But as Keith said, it doesn't therefore become a universal truth, that A is better than B or A the same as B - there are still too many biasing factors in your unsighted tests which can be influencing your results. That's the reason for competently designed, scientifically rigorous, DBTs - to try to eliminate these often subconscious biases.

The point is that anything short of these rigorous DBTs are no better than anecdotal reports. As I said it's the equivalent of badly conducted or flawed measurements - it has the sheen of science but actually isn't

In terms of absolutes? Agreed. Practically? I think it is much better the anecdotal reports based on sighted listening.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

I think the proliferation of DBT null results comes from two things: 1) DBTs are often used to test if a difference can be heard between things that are very close. There's no reason for it otherwise. 2) the audible differences between good electronics operating properly really is very, very small.

Agree with 1) Agree with 2) up to a point - we are at the stage where in competent designs most of the 1st level factors have been dealt with but now we are into differences in 2nd level factors - so are these small differences? I contend that when the primary factors are dealt with the secondary then become very noticeable to us audiophiles

A testing example? I hold the Benchmark DAC in very high regard, for a lot of reasons. I had one here on loan a few years ago, a DAC/PRE, actually. For two weeks I listened -- long, short, blind, sighted, comparing it to the DAC and preamp built into my active speakers based on the same Wolfson chip. It's transparent to my ears. They sound the same. Sometimes I could hear a difference, but every time I went back to switching between them blind, I couldn't ge it right any more than chance. I almost bought one anyway, for the headphone amp. I could hear that difference. It just wasn't worth the $1800.

Tim

Tim,
It seems that the DAC & preamp in your active speakers were masking the differences that you could plainly hear via headphones
We always have to be careful in evaluating devices in our systems - in another system the benchmark could reveal it's strengths more !

 

[jkeny]

In terms of absolutes? Agreed. Practically? I think it is much better the anecdotal reports based on sighted listening.

Tim

But I don't see how you can put a qualification of better on unsighted tests when we don't know what other biasing factors are in play & what bias strength these other biases may have? That's why we have to be careful

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Agree with 1) Agree with 2) up to a point - we are at the stage where in competent designs most of the 1st level factors have been dealt with but now we are into differences in 2nd level factors - so are these small differences? I contend that when the primary factors are dealt with the secondary then become very noticeable to us audiophiles


Tim,
It seems that the DAC & preamp in your active speakers were masking the differences that you could plainly hear via headphones
We always have to be careful in evaluating devices in our systems - in another system the benchmark could reveal it's strengths more !

No, my actives don't have a headphone out. I wish they did. During headphone listening, I was comparing the Benchmark to completely different system -- different DAC, different pre, different amp.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

No, my actives don't have a headphone out. I wish they did. During headphone listening, I was comparing the Benchmark to completely different system -- different DAC, different pre, different amp.

Tim

So when you said they sound the same - what does? The DAC in your active speakers & the Benchmark?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

But I don't see how you can put a qualification of better on unsighted tests when we don't know what other biasing factors are in play & what bias strength these other biases may have? That's why we have to be careful

Because I know what biases have been removed and how powerful they are. What you're imagining here is equivalent to believing that you could interview a beautiful woman, a bit of cleavage in view, long red hair falling across her shoulders, sitting close enough to smell her perfume, and that would be an equal judge of her verbal communication skills as talking to her on the phone because, on the phone, you could be biased by other unidentified factors.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So when you said they sound the same - what does? The DAC in your active speakers & the Benchmark?

Correct. I couldn't reliably differentiate between the DAC/Pre, plugged directly into the analog inputs of my actives, and plugging the same digital source (MacBook) directly into the digital inputs of my actives.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Because I know what biases have been removed and how powerful they are. What you're imagining here is equivalent to believing that you could interview a beautiful woman, a bit of cleavage in view, long red hair falling across her shoulders, sitting close enough to smell her perfume, and that would be an equal judge of her verbal communication skills as talking to her on the phone because, on the phone, you could be biased by other unidentified factors.

Tim

Tim,
Without being an expert in the psychological factors involved in these tests, I think you are being optimistic in stating that you know what biases have been removed & therefore it is clear. My point is that the remaining biases are much less visible than sightedness & they could be more important, who knows. It requires an expert to design bias free tests & I nor you are experts in this filed. What we are then left with is anecdotal evidence, which is fine but let's not elevate it above that status!

 

[jkeny]

Correct. I couldn't reliably differentiate between the DAC/Pre, plugged directly into the analog inputs of my actives, and plugging the same digital source (MacBook) directly into the digital inputs of my actives.

Tim

The analogue inputs of your speakers get processed how? Do they go through an A/D stage & then through your DAC in the speakers?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Not trying the elevate it above anything but my own experience, John. But there is anecdotal evidence and there is anecdotal evidence. And in a long career in marketing I commissioned, oversaw and spent millions of dollars based on the results of many research studies. I'm pretty aware of how studies are designed to identify and avoid biases. Based on that experience, I'm pretty certain you are grossly overestimating what you are imagining could be and marginalizing what is right in front of you. Why? Your own biases, I suspect. Though I may very well be overestimating and marginalizing the opposite, because of my own biases. Perhaps we should both seek professional help?

Tim

 

[jkeny]

haha, Tim,
Yes, everybody in this "hobby" needs therapy
Anyway, we have stated our positions & we are a hairs breath away from one another
Thanks for the discussion - it has been enjoyable!