It seems non-audiophiles never tire of proving that everything sounds the same.

[Clare Newsome]

Both camps are actually correct. One gets greater pleasure from their listening by knowing they have tested themselves, proven their own aural capabilities and have the optimum set-up for them. The other group gets greater pleasure from their listening by knowing they've made a change that they hear to be better; real or not is irrelevant, they hear it so to them it's very real.

The issue arises when either camp insists the other is wrong. It's wrong for the testers to insist on proof, just as it's wrong for the hearers to insist that proof is irrelevant.

If you want to ABX, then fair enough, it's your call but please don't ram it down others throats as the only way forward. If you don't ABX, again fine, but accept that some do and that telling them that it proves nothing is just as wrong.

Wise words that man :cheers:

 

[Anonymous]

That's a really really good blog. CLICKY

Honestly. If you're genuinely interested in hifi then you owe it to yourself to spend half an hour reading that blog carefully.

Even if you don't want to openly admit it on the forum you should still read that blog. It may save you many thousands of pounds and years of hifi fustration.

You mean the blog that links to the Matrix Audio blind test that you know the outcome of before you get to any sort of summary because of how negatively they're talking about the more expensive system? Hmmm.....

If i may say so, that's a pretty predictable response from a retailer..Hmmm.....

 

[Frank Harvey]

are you being serious? the people listening had no idea what they were listening to, and could only go by their ears. perhaps you'd like to tell me what you think is wrong with the test, other then the cheapo system doing just as well as the high end one?

Okay, my bad choice of words (it's been a while since I've read it). It was their description of the cheap system, mentioning things like "a 'high end' shaky wooden chair". Some might not see that as an issue, but I suppose it depends how you read it.

With ABX testing, I feel you're at the mercy of those conducting the test, not only in setting it up 100%, but also giving honest results. How do you know they're being genuine with the results? If the majority pick out a system as being the best one, how would they/you know if they switched results and just told you you had picked the cheaper one?

I do have some responses for their 'conclussion'...

How can it be possible that a basic system with such a price difference against the "reference" one, poorly placed, using the cheapest signal cables found, couldn't be distinguished from the more expensive one?

And, most of it all, how come the cheap system was chosen by so many people as the best sounding of the two?

Shouldn't the differences be so evident that it'd be a child's game to pick the best?

Well, we think that each can reach to its own conclussion...

14 of the 38 either couldn't tell the difference, or were scared to express a preference. 14 chose A as the one they preferred ths sound of, which doesn't necessarily mean it is the 'best' - they preferred it. And why? Did they ask?

It's been said before, and I know some disagree with it, but many people don't like a more accurate sound, as it can come across as too 'sharp' and precise. Some don't even like it when a system separates out the various instruments. In a blind test, if people are asked to choose the system they like the sound of the best, they'll choose the inoffensive one. The YBA driving the ATC's 'may or may not' be a good match, we don't know. If it's not, it's quite possible that a 'coloured', cheaper source could sound less offensive than a high quality source. I've heard a Wadia CD player, and it sounded stunning, with pretty amazing bass power. The bass produced by the Sony DVD player is going to be questionable in comparison, and is a blind test I'd take any day.

 

[Frank Harvey]

If i may say so, that's a pretty predictable response from a retailer..Hmmm.....

Of course, it would be wouldn't it.

 

[Anonymous]

My take - having re-read the whole thread with a coffee - is:

Some like to ABX. Their opinion is that most people cannot tell the difference between format/bit rate/cable "a" and format/bit rate/cable "b". This group is content in the knowledge that they have proved to themselves there is no difference and they need not buy certain pieces of kit

Some have the opinion that there is a difference between "a" and "b" and that they can hear/feel it. They don't worry about proof as they trust their own judgement. If buying a certain piece of kit enhances their enjoyment then so be it.

Both camps are actually correct. One gets greater pleasure from their listening by knowing they have tested themselves, proven their own aural capabilities and have the optimum set-up for them. The other group gets greater pleasure from their listening by knowing they've made a change that they hear to be better; real or not is irrelevant, they hear it so to them it's very real.

The issue arises when either camp insists the other is wrong. It's wrong for the testers to insist on proof, just as it's wrong for the hearers to insist that proof is irrelevant. Personally, sitting around ABX testing is tedious when I could just be watching/listening to something. For me, I don't have the budget to make expensive mistakes (only cheap ones) so I just enjoy what I have. That puts me in the hearing camp I guess. If you want to ABX, then fair enough, it's your call but please don't ram it down others throats as the only way forward. If you don't ABX, again fine, but accept that some do and that telling them that it proves nothing is just as wrong.

+1...Nice one. Indeed everyone has an opinion, just don't ram yours down my throat and I'll do the same

I've never done a proper ABX test and probably never will.

I did conduct an AB test when I had two different amplifiers to try out (the MF X-P100/X-A200 combo against some Copland integrated with a valve preamp section). I listened to them both over the weekend and thought I could hear subtle differences. I invited a friend round and asked his opinion as to which he liked best, and why. His preference and reasons were the same as mine, so may be we both imagined the same differences. However it served me well and I made the right choice.

I'm doubtful as to whether I can hear the difference between two identical digital files but in different formats, or indeed different mains cables (althought I've never tried expensive mains cables so I wouldn't know). On that I am sceptical. I can hear differences between bit rates, interconnect/speaker cables and components. I don't care for an ABX test to prove that to myself.

For me, doing things my way, is all part of the enjoyment of the hobby. Performing strict ABX tests would be as dull as ditch water.

 

[BenLaw]

are you being serious? the people listening had no idea what they were listening to, and could only go by their ears. perhaps you'd like to tell me what you think is wrong with the test, other then the cheapo system doing just as well as the high end one?

Okay, my bad choice of words (it's been a while since I've read it). It was their description of the cheap system, mentioning things like "a 'high end' shaky wooden chair". Some might not see that as an issue, but I suppose it depends how you read it.

With ABX testing, I feel you're at the mercy of those conducting the test, not only in setting it up 100%, but also giving honest results. How do you know they're being genuine with the results? If the majority pick out a system as being the best one, how would they/you know if they switched results and just told you you had picked the cheaper one?

I do have some responses for their 'conclussion'...

How can it be possible that a basic system with such a price difference against the "reference" one, poorly placed, using the cheapest signal cables found, couldn't be distinguished from the more expensive one?

And, most of it all, how come the cheap system was chosen by so many people as the best sounding of the two?

Shouldn't the differences be so evident that it'd be a child's game to pick the best?

Well, we think that each can reach to its own conclussion...

14 of the 38 either couldn't tell the difference, or were scared to express a preference. 14 chose A as the one they preferred ths sound of, which doesn't necessarily mean it is the 'best' - they preferred it. And why? Did they ask?

It's been said before, and I know some disagree with it, but many people don't like a more accurate sound, as it can come across as too 'sharp' and precise. Some don't even like it when a system separates out the various instruments. In a blind test, if people are asked to choose the system they like the sound of the best, they'll choose the inoffensive one. The YBA driving the ATC's 'may or may not' be a good match, we don't know. If it's not, it's quite possible that a 'coloured', cheaper source could sound less offensive than a high quality source. I've heard a Wadia CD player, and it sounded stunning, with pretty amazing bass power. The bass produced by the Sony DVD player is going to be questionable in comparison, and is a blind test I'd take any day.

Your second paragraph is typical paranoia (what if those people who said the earth is round *lied* about their rest results?) but your last para is very sensible. It's a while since I read that test, but simple preference is far too subjective to base conclusions on, and as you say not picking a preference does not necessarily mean the 2 sets of kit were indistinguishable.

 

[BenLaw]

My take - having re-read the whole thread with a coffee - is:

Some like to ABX. Their opinion is that most people cannot tell the difference between format/bit rate/cable "a" and format/bit rate/cable "b". This group is content in the knowledge that they have proved to themselves there is no difference and they need not buy certain pieces of kit

Some have the opinion that there is a difference between "a" and "b" and that they can hear/feel it. They don't worry about proof as they trust their own judgement. If buying a certain piece of kit enhances their enjoyment then so be it.

Both camps are actually correct. One gets greater pleasure from their listening by knowing they have tested themselves, proven their own aural capabilities and have the optimum set-up for them. The other group gets greater pleasure from their listening by knowing they've made a change that they hear to be better; real or not is irrelevant, they hear it so to them it's very real.

The issue arises when either camp insists the other is wrong. It's wrong for the testers to insist on proof, just as it's wrong for the hearers to insist that proof is irrelevant. Personally, sitting around ABX testing is tedious when I could just be watching/listening to something. For me, I don't have the budget to make expensive mistakes (only cheap ones) so I just enjoy what I have. That puts me in the hearing camp I guess. If you want to ABX, then fair enough, it's your call but please don't ram it down others throats as the only way forward. If you don't ABX, again fine, but accept that some do and that telling them that it proves nothing is just as wrong.

I agree entirely with your penultimate para. I disagree somewhat with your take on things in the last para. Using this thread as an example, I don't see that those who ABX shove it down anyone's throats. Taking fr0g as an example, he's made abundantly clear on many occasions that he's perfectly happy for people to go about things in their way, and nor has he suggested that his approach to hifi is right or better.

In fact, the vitriol and insults have been from the other side, albeit mainly from one person. The attitude reminds me of the form and content of religionist opponents of Dawkins, in contrast to his (usually) calm and reasoned arguments.

I suspect the difficulty arises because, while someone in either camp is entitled to go about things in their own way and entitled to their own subjective pleasure, probably only one camp is objectively right. (It boils down to the subjectivist *thinking* they can hear a difference when in fact probably they cannot.). Some of those in that camp don't like that being pointed out, even when it is patiently and calmly done, as with fr0g.

FWIW I've never done an audio ABX test, but I'm open minded to the tests conducted by those who have.

 

[The_Lhc]

14 of the 38 either couldn't tell the difference, or were scared to express a preference. 14 chose A as the one they preferred ths sound of, which doesn't necessarily mean it is the 'best' - they preferred it. And why? Did they ask?

Doesn't it say at one point that they swapped over which was the A system and which was the B system? Hope the testers were keeping a careful track of which A and B people were listening to at all times, that's an easy source of confusion for the people running the test there, particularly with 38 people taking part, two at a time. 19 individual tests (taking as long as they want, how long did this test take exactly?), whilst swapping which was A and which was B? I'm pretty confident I'd mess up the results on more than one occasion if I was conducting that test!

I'm not saying they're wrong or right but there are elements of the test that I wouldn't be entirely happy with. Not least that it isn't actually an ABX test (not as I understand them at any rate) but they've still used that terminology all the way through.

 

[The_Lhc]

In fact, the vitriol and insults have been from the other side, albeit mainly from one person. The attitude reminds me of the form and content of religionist opponents of Dawkins, in contrast to his (usually) calm and reasoned arguments.

Seriously? I agree with Dawkins on pretty much everything but the one thing that lets him down is his inability to hold his temper in check, his vitriolic rants are exactly what gives atheists a bad name. He's fine when he's writing but ask him to speak on a subject (or dog forbid, enter a debate) and he'll usually end up foaming at the mouth from what I've seen, it's very disappointing from a someone who espouses logic and reason (I mean, you wouldn't catch ME behaving like that...).

 

[Lee H]

I disagree somewhat with your take on things in the last para. Using this thread as an example, I don't see that those who ABX shove it down anyone's throats. Taking fr0g as an example, he's made abundantly clear on many occasions that he's perfectly happy for people to go about things in their way, and nor has he suggested that his approach to hifi is right or better.

In fact, the vitriol and insults have been from the other side, albeit mainly from one person. The attitude reminds me of the form and content of religionist opponents of Dawkins, in contrast to his (usually) calm and reasoned arguments.

I suspect the difficulty arises because, while someone in either camp is entitled to go about things in their own way and entitled to their own subjective pleasure, probably only one camp is objectively right. (It boils down to the subjectivist *thinking* they can hear a difference when in fact probably they cannot.). Some of those in that camp don't like that being pointed out, even when it is patiently and calmly done, as with fr0g.

None of that was directed at anyone on this thread. There was a penchant not that long ago though for proving everything on the forum. It got ridiculous and I dipped out of this site for a while. Some ABXers (there has to be a collective noun) will claim that their way is the only way, any other way is imaginary and therefore akin to thinking your speakers contain musical imps.

One camp proving that they (singular) objectively can't ABX something doesn't mean that another person could. Equally, one person saying they hear something doesn't mean that everyone can.

As I said, both camps are right. A lot of vitriol comes from defending the inability of words on a screen to express a tone of voice. It's easy to get caught up in it. Not saying it's right, just that it's easy.

 

[moon]

That's a really really good blog. CLICKY

Honestly. If you're genuinely interested in hifi then you owe it to yourself to spend half an hour reading that blog carefully.

Even if you don't want to openly admit it on the forum you should still read that blog. It may save you many thousands of pounds and years of hifi fustration.

You mean the blog that links to the Matrix Audio blind test that you know the outcome of before you get to any sort of summary because of how negatively they're talking about the more expensive system? Hmmm.....

David, I am not for the record in either camp. Just wondered if you would ever take part in blind test? If you could accurately pick a high end sytem over a budget system repeatedly wouldnt that make you a Hifi god super specialist.?

It would be cool to see you say ...." bring it on" complete the test, and go home for tea and biscuits a hifi hero.

:quest:

 

[manicm]

So you don't believe I can tell the difference between MP3 and WAV?? You so acquainted with me frog? I'm sorry but your unintelligible rant does not merit the honour of any half-a***d reply. I won't dignify such green and ripe idiocy.

When I studied English 'O' level (yes, I am that old), we did English comprehension. Is that still part of the curriculum?

The reason I ask, is that you seem to want to a) misunderstand what I am saying and b) attack me personally.

moon - read frogs post - he believes others may tell the the difference but not me. By frog's logic I clearly should not be ok :rofl:

quote exactly where I said that...to quote my dad..."sheesh"

The point I was trying to make is that "I do believe it may be possible, but because of the countless tests I have done, and the countless negative reports I have read, I do not believe ANYONE when they simply report the fact that they can...without some sort of evidence...not that they are lying, but because of the fact that people CAN hear/see/taste/smell differences where there are none, simply by suggestion and expectation. Those variables can be eradicated by a simple abx test in the case of audio.

My "I don't believe you can" quip was meant to inspire you to prove me wrong (which maybe you can), but by the sound of it you won't even try. Fair enough, that's up to you.

Again, I am trying my best to keep it friendly, even in the face of such unwarranted vitriol as your reply/s

And (yet again to be clear), I have no problem with folk that have no interest in testing themselves in a scientific manner, or just find the whole idea mindnumbingly boring, I am simply telling it how I see it, for better or worse.

So you can't believe yourself? I quote you word for word:

I believe most people cannot tell them apart at high bit rates, yes. Again, I've seen the results of quite a few ABX tests and so far I've not seen a positive result. That doesn't mean nobody can tell them apart, I never claimed that. However I don't believe you ('you' was in italics and clearly pointed to me where the rest was in normal font) can. And it's easy to prove me wrong. And if you do, then I'll congratulate you on your remarkable hearing.

So if some claim I was being vitriolic here, it was only in response to the same.

Over and out...

 

[chebby]

It seems non-audiophiles (and audiophiles) never tire.

 

[Frank Harvey]

14 of the 38 either couldn't tell the difference, or were scared to express a preference. 14 chose A as the one they preferred ths sound of, which doesn't necessarily mean it is the 'best' - they preferred it. And why? Did they ask?

Doesn't it say at one point that they swapped over which was the A system and which was the B system? Hope the testers were keeping a careful track of which A and B people were listening to at all times, that's an easy source of confusion for the people running the test there, particularly with 38 people taking part, two at a time. 19 individual tests (taking as long as they want, how long did this test take exactly?), whilst swapping which was A and which was B? I'm pretty confident I'd mess up the results on more than one occasion if I was conducting that test!

I'm not saying they're wrong or right but there are elements of the test that I wouldn't be entirely happy with. Not least that it isn't actually an ABX test (not as I understand them at any rate) but they've still used that terminology all the way through.

That's an aspect I was thinking about. Only those running the test will know the true results, and if they get mixed up, then who's to say they know? Once something gets in a mess, the mroe you try and work it out, the more things become confused. Like you, I'm not saying this is the case, but the possibility is there.

Anyway, everyone knows that ABX is a load of rubbish and proves nothing - only scientific measuring of these systems will show which one is the better system :shifty:

It was stated they wre brought in two at a time - why does the pic show five people, who, judging by their faces, were either asleep, or had their eyes closed listening to music? Again, we don't know, we can only go by what they tell us. Of those five, the opinion of the guy standing at the back can be ignored as he's only got to move an inch or two and he could be hearing an entirely different sound. Almost the same can be said for the guy on the chair at the back who looks like he really doesn't want to be there, looking as bored as a rep at a hi-fi show.

Can you do a reliable ABX test with more than one person? There's a sweet spot, which everyone will know that if you waver from that even by a few millimetres, can completely throw of the central image, and even change the tonal balance of the system. And no, you can't sit behind someone and hear the same thing they're hearing.

You might listen to one system, then yawn and 'pop your ears' - the next system will sound amazing!

And whether they used some sound absorbing panels or not, that lovely tiled floor must've had a good say in the matter...

David, I am not for the record in either camp. Just wondered if you would ever take part in blind test? If you could accurately pick a high end sytem over a budget system repeatedly wouldnt that make you a Hifi god super specialist.?

It would be cool to see you say ...." bring it on" complete the test, and go home for tea and biscuits a hifi hero.

:quest:

I've said many times that I'll be happy to take part in a blind test, and have done before. I don't have golden ears, I don't even know the limits of my hearing as far as frequency response is concerned, but that has nothing to do with hearing the difference between two systems. There was a clear difference between a dedicated CD transport and a DVD player I once owned, but then, I suppose that doesn't matter because it wasn't an ABX. There was some silly expensive speaker cables I tried out - I couldn't hear a difference so they went back, even though I could've got them very cheap at the time. There was a nice expensive mains cable that another retailer on here used to sell - it made a difference, but I didn't like that difference, so it went back.

So yes, I'd take part, but only if I know the test was foolproof, and that it was being run genuinely with it being monitored by a third party. I feel there's too much room for BS when it comes to blind tests. I could invite 10 people with no interest in hi-fi whatsoever, and set up two systems and say we're going to have a little test. They might be able to see two systems before they're covered up, but other than that, they have no idea whats going on. I could take a few pictures of the test, make up whatever I want with regards to results, post it up on the encyclopedia of factual knowledge known as the net, and it'll be referred to by those whose trousers stir at the thought of ABX testing.

 

[moon]

David

Thanks for the reply .... I think thats fair enough.

Moon

 

[John Duncan]

I, meanwhile, am simply pleased to see you, David.

 

[Lee H]

I, meanwhile, am simply pleased to see you, David.

 

[fr0g]

So you can't believe yourself? I quote you word for word:

I believe most people cannot tell them apart at high bit rates, yes. Again, I've seen the results of quite a few ABX tests and so far I've not seen a positive result. That doesn't mean nobody can tell them apart, I never claimed that. However I don't believe you ('you' was in italics and clearly pointed to me where the rest was in normal font) can. And it's easy to prove me wrong. And if you do, then I'll congratulate you on your remarkable hearing.

So if some claim I was being vitriolic here, it was only in response to the same.

Over and out...

I'm glad you quoted me. Now please go and look up the word "vitriolic".

And if you read the entire quote back to yourself, calmly, you'll see that I believe there is a chance you can.

You see how I used the word "believe"? If I had been absolutist, I would have said "You can't" rather than "I don't believe you can".

I do not personally believe there is a human-audible difference because I have a) tested it myself, scientifically, for my own benefit, and b) never seen a positive result posted. That doesn't mean to say that I am right.

 

[paradiziac]

The Matrix Audio test doesn't say anything useful--the question should have been only whether a difference can be heard between A and B i.e. is the unknown system "X" system A or B? If the question is whether an individual prefers A or B--the only thing tested in that case is individual taste. I have some older, less detailed speakers in my second system and in some ways prefer them over the "better" speakers downstairs so the results are no surprise to me. If I was following the Matrix test methodology, my conclusion would be "couldn't hear a difference or didn't choose any as the best", but clearly the 2 systems are quite obviously different and could never be mistaken for each other.

True ABX testing isn't practical, except in the case of file formats (if you have a computer source) where it's really easy to do. I found it a good insight into the limitations of my own auditory memory, system and the high quality of compression algorithms.

Also, if it's a difference worth worrying about, there is no need to ABX it -- over time the difference will be obvious to the listener. No need to ABX to scientifically justify our choices to others.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I, meanwhile, am simply pleased to see you, David.

Did I miss something?

 

[Lee H]

You see how I used the word "believe"? If I had been absolutist, I would have said "You can't" rather than "I don't believe you can".

In fariness, you can see how it could have been read the other way. Not taking sides, just saying

 

[Lee H]

I, meanwhile, am simply pleased to see you, David.

Did I miss something?

Something about stirring trousers

 

[John Duncan]

I, meanwhile, am simply pleased to see you, David.

Did I miss something?

those whose trousers stir at the thought of ABX testing

 

[Clare Newsome]

Portions of this thread remind me of this 'joke' I read recently in Simon Singh's Fermat's Theorum (hey, it's a book about maths, there's not much humour...)

An engineer, physicist and a mathematician were on a train heading north, and had just crossed the border into Scotland.

The engineer looked out of the window and said "Look! Scottish sheep are black!"

The physicist said, "No, no. Some Scottish sheep are black."

The mathematician looked irritated. "There is at least one field, containing at least one sheep, of which at least one side is black."

And if they had two more travel companions in this gag, they'd add:

The statistician : "It's not significant. We only know there's one black sheep"

The computer scientist : "Oh, no! A special case!"

 

[John Duncan]

Maths and sheep. There's my entire life right there.