lol... o.k, where is it?

[davedotco]

Cars are a flawed analogy in all sorts of ways, but year on year improvements are often quite small, further it is possible to say that the latest Devialet 170 with its functionality and musical performance outperforms any amplifiers from 20 years ago.

No the one, the only way I know of to convince people of their own falibility is to get them involved in an organised, third party operated blind test. It does not have to be 'statistically' meaningful in this instance, just taking part and experiencing for yourself just how difficult it is to hear supposedly 'night and day' differences, is enough.

If you ever get the chance to take part in such a test, I urge you to do so.

 

[Broner]

Just noticed some grammatical errors in my previous posts. Don't hold it against me, I'm not a native English speaker.

 

[hifikrazy]

So cars continue to improve, but somehow music reproduction conveniently stagnates? It's not because music reproduction has been around substantially longer than cars since the gramophone was invented in 1877 and the automobile in 1886.

TV/Video also clearly continues to improve so tell me then why should audio be the exception? Just because it doesn't support your point of view?

 

[cheeseboy]

So cars continue to improve, but somehow music reproduction conveniently stagnates? It's not because music reproduction has been around substantially longer than cars since the gramophone was invented in 1877 and the automobile in 1886.

TV/Video also clearly continues to improve so tell me then why should audio be the exception? Just because it doesn't support your point of view?

can i just ask as I'm confused here. Who thinks that music reproduction has not improved?

 

[hifikrazy]

Broner, who seems to have a permanent conspiracy theory hat on that hifi reviewers, hifi manufacturers, audio professionals, musicians, and hifi consumers are constantly out to pull a fast one on poor unsuspecting audiophiles who prefer to use their ears rather than science to listen.

 

[cheeseboy]

Broner, who seems to have a permanent conspiracy theory hat on that hifi reviewers, hifi manufacturers, audio professionals, musicians, and hifi consumers out to pull a fast one on poor unsuspecting audiophiles who prefer to use their ears rather than science to listen.

ahh ok, thank you.

As for the other comment, no need really for the snide comments, it's not constuctive. We all use our ears to listen. We all know that our ears can be fooled as well. As we should all know that as well as real world event can change the way we hear things, also we can change things and hear things in our head. We also know that science can measure things we cannot see and hear, so it depends what you are trying to achieve. Sometimes we have to use science, sometimes we can just use our ears and shock horror, sometimes we can use both!

Either way, to say that musical reprouction and playback hasn't come along in many years is folly imho.

 

[hifikrazy]

Cheeseboy, I don't disagree with what you are saying, Obviously we need to embrace technology as it can measure certain things that humans cannot do in a precise manner. For example I couldn't state precisely the frequency and dB of a test tone but a machine can. However, I believe that we are not yet at the point where humans know everything that can possibly be known about every subject in this world, audio electronics included. I don't think we have come close to understanding exactly how the human body functions either.

Just thinking of some stupid example from the top of my head... Why do they use sniffer dogs to sniff out drugs in airports, instead of using some machine to do so? I just don't think we are at the point where machines can smell everything a human/animal can, or hear everything that a human/animal can. To claim we can would be arrogant and counter productive as we would just rest on our laurels thinking that there is no more knowledge to be gained.

 

[hifikrazy]

For God sake, the gun to the head statement was only said light heartedly, which is why I put a winky smile behind it.

 

[Broner]

Broner, who seems to have a permanent conspiracy theory hat on that hifi reviewers, hifi manufacturers, audio professionals, musicians, and hifi consumers are constantly out to pull a fast one on poor unsuspecting audiophiles who prefer to use their ears rather than science to listen.

I don't seem to recall saying that there have been no improvements. That is a willful misrepresentation of what I'm saying. Nor do I claim there is some sort of a conspiracy theory going on.

Maybe you should take this thing less personally. The other day you were fantasizing how nice it would be to put a gun to the heads of people like me: http://www.whathifi.com/blog/the-great-cable-debate-%E2%80%93-crossed-wires.

That's just unhealthy.

To claim we can would be arrogant and counter productive as we would just rest on our laurels thinking that there is no more knowledge to be gained.

You like to talk a lot about how other people are arrogant (as you have on several instances), which in my opinion is an extremely unconstructive way of reasoning. But I am curious to know whether it's not arrogant from your side, if you say you know that cables make a difference (as you have) because you have heard it. How does that qualify? Where is the modesty in that?

 

[hifikrazy]

All I'm saying is this... As far as I know, I don't think man has invented machines that can see, hear, taste, smell and touch to the full spectrum that humans can. Yes, there are machines that can see further and better in the dark than humans can, but can it distinguish every little nuance that the human eye is capable of discerning? Similarly if there was a machine that could taste better than a human, then the best wines would be selected by machines.

So when some people here share their experience that they can hear differences between cables, to then dismiss that as being a figment of their overripe imagination because a machine can't measure that difference is in my opinion, arrogant from the point of view made in the first paragraph above.

 

[Broner]

All I'm saying is this... As far as I know, I don't think man has invented machines that can see, hear, taste, smell and touch to the full spectrum that humans can. Yes, there are machines that can see further and better in the dark than humans can, but can it distinguish every little nuance that the human eye is capable of discerning? Similarly if there was a machine that could taste better than a human, then the best wines would be selected by machines.

So when some people here share their experience that they can hear differences between cables, to then dismiss that as being a figment of their overripe imagination because a machine can't measure that difference is in my opinion, arrogant from the point of view made in the first paragraph above.

First of all, you are making a pretty big assumption about what technology can and cannot do. Google is your friend, but machines have beaten humans and sniffing dogs on many instances. It are generally not our senses that set us apart (ours are really very poor compared to other animals), but it's what's inside our head.

Secondly, when thinking about blind tests, it's not about man vs machine: it is still about you sitting in a room, listenening, trying to hear a difference between cables, not knowing which one is connected.

Thirdly, when we think about cables and what they are capable of, it is also not about whether man can hear stuff that machines can't, but about what science and technology tells us about which differences in music reproduction cables are actually able to make. And if one doesn't trust that, or when it's clear that cables in fact can make a difference, one can then move on to whether those differences are also audible differences, which can be confirmed in a blind test.

 

[davedotco]

All I'm saying is this... As far as I know, I don't think man has invented machines that can see, hear, taste, smell and touch to the full spectrum that humans can. Yes, there are machines that can see further and better in the dark than humans can, but can it distinguish every little nuance that the human eye is capable of discerning? Similarly if there was a machine that could taste better than a human, then the best wines would be selected by machines.

So when some people here share their experience that they can hear differences between cables, to then dismiss that as being a figment of their overripe imagination because a machine can't measure that difference is in my opinion, arrogant from the point of view made in the first paragraph above.

These experiences are, generally, dismissed not as 'figments of an overipe imagination' but because in controlled tests, where the listener is unaware of which cable he is listening to, no one can reliably tell which cable is which.

Simple as that, it is the dissmisal of all the documented evidence to this effect that is arrogant.

Go and gather a few people together and do a blind test. It does not need to be carried out in a rigorous, scientific manner, just make sure it is truly blind. See what you can and can not hear.

It is blatantly obvious that you have never tried this, if you had you would not pontificate with such certainty on this subject.

 

[busb]

I could hear the difference in a cable upgrade in my very first system years ago consisting of a NAD 3020 (the original) so there is no doubt that quality of your components is plenty good enough to show out differences in cables.

And here we are back to what’s really wrong with the way you reason. You think you know, because you have switched your cables and you’ve heard a difference. According to yourself, there is even no doubt about it

What’s really tiresome is that people such as the editors of Whatshifi and yourself don’t seem to grasp the significance of what’s actually scientifically and technologically relevant, nor seem to understand what the limitations and validity are of one’s experience. Furthermore, anyone who hasn’t participated in a properly executed blind test with statistical significance and claims that cables do make an audible difference (between cables with basic adequate specifications), is making a statement that lacks substantiation (obviously, this also applies to you).

People can explain this to you a thousand times, and still you would go back to your basic premise that you won’t dare to question: ‘I’ve heard a difference, so cables do make a difference’.

To me at least, this is one of the most difficult aspects of Hi Fi as a hobby to grasp. The idea that my ears (actually brain) could be easily fooled took me a long time to get. I am guilty of repeating the mantra of "trust your own ears" myself but hell, one's own experience is very powerful so perhaps we should be sympathetic to those who believe this. What else can we suggest to others - just read the (selectively imcomplete) specs?

A week or so back in another thread, a linked YouTube video was debunking audiofoolery & in particular some of the subjective expressions used such as "fast bass" as being meaningless but just how are Hi Fi hobbyists expected to describe certain aspects of how a system sounds without being able to make their own measurements? They can't so quite naturally try describe in terms of their own experience. I personally don't have a problem with that when it describes a particular aspect but I do object to fairly vague phrases such as "having a digital sound".

One or two people here have accused others with some obvious scientific/engineering background as be arrogant which is laughable from those with obviously little to no knowledge! As has been pointed out: many will believe in the engineering that's used to sucessfully design the equipment that (hopefully) allows our musical enjoyment in the first place but want to pick & choose the same widely understood principles that suggest similarly made cables must by definition sound very similar if not identical. Surely those with some rather than little understanding, will have a better idea of any weaknesses in current theory? A good engineer will rarely say something is impossible but will explain why it's improbable.

Great reply! Many people find it extremely difficult to deal with the notion that their experiences could be wrong. When you think you see or hear something clearly, it is hard to accept from somebody else, who hasn't been there with you in your room, listening to your equipment, that you might be wrong. It is indeed something of a challenge to challenge your own experiences.

Nonetheless, there are countless examples where people strongly believe in something which is proven to be wrong. Think about whether praying for somebody who's ill, really works. I believe a significant majority of the people in the US think this works, even though it has been thoroughly researched and if anything, people tend to recover more slowly if they know that someone is praying for them, which is probably due to some kind of performance stress. Or what about near-death experiences where people after which many people can clearly remember that they've seen heaven and Jezus (funnily enough Muslims never tend to see Jezus and Christians never tend to see Muhammed). They have experienced the afterlife for themselves, and there is nothing more convincing than one's own experiences.

I'm not suggesting that believing in an afterlife, dowsing, fairies, etc, is on the same level as believing that there can be audible differences between cables, but the mechanisms where people value their own experience above proper analytical reasoning and objective facts, are similar. Mind you, this is not to say that audible differences beteen cables are impossible. Of course, there are different types of cables and it's well established a speaker cable with too high of a resistance can negatively affect the sound.

To take this thing a bit further: the discussions over cables, including all the rich terminology used to described the differences people hear, makes me wonder how much of a difference speakers and amplifiers really make. Please note I'm not saying that they don't make a difference: not at all. But the same mechanisms that lead people to think there are differences between cables, do not suddenly disappear when one listens to speakers or amplifiers. If anything, I would expect those (psychological) mechanisms to be even stronger, as those products under consideration are also expected to make more of a difference and they are usually the most expensive parts in the setup. Again, I'm not saying that speakers or amplifiers don't make a difference, but if Whathifi hails every new amplifier as a significant evolution, it does make one wonder how poor the amplifiers were 15 years ago (or it makes one wonder if the editors at Whathifi just keep fooling themselves and their readers). With something new, there is always the expectation of something better. Admittedly, it would almost take a cynic to get around that.

I have been to the WHF offices at Teddington Studios three times - Big Question, focus group & DALI's Kubik Free Launch where four of us were given one. WHF have been good to me & I've really enjoyed my visits & speaking with the editorial team at the Bristol Show as well. They are just as aware as I am that other Hi Fi magazines include some degree of measurements in their reviews. I have directly opined to them that I don't feel that measurements as presented in other magazines illuminate otherwise subjective reviews & I have no knowledge how extensive the measurements that these magazines carry out are (as opposed to publish) or whether a quiet word is ever exchanged regarding measured results not matching those published by the manufacturers. How many readers of these reviews make decisions because of the inclusion of measurements I cannot say but would guess not many! I don't think the WHF staff deliberately & therefore cynically set out to misinform even if they indulge in subterfuge from time to time! It is not in their interests to rock the boat too much. Running any magazine these days of fairly unviersal web access is quite a challenge so why would they risk investigating the notion that the whole Hi Fi business model is based on misinformation (that most equipment may well in reality sound very similar). This is not unique to Hi Fi - do we really think that shampoos are radically different from each other apart from price?

As for measurements, as someone who has carried out countless calibrations & repairs on the equipment used to carry out many of these measurements, I am less confident than many that we have the methodology right to characterise stuff like amplifiers. That YouTube video I mentioned in my previous post stated that THD & intermod tracked each other well. Really? some involved in the development of class D amplifiers may not agree.

So how do we prove that our brains are so easily fooled? Double blind ABX tests? Maybe but I feel there are two major flaws in the technique:

1. Echoic memory only last a few seconds & is totally different to iconic memory where it is relatively easy to compare say two pictures taken by different cameras compared side by side where one can concentrate on a single aspect such as colour fidelity in the same area of the scene in fractions of a second. With music, we have to store in our minds how something sounded, listen again & make a judgement on the differences. We can make the process easier by only thinking about one aspect at a time such as perceived distortion or relative loudness of one particular instrument at a time. It's all too sequential to be that reliable, IMO. If you carry out ABX tests for too long, your subjects will get thoroughly confused then just plain bored!

2. ABX tests are very skewed towards proving lack of differences. The method statically averages out false positives perfectly well but fails to address false negatives. An example would be to test a sample of sceptics who believed that most amplifiers sound essentially the same. All they have to do is guess either deliberately or be convinced by their prior convictions so subconsciously ignore any actual differences if they indeed exist. Any method must surely treat either direction with equal measure? I wish DB ABX was foolproof but I have serious doubts. Some protest that if such tests are flawed that it lets the whacky brigade off the hook! I retort that I'm just interested in getting to the bottom of what is what!

If anyone cares to post links that prove that audio DB ABX testing as a methodology is foolproof (with some degree of scientific validity & peer agreement), I'll be happy to change my view.

 

[matt49]

That post is so good. Sooo good.

Just a couple of (really rather superficial) additions.

Some of the sonic experiences that we know are important, e.g. soundstage or imaging, aren't captured by any measurements we can currently do.

Blind testing is hugely complex. If it's to be done to proper scientific standards, it requires very sophisticated preparation, in particular the psychology needs to be thought through carefully. On the other hand, primitive "home-brew" blind testing serves as a very good reminder of how fallible we are.

Matt

 

[busb]

Broner, who seems to have a permanent conspiracy theory hat on that hifi reviewers, hifi manufacturers, audio professionals, musicians, and hifi consumers are constantly out to pull a fast one on poor unsuspecting audiophiles who prefer to use their ears rather than science to listen.

With repect, that's not what Broner is either saying or even implying. Why is the idea that are brains are fallible regarding hearing so sacrilegious? We've all seen visual diagrams that "fool" our brains - we are usually amused by them. As soon as someone suggests the same can apply to hearing, some reach for their guns! Do you really think that people with some degree of electronics knowledge are incapable of enjoying music? Do you think that designers are equally incapable of carrying out listening tests or enjoying music at home?

 

[matt49]

Why is the idea that are brains are fallible regarding hearing so sacrilegious? We've all seen visual diagrams that "fool" our brains - we are usually amused by them. As soon as someone suggests the same can apply to hearing, some reach for their guns!

I'm one of the people who reach for their guns. But only because I think that the science of psychology (expectation bias etc) deserves to be treated just as seriously as the science of electronics. I'm not suggesting anything you've said is wrong, far from it. It's just that when people cite e.g. the McGurk Effect as an example of how hearing is fallible, it's important to understand exactly what these instances of fallibility really mean and whether they're applicable to discussions of hi-fi.

Matt

 

[busb]

That post is so good. Sooo good.

Just a couple of (really rather superficial) additions.

Some of the sonic experiences that we know are important, e.g. soundstage or imaging, aren't captured by any measurements we can currently do.

Blind testing is hugely complex. If it's to be done to proper scientific standards, it requires very sophisticated preparation, in particular the psychology needs to be thought through carefully. On the other hand, primitive "home-brew" blind testing serves as a very good reminder of how fallible we are.

Matt

Matt, they are far from superficial. They are part of the magic of music reproduction. Image depth has little to do with channel separation (which is just as well for those enjoying vinyl. Mono recordings have it! The only link to any measurement i can imagine is time domain artefacts or lack of.Others may call it distortion.

As for ABX testing, false negatives can be partly addressed by including deliberate flaws like channel imbalance, added noise or added distortion. If some particpants can't hear them, they should be excluded from the results. The devil will be in the detail but will "calibrate" the tests & add some positive skew in the results.

 

[the record spot]

All I'm saying is this... As far as I know, I don't think man has invented machines that can see, hear, taste, smell and touch to the full spectrum that humans can. Yes, there are machines that can see further and better in the dark than humans can, but can it distinguish every little nuance that the human eye is capable of discerning? Similarly if there was a machine that could taste better than a human, then the best wines would be selected by machines.

So when some people here share their experience that they can hear differences between cables, to then dismiss that as being a figment of their overripe imagination because a machine can't measure that difference is in my opinion, arrogant from the point of view made in the first paragraph above.

We know the absolute threshold of human hearing. That's pretty much a given. So whatever you or I hear is going to be down to description of what we heard and our skill in using those words to unambiguously relate to a test. This is assuming that both people have reasonable hearing, not affected by hearing impairment, or similar issues. In other words, you have an equable state of affairs.

I strongly doubt that your claims are backed up or couldn't be learned so that two people could hear the same thing and describe it adequately so that the other knows and understands and can interpret what is being heard. There's no golden eared genius at work here. Trained maybe, but that's a different thing entirely.

 

[Broner]

@Busb Mon, Mar 31 2014, 10:56PM: Thanks for the very informative reply. I would like to respond, but today and tomorrow are those typical working days on which weeks of works and months of preparation come to a spectacular end (am co-organising something of an environmental feast). I think I can look into it tomorrow evening.

Cheers!

 

[davedotco]

That post is so good. Sooo good.

Just a couple of (really rather superficial) additions.

Some of the sonic experiences that we know are important, e.g. soundstage or imaging, aren't captured by any measurements we can currently do.

Blind testing is hugely complex. If it's to be done to proper scientific standards, it requires very sophisticated preparation, in particular the psychology needs to be thought through carefully. On the other hand, primitive "home-brew" blind testing serves as a very good reminder of how fallible we are.

Matt

Matt, they are far from superficial. They are part of the magic of music reproduction. Image depth has little to do with channel separation (which is just as well for those enjoying vinyl. Mono recordings have it! The only link to any measurement i can imagine is time domain artefacts or lack of.Others may call it distortion.

As for ABX testing, false negatives can be partly addressed by including deliberate flaws like channel imbalance, added noise or added distortion. If some particpants can't hear them, they should be excluded from the results. The devil will be in the detail but will "calibrate" the tests & add some positive skew in the results.

I feel that we are guilty of rather overthinking this.

Statistically valid and psycologically sound testing in hi-fi will still be flawed, boredom and listener fatique will cause issues even if nothing else does.

The informal approach is very definitely the way I would go, carefully set up tests that cover the basics, blind, level matched, good system etc, etc. Get as many people through this as you can, you are not trying to 'prove' anything, just show ordinary enthusiasts how small differences can be when the visual cues are absent.

 

[busb]

That post is so good. Sooo good.

Just a couple of (really rather superficial) additions.

Some of the sonic experiences that we know are important, e.g. soundstage or imaging, aren't captured by any measurements we can currently do.

Blind testing is hugely complex. If it's to be done to proper scientific standards, it requires very sophisticated preparation, in particular the psychology needs to be thought through carefully. On the other hand, primitive "home-brew" blind testing serves as a very good reminder of how fallible we are.

Matt

Matt, they are far from superficial. They are part of the magic of music reproduction. Image depth has little to do with channel separation (which is just as well for those enjoying vinyl. Mono recordings have it! The only link to any measurement i can imagine is time domain artefacts or lack of.Others may call it distortion.

As for ABX testing, false negatives can be partly addressed by including deliberate flaws like channel imbalance, added noise or added distortion. If some particpants can't hear them, they should be excluded from the results. The devil will be in the detail but will "calibrate" the tests & add some positive skew in the results.

I feel that we are guilty of rather overthinking this.

Statistically valid and psycologically sound testing in hi-fi will still be flawed, boredom and listener fatique will cause issues even if nothing else does.

The informal approach is very definitely the way I would go, carefully set up tests that cover the basics, blind, level matched, good system etc, etc. Get as many people through this as you can, you are not trying to 'prove' anything, just show ordinary enthusiasts how small differences can be when the visual cues are absent.

On a personal level Dave, you are absolutely right but such informal testing isn't going to convince anyone not present & not always those who are! I'm thinking of testing that no sane folk would bother arguing over in the same way that few people still think the earth is flat. Some will need a hell of a lot of convincing so getting it right is crucial if indeed DB ABX testing is up to the task which I'm far from certain is the case.

 

[Broner]

I could hear the difference in a cable upgrade in my very first system years ago consisting of a NAD 3020 (the original) so there is no doubt that quality of your components is plenty good enough to show out differences in cables.

And here we are back to what’s really wrong with the way you reason. You think you know, because you have switched your cables and you’ve heard a difference. According to yourself, there is even no doubt about it

What’s really tiresome is that people such as the editors of Whatshifi and yourself don’t seem to grasp the significance of what’s actually scientifically and technologically relevant, nor seem to understand what the limitations and validity are of one’s experience. Furthermore, anyone who hasn’t participated in a properly executed blind test with statistical significance and claims that cables do make an audible difference (between cables with basic adequate specifications), is making a statement that lacks substantiation (obviously, this also applies to you).

People can explain this to you a thousand times, and still you would go back to your basic premise that you won’t dare to question: ‘I’ve heard a difference, so cables do make a difference’.

To me at least, this is one of the most difficult aspects of Hi Fi as a hobby to grasp. The idea that my ears (actually brain) could be easily fooled took me a long time to get. I am guilty of repeating the mantra of "trust your own ears" myself but hell, one's own experience is very powerful so perhaps we should be sympathetic to those who believe this. What else can we suggest to others - just read the (selectively imcomplete) specs?

A week or so back in another thread, a linked YouTube video was debunking audiofoolery & in particular some of the subjective expressions used such as "fast bass" as being meaningless but just how are Hi Fi hobbyists expected to describe certain aspects of how a system sounds without being able to make their own measurements? They can't so quite naturally try describe in terms of their own experience. I personally don't have a problem with that when it describes a particular aspect but I do object to fairly vague phrases such as "having a digital sound".

One or two people here have accused others with some obvious scientific/engineering background as be arrogant which is laughable from those with obviously little to no knowledge! As has been pointed out: many will believe in the engineering that's used to sucessfully design the equipment that (hopefully) allows our musical enjoyment in the first place but want to pick & choose the same widely understood principles that suggest similarly made cables must by definition sound very similar if not identical. Surely those with some rather than little understanding, will have a better idea of any weaknesses in current theory? A good engineer will rarely say something is impossible but will explain why it's improbable.

Great reply! Many people find it extremely difficult to deal with the notion that their experiences could be wrong. When you think you see or hear something clearly, it is hard to accept from somebody else, who hasn't been there with you in your room, listening to your equipment, that you might be wrong. It is indeed something of a challenge to challenge your own experiences.

Nonetheless, there are countless examples where people strongly believe in something which is proven to be wrong. Think about whether praying for somebody who's ill, really works. I believe a significant majority of the people in the US think this works, even though it has been thoroughly researched and if anything, people tend to recover more slowly if they know that someone is praying for them, which is probably due to some kind of performance stress. Or what about near-death experiences where people after which many people can clearly remember that they've seen heaven and Jezus (funnily enough Muslims never tend to see Jezus and Christians never tend to see Muhammed). They have experienced the afterlife for themselves, and there is nothing more convincing than one's own experiences.

I'm not suggesting that believing in an afterlife, dowsing, fairies, etc, is on the same level as believing that there can be audible differences between cables, but the mechanisms where people value their own experience above proper analytical reasoning and objective facts, are similar. Mind you, this is not to say that audible differences beteen cables are impossible. Of course, there are different types of cables and it's well established a speaker cable with too high of a resistance can negatively affect the sound.

To take this thing a bit further: the discussions over cables, including all the rich terminology used to described the differences people hear, makes me wonder how much of a difference speakers and amplifiers really make. Please note I'm not saying that they don't make a difference: not at all. But the same mechanisms that lead people to think there are differences between cables, do not suddenly disappear when one listens to speakers or amplifiers. If anything, I would expect those (psychological) mechanisms to be even stronger, as those products under consideration are also expected to make more of a difference and they are usually the most expensive parts in the setup. Again, I'm not saying that speakers or amplifiers don't make a difference, but if Whathifi hails every new amplifier as a significant evolution, it does make one wonder how poor the amplifiers were 15 years ago (or it makes one wonder if the editors at Whathifi just keep fooling themselves and their readers). With something new, there is always the expectation of something better. Admittedly, it would almost take a cynic to get around that.

I have been to the WHF offices at Teddington Studios three times - Big Question, focus group & DALI's Kubik Free Launch where four of us were given one. WHF have been good to me & I've really enjoyed my visits & speaking with the editorial team at the Bristol Show as well. They are just as aware as I am that other Hi Fi magazines include some degree of measurements in their reviews. I have directly opined to them that I don't feel that measurements as presented in other magazines illuminate otherwise subjective reviews & I have no knowledge how extensive the measurements that these magazines carry out are (as opposed to publish) or whether a quiet word is ever exchanged regarding measured results not matching those published by the manufacturers. How many readers of these reviews make decisions because of the inclusion of measurements I cannot say but would guess not many! I don't think the WHF staff deliberately & therefore cynically set out to misinform even if they indulge in subterfuge from time to time! It is not in their interests to rock the boat too much. Running any magazine these days of fairly unviersal web access is quite a challenge so why would they risk investigating the notion that the whole Hi Fi business model is based on misinformation (that most equipment may well in reality sound very similar). This is not unique to Hi Fi - do we really think that shampoos are radically different from each other apart from price?

As for measurements, as someone who has carried out countless calibrations & repairs on the equipment used to carry out many of these measurements, I am less confident than many that we have the methodology right to characterise stuff like amplifiers. That YouTube video I mentioned in my previous post stated that THD & intermod tracked each other well. Really? some involved in the development of class D amplifiers may not agree.

So how do we prove that our brains are so easily fooled? Double blind ABX tests? Maybe but I feel there are two major flaws in the technique:

1. Echoic memory only last a few seconds & is totally different to iconic memory where it is relatively easy to compare say two pictures taken by different cameras compared side by side where one can concentrate on a single aspect such as colour fidelity in the same area of the scene in fractions of a second. With music, we have to store in our minds how something sounded, listen again & make a judgement on the differences. We can make the process easier by only thinking about one aspect at a time such as perceived distortion or relative loudness of one particular instrument at a time. It's all too sequential to be that reliable, IMO. If you carry out ABX tests for too long, your subjects will get thoroughly confused then just plain bored!

2. ABX tests are very skewed towards proving lack of differences. The method statically averages out false positives perfectly well but fails to address false negatives. An example would be to test a sample of sceptics who believed that most amplifiers sound essentially the same. All they have to do is guess either deliberately or be convinced by their prior convictions so subconsciously ignore any actual differences if they indeed exist. Any method must surely treat either direction with equal measure? I wish DB ABX was foolproof but I have serious doubts. Some protest that if such tests are flawed that it lets the whacky brigade off the hook! I retort that I'm just interested in getting to the bottom of what is what!

If anyone cares to post links that prove that audio DB ABX testing as a methodology is foolproof (with some degree of scientific validity & peer agreement), I'll be happy to change my view.

Those are valid points you have raised, but the problems they pose are fairly limited insofar as the participants are people who claim to hear a difference (if I’m correct, that immediately eliminates the problem of false negatives). The problem of the echoic memory should also occur at home, and we know that people say they are able to hear differences between cables at home, so that also shouldn’t pose a problem for this specific group of people. After all, if it was a real problem, then people wouldn’t experience instantaneous and significant differences when switching a cable, nor would subtle differences be perceived.

Another problem could be some sort of listening fatigue (as you and Dave pointed out), especially if you want to get at statistically meaningful data, but that can be covered in the setup of the test.

What I agree with (I assume that I’m agreeing with you here) is that those points you have raised (particularly the one about the echoic memory), are a problem when one wants to use a double blind test to check whether cables actually produce different sounds or not. You can tweak the methodology a bit to help out, but I’m not sure to which degree one can cope with it. It seems to me that a double blind test is therefore particularly effective to check whether the differences that are already experienced between cables, are due to actual differences in the music emitted or find their origin in psychological causes. In this respect, the sum of many double blind tests is quite sobering.

One final note: I disagree wholeheartedly with anyone who is unwilling to critically look at the validity of the double blind tests. Any possible limitations of these tests to speaker cables should be taken seriously and if that eventually means that the ‘whacky brigade’ is off the hook, then so be it.

 

[Broner]

Just a little bump to see if bubs still has something to ad. I rather enjoyed this little exchange.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

oh no, you guys did not go down the 'your senses cannot be trusted' route with this thread....

midway through this thread AndyJM and myself had a short exchange - ultimately we agreed that the composition/resistance induced by a given conductor would affect the electrical signal presented to a speaker (we both used I=v/r...etc)

I asked is it audible, now we know a speaker works to spec so needs a certain level/signal to operate to its optimum +/- what ever to shift the cones to deliver the full harmonics in our signal ( look at it like a torch - with fully charged, half charged & nearly run down batterys)....

o.k so these are small differences, really small differences some cannot hear the differences, is that real reason to try and argue there are no differences or they are imagined.... c'mon.

some cannot see the difference between a videogame running at 30frames per sec & 60fps some can and do........ they even brought up triple blind with toilet paper up you nose testing......lol.

some of you guys..... I swear...... :rofl:

 

[the record spot]

Minor differences, some not worth the bother trying to see if they are audible. Nothing to do with golden ears, nothing to do with "you can't hear what I hear" nonsense. Minor. Beyond that, the descriptive abilities of the participants are the only things left worth talking about as that gives us the narrative for these "differences". How difficult is it?