I think this is an interesting question, which deserves some discussion. I don't believe fr0g is trying to start a fight (though no doubt one will start anyway).It is my opinion that this is a subjectivist forum. In other words, I think people who come here and stay here take the view that the best way of judging a piece of audio equipment is by listening to it. I share that view, but am not immune to the idea of more scientific testing (of which listening is, I believe, not an example, bit more of that later).I think 'formal testing' by means of, for example, ABX is about the best way of deciding whether one thing is different from another (notice that I do not use the word 'better'). However, the ease by which one can achieve this can vary enormously, depending on what it is that one is trying to ABX. For example, I think the tools exist whereby one can satisfy oneself quite easily of the superiority or otherwise of, say higher resolution audio over standard CD or 320k or lower resolution compressed files. I have never tried the Foobar ABX plugin, primarily because I've managed to satisfy myself by more prosaic means (listening) that they are pretty much functionally equivalent (for my purposes). I'd urge people to try it, simply because it's an easy way of taking a position on how one feels about what is 'good enough' from a source point of view.However, I think when it comes to individual pieces of audio equipment, it's much harder to do. All you need to do is look at Alan Shaw's Harbeth Challenge to see the angst that it has engendered in so many quarters. Personally, I think that challenge was never going to be answered (let alone met or beaten) because it was not about hifi equipment at all really, but any respondent's ability to come up with an instantaneous switching mechanism so that an ABX test could be carried out against equipment that doesn't really lend itself to the practice. That, combined with the fact that several 'caveats' about equipment's behaviour were put in place meant that it veered too much towards the old 'all amps sound the same provided you stick a graphic EQ in line with them' question.And there is the nub of the problem - I think it's actually difficult, if not impossible, to ABX hifi equipment (without starting to add other things into the mix like comparators and suchlike, which immediately bring claims of 'signal degradation' which invalidate the tests). It takes too long to swap out pieces of equipment to get round the 'aural memory' issue which pure objectivists claim is the reason behind all sorts of reported phenomena, such as burn-in. And TBH, I'd argue that sticking a sheet over a speaker so you don't know what it is probably counterproductive.So in absence of a practical, repeatable test method, I'm inclined to go with what's left, which is listening. Obviously we can try to remove variables which can affect the result, such as levels, but other than that when I'm looking for a new piece of kit I'm inclined to consider very few questions:- Does it sound better TO ME (since nobody else is buying it for me)?- Is it more functional?- Does it look better?In other words, if I want to spend my money, then I shall, but I'm not so stupid as to declare that the only thing which influences me in that decision is sound quality (since for the last 20 years I'd argue that improvements have been marginal at best, though the cost to implement has decreased fairly inversely to Moore's Law). I will also argue that until somebody comes up with a foolproof, easy method of proving to me (in a nice environment with good coffee, as opposed to a lab or a shed) that X is 1,000 times better than Y I will, as they are forced to do (and are - somewhat curiously - happy to do), have to make do with listening and my own, foolish, subjective opinion.
I think this is an interesting question, which deserves some discussion. I don't believe fr0g is trying to start a fight (though no doubt one will start anyway).
It is my opinion that this is a subjectivist forum. In other words, I think people who come here and stay here take the view that the best way of judging a piece of audio equipment is by listening to it. I share that view, but am not immune to the idea of more scientific testing (of which listening is, I believe, not an example, bit more of that later).
I think 'formal testing' by means of, for example, ABX is about the best way of deciding whether one thing is different from another (notice that I do not use the word 'better'). However, the ease by which one can achieve this can vary enormously, depending on what it is that one is trying to ABX. For example, I think the tools exist whereby one can satisfy oneself quite easily of the superiority or otherwise of, say higher resolution audio over standard CD or 320k or lower resolution compressed files. I have never tried the Foobar ABX plugin, primarily because I've managed to satisfy myself by more prosaic means (listening) that they are pretty much functionally equivalent (for my purposes). I'd urge people to try it, simply because it's an easy way of taking a position on how one feels about what is 'good enough' from a source point of view.
However, I think when it comes to individual pieces of audio equipment, it's much harder to do. All you need to do is look at Alan Shaw's Harbeth Challenge to see the angst that it has engendered in so many quarters. Personally, I think that challenge was never going to be answered (let alone met or beaten) because it was not about hifi equipment at all really, but any respondent's ability to come up with an instantaneous switching mechanism so that an ABX test could be carried out against equipment that doesn't really lend itself to the practice. That, combined with the fact that several 'caveats' about equipment's behaviour were put in place meant that it veered too much towards the old 'all amps sound the same provided you stick a graphic EQ in line with them' question.
And there is the nub of the problem - I think it's actually difficult, if not impossible, to ABX hifi equipment (without starting to add other things into the mix like comparators and suchlike, which immediately bring claims of 'signal degradation' which invalidate the tests). It takes too long to swap out pieces of equipment to get round the 'aural memory' issue which pure objectivists claim is the reason behind all sorts of reported phenomena, such as burn-in. And TBH, I'd argue that sticking a sheet over a speaker so you don't know what it is probably counterproductive.
So in absence of a practical, repeatable test method, I'm inclined to go with what's left, which is listening. Obviously we can try to remove variables which can affect the result, such as levels, but other than that when I'm looking for a new piece of kit I'm inclined to consider very few questions:
- Does it sound better TO ME (since nobody else is buying it for me)?
- Is it more functional?
- Does it look better?
In other words, if I want to spend my money, then I shall, but I'm not so stupid as to declare that the only thing which influences me in that decision is sound quality (since for the last 20 years I'd argue that improvements have been marginal at best, though the cost to implement has decreased fairly inversely to Moore's Law). I will also argue that until somebody comes up with a foolproof, easy method of proving to me (in a nice environment with good coffee, as opposed to a lab or a shed) that X is 1,000 times better than Y, I will, as they are forced to do (and seem - somewhat curiously - happy to do), have to make do with listening and my own, foolish, subjective opinion.
[written in one go with no proof reading. I may change my opinions at a later date]
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram