I could. And I conceded that in my post
. But as I went on to say, as the difference gets tiny, and the metric becomes less known, it becomes progressively impossible to do that.
The Misinformed Misleading the Uninformed -- A Bit About Blind Listening Tests
- Thread starter Ron Party
- Start date
. But as I went on to say, as the difference gets tiny, and the metric becomes less known, it becomes progressively impossible to do that.
(5) It is common to include references/anchors (hidden or not) in listening tests, which act as internal controls. In codec testing the hidden reference is a used as control to determine if the listener can reliably detect the reference.
(8) The fact that I am participating in this forum suggests that I am listening to the other side of the arguments. I am willing to accept arguments if you show me some compelling evidence. To me, your arguments seemed parochoial (I thought I made that clear), and that is why I decided to clear up some of the misconceptions.
Last edited:
Myles, right you are. Well, not on the individual points; you have a few of those quite wrong, but the big one? DBT do not work for audio?
Spot on! Much better to look into the luminous, polished logo of our new acquisition, feel the emptiness as we sit on our wallet, turn the volume up a bit higher than it was before we put the new component in the signal chain (because we have no controls), and declare it good. No chance whatsoever of expectation bias there. We're all too smart for that.
P
Spot on! Much better to look into the luminous, polished logo of our new acquisition, feel the emptiness as we sit on our wallet, turn the volume up a bit higher than it was before we put the new component in the signal chain (because we have no controls), and declare it good. No chance whatsoever of expectation bias there. We're all too smart for that.
P
Well, that'll teach me to responde to the OP without reading the other 7 pages first. The presence of a sub-forum headed up by Sean Olive is a bit deceiving, I'm afraid. It seems that the voodoo count isn't much different here than it is on most audiophile forums. And am I the only one here who is not a moderator?
Think I'll go see if it's any better in Sean's corner. Not likely, though. The religious tend to follow unbelievers around, trying to convince them to hear the expanded vertical sound stage oozing elegantly from the billet aluminum case...
P
Think I'll go see if it's any better in Sean's corner. Not likely, though. The religious tend to follow unbelievers around, trying to convince them to hear the expanded vertical sound stage oozing elegantly from the billet aluminum case...
P
Now there is a man who understands how it REALLY works. All humans have biases but some of us think we can ignore them. NOT!
Greg
It doesn't have to be an "either or". ...We have come to see things in very polarized fashion: Objectivist are those who believe in DBT and measures .. Subjectivists are those who beleive in their ears and ears only. I am willing to propose that those distinctions are false: Most Audiophiles are in a continuum, they believe in some measurements or testing and some listening .. THe proportions might change but most audiophiles believe and practice both measurements AND listening ... It would only help to listen sometimes ...blind
Frantz
Well put Franz. I am an objectivist believing in both objective measurements whether listening or quantifying the physical properties of sound. That is the best path for learning new psychoacoustic knowledge (the correlation between the perception and measurement of sound).
Most audiophiles have no interest in learning something about psychoacoustics or validating what they perceive is due to entirely to the sound of the loudspeaker versus sighted-related bias from themselves or Robert Harley saying the loudspeaker has the best pace, rhythm and musicality he has ever heard, and at $100k is easily worth 2x the price.
I personally have no problem with that because a) I don't need more job competition in psychoacoustics from audiophiles b) someday Harman may make a $100k loudspeaker and we will need the opinions from sighted listening to help sell the product
Once you get beyond a certain price-point, the psychology behind the purchase of the product has less to do with real sound quality, and more to do with overall "perceived" quality and the status that comes with owning an expensive product that few can afford.
I will give you an example: We know that our Revel Salons sound and measure better than many more expensive loudspeakers but our dealers say we sometimes lose a sale because they are not expensive enough for the customer. Our dealers have suggested we double their price so that the loudspeaker has more "perceived" quality and status, and might improve our bottom line.
It doesn't matter whether you're selling snake oil or well-designed, luxury goods: sighted tests are the businessman's best friend.
Last edited:
.................... b) someday Harman may make a $100k loudspeaker and we will need the help of opinions from sighted listening tests by reviewers and customers to help us sell the product
PRICELESS!!!!! Hahahahahaha!!!!!
Seriously though, I'd like to see anybody that plunks down a huge (relative to the individual even) amount of money for anything under the sun he is not personally biased towards. Performance wise a honda civic would go around a track faster, have better fuel consumption, better amenities, better safety, more comfort, carry as many people, etc. etc. than many classic vintage cars seen at auctions.
How's that for intangibles. Now testing and thousands upon thousands of hours of number crunching made that Civic what it is so I am in no way pooh-pooh-ing the efforts of the engineering community. All I'm saying is that performance and desirability are not always correlated. I could name a couple of speakers whose ultimate performance package sucks but they are great speakers because there are a few things that they do extremely well.
I suppose however that when we get to the most extremely designed, executed and priced products, it is but right to raise the standards to match the expectations.
I am reminded of my cities traffic patterns with beautiful billions of dollars of scenic magnificent highways. Indeed in DC many are called parkways because they are built through national parks. Alas no matter how well built we are all trying arrive basically to the same place. The inevitable bottlenecks ensue. You can design audio by the seat of your pants or by rigid adherence to so called scientific principles or by a hodgepodge of both. You can try to train your listeners and blind them. Just like traffic you always return to a subjective determination by the listener/purchaser. Does it do it for me? Even worse when you put it in the store all your attempts to eliminate whatever variables you deem appropriate reappear. Afterall its' your money and your choice. Once you have made a decision for whatever reason and pulled out your credit card, I doubt very seriously whether there are many salesman who are going to try and dissuade you from your decision. That gentlemen is the bottom line.
As much as you may argue that the design of audio should be a science, the purchase should and will remain a hobby.
As much as you may argue that the design of audio should be a science, the purchase should and will remain a hobby.
We don't control the audiophile population and their likes and dislikes. So for sure, you will find similarities between some of the topics discussed here and elsewhere. What you will find different is the level of respect that we expect members to show for each other and that of industry insiders. Our level of toleration otherwise is extremely low.
This is where our forum is extremely different than others. We are a bit like a shopping mall where every tenant owns their own store. We have many subgroups focused on different manufacturers, with each having its own moderator. We provide the space, they provide the material. The process of self selection where people choose to spend their free time to manage a subforum, also means that those people tend to want to speak to like-minded audiophiles and hence, you see them chatting here collectively.
We have people on both sides of the fence here. More importantly, we have people bringing real data to the discussion rather than pure bickering. To that end, we have given Sean his own area where he is the only one who can create new topics. And by his choice (which we appreciate
), he is allowing members to comment. This is a very unique situation that you are not going to find elsewhere. So if you are a fan of Sean, you will find an uncluttered place to read his views. Feel free to stop after his article if that puts you more at peace . We also have an excellent area similarly managed by Tom. We are privileged to have both of them spend their free time to create such high quality material to educate all of us.Finally, our forum is still growing and the tone is being shaped. You can be part of that constructive process to make it better
.
Often I find price and sound quality are negatively correlated. If you are mostly selling $50 -100k loudspeakers your market is very limited, and this is reflected in your net sales. It's unlikely you can afford the R&D and facilities investments necessary to drive innovation and make consistently great sounding products at any price-point. Look at these high-end companies and count how many scientists, engineers they have on staff, how much R&D they do, and whether they have anechoic chambers, test equipment and dedicated listening facilities.
If you rely solely on Chinese OEM vendors to do the innovation for you, you'll never be any further ahead than your competitors who are using the same vendor and parts.
Surely there are advantages in being part of a huge conglomerate Sean, however being unfettered by convention in an artisanal setting has its advantages too.
I'm surprised at your choice of words. I'm assuming that at least a part of that observation hails from your experience in your own lab. Lets take two speakers that have passed through your lab, two very similar in driver configuration as well as in form factor. The ES90 and the Studio 2. The latter is 25 times more expensive, are you saying what I think you're saying Sean? Negative correlation might not be the appropriate descriptor. A sample of diminishing returns perhaps but negatively correlated?
I'm surprised at your choice of words. I'm assuming that at least a part of that observation hails from your experience in your own lab. Lets take two speakers that have passed through your lab, two very similar in driver configuration as well as in form factor. The ES90 and the Studio 2. The latter is 25 times more expensive, are you saying what I think you're saying Sean? Negative correlation might not be the appropriate descriptor. A sample of diminishing returns perhaps but negatively correlated?
Amirim - Thanks for the welcome. I realize in retrospect I should have inserted a couple of these: My dark sense of humor can get me in trouble sometimes. I meant no offense.
Jack - I believe Sean said he often finds price and sound quality are negatively correlated, not he always finds price and sound quality are negatively correlated. Big difference, and I agree with both the frequent negative correlation and the diminishing returns. I have heard really good high-end speakers -- Wilsons, Viennas, Sonus Fabers, etc -- that could easily be equaled by less expensive but still very high-quality speakers. And I've hear other very expensive speakers, the names of which I won't mention to avoid offending possible owners, that could easily be bettered by entry level "midfi."* There are some designs and technologies out there that have managed to hold the imagination of the "high-end,"* that really should have gone into the audio archives years ago.
*Terms that are useless to describe anything but price.
Phelonious Ponk
My dark sense of humor can get me in trouble sometimes. I meant no offense.Jack - I believe Sean said he often finds price and sound quality are negatively correlated, not he always finds price and sound quality are negatively correlated. Big difference, and I agree with both the frequent negative correlation and the diminishing returns. I have heard really good high-end speakers -- Wilsons, Viennas, Sonus Fabers, etc -- that could easily be equaled by less expensive but still very high-quality speakers. And I've hear other very expensive speakers, the names of which I won't mention to avoid offending possible owners, that could easily be bettered by entry level "midfi."* There are some designs and technologies out there that have managed to hold the imagination of the "high-end,"* that really should have gone into the audio archives years ago.
*Terms that are useless to describe anything but price.
Phelonious Ponk
Not at all, but shopping, for me, is a fairly detailed process. I look at the numbers, the test results, customer feedback, the design philosophy and production discipline of the company - what seems to be important to them - narrow the field, then order the component. I buy nothing without a liberal return policy and I return everything that doesn't earn it's keep in my systems, in my home.
It works for me rather well. YMMV.
Phelonious Ponk
Nope, you're not.
I actually read these kind of threads more for amusement than anything else. I've yet to see a convert from one camp to the other. And while I'll likely lose my audiophile status for saying this blind tests, including DBT, do work. Trouble is they're devilishly hard to set up properly so that they don't end up proving the null by default. And they are very easy to set up so, that folks whose names I won't mention, can show that their budget whatever sounds as good as the product that has much blood, sweat and tears spent getting the hardware behind the billet faceplate to be worthy of it.
That's not to say that appearance won't bias folks. Especially the untrained. I sat through a B(l)ose demo once at Sears having time to kill and curiousity. This was some years ago. They had disguised the speakers with larger boxes so that one couldn't see what they were really listening to. All in all a most enteraining 45 minutes or so. I managed to not laugh well enough to not get tossed out, though I garnered a dirty look or two from the salesman. What they were pitching was one of the old Acousitmas systems if I remember correctly. Tiny satelites with a tiny shoebox sized subwoofer. By flipping back and forth between speakers he got the audience convinced these things in their huge box sounded better than the rest. The look on the folks faces when he removed the cover was priceless. Total amazement that such 'great' sound could come out of such small speakers. If you've ever heard the things you'll know that that is far from the truth and that the speakers sins aren't those of omission. They were pathetic. A garden variety bookshelf he had and there sounded much better yet was dismissed. So yes appearances can and do fool people.
This makes such testing useful for the good Dr. Olive and others like him. They really need to know if there is a difference for better or worse. Decidedly difficult to design something if you can't tell what's changing. However, since I do this for enjoyment, if I think product A sounds better than B, ie more like live music, than that's all that matters to me. Going through a big rigamorol to prove that to anyone else isn't worth the effort. Plain just don't care if they believe me that A sounds better or not.
That's not to say I won't look a the specs to a degree to reduce the candidate list. I've heard some pretty good sounding equipment that measured poorly but I'd be unlikely to even consider it. Just plain sloppy design. If you can't get the basics right what else did you miss? The flip side of this is also true. I've heard pathetic sounding gear that measured superbly. Think of a 80's vintage Japanese receiver or the first CD players. Sound was just plain awful, an old tube radio could sound better or a half way set up turntable, but people raved over the stuff because the numbers were great.
Yes, let me clarify and correct what I said.Between the range of $200 to $3000 for loudspeakers, on average, you tend to see a positive correlation between price and sound quality. The competition in this price range is much tougher because this is the largest piece of the pie, and there are many players.
Beyond $4-5k you start to see a wider variance in sound quality among different speaker manufacturers. You should get more bass, more SPL, more refinement as you go up in price, but that is not always the case. You are correct that in the higher price ranges, the correlation between price and performance tends to be uncorrelated (not negative, I misspoke). I think John Atkinson at Stereophile has said much the same thing: as you go up in price, the variance in sound quality among different manufacturers gets larger.
I attribute this variance in quality from "high-end" companies having less access to a comprehensive R&D and testing facilities, with fewer of them following good scientific/engineering design guidelines. There are exceptions to this rule. I know some medium size companies that are very innovative, have good measurement capability, great engineers, and put out great products.
Revel is part of a corporation that does $3 billion annual sales with 11,000 employees world-wide. They benefit from all of the R&D, engineering, innovation and test facilities that comes with being part of a large company. As a result , there are quantifiable sound quality improvements as you move up in price from say a ES90 to a Salon 2.
Last edited:
From a strict question of is this product an improvement in moving us closer to the sound of real music than its predecessor or its competitively price competion, the above claims make sense. Big companies may have the advantages that Sean points out. See my post under the Sony thread. I point out that Sony could easily make the best CD player in the world at a price no high end company could match. If they were so inclined. Even if they could not they could buy out the guy who does. Sadly most big companies would rather crank out a mid level product and then use advertising,brand loyalty. and distribution dominance to sell their product.
I of course think that sound quality is the sine qua non for any audio equipment. Many people are willing to pay more for e.g.Audio Research.The brand breeds confidence that they own the cutting edge of preamp development; that they build a quality product; and will be around to support it. We can't overlook the snob factor. Some components such as speakers are just beautiful pieces of furniture. After all they do half to fit into a living environment . Smaller companies can sometimes access non proprietary R&D from larger companies. I think Canada has a national laboratory. Smaller companies can actually buy parts from bigger companies like the Esoteric CD transport.
The point is it would be wrong to assume every dollar went into "better sound." Or even that it should.
This requires some honesty on the part of the consumer. Where did the money go? Am I willing to pay more just to have Wilson or ARC? A camera consumer is quite interested in the fact that a cheaper camera has Leica like performance. A camera collector could care less. The hobbyist has a completely different objective.
I of course think that sound quality is the sine qua non for any audio equipment. Many people are willing to pay more for e.g.Audio Research.The brand breeds confidence that they own the cutting edge of preamp development; that they build a quality product; and will be around to support it. We can't overlook the snob factor. Some components such as speakers are just beautiful pieces of furniture. After all they do half to fit into a living environment . Smaller companies can sometimes access non proprietary R&D from larger companies. I think Canada has a national laboratory. Smaller companies can actually buy parts from bigger companies like the Esoteric CD transport.
The point is it would be wrong to assume every dollar went into "better sound." Or even that it should.
This requires some honesty on the part of the consumer. Where did the money go? Am I willing to pay more just to have Wilson or ARC? A camera consumer is quite interested in the fact that a cheaper camera has Leica like performance. A camera collector could care less. The hobbyist has a completely different objective.
I'm almost proud to say that all I can afford is mid-fi audio, as I know I'm getting a decent bang for the buck. I will never have to worry about considering "snob-appeal" components, which actually works out quite well as it doesn't fit my personal character anyway. And although I surely would love to own mono-blocks, be spinning vinyl on an Oracle Delphi MkVI and listen through a pair of Totem Wind's, I really doubt that my level of satisfaction and appreciation for music would increase.
Despite the fact that mid-fi components may not measure as well as their hi-fi cousins, the additional fact is they offer tremendous value and there are some real undervalued products in this category of equipment.
John
Pssst...hey John. Don't tell, but depending on which "mid-fi" components you've chosen, it may measure every bit as well as its hifi cousins. The exception may be speakers, and I say "may be" because many very "high-end" speakers are little more than a smallish two-way sitting on top of a passive sub in a very expensive piece of furniture. If you can get past the bling, the right smallish two-way, sitting on top of an active sub (not literally), can do at least as good. Maybe better.
P
Similar threads
