Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

[JRS]

. I know what I hear and it is not some subtle sit and concentrate magic floating in the ether.

Then prove it. We will be happy to provide recommendations on how. Until such time, this discussion seems pointless. You stubbornly insist that there are easily identified differences in sound quality between devices that have no significant differences in terms of FR, distortion, linearity, etc.

Whereas many here are skeptical of such differences, that not having been our experience, nor know of similar claims when tested rigorously were upheld. So it seems it is in your corner. Give us some data, this is a data driven sight.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

you have no basis other than your preconceived BIAS to so arrogantly tell me what I can or can not hear. You do not know.

That is EXACTLY the crux of the problem. We don't know. And we CAN'T know unless we are assured that you have subscribed to basic principles of science and logic that PRECLUDE the effects of bias. You might have superhuman hearing, but the only way WE will know that is for you to make an analysis, one basic step at a time, under what we know to be controlled conditions.

One of the basic functions of the scientific method is replication. In other words, if someone does a correctly-structured test and gets a certain result, then any one else in the world, anywhere, at any time, should be able to do the same exact correctly-structured test and get the same result. When I say "correctly-structured", I don't mean 90% or 99%, I mean 100%. That takes a commitment.

The history of scientific discovery is littered with examples of well-meaning scientists who thought they had discovered something new and fabulous, only to find that their methodology was flawed and their conclusions were incorrect. It happens. It's the reason there is such a thing as peer review. Peer review will catch flaws in methodology and logic.

Essentially, what you're going through here is a peer review, albeit crude and unrefined. If you look at it that way, it'll make more sense. Jim

 

[JRS]

That is EXACTLY the crux of the problem. We don't know. And we CAN'T know unless we are assured that you have subscribed to basic principles of science and logic that PRECLUDE the effects of bias. You might have superhuman hearing, but the only way WE will know that is for you to make an analysis, one basic step at a time, under what we know to be controlled conditions.

One of the basic functions of the scientific method is disengaged replication. In other words, if someone does a correctly-structured test and gets a certain result, then any one else in the world, anywhere, at any time, should be able to do the same exact correctly-structured test and get the same result.When I say "correctly-structured", I don't mean 90% or 99%, I mean 100%. That takes a commitment.

The history of scientific discovery is littered with examples of well-meaning scientists who thought they had discovered something new and fabulous, only to find that their methodology was flawed and their conclusions were incorrect. It happens. It's the reason there is such a thing as peer review. Peer review will catch flaws in methodology and logic.

Essentially, what you're going through here is a peer review, albeit crude and unrefined. If you look at it that way, it'll make more sense. Jim

I lived through the cold fusion debacle, At the time, post-docs were invited to hear the Pons-Fleischmann initial presentation, and it all seemed very credible, including the anecdote where a beaker of solution melted its way through a 1 inch slate laboratory counter top. We are talking some serious heat from a battery powered experiment. I recall the excitement and speculation, and most of all our instate rival school, BYU, making their own announcement within days, using completely different methodology.

Of course we all know what happened. But here is a great example of science gone wrong: two laboratories announcing a Nobel Prize worthy result, both headed by sober and well respected scientists tripping over one another to be first, without carefully, and methodically replicating the results. Under the bright light of peer review that went on for a couple of years IIRC, it withered and died, even though other labs reported supporting evidence in the beginning.

Reality can be a harsh mistress.

 

[SIY]

I lived through the cold fusion debacle at the time. As post-docs we were invited to hear the Pons-Fleischmann initial presentation, and it all seemed very credible, including the anecdote where a beaker of solution melted its way through a 1 inch slate laboratory counter top. We are talking some serious heat from a battery powered experiment. I recall the excitement and speculation, and most of all our instate rival school, BYU, making their own announcement within days, using completely different methodology.

Of course we all know what happened. But here is a great example of science gone wrong: two laboratories announcing a Nobel Prize worthy result, both headed by sober and well respected scientists tripping over one another to be first, without carefully, and methodically replicating the results. Under the bright light of peer review that went on for a couple of years IIRC, it withered and died, even though other labs reported supporting evidence in the beginning.

Reality can be a harsh mistress.

If you haven't read Gary Taubes's "Bad Science," a recounting of the cold fusion fiasco, run right out. I know just about everyone in the book (including Stan), was positioned to have a lot of inside info, and he really got it right. It's a wonderful read.

 

[Raindog123]

Because one has the belief what they can or can not hear has no bearing on what others can and can not hear. I am not telling anyone here what they can hear, what they care about what they hear, what I think they should hear. Likewise, you have no basis other than your preconceived BIAS to so arrogantly tell me what I can or can not hear.

"Because one's belief whether they can or can not read minds has no bearing on whether others can and can not read minds. I am not telling anyone here whether they can read minds, whether they care about if they can read minds, whether I think if they can read minds. Likewise, you have no basis other than your preconceived BIAS to so arrogantly tell me whether I can or can not read minds."


EDIT: “Scientific method“ is mentioned here a lot. Together with ”controlled experiment” it also requires “reproducibility of results (by independent researchers)”. Without this reproducibility, it’s just a hoax.

 

[Killingbeans]

You do not know.

Exactly. Why should we engage in a discussion about the cause of an effect that we have no evidence to support the existence of?

You give us anecdotal evidence and expect us to just run with it? The whole point of this is that we don't know, just as you say. All we have is qualified guess, but you are not giving us anything that overrules those guess. It has nothing to do with being wrong or right. It just seems unlikely to us that the thing you are hearing is caused by the DACs, that's all. You can't expect us to just take your word for it.

 

[Blumlein 88]

No answer to my question why some folks are here if they believe they all sound the same.

Because that is your straw man, and there are none of those people here. You are just being obstinate and refusing to carry on the discussion in good faith.

 

[Spkrdctr]

Because that is your straw man, and there are none of those people here. You are just being obstinate and refusing to carry on the discussion in good faith.

I saw "Scarecrow" the Straw Man from Wizard of Oz walk through this thread pages ago! Now that is a real straw man! He even started singing! I guess because this is a music based site.

 

[BoredErica]

I have a question: For all of those who believe no one, not just you, but no one else, can hear any difference in an amp or DAC, why are you here? Would you not have gone to Best Buy and bought whatever was cheapest with the features you want? All the same right?

You understand there's more to an audio system than just the dac or amp right? Like... speakers?

Or do you believe at some point, the differences get small enough that you can't hear them, so you believe no one else can?

That's not how people came up with figures on thresholds of audibility...

If you have been in a blind ABX of amplifiers, you would know many do sound identical, some differ.

If you want to bet whether I can personally hear a difference, you're in for a rough ride.

Of those that differ, the untrained invariably prefers those with a little more distortion.

Source?

FWIW, the tests I sat in on were so long ago, differences in amps were a lot greater. There are quite a few today I suspect are all good enough for everyone unless there is an additional personal filter favoring one distortion over another or lack of any. Again, can we quantify it?

How was the test conducted?

 

[PenguinMusic]

Hi,

After reading the latest posts, the conclusion is quite simple. There are a lot of people having time to waste...
110 pages of posts that can be summed up in a few lines that would go like this more or less :

"I like this device but I do not like this other one.
- They both have the same measures.
- I know, but I hear differences.
- That cannot be.
- Maybe, but I hear a difference between those devices.
- Then your ears need to be siringed.
- Yes but I hear a difference.
- Then your testing has not been done properley.
- Yes, but I hear a difference.
- You are not a scientist.
- Do I need to be scientist to hear a difference ?
- You need to give proof that you hear a difference.
- Simple. Here is proof : I hear a difference.
- That's only proof you're stupid because you believe in things that do not exist".

Did I forget something ?

 

[Galliardist]

Hi,

After reading the latest posts, the conclusion is quite simple. There are a lot of people having time to waste...
110 pages of posts that can be summed up in a few lines that would go like this more or less :

"I like this device but I do not like this other one.
- They both have the same measures.
- I know, but I hear differences.
- That cannot be.
- Maybe, but I hear a difference between those devices.
- Then your ears need to be siringed.
- Yes but I hear a difference.
- Then your testing has not been done properley.
- Yes, but I hear a difference.
- You are not a scientist.
- Do I need to be scientist to hear a difference ?
- You need to give proof that you hear a difference.
- Simple. Here is proof : I hear a difference.
- That's only proof you're stupid because you believe in things that do not exist".

Did I forget something ?

Well... we do know that people are reporting hearing differences. Despite the tone of a lot of the responses, we get that.

The reason they report hearing differences is that they are hearing differences.

Pretty much all of us who have tried controlled blind testing have had the experience of the difference going away as soon as the test is blind. I've also had the inexplicable change that persists when blind testing: in my case that happened when using USB flash drives with an Oppo 105, and only years later was that difference actually found and measured (I can't find the source for that right now, it may even have been on this forum?)

The claim is that DACs that measure well enough to be effectively transparent cannot be distinguished, when used within the operating envelope tested.

Note (as few do) the last seven words in this sentence.

Partnering equipment and configuration also can make a big difference. It's faulty logic to assume that because you switch DACs and one sounds different, that the different sounding DAC is directly faulty. It may just have a different output voltage or impedance.

You'll note that none of those claiming to hear a difference in this thread have bothered to list the other equipment in use, let alone details like firmware settings.

Also - the output of the "system" we are dealing with here is not the soundwaves in the room but a (typically poorly) written description - "Yes, but i hear a difference". In other threads here we have clearly written descriptions of issues, for example lack of gain or power into hard-to-drive speakers. We don't need a blind test when such a problem is properly described and we can recognise it, either from the description or the list of components in use and being tested.

Go back and read the full post by @rdenney that I pulled the quote from. It's all there for you to have forgotten.

 

[audio2design]

Hi,

After reading the latest posts, the conclusion is quite simple. There are a lot of people having time to waste...
110 pages of posts that can be summed up in a few lines that would go like this more or less :

"I like this device but I do not like this other one.
- They both have the same measures.
- I know, but I hear differences.
- That cannot be.
- Maybe, but I hear a difference between those devices.
- Then your ears need to be siringed.
- Yes but I hear a difference.
- Then your testing has not been done properley.
- Yes, but I hear a difference.
- You are not a scientist.
- Do I need to be scientist to hear a difference ?
- You need to give proof that you hear a difference.
- Simple. Here is proof : I hear a difference.
- That's only proof you're stupid because you believe in things that do not exist".

Did I forget something ?

- but my wife can hear the difference from the other room

 

[killdozzer]

+1
I went to the trouble (it is a bit of a project) of setting up a double blind test between a 60 year old tube amp and a brand new SOTA SS amp and was amazed I could not tell them apart. It is easy to read about people doing double blind tests and accepting that they are valid but actually doing it yourself is an amazing experience that should not be missed if you are serious about the recorded music hobby. It will scramble your brain and open your eyes and set you free from all the BS.... and focus your attention on your speakers and room.

You got my interest. In your opinion, how do you explain the fact that 60yo tube didn't sound different? Were the tubes themselves 60yo? Did you have means to measure how much power was "demanded" from the amps?

Tubes supposedly have a certain sound (although a good friend of mine told me this could be avoided if implemented properly, he said you COULD make a tube amp with no sound signature), so I guess my next question is, if you don't mind disclosing, what was the brand and make of the tube amp?

 

[PenguinMusic]

- but my wife can hear the difference from the other room

So does mine

But of course I forget to mention that despite it being the most demonstrative argument.

 

[SIY]

Tubes supposedly have a certain sound (although a good friend of mine told me this could be avoided if implemented properly, he said you COULD make a tube amp with no sound signature), so I guess my next question is, if you don't mind disclosing, what was the brand and make of the tube amp?

Dynaco ST-70.

 

[killdozzer]

Dynaco ST-70.

Just to make clear, you're saying you know which amp levimax used in the DBT or which one is designed properly and doesn't distort?
I can't make that out of your post.

 

[tvrgeek]

Be skeptical. That is a good thing, but that is not what you are doing. All you are doing is trying to prove your bias by making demands you know damn well are impossible. A classic logic fallacy. You have a bias with no knowledge of my experience but insist I am wrong. The proper response to being skeptical is, "I have not experienced that"

I gave you data. Specifics:
I have offered several suggestions of measurements that could be made. Relevant or not I do not know.
I have identified the frequency range were the differences I am hearing show up. If you do some research, that band is discussed a lot by recording engineers. It happens to coincide with our hearing sensitivity curves. There may be others or not, this is the one that bothers me. It also bothers my wife.
I have identified specific recordings where I hear the differences. Maybe you should listen the them. You may discover something yourself.
I have stated in my experience that most recordings do not cause this adverse sound.

You have a belief the current limited measurements are somehow comprehensive. If you wish to believe the world is flat, that is your choice.
I am interested in moving the science forward.

 

[killdozzer]

Hi,

After reading the latest posts, the conclusion is quite simple. There are a lot of people having time to waste...
110 pages of posts that can be summed up in a few lines that would go like this more or less :

"I like this device but I do not like this other one.
- They both have the same measures.
- I know, but I hear differences.
- That cannot be.
- Maybe, but I hear a difference between those devices.
- Then your ears need to be siringed.
- Yes but I hear a difference.
- Then your testing has not been done properley.
- Yes, but I hear a difference.
- You are not a scientist.
- Do I need to be scientist to hear a difference ?
- You need to give proof that you hear a difference.
- Simple. Here is proof : I hear a difference.
- That's only proof you're stupid because you believe in things that do not exist".

Did I forget something ?

It's a pretty bad summation. Perhaps if you signed it with "I pretend to understand less than I do for some ill intentions" or "I make a living of people who think they heard something and even better living if it's just their imagination" it would make more sense.

"I heard the difference" has been abused to such an extent one might argue you should do anything BUT leave it be.

People here give some time and thought in hope to make someone understand that what is really being contested here is whether the difference originates from a piece of gear or one's mind. It's almost always the gear/mind debate. For any further discussion this absolutely needs to be known.

- a piece of gear: is it desirable, is the gear broken, do you like/want it or not?
- your mind: you shouldn't pay for it!

From @tvrgeek posts we still don't know whether it's from his mind or from his gear. This would imply that we still can't comment, describe, assume, guess on origins, predict, give advice or in any way refer to what he heard.

 

[Killingbeans]

Did I forget something ?

That not taking things at face value isn't the same as calling a person stupid?

Nobody is saying that these things aren't being heard. We all know that people are really hearing them. The only thing we differ on is the assumption of what causes these things to be heard. It's inevitably a waste of time, as long as no evidence is being presented.

 

[Raindog123]

Hi,

After reading the latest posts, the conclusion is quite simple. There are a lot of people having time to waste... 110 pages of posts…

Welcome to the club!