Does Everything Make a Difference?

[COF]

Ron is trying to come up with a protocol, presumably for testing whether or not everything makes a difference.

You mean, I think, if something specific makes a difference....this....

Could you walk us through such a protocol for how you think Ron might determine whether he should have absorption diffusion or neither on the front wall of his listening room?

We already know that absorption and diffusion can make audible differences in a room. It's reliable science, the physics and psycho acoustics relatively well understood.

I therefore wouldn't see the need, personally, to worry much about the sound not changing if I introduce some significant amount of absorption or diffusion at the appropriate areas.

However, IF someone wants to be more rigorous, and raise confidence levels when employing room treatment, he can measure changes objectively (room measurements), and if he really wanted to be confident some change was audible, in principle blind testing could be done with and without, say, absorption. But as a practical matter for most people that would likely be difficult, to it makes sense to just judge on what you seem to hear, so long as it's plausible given already established science on the subject.

This is the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" heuristic I mentioned earlier, that I think we often recognize as rational. If a proposition is compatible with known experience (or science) we can just accept that experience. The more a proposition comes in tension with known experience and science, the higher the bar should be for believing it. So for instance if I introduced 4 large bass traps in my room, it would be reasonable to accept the perception the bass character was affected. But if someone told me a teeny brass bowl attached to the wall would create the same changes in bass response, well I think the rational person would want stronger evidence than a "say so" or even question one's sense the bass had changed.

 

[Kingrex]

We should have a thread for people who have never listened to or played their stereo, yet it is technically perfect.

 

[Al M.]

But, again, that is because the psychological variable is controlled for. And the psychological variables can be in the form of manifesting as actual "physical" feelings/symptoms (your stomach really can get upset) and/or incorrect inferences "the pill caused my stomach upset last night" (where maybe something else caused it) etc. That's the important part. And the researchers are blinded to, to remove biased inferences.

I don't think there is this hard line you are trying to draw because at bottom we are talking about "having an experience" not merely "having an opinion." It's an attempt to understand the experience.

The subject in the medical study may "have an experience" of feeling better, or feeling more anxious, or feeling pain in their stomach. The question is what caused the experience? An expectation effect for instance? Or the drug in question.

Likewise when an audiophile tries two different sets of cables and "hears a difference" that is not just an opinion, it's an experience. The question becomes what is the rational conclusion to draw from that subjective experience. Is the rational conclusion that it was caused by a real sonic change that occurred between the cables? Or could it be a bias effect?
That's what blind testing helps weed out. There's no "get out of bias free" card to be played in audio perception.

I'm not making the case that blind testing is the be all and end all in terms of designing or evaluating audio gear. Only that it is far from irrelevant or useless for audio.

Again, it's a *physiological* experience in medicine, mostly with hard physiological data readout. I don't understand how you do not see the difference in availability for scientific analysis compared with an audiophile experience.

Here's the thing though: if you think THOSE variables are a problem, you should recognize that the well known variables in sighted listening should be a problem (more of a problem, because they can include everything you just wrote, and more issues).

As I said again in my last post, sighted tests are not scientific, and of course they are problematic. Yet blind tests are are also problematic, as I pointed out, and they are not scientific either.

 

[the sound of Tao]

I’m not sure what the real problem is though… if people choose to believe in blind tests or in sighted tests as the best way for themselves to compare gear that’s just what they should do… this isn’t prescriptive practice. We are all making choices here of our own free wills.

There is a problem maybe when some choose to deride others because of their preferred method of doing comparisons.

I’d suggest if people want something tested their way they really need to get it together and do it for themselves and not hack away endlessly at others for preferring to do comparisons their own way.

 

[tima]

In the end the issue of hearing a difference is not relevant

huh?

Some are latched on to the notion that distinguishing something hearrd fron imagining something heard involves detecting a difference between two experiences. I know why that requirement is introduced, so that they can talk about blind testing, which is really just a distraction. If you cannot tell whether you hear something or imagine you heard it in one instance, having two instances (with or without, before and after) adds nothing toward knowing if you are imagining or not.

 

[tima]

We should have a thread for people who have never listened to or played their stereo, yet it is technically perfect.

The ones who offer no details about themselves tend to be less convincing.

 

[Gregadd]

A chain is on;ly as strong as its weakest link. But we can have a perfectly competent chain as long as the load placed on the weakest link doesn't exceed the weakest link capacity. The weak link has now become dominant. We ca now increase the load capacity by strengthening the weakest link, or by removing it altogether. Assuming the links have variable loads we can continue to raise the load capacity of the chain. Heck we can even get a stronger chain made of different material and repeat the process.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Again, it's a *physiological* experience in medicine, mostly with hard physiological data readout. I don't understand how you do not see the difference in availability for scientific analysis compared with an audiophile experience.

As I said again in my last post, sighted tests are not scientific, and of course they are problematic. Yet blind tests are are also problematic, as I pointed out, and they are not scientific either.

+1 I think we have a lot more to learn from understanding about how we perceive rather than pretending any form of assessment be it subjective or objective is perfect on its own.

I use both objective and subjective assessments in this and use both functional analysis and whole synthesis in how I evaluate and understand what I experience in listening.

In the end since the purpose of this pursuit for me is in subjective experience subjective appraisal gets considerably greater weighting for me and forms up also as the summative or ultimate assessment. If others are more comfortable letting specifications be their ultimate guide more power to them.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Some are latched on to the notion that distinguishing something hearrd fron imagining something heard involves detecting a difference between two experiences. I know why that requirement is introduced, so that they can talk about blind testing, which is really just a distraction. If you cannot tell whether you hear something or imagine you heard it in one instance, having two instances (with or without, before and after) adds nothing toward knowing if you are imagining or not.

Mutually agreeable blind testing could illuminate whether something was actually heard or whether something was merely believed to have been heard.

 

[Lee]

Mutually agreeable blind testing could illuminate whether something was actually heard or whether something was merely believed to have been heard.

That would depend on the critical listening skills of the participants.

 

[Gregadd]

Testing is the dress rehearsal.
Showtime is subjective.

 

[tima]

Mutually agreeable blind testing could illuminate whether something was actually heard or whether something was merely believed to have been heard.

That would depend on the critical listening skills of the participants.

While I don't believe what Ron said is the case -- if one person can imagine a sound, another can be equally deluded -- if I were to follow on your comment, Lee, I would say it depends not only on critical listening skills. Also involved are the ability of a listener to describe what he hears and for each listener to agree on the vocabulary all listeners use. Describing sound is difficuIt. I suspect those three factors have more to do with agreements and disagreements on the effect of a change than introducing the notion that use of imagination or delusion has some explanatory power.

In the end however I do not believe knowing whether a listener hears X or whether he imagines hearing X comes down to a vote.

 

[Kingrex]

Well amps make a big difference. I have been breaking in my new Found Music Blade amps for 4 day. Last night I could not sleep. Got out of bed around 12. Turned on the system, cut a thin slice.of fruitcake and put on a record. The volume was very low. Immediately I was struck. I had a sense of clarity and completeness similar to my headphones.
Now, do I need to say its all bologna. An amp can't make any appreciable gain. Or do I say, wow, I got one very fine amp.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Well amps make a big difference.

Of course they do. The thread OP targets more subtle sources of sonic differences than major components.

 

[COF]

We should have a thread for people who have never listened to or played their stereo, yet it is technically perfect.

So a thread based on strawmen?

Why do that?

 

[COF]

That would depend on the critical listening skills of the participants.

Sure.

Take someone who considers themselves to be a "critical listener" and test them. Not a big deal.

The point isn't so much being a critical listener or not: it's finding out whether someone can actually hear what they claim to hear.

So if an audiophile says "I can easily tell cable A from B apart, just by the sound" then you can test that, controlling for sighted bias.

That goes for ANY listener's claim, whether it is true they happen to be a "critical listener" or not, you've tested their claim.

(And this is why skeptics often say to audiphiles claiming to have the right critical listening skills "ok, let's test your claim."
The infamous Steve Zipser tests come to mind...the florida high end salesman who decried "objectivists" as clearly not having resolving enough systems, or good enough hearing to detect the "obvious" differences he heard between amps. So skeptics visited him, tested him blind on his own system, and he failed to detect between his amp and a cheaper amp with any statistical reliablity)

 

[Lagonda]

Sure.

Take someone who considers themselves to be a "critical listener" and test them. Not a big deal.

The point isn't so much being a critical listener or not: it's finding out whether someone can actually hear what they claim to hear.

So if an audiophile says "I can easily tell cable A from B apart, just by the sound" then you can test that, controlling for sighted bias.

That goes for ANY listener's claim, whether it is true they happen to be a "critical listener" or not, you've tested their claim.

(And this is why skeptics often say to audiphiles claiming to have the right critical listening skills "ok, let's test your claim."
The infamous Steve Zipser tests come to mind...the florida high end salesman who decried "objectivists" as clearly not having resolving enough systems, or good enough hearing to detect the "obvious" differences he heard between amps. So skeptics visited him, tested him blind on his own system, and he failed to detect between his amp and a cheaper amp with any statistical reliablity)

Lets not compare audio dealers with regular folks, there are some completely different biases going on there !

 

[twitch]

Well amps make a big difference. I have been breaking in my new Found Music Blade amps for 4 day. Last night I could not sleep. Got out of bed around 12. Turned on the system, cut a thin slice.of fruitcake and put on a record. The volume was very low. Immediately I was struck. I had a sense of clarity and completeness similar to my headphones.
Now, do I need to say its all bologna. An amp can't make any appreciable gain. Or do I say, wow, I got one very fine amp.

I think it was the fruitcake .............

 

[Rt66indierock]

+1 I think we have a lot more to learn from understanding about how we perceive rather than pretending any form of assessment be it subjective or objective is perfect on its own.

I use both objective and subjective assessments in this and use both functional analysis and whole synthesis in how I evaluate and understand what I experience in listening.

In the end since the purpose of this pursuit for me is in subjective experience subjective appraisal gets considerably greater weighting for me and forms up also as the summative or ultimate assessment. If others are more comfortable letting specifications be their ultimate guide more power to them.

So, let's hook up Ron Resnick with a bunch of sensors in his head, put on headphones and play Pink Floyd's The Wall. Do you think we can reconstruct the music from Ron’s brain activity?

 

[Tangram]

Sure.

Take someone who considers themselves to be a "critical listener" and test them. Not a big deal.

The point isn't so much being a critical listener or not: it's finding out whether someone can actually hear what they claim to hear.

So if an audiophile says "I can easily tell cable A from B apart, just by the sound" then you can test that, controlling for sighted bias.

That goes for ANY listener's claim, whether it is true they happen to be a "critical listener" or not, you've tested their claim.

(And this is why skeptics often say to audiphiles claiming to have the right critical listening skills "ok, let's test your claim."
The infamous Steve Zipser tests come to mind...the florida high end salesman who decried "objectivists" as clearly not having resolving enough systems, or good enough hearing to detect the "obvious" differences he heard between amps. So skeptics visited him, tested him blind on his own system, and he failed to detect between his amp and a cheaper amp with any statistical reliablity)

Can someone point me to the results of a juried blind A/B test in which equipment reviewers - the ones who make a living at it - participated? Many of them make comments in their reviews that suggest superhuman aural memories and listening skills, so such a test should be a walk in the park for them to pass with flying colors. I'm not talking about the easy stuff like speakers and amps. In the spirit of this thread, I'm talking about tweaks that they enthusiastically recommend. Let's start with an easy one to blind test: record weights.