A vision test for an ideal audiophile:

[jerryapril]

Guys this is awsome:

http://fox2now.com/2015/04/03/do-you-see-marilyn-monroe-or-albert-einstein-this-test-may-reveal-something-about-your-eyes/

They should come up with something like this to substitute listening demoes as well...

 

[lindsayt]

So, if I play Mozart and Lady Ga Ga at the same time, will I think I'm listening to Lady Ga Ga if my hearing's not good, or I'm sitting a long long way away, or I cover up my ears? And will I think I'm listening to Mozart if my hearing's good and I'm sitting at a normal distance?

Or will it sound like Mozart and Lady Ga Ga being played at the same time, no matter how good my hearing is and how far I'm sitting from my speakers?

 

[lejockey]

I have often wandered this. If our eyesight is so easily tricked, what about our hearing? When you consider how much of our brain is used for vision, and how little for hearing, and how blunt and generaly rubbish our hearing is in comparrison. Our hearing is as bad and unreliable as my spelling!

 

[Jota180]

As an audiophile with superior senses I can also see in infra red and ultra violet.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

I tell you some of you have a strange perception of how our senses work.

If you set out to fool yourselves its easy to 'fool' your senses - but if acting instinctively with your senses all working as they should, vision, hearing, feel - you'll see your senses, well they're pretty robust.

I play squash and dare I say it to a pretty competitive level.

During a rally seeing and hearing a ball strike from an opponent my reactions are instantaneous anticipating how hard the ball is struck, it's trajectory and how I have to balance and position myself to strike it back all processed within a second. This without thought or second guessing myself.

Its the same with music if one hears an audible difference trust that instinct - all the talk about 'perception bias' etc is nonsense.

If it sounds different it sounds different.

If you really want to see how your senses work go watch a pro tennis match, then consider which sense are being used to give yourself a real idea of how your senses work in real world situations. Walking down the street or doing anything your sense work just like this everyday

Don't convince yourselves your senses cannot he trusted - If you want to over analyse then second guessing yourself does come easy.

 

[Laurens_B]

I tell you some of you have a strange perception of how our senses work.

If you set out to fool yourselves its easy to 'fool' your senses - but if acting instinctively with your senses all working as they should, vision, hearing, feel - you'll see your senses, well they're pretty robust.

I play squash and dare I say it to a pretty competitive level.

During a rally seeing and hearing a ball strike from an opponent my reactions are instantaneous anticipating how hard the ball is struck, it's trajectory and how I have to balance and position myself to strike it back all processed within a second. This without thought or second guessing myself.

Its the same with music if one hears an audible difference trust that instinct - all the talk about 'perception bias' etc is nonsense.

If it sounds different it sounds different.

If you really want to see how your senses work go watch a pro tennis match, then consider which sense are being used to give yourself a real idea of how your senses work in real world situations. Walking down the street or doing anything your sense work just like this everyday

Don't convince yourselves your senses cannot he trusted - If you want to over analyse then second guessing yourself does come easy.

You are quite right that our brains/senses perform amazingly in sports. It is the result of thousands of years of evolution and it's quite optimal for a lot of tasks.

However, in audio components, your ears are not the only senses that are used for identification of quality. Your eyes and ears are used simultaneously in sighted listening. When you replace your ugly black kettle lead with a very amazing looking lead which costs a fair amount, your eyes process the visual information, your brain already has the price information, and therefore your mind is tempted towards thinking that the change should yield a positive result. You can find in literature that the audible information processing adapts to what visual information is being processed. Basically this means that visual information is dominant.

Therefore, your argument of deliberately deceiving your senses is not comparable to what happens with audio components, does not hold here. You are deliberately being deceived by the visual information, which is not needed when identifying audio quality. This is the reason why blind tests are so important.

 

[manicm]

Blind tests are overrated in my opinion. I often listen to music in the dark. Any differences I've experienced were equal whether sighted or not. There's a corollary of what's been said here too - I once bought a remastered blu-ray of a manga movie made in 1988, and much has been said of it's sound, and indeed it's so good it only highlighted the shortcomings in the picture quality.

If someone's convinced a cable will sound better, or a Bose is the best thing there is, no amount of blind testing will convince otherwise, except of-course where unscrupulous stores try to score quick quids and fool customers.

 

[EvPa]

I once bought a remastered blu-ray of a manga movie made in 1988, and much has been said of it's sound, and indeed it's so good it only highlighted the shortcomings in the picture quality.

AKIRA looks and sounds nice, but the manga itself is much better.

 

[manicm]

I once bought a remastered blu-ray of a manga movie made in 1988, and much has been said of it's sound, and indeed it's so good it only highlighted the shortcomings in the picture quality.

AKIRA looks and sounds nice, but the manga itself is much better.

 

[pauln]

Blind tests are overrated in my opinion. I often listen to music in the dark.

Getting confused here - blind testing means not knowing what you're listening to, turning the lights out or closing your eyes is not the same thing.

 

[lindsayt]

Thompsonuxb and manicm are speaking a lot of sense here.

I sort of agree with what Laurens_B is saying too. But I would add that when it comes to sighted hi-fi tests, a lot depends on the experience, mindset and integrity of the listener. The right sort of listener with the right sort of mindset will be able to judge equipment well enough on its sonic merits alone without being swayed by looks or price.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Thompsonuxb and manicm are speaking a lot of sense here.

I sort of agree with what Laurens_B is saying too. But I would add that when it comes to sighted hi-fi tests, a lot depends on the experience, mindset and integrity of the listener. The right sort of listener with the right sort of mindset will be able to judge equipment well enough on its sonic merits alone without being swayed by looks or price.

Exactly!

If it sounds different - better or worse - it sounds different.

Makes no sense to go out of your way to convince yourself otherwise.

 

[Andrewjvt]

You are quite right that our brains/senses perform amazingly in sports. It is the result of thousands of years of evolution and it's quite optimal for a lot of tasks.?

That does not make sense because in that case why have we evolved to be weaker than apes and much weaker memory?

I do agree that the price can influence someone to think its better but lots of times i have wanted something to sound better because of a review ive read etc but to my ears it just did not.

Everyone is different so just because you think or hear a certain way does not mean or prove everyone is the same

 

[manicm]

Blind tests are overrated in my opinion. I often listen to music in the dark.

Getting confused here - blind testing means not knowing what you're listening to, turning the lights out or closing your eyes is not the same thing.

I know what blind tests are, but as I said if someone wants a Bose, he or she will buy a Bose, and as another poster stated here, sighted tests are perfectly reasonable to anyone with a degree of objectivity, all my auditions have been sighted and I don't think my decisions would have been any different otherwise.

 

[pauln]

Blind tests are overrated in my opinion. I often listen to music in the dark.

Getting confused here - blind testing means not knowing what you're listening to, turning the lights out or closing your eyes is not the same thing.

I know what blind tests are, but as I said if someone wants a Bose, he or she will buy a Bose, and as another poster stated here, sighted tests are perfectly reasonable to anyone with a degree of objectivity, all my auditions have been sighted and I don't think my decisions would have been any different otherwise.

Many have said the same but have always come unstuck when doing proper blind tests. They then come up with excuses such as the "stress" of taking such a test somehow affects their hearing. Some audiophiles continue to believe that they can listen objectively and overide any bias - I find that quite amusing given that normally they loathe objectivity and bang on about how it's all subjective.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Blind tests are overrated in my opinion. I often listen to music in the dark.

Getting confused here - blind testing means not knowing what you're listening to, turning the lights out or closing your eyes is not the same thing.

I know what blind tests are, but as I said if someone wants a Bose, he or she will buy a Bose, and as another poster stated here, sighted tests are perfectly reasonable to anyone with a degree of objectivity, all my auditions have been sighted and I don't think my decisions would have been any different otherwise.

Many have said the same but have always come unstuck when doing proper blind tests. They then come up with excuses such as the "stress" of taking such a test somehow affects their hearing. Some audiophiles continue to believe that they can listen objectively and overide any bias - I find that quite amusing given that normally they loathe objectivity and bang on about how it's all subjective.

'Proper blind tests'

Are those the ones which employ level matching ?

......lol.

 

[pauln]

Blind tests are overrated in my opinion. I often listen to music in the dark.

Getting confused here - blind testing means not knowing what you're listening to, turning the lights out or closing your eyes is not the same thing.

I know what blind tests are, but as I said if someone wants a Bose, he or she will buy a Bose, and as another poster stated here, sighted tests are perfectly reasonable to anyone with a degree of objectivity, all my auditions have been sighted and I don't think my decisions would have been any different otherwise.

Many have said the same but have always come unstuck when doing proper blind tests. They then come up with excuses such as the "stress" of taking such a test somehow affects their hearing. Some audiophiles continue to believe that they can listen objectively and overide any bias - I find that quite amusing given that normally they loathe objectivity and bang on about how it's all subjective.

'Proper blind tests'

Are those the ones which employ level matching ?

......lol.

Yes indeed. Otherwise they are meaningless but I don't expect you to grasp the concept. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[manicm]

Pauln fair enough, but you're painting all 'audiophiles' with the same brush aren't you? They're all subjective? How could I possibly be subjective if I'm going shopping for a speaker, or any other component for that matter, when I'll be parting with cold hard cash? And I've heard some sighted setups which sounded immediately bad, so no amount of blind testing would have changed my mind. Also sometimes dealers, more often than not I might add unless you're walking into high end boutiques, are not equipped or willing to do proper blind tests. They need to provide a pleasant, comfortable, lounge like environment, and few take the time to do this, and you need to be made to feel unhurried. I empathise with them too, cos time is money too. So you 'scientists' on these forums can be incredibly biased too, and are quick to judge, unjustifiably so. Blind or sighted tests are neither hard and fast scientific.

 

[pauln]

Pauln fair enough, but you're painting all 'audiophiles' with the same brush aren't you? They're all subjective? How could I possibly be subjective if I'm going shopping for a speaker, or any other component for that matter, when I'll be parting with cold hard cash? And I've heard some sighted setups which sounded immediately bad, so no amount of blind testing would have changed my mind. Also sometimes dealers, more often than not I might add unless you're walking into high end boutiques, are not equipped or willing to do proper blind tests. They need to provide a pleasant, comfortable, lounge like environment, and few take the time to do this, and you need to be made to feel unhurried. I empathise with them too, cos time is money too. So you 'scientists' on these forums can be incredibly biased too, and are quick to judge, unjustifiably so. Blind or sighted tests are neither hard and fast scientific.

Well, I would say that depends on how you determine exactly what an audiophile is - I believe that's being discussed, or argued about, in another thread. The point I was making is that several well respected "audiophiles", including some high profile hifi journalists, have elected to do blind tests and have failed to distinguish high end equipment from relatively low end gear. There are many such instances on the internet and they have been referenced on this forum many times in the past. It is now the case that "professional audiophiles" will generally not do the tests for fear of being embarrassed.

 

[manicm]

Can you cite some examples of such blind tests? It's not because I don't believe so, but I'd like to read them. I still stand by what I've said though.

 

[pauln]

Can you cite some examples of such blind tests? It's not because I don't believe so, but I'd like to read them. I still stand by what I've said though.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

 

[Infiniteloop]

Thompsonuxb and manicm are speaking a lot of sense here.

I sort of agree with what Laurens_B is saying too. But I would add that when it comes to sighted hi-fi tests, a lot depends on the experience, mindset and integrity of the listener. The right sort of listener with the right sort of mindset will be able to judge equipment well enough on its sonic merits alone without being swayed by looks or price.

Exactly!

If it sounds different - better or worse - it sounds different.

Makes no sense to go out of your way to convince yourself otherwise.

+1

I have heard many systems and components over the years, some of which I was expecting to like because of their pedigree, but I didn't like the sound of. The idea that your eyes and/or knowledge of the price of a component can override what your ears tell you is, in my experience, nonsense.

 

[Infiniteloop]

Pauln fair enough, but you're painting all 'audiophiles' with the same brush aren't you? They're all subjective? How could I possibly be subjective if I'm going shopping for a speaker, or any other component for that matter, when I'll be parting with cold hard cash? And I've heard some sighted setups which sounded immediately bad, so no amount of blind testing would have changed my mind. Also sometimes dealers, more often than not I might add unless you're walking into high end boutiques, are not equipped or willing to do proper blind tests. They need to provide a pleasant, comfortable, lounge like environment, and few take the time to do this, and you need to be made to feel unhurried. I empathise with them too, cos time is money too. So you 'scientists' on these forums can be incredibly biased too, and are quick to judge, unjustifiably so. Blind or sighted tests are neither hard and fast scientific.

Well, I would say that depends on how you determine exactly what an audiophile is - I believe that's being discussed, or argued about, in another thread. The point I was making is that several well respected "audiophiles", including some high profile hifi journalists, have elected to do blind tests and have failed to distinguish high end equipment from relatively low end gear. There are many such instances on the internet and they have been referenced on this forum many times in the past. It is now the case that "professional audiophiles" will generally not do the tests for fear of being embarrassed.

The problem with this is that generally, blind tests happen over relatively short periods of time. It takes a much longer time and listening to many different types of music over that time to fully appreciate how a component delivers its result. Simply comparing sound bites isn't good enough.

 

[manicm]

I will respond more comprehensively in the coming days. iPads are not ideal for heavy duty commenting! I however wholeheartedly agree with the Stereophile link's conclusion - do trust your ears.

 

[pauln]

Pauln fair enough, but you're painting all 'audiophiles' with the same brush aren't you? They're all subjective? How could I possibly be subjective if I'm going shopping for a speaker, or any other component for that matter, when I'll be parting with cold hard cash? And I've heard some sighted setups which sounded immediately bad, so no amount of blind testing would have changed my mind. Also sometimes dealers, more often than not I might add unless you're walking into high end boutiques, are not equipped or willing to do proper blind tests. They need to provide a pleasant, comfortable, lounge like environment, and few take the time to do this, and you need to be made to feel unhurried. I empathise with them too, cos time is money too. So you 'scientists' on these forums can be incredibly biased too, and are quick to judge, unjustifiably so. Blind or sighted tests are neither hard and fast scientific.

Well, I would say that depends on how you determine exactly what an audiophile is - I believe that's being discussed, or argued about, in another thread. The point I was making is that several well respected "audiophiles", including some high profile hifi journalists, have elected to do blind tests and have failed to distinguish high end equipment from relatively low end gear. There are many such instances on the internet and they have been referenced on this forum many times in the past. It is now the case that "professional audiophiles" will generally not do the tests for fear of being embarrassed.

The problem with this is that generally, blind tests happen over relatively short periods of time. It takes a much longer time and listening to many different types of music over that time to fully appreciate how a component delivers its result. Simply comparing sound bites isn't good enough.

Surely if there are such vast differences as some people (and many reviewers) suggest:

but the MF3si to K3 really was night and day

then a simple blind test would easily highlight such differences? Yet you say it takes many hours of listening to different types of music to discern even subtle differences.

In the past when I have auditioned kit, I have found it extremely hard if not impossiible to actually 'remember' what the previous amp sounded like. Switching back and forward between different speakers or even quickly swapping headphones showed clear differences. Similarly when I've used the foobar abx plug in to compare different versions of the same track (compressed remaster vs original) by switching back and forth between them it's been much easier to tell them apart than when listening to one or the other in isolation. The reason for this, as I understand it from reading up on the subject, is that audio (echoic) memory is very fleeting, only 3 - 4 seconds.