Is ABX finally Obsolete

[Phelonious Ponk]

Be careful Terryj; don't embarass yourself. Frank could id a change of fuse blind from the next house. You might not even need to drive to Sidney.

Tim

 

[fas42]

In blind tests, it is very easy to give up and just vote randomly. The process is tedious and boring. After five minutes of you, I suspect many voters just want to get through it if the differences are hard to spot and vote randomly.

Amir was the one who knew exactly where the ball was: scientists and "objectivists" may love the concept of a "pure" experiment, but the majority of the rest of us will just think, "Buggah this for a joke!" ...

Frank

 

[DS-21]

Where these two points of view can resolve their differences

My point is, simply, that people holding these two points of view aren't going to reach some grand synthesis.

and meaningly merge to an agreement is for firstly the "rational music lover" to accept that something more than "straightforward" application is required, it will still all be totally "correct" principles, but doing it in a relatively unsophisticated and dumbed down manner will not achieve the result the other party knows is possible.

I think that's an incorrect view of the rational music lover position. I think the position was best summed up by the ghost of Mrs. Landingham in the season finale to the second season of the West Wing: "show me numbers."

If anyone could actually demonstrate in a reliable and repeatable way the things that the other party "knows," it would instantly become a part of the rational music lover position.

But the simple truth is, people tend to simply believe what they've been told to believe, without much in the way of critical thought. See, e.g., the Stereophile April Fools joke of years ago where they suggested to put a certain sum of change on top of something (speaker? amp? don't remember), and people wrote in with tales of the veils lifted, improved "liquidity" and PRAT, etc.

The real trap someone with that viewpoint may face is that some will elevate theoretical superiority over listening and logic. Take Peter Azcel as an example. He's never seen a newfangled speaker technology he didn't like, from the nasty-sounding Velodyne bookshelf speakers of 15 years ago to more recently on the B&O omnis and Linkwitz omnis and dipoles. Or the person who listens to music at very low levels, but tunes the bass ruler-flat, as if that could possibly yield the perceived spectral balance the artist intended.

On the other hand, the "audiophool" has to jettison the belief in "magic", there ain't no such animal, not in audio at least! By luck and endless fiddling he has managed to achieve superior qualities in his sound compared to what the other party is content with, but he needs to understand that there are still very real, very rational principles at work making it happen for him. He may not understand the principles, almost no-one may appreciate what they are, but you can be certain the underlying mechanisms are perfectly capable of being fully, "scientifically", understood if someone makes a major effort in tracking down what's going on ...

I agree. However, to be blunt, many people do understand the relevant mechanisms. They far more likely to be found in the scientific study of psychology than in the scientific study of sound reproduction.

Not, of course, that being "all in the head" makes the end result any different for the person with that weltanschauung.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think that's an incorrect view of the rational music lover position. I think the position was best summed up by the ghost of Mrs. Landingham in the season finale to the second season of the West Wing: "show me numbers."

God I miss Mrs. Landingham.

On the other hand, the "audiophool" has to jettison the belief in "magic",

Straight from the mouth of a Radio Shack Merlin if there ever was one. Show me numbers.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

What could I conclude from that? I could conclude that after enjoying 3 weeks of expectation bias, as soon as I was unable to know I was listening to the beautiful black headphone amp with glowing amber tubes, that I had dutifully warmed up prior to listening, my listening experience changed dramatically. I could conclude that I am not immune to bias and that on that day, in that system, listening blind, I could not reliably differentiate between those two components. (...)

What I concluded from that headphone amp experience, and a couple of similar experiences with other amps, and DACs, has changed my approach to the hobby, and greatly enhanced my ability to enjoy the music. Who needs statistics?

Tim

Curious situation. Forgetting about how you expect to be able to reliably differentiate anything without proper statistics and methods, can you tell us why you decided to carry the blind test? What triggered this desire? I ask it because it seems important - it could create in you the expectation bias that you would not be able to differentiate.
What type of method did you use to compare the amps?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Curious situation. Forgetting about how you expect to be able to reliably differentiate anything without proper statistics and methods, can you tell us why you decided to carry the blind test? What triggered this desire? I ask it because it seems important - it could create in you the expectation bias that you would not be able to differentiate.
What type of method did you use to compare the amps?

I'd answer the first question with a question: How does anyone expect to reliably differentiate anything when comparing two components sighted? Like I said, I made no attempt at scientific methodology, I just listened blind instead of sighted. What triggered the desire to test blind after listening to the tube amp and loving it for a couple of weeks? Curiosity. How did I do it? Split the output from the DAC, matched volumes to the best of my ability with a friend's cheap meter, and had same friend move the headphone jack between the two amps.

Could something in my methodology have masked a real difference between the two? Yes.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

I'd answer the first question with a question: How does anyone expect to reliably differentiate anything when comparing two components sighted? Like I said, I made no attempt at scientific methodology, I just listened blind instead of sighted. What triggered the desire to test blind after listening to the tube amp and loving it for a couple of weeks? Curiosity. How did I do it? Split the output from the DAC, matched volumes to the best of my ability with a friend's cheap meter, and had same friend move the headphone jack between the two amps.

Could something in my methodology have masked a real difference between the two? Yes.

Tim

Tim,

Surely sighted audition affects listening evaluations (I use this word to try to separate the listening tests we carry when we are choosing equipment from the forum challenges). However from what I read the possible blind tests also suffer from many reliability problems and for me the balance still goes towards preferring sighted evaluation, trying to be as critical as possible in these conditions.

IMHO, although some of the existing studies on blind test are very interesting and carried with great professionalism and competency, they are carried and cherished inside a small group that does systematic group self-citation and are not cross checked with independent work. Also (and this is not responsibility of the authors) I feel that most people often want to use the conclusions of these studies outside of the scope of the authors intentions.

BTW, once again I refer that my position towards reviews and reviewers in sighted conditions is more complacent than others because I am aware of the limitations of these review conditions and try to take them in consideration when reading them - as I said I use them mainly for "information and entertainment".

 

[fas42]

Straight from the mouth of a Radio Shack Merlin if there ever was one. Show me numbers.

Deary me ...

As in "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" numbers, or the ones the Japanese used to "prove" that their 70's amplifiers were superior or even perfect? I guess the next time I buy a car I shouldn't be so silly as to go for a test drive, but just find every printed number I can about the makes available: that will obviously tell me what is not up to scratch, and which is the best of the bunch ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

If anyone could actually demonstrate in a reliable and repeatable way the things that the other party "knows," it would instantly become a part of the rational music lover position.

That, unfortunately for just about everyone in this game, can be the real sticking point. A lot of the subtle tweaking that gets the best performance is not easily transferrable or translatable to another situation: the major reason that people who want extra performance quite often have a very hard time is that the changes for the good they do are very fragile in terms of of being able to make happen on command. In other words , you often can't just slap the bits together in a 1, 2, 3 manner and get the wanted result.

A bit like getting Formula 1 performance. If someone got the best engine in the game, the best suspension from another mob, the best brakes from a third, etc, and then just bolted or welded it all together in the back shed, how well do you think it would do on the track?

Frank

 

[Gregadd]

The ABX crowd preaches to the choir.The pastor can always get an amen from the congregation. It seems to me if the preacher wants converts he has to preach to the sinners.

 

[DS-21]

A bit like getting Formula 1 performance. If someone got the best engine in the game, the best suspension from another mob, the best brakes from a third, etc, and then just bolted or welded it all together in the back shed, how well do you think it would do on the track?

Depends on the driver.

But that does seem to be the way "audiophiles" assemble their systems, by and large. Not much rhyme or reason, and certainly not much attention to things that actually matter.

How many "audiophiles" use a modern multisub system to smooth out the room response in the upper bass?

How many "audiophiles" employ speakers with consistent directivity patterns - as opposed to the "mushroom cloud" power response one sees from typical "audiophile" speakers, with their flush-mounted tweeters for billowing excesses of midrange energy - and evince the slightest bit of understanding how the speaker's pattern interacts with the room?

Until/unless someone does the things that actually matter, listening to that person on the subject of power cords or isolation platforms or speaker wires or preamps or whatever is entirely besides the point. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[fas42]

But that does seem to be the way "audiophiles" assemble their systems, by and large. Not much rhyme or reason, and certainly not much attention to things that actually matter.

...

Until/unless someone does the things that actually matter, listening to that person on the subject of power cords or isolation platforms or speaker wires or preamps or whatever is entirely besides the point. Wouldn't you agree?

I think we're back to different realities here. As many people here will be happy to let you know, my reality is quite different from most. As an example, I barely worry about the bass, so long as it doesn't boom obnoxiously I'm OK with it; my obsession is with the treble, because my experience with this is that if you get this right everything else falls into place. The treble working right will give you tight, tight, thump you in the chest bass, which is what I'm after ...

The number of expensive systems I've heard where the treble is a mess, "harsh" would be the word other people would use, and ruins any chance of the sound being convincing means that fixing that is always my first focus.

Frank

 

[audioguy]

I think we're back to different realities here. my obsession is with the treble, because my experience with this is that if you get this right everything else falls into place. The treble working right will give you tight, tight, thump you in the chest bass, which is what I'm after ...
Frank

I'm in a different camp. Bass is not only the foundation of much music. if it is not correct, then nothing else matters to my ears. Crappy bass, or even the slightest bit of room overhang (which represents 90% of every room I have ever heard), completely destroys any allusion of reality for me. And for that to occur, the room needs to be heavily and appropriately treated with bass traps and. in most cases, include some form of appropriate EQ/DRC.

I guess we (I) have wandered off topic !!

 

[Gregadd]

Some of the problems associated with honest efforts with abx, http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=89779&hl= ,can be examibed by this effort on hydorgenaudio.

questionable method
refusable to acccept outcome by skeptics
problem with statistics. ec.

 

[amirm]

Some of the problems associated with honest efforts with abx, http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=89779&hl= ,can be examibed by this effort on hydorgenaudio.

questionable method
refusable to acccept outcome by skeptics
problem with statistics. ec.

My head is down when someone goes through so much work to run a blind test and it instantly gets dismissed. I especially disliked this comment from the mod (although stated as non-mod):

"I respectfully suggest people refrain starting such threads when there is such a blatant lack of pertinent information in the future."

Refrain from starting such a thread? What are people afraid of? Hearing someone working so hard to run a test?

 

[fas42]

To get a bit more back on topic, I would further propose a test, nowhere near an ABX of course, where you use a highly respected, true 3 way speaker, true as in that the drivers do in fact cover decent ranges of the audio spectrum, not like a Zu in other words, such that the bass and treble drivers could be disconnected at will. Listening to good, conventional, music tracks, not bass freak thrashes, for example, which arrangement would people find more convincing and "attractive", and closer to the full speaker functioning: no bass driver operating, or no treble driver operating?

Or maybe this has already been done?? ...

Frank

 

[terryj]

To get a bit more back on topic, I would further propose a test, nowhere near an ABX of course, where you use a highly respected, true 3 way speaker, true as in that the drivers do in fact cover decent ranges of the audio spectrum, not like a Zu in other words, such that the bass and treble drivers could be disconnected at will. Listening to good, conventional, music tracks, not bass freak thrashes, for example, which arrangement would people find more convincing and "attractive", and closer to the full speaker functioning: no bass driver operating, or no treble driver operating?

Or maybe this has already been done?? ...

Frank

I do it all the time frank, simple matter.

When shall I expect you?

As always, you leave out too many details. What are the final frequency ranges you expect to cover? (I can set that up as well)

What is the range the mid covers? ie, take away the bass (leave the treble) and we listen to 600-20k?

OR, we listen to 100-20k?

what about the top of it, (leave the bass in)..we listen to 20-5k?

OR, we listen 20-8k??

How about we do a real world test, take away ONLY the room induced anomalies in the bass, eq in or out.

Then you will find that altering the bass TRULY alters the rest of the entire spectrum.

If you wish, I can alter the treble to whatever you desire, and we can switch back and forth...and find that the bass does not alter in any way.

All been done Frank.

By the way, the most significant thing for me in doing this sort of stuff is the realisation that it all matters. Play just the tweeter, and you WILL be surprised-depending on the crossover point-how 'little' there is in the treble. Once you do an experiment like that, it starts to put things into perspective. And very few do or have the means to do an experiment like that. One thing as a quick example, often people misattribute to the 'tweeter' what are mid problems. 5 k (as an example) is really high!! No, when people blame the tweeter, it is usually the mid IME.

Urr, that ended up a clumsy sentence, sorry!

Anyway, listen to the tweeter, mid or bass on it's own. None of it works...but it magically all comes together when you play them all.

When shall I expect you? It would do YOU the power of good to hop out of your ivory tower armchair theorizing and test these hypotheses of yours...I think you would learn a lot.

To be frank haha (little gag there, hope you didn't take it the wrong way)

So that's a 'no' then to you testing your theories by me administering a dbt? If so, then by all means, carry on with throwing 'em all out there......

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Deary me ...

As in "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" numbers, or the ones the Japanese used to "prove" that their 70's amplifiers were superior or even perfect? I guess the next time I buy a car I shouldn't be so silly as to go for a test drive, but just find every printed number I can about the makes available: that will obviously tell me what is not up to scratch, and which is the best of the bunch ...

Frank

Wow. A compound/complex straw man. Impressive.

Tim

 

[fas42]

By the way, the most significant thing for me in doing this sort of stuff is the realisation that it all matters. Play just the tweeter, and you WILL be surprised-depending on the crossover point-how 'little' there is in the treble. Once you do an experiment like that, it starts to put things into perspective. And very few do or have the means to do an experiment like that. One thing as a quick example, often people misattribute to the 'tweeter' what are mid problems. 5 k (as an example) is really high!! No, when people blame the tweeter, it is usually the mid IME.

I agree that the midrange is where all the real action is, which is why is why the single driver crowd gets away with their type of speakers. What the treble does, for me at least, is add the icing on the cake: when it works correctly then the you-are-there element can switch on.

When shall I expect you? It would do YOU the power of good to hop out of your ivory tower armchair theorizing and test these hypotheses of yours...I think you would learn a lot.

Which hypotheses and how exactly would you propose to test them on me?

By the way, be warned, I take no prisoners when I am asked to assess a system. I use really "bad", as in difficult recordings, and I turn the volume up to 11. This always makes it bloody obvious where setups fall to pieces, which is what I am really interested in, not listening to audiophile "swill" at polite volumes ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

Wow. A compound/complex straw man. Impressive.

Tim

Let's see, from Wikipedia:

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

I've emphasised the key element here: you would argue that it "unequivalent" and I would argue otherwise, on the basis that:

(1) Both cars and audio systems are complex mechanisms, capable of behaving in very complex ways depending upon the situation they are in: a car on a "bad" road, an audio system playing a "bad" recording
(2) It is very difficult for engineers and designers to precisely define and measure how their "baby" will behave in unusual situations, even just a particular combination that suits you, the potential user.
(3) In these respect the best thing the prospective buyer can do is take it for a whirl, try it out for an extended period, give it a hammering in the way that's meaningful to him, because it's the only way he will know whether it truly suits; no numbers he can easily access will allow him to put together a full parcel of the "facts" that he needs to make a satisfactory decision.

So, do we now need a DBT to determine whether in fact I presented a "straw man" or not, hmmm ...?

Frank