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

[manicm]

My evidence is all anecdotal, but I do belive my own ears.

Of course. Everyone believes their own ears, and there is nothing wrong with that. But I hope you realize that by "trusting your own ears", you will never be able to anything more absolute than "according to jaxwired's ears, ...." -- and that is not what science is about. Science is about finding universal truths, not personal ones.

Now I really don't get the point of that comment.

What hifi is all about is trusting your own ears to find what's right for YOU. Science, in as a far as someone who believes in it, or cares about it, is a means to an end. This is not a scientific debate, there are no universal truths about what hifi equipment sounds like (other than is sounds like sound sounds)

It is absolutely about trusting your own ears.

+1

 

[Alec]

And all of this based on a post that said nothing. The OP made no constructive comment on the study he complained about, nor did he acknowledge that people who do consider themselves audiophiles - or something like audiophiles, I hate the word, though I personally don't consider myself anything - also hold the view that there is no difference between many components.

And yes, there is a difference between talking about well made stuff and expensive nonsense and yes, whether something even can sound different to the human ear is a scientific matter, not a subjective one. And hifi is not about personaly preferences but accuracy.*

"How dare a non audiophile/fool comment on anything ever!!! Damn all, DAMN ALL!!!!!!".

Oh dear.

*But no matter, if you're not into accuracy and just want the sound you want, regardless of the science, that's fine. Indeed, that's me.

 

[daveh75]

'Accuracy' . Love that word, especially when it's used by so called 'objectivists' (who need to re-read the definition, and hypocrisy while there at it) usually to mock 'audio fools'

...And no thats not aimed at you Al.

 

[CJSF]

And all of this based on a post that said nothing. The OP made no constructive comment on the study he complained about, nor did he acknowledge that people who do consider themselves audiophiles - or something like audiophiles, I hate the word, though I personally don't consider myself anything - also hold the view that there is no difference between many components.

And yes, there is a difference between talking about well made stuff and expensive nonsense and yes, whether something even can sound different to the human ear is a scientific matter, not a subjective one. And hifi is not about personaly preferences but accuracy.*

"How dare a non audiophile/fool comment on anything ever!!! Damn all, DAMN ALL!!!!!!".

Oh dear.

*But no matter, if you're not into accuracy and just want the sound you want, regardless of the science, that's fine. Indeed, that's me.

Accuracy is subjective in terms of music. One word destroys accuracy, that is 'acoustics' . . . where when and how?

So we are back to perceived sound by the human ear in a given situation. There is no science in the 'performance' of music . . . only in the production of a single note? Then we get into anechoic chambers and a whole new ball game

Give me the organics of music performance and my perception thereof.

CJSF

 

[manicm]

I would objectively disagree with the technical assessments which are only used to judge hifi,- purely because engineers disagree! Linn are quite haughty in how they describe themselves as an engineering company as well. But as far as digital products go they and Naim follow quite different principles. One believes in wave files, one believes in FLAC. And Naim are claiming that vanilla 16/44 playback from their forthcoming flagship player will beat hi-res playback from other makers.

I will also thus ultimately follow my ears and do what just sounds good to me, as will everybody else. Music is not a mechanical device like a car. A car can be technically measured by grip, performance, economy and so on as its outputs. How do you technically measure music?? It's just rubbish. And if that were the case then things like the turntable and compact cassettes had no damn right to exist - yet some sounded superb.

Don't get me wrong - obviously good engineering principals must be applied to hifi equipment, but as Ken Ishiwata says simply assembling the best components (capictors, ICs etc) won't guarantee the best hifi. So I will wilfully risk be called an audiofool, no matter what scientific facts are thrown down my throat.

If some believe cables make a difference and some don't I don't either warrants ridicule by each other - that's plain damn wrong. Or if some prefer one digital format to another. I mean really, who cares?

 

[Alec]

Good point, but I'm not sure how big a difference acousticws makes, within sensible parameters of course; I briefly had a room layout that was ridiculous (unavoidably) and that was reflected in the sound, but thats because I had all sorts in front of my speakers. I'd imagine (yes, only imagine) that MA BR 2s will broadly sound as they sound, as will, say, Wharfedale Diamond whatever-number-they-are-up-tos.

Indeed, don't most here feel that, for it is generally the culture here to (in theory anyway) go to a demo in an artificial environment then take your chosen speakers home to a totally different environment?

Mind you, I'm not saying "you should go and buy the equipment who's measurements show it to be the most accurate", and I want to make that most clear; you should buy what you want. But I am saying that, as for the definition of hifi, I think there can be little debate.

So I like to think of myself, rather long windedly, as someone who likes to listen to music and who likes to use stereo equipment to do so.

 

[Alec]

I would objectively disagree with the technical assessments which are only used to judge hifi,- purely because engineers disagree! Linn are quite haughty in how they describe themselves as an engineering company as well. But as far as digital products go they and Naim follow quite different principles. One believes in wave files, one believes in FLAC. And Naim are claiming that vanilla 16/44 playback from their forthcoming flagship player will beat hi-res playback from other makers.

I will also thus ultimately follow my ears and do what just sounds good to me, as will everybody else. Music is not a mechanical device like a car. A car can be technically measured by grip, performance, economy and so on as its outputs. How do you technically measure music?? It's just rubbish. And if that were the case then things like the turntable and compact cassettes had no damn right to exist - yet some sounded superb.

Don't get me wrong - obviously good engineering principals must be applied to hifi equipment, but as Ken Ishiwata says simply assembling the best components (capictors, ICs etc) won't guarantee the best hifi. So I will wilfully risk be called an audiofool, no matter what scientific facts are thrown down my throat.

If some believe cables make a difference and some don't I don't either warrants ridicule by each other - that's plain damn wrong. Or if some prefer one digital format to another. I mean really, who cares?

I'm not going to bother with quote formatting so I'll number my responses to correspod to the paragraph I'm responding to. Hopefully it'll be clear. It might read like I'm being curt(splng?) but that's not my intention. All intended in the best possible taste.

1 - I'm not sure your sentence about objectively disagreeing makes sense. IMO FLAC and WAV are the same, so neither company is right to have a preference (WAVs are not much good for tagging; personally I use neither). My understanding of hi res and what Naim or anyone else may do to make standard res sound better is patchy at best so I'll leave that.

2 - You must indeed buy what sounds good to you, but I disagree that the perormance of stereo equipment cannot be measured. Music probably can be too, though that is not actuially what is being measured.

3 - I don't think anyone is ramming anything anywhere. Would "cobblers to scientific facts" be a fair precis of your argument in this paragraph?

4 - Who cares indeed. As someone has just said to me "it's a pointless discussion and nobody will ever agree".

 

[The_Lhc]

Then we get into anechoic chambers

Nah, you don't want to do that, I've been in a few of them and they sound awful...

 

[matthewpiano]

Acoustics make a bigger difference than most people allow for and, for me, acoustics covers a broad range of factors including the shape and size of the room and the positioning of the speakers therein, the nature of the surfaces in the room (flooring, wall coverings, soft/hard furnishings, blinds/curtains), and even the resonant properties of the construction. For example I am convinced that some modern walls cause extra resonances in the bass frequencies and that where this is the case (my own room, for example) it needs to be taken into account with careful speaker selection (Eg. B&Ws are mostly a nightmare in my room, whatever the amplification, because they tend to have a big bass).

Regarding the whole concept of accuracy, I think it is something you can keep going round in circles with. Ultimately it can only come down to reproducing the recording accurately because there are many factors out of our control as listeners during the recording, mastering and distribution processes. To be truly accurate to the recording you would have to listen to it in the studio where it was recorded and mastered and using the same equipment. As this selection of equipment, and the acoustics of the studio, would be different for different recordings you are never going to achieve total, consistent accuracy with a domestic hi-fi system whether judged by measurement or by listening.

Ultimately, it has to come down to how your ears perceive the sound and whether you actually enjoy listening to it. If you enjoy the process of tweaking to get the absolute best out of a system, or to get it sounding accurate to a live sound in the broad sense (and in the way that you personally perceive it), then what is the harm in that? Each to his own, but please don't try to kid anybody that accuracy is as simple as it is so often made out to be.

 

[Ajani]

Hearing subtle hifi differences requires experience and training.

I disagree. I'd posit that anyone can hear the differences, it only takes training to understand and communicate those differences.

I doubt that. Based on my experience with both Harman's free online Audiophile training software and a distortion test (used by audiophiles on another forum) I found (as did the other audiophiles who tried them) that the first time you took the test you did far worse than on subsequent tests when you had practiced. Generally, the more you practiced to detect differences, the better you became at identyfing them. That is totally different from understanding and communucating them. I became significantly better at identifying differences with practice and training.

Of course that leads to a bigger question - Why should I train to be able to pick out subtle differences? That seems to just lead to disatisfaction with my existing gear and the need to spend lots more money on upgrades.

4) because we don't currently know how to measure a phenomena doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. DBT can't prove that differences don't exist, only that on average persons are unable to identify differences under test conditions.

That's true, but it's also a cop-out. Creationism has been playing that whack-a-mole game for quite some time. It's scientifically impossible to prove a negative, which means anyone can claim anything: any time a scientist takes enough interest to disprove your specific theory-du-jour, you simply amend your theory slightly and keep claiming "science didn't prove me wrong, so I must be right".

No. That is illogical and unscientific. Science not proving something wrong, doesn't make it right. Just because I can't prove the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist, does not mean that it is real. So persons who believe it's real will continue to do so and those who don't believe it's real will also continue to do so. Neither side can prove anything to the other. So my point is not a cop out - just a fact. I just don't like to see when persons use DBT to make claims that are not actually proven by DBT. Now don't get me wrong - I support the use of DBT in HiFi as it helps to identify when differences are far more subtle than many audiophiles claim.

Now I've heard it all.. Audiophile Training software...... I am sorry but with the greatest respect that is a load of tosh old bean.

And insanely dull.

Huh? I'm totally lossed... What is your point? It's a free software Harman Kardon uses to train listeners so they can participate in the DBT of new products. You can try it if you like. I tried it out for fun as did several other persons on another forum.

 

[Ajani]

Hearing subtle hifi differences requires experience and training.

I disagree. I'd posit that anyone can hear the differences, it only takes training to understand and communicate those differences.

I doubt that. Based on my experience with both Harman's free online Audiophile training software and a distortion test (used by audiophiles on another forum) I found (as did the other audiophiles who tried them) that the first time you took the test you did far worse than on subsequent tests when you had practiced. Generally, the more you practiced to detect differences, the better you became at identyfing them. That is totally different from understanding and communucating them. I became significantly better at identifying differences with practice and training.

No. You are getting better are the tests because you are practicing the tests. You are training yourself at tests. Not the same thing by a long way. If you concentrate on one thing there is if anything an increased likelyhood that you are not concentrating on the rest. If anything you are likely to make yourself worse off when evaluating the whole. Happens alot. Read a hi fi mag. Convince yourself you understand more about hi fi because you have read about bass extension, punch and detail, then go out and listen for them and end up buying a system that sounds like a bag of £^$%^ because you bought something that ticked some boxes more obviously than other systems. If you'd gone into a a hifi store clueless and just listened though.

I don't think we're actually disagreeing here. I spoke about training to become better at identifying subtle differences, not musical enjoyment. I most certainly believe that it is easy to get so concerned with the minor details that you no longer enjoy the overall music. I believe that is a major mistake many audiophiles make - we constantly upgrade because we focus on some small area of the sonic performance that is not ideal, rather than just enjoying the music.

 

[CJSF]

Then we get into anechoic chambers

Nah, you don't want to do that, I've been in a few of them and they sound awful...

Yep . . . once was enough, realy bad news!!!

CJSF

 

[Ajani]

As far as i'm aware, nobody has ever successfully and consistently identified one cable from another, one amp from another, etc etc, in a blind test.

That's not true. Persons have been able to do so. John Atkinson and Michael Fremmer (Both from a major US review mag) have both spoken about taking part in DBT of amps and scoring 4/5 and 5/5 respectively. However, their scores were deemed to be statiscally insignificant, since the other listeners scored poorly.

So while the conclusion of the test is that users were not able to differentiate between amps under blind conditions, the fact that the 2 HiFi experts in the test were able to do so is really interesting IMO.

So it is true then :rofl:

There was a link to a trial with cables a while back. Of the 20 odd people that tested the same cables 3 or 4 posted proudly that they had correctly guessed. It looked like people could do it. Did it mean anything? Of course it didn't as the others couldn't and they were more sluggish to reveal what happened to them. Read the reports of all the people who failed? No of course you haven't. Broken clock right twice a day rubbish.

So your argument is that because the others failed the test, then the 2 experts who did well was pure luck?

My opinion is simply that more testing needs to be done, because the conclusion that no one can tell differences is invalid. The experts who scored well need to be tested several more times to see whether they are indeed able to tell differences or it was just luck (as you seem to be saying). But to conclude based on that test that it must be luck is ridiculous. That's part of the problem with DBT, anyone who passes is "assumed" to be a lucky guesser.

The fact that on average persons can't tell the difference between amps or cables in DBT doesn't mean that no one can tell the difference. It just means that more testing of the alleged experts needs to be done (not just more testing of the average man).

 

[manicm]

I would objectively disagree with the technical assessments which are only used to judge hifi,- purely because engineers disagree! Linn are quite haughty in how they describe themselves as an engineering company as well. But as far as digital products go they and Naim follow quite different principles. One believes in wave files, one believes in FLAC. And Naim are claiming that vanilla 16/44 playback from their forthcoming flagship player will beat hi-res playback from other makers.

I will also thus ultimately follow my ears and do what just sounds good to me, as will everybody else. Music is not a mechanical device like a car. A car can be technically measured by grip, performance, economy and so on as its outputs. How do you technically measure music?? It's just rubbish. And if that were the case then things like the turntable and compact cassettes had no damn right to exist - yet some sounded superb.

Don't get me wrong - obviously good engineering principals must be applied to hifi equipment, but as Ken Ishiwata says simply assembling the best components (capictors, ICs etc) won't guarantee the best hifi. So I will wilfully risk be called an audiofool, no matter what scientific facts are thrown down my throat.

If some believe cables make a difference and some don't I don't either warrants ridicule by each other - that's plain damn wrong. Or if some prefer one digital format to another. I mean really, who cares?

I'm not going to bother with quote formatting so I'll number my responses to correspod to the paragraph I'm responding to. Hopefully it'll be clear. It might read like I'm being curt(splng?) but that's not my intention. All intended in the best possible taste.

1 - I'm not sure your sentence about objectively disagreeing makes sense. IMO FLAC and WAV are the same, so neither company is right to have a preference (WAVs are not much good for tagging; personally I use neither). My understanding of hi res and what Naim or anyone else may do to make standard res sound better is patchy at best so I'll leave that.

2 - You must indeed buy what sounds good to you, but I disagree that the perormance of stereo equipment cannot be measured. Music probably can be too, though that is not actuially what is being measured.

3 - I don't think anyone is ramming anything anywhere. Would "cobblers to scientific facts" be a fair precis of your argument in this paragraph?

4 - Who cares indeed. As someone has just said to me "it's a pointless discussion and nobody will ever agree".

Oh Alec Alec Alec, just when I thought you were being gracious about it, you come up with this rant? Oh and I'm not going to bring the can of worms that is FLAC/WAV/ALAC - you can fight it out with the big boys ala Linn & Naim. I never ever disregarded scientific fact on hifi design. I think both companies are absolutely right to have a preference. The pig-headedness around here beggars belief.

Actually, you know what, I'll just ignore the flat earth society from now on...

 

[SteveR750]

You could "prove" scientifically the accuracy of audio reproduction failry easily, but since a home hi fi system is not an professional studio or bhusiness then accuracy is only important to the sbjective demands of the beholder. The trace on the oscilloscope is completely irrelevant in that respect, and I thought the industry had moved on from the 70s Japanese obession with trech specs (even if they were presented in an optimistically positive way) For home hi fi, how meany people are really going to be affected by the outcome of blind testing? Interesting subject to debate and stimulate the grey matter perhaps, but for most of us that's all it amounts to.

 

[Alec]

Well thats not the way to get a gracious reply (I was pretty gracious, actually).

So why the objection to scientific fact? You expressed that objection, so the question is perfectly fair.

I disagree with those big boys (surely size is not the issue here?) so shan't be arguing with them. How often does it need to be said that lossless is lossless and it is the same as uncompressed? You will find me far from alone in that assertion.

EDIT - What rant? You have surely seen me in rant mode before, and nothing in the above looks anything like it.

 

[Alec]

You could "prove" scientifically the accuracy of audio reproduction failry easily, but since a home hi fi system is not an professional studio or bhusiness then accuracy is only important to the sbjective demands of the beholder. The trace on the oscilloscope is completely irrelevant in that respect, and I thought the industry had moved on from the 70s Japanese obession with trech specs (even if they were presented in an optimistically positive way) For home hi fi, how meany people are really going to be affected by the outcome of blind testing? Interesting subject to debate and stimulate the grey matter perhaps, but for most of us that's all it amounts to.

Fair enough. Some would argue that what you are in to in that case is not hifi. And in saying that I make no value judgement.

 

[Ajani]

I would objectively disagree with the technical assessments which are only used to judge hifi,- purely because engineers disagree! Linn are quite haughty in how they describe themselves as an engineering company as well. But as far as digital products go they and Naim follow quite different principles. One believes in wave files, one believes in FLAC. And Naim are claiming that vanilla 16/44 playback from their forthcoming flagship player will beat hi-res playback from other makers.

I will also thus ultimately follow my ears and do what just sounds good to me, as will everybody else. Music is not a mechanical device like a car. A car can be technically measured by grip, performance, economy and so on as its outputs. How do you technically measure music?? It's just rubbish. And if that were the case then things like the turntable and compact cassettes had no damn right to exist - yet some sounded superb.

Don't get me wrong - obviously good engineering principals must be applied to hifi equipment, but as Ken Ishiwata says simply assembling the best components (capictors, ICs etc) won't guarantee the best hifi. So I will wilfully risk be called an audiofool, no matter what scientific facts are thrown down my throat.

If some believe cables make a difference and some don't I don't either warrants ridicule by each other - that's plain damn wrong. Or if some prefer one digital format to another. I mean really, who cares?

I don't diagree with your overall point, but I do question the car analogy. You can measure various factors of a car's performance objectively, but that won't determine whether persons find it fun to drive. The combination of objectively measured factors + subjective ones like comfort and styling will determine whether an individual enjoys driving the car. I think HiFi is a lot like cars in that regard. Yes objective measure are very important but I don't believe they tell the entire story.

 

[John Duncan]

[UNPUBLISHED DUPLICATE]

 

[John Duncan]

EDIT - What rant? You have surely seen me in rant mode before, and nothing in the above looks anything like it.

Tend to agree. Plenty of good arguments on both sides here, boys and girls, so let's keep it clean lest it start circling the drain (where lieth the lock button)...

 

[chebby]

So why the objection to scientific fact?

No objection to scientific fact here. Just the objection to the way 'science' is bandied around as if only a (very) few companies apply it's principles to the design of their products and the rest must therefore be relying on folklore or pixie-dust or Shamenism instead!

And because of the way 'science' is bandied around as if only the purchasers of a very few, selected products are cogniscent of scientific principles and are, therefore, capable of true objectivism. (Compared to the rest of us idiots - who listen to a product to decide whether we like the sound - who are obviously hopelessly unenlightened 'subjectivists' who reject science!)

All hi-fi and AV components are based on sound scientific principles applied to their respective technologies, otherwise they wouldn't work.

 

[Alec]

EDIT - What rant? You have surely seen me in rant mode before, and nothing in the above looks anything like it.

Tend to agree. Plenty of good arguments on both sides here, boys and girls, so let's keep it clean lest it start circling the drain (where lieth the lock button)...

Don't panick Mr Mainwaring!

 

[Alec]

So why the objection to scientific fact?

No objection to scientific fact here. Just the objection to the way 'science' is bandied around as if only a (very) few companies apply it's principles to the design of their products and the rest must therefore be relying on folklore or pixie-dust or Shamenism instead!

And because of the way 'science' is bandied around as if only the purchasers of a very few, selected products are cogniscent of scientific principles and are, therefore, capable of true objectivism. (Compared to the rest of us idiots - who listen to a product to decide whether we like the sound - who are obviously hopelessly unenlightened 'subjectivists' who reject science!)

All hi-fi and AV components are based on sound scientific principles applied to their respective technologies, otherwise they wouldn't work.

None of which is aimed at me of course (and none of the post you quote was aimed at you)* as I've repeatedly said I'm not making value judgements and buy what you like. That is, what you like the sound of.

*So I won't go into your odd, facetious, characterization of the views of whoever you are refering to.

Peace and love, maaaaan.

 

[manicm]

Alec, your first reply to me was pretty gracious, your 2nd clearly was a rant. I will repeat again for the umpteenth time, a perfect rip is clearly only one link in the chain, and from what I've gleaned from the Linn and Naim forums where the engineers frequently post, it's clear one company is optimising their equipment for FLAC, and the other for WAV/uncompressed audio.

If that goes against your scientific constitution then by all means burn them at the stake. And I do believe these 2 companies represent the cream of British engineering. Cuts no ice with me either way.

I was just hoping that the condascension would stop in these posts, but clearly...

 

[Alec]

Alec, your first reply to me was pretty gracious, your 2nd clearly was a rant. I will repeat again for the umpteenth time, a perfect rip is clearly only one link in the chain, and from what I've gleaned from the Linn and Naim forums where the engineers frequently post, it's clear one company is optimising their equipment for FLAC, and the other for WAV/uncompressed audio.

If that goes against your scientific constitution then by all means burn them at the stake. And I do believe these 2 companies represent the cream of British engineering. Cuts no ice with me either way.

I was just hoping that the condascension would stop in these posts, but clearly...

I have no intention of burning anyone anywhere/how, and am not sure where my condascention was, so I'll leave you now to think twhat you will of me and everyone and everything.