Why haven't subjectivists and objectivists met to do a live ABX test?

[Ken1951]

One camp is in a galaxy on one edge of the observable universe. The second camp is in a different galaxy at the opposite edge of the observable universe. Never the Twain will meet, and all that. Any attempt to set up such a test is doomed to a failure to proceed and a complete and utter waste of time.

 

[ahofer]

Yeah, and unfortunately that's what its detractors will point to.

Most of the ABX tests conducted were against subjects not familiar with ABX tests prior, not familiar with the gear involved, etc. There are many experienced subjectivists out there who insist they can hear these differences in blind listening. In their experience, they've already heard these differences in blind listening. Those would be the listeners I'd be interested in testing. Ideally all they would do is reproduce a test they've already conducted themselves.

IMO, the test in this magazine should have settled the matter. In 1987.

https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1987-01.pdf

 

[ahofer]

That seems to fully answer the thread topic/question.

Time to close and move on?

I’ve offered more (to charity)

 

[kongwee]

Objective will say you never level match in ABX, your body movement will affect high frequency, temp difference, warming up different, swapping not fast enough, different voltage supply time to time.....etc Finally, all they have to say is they can't hear the difference and silence all subjective. What the intention to do such a test?

 

[JSmith]

It is incredibly difficult to get subjectivists to agree to any kind of blind tests.

Indeed... and even if one succeeds in hosting such a test, then there will be no end of finding ways to negate the test. Wrong cables, not good enough cables, switch is adding distortion, the weather is poor, one person was tired, there was a strange smell that stopped them from being able to concentrate... I know I heard it, the test is flawed.


JSmith

 

[Blumlein 88]

Yeah, and unfortunately that's what its detractors will point to.

Most of the ABX tests conducted were against subjects not familiar with ABX tests prior, not familiar with the gear involved, etc. There are many experienced subjectivists out there who insist they can hear these differences in blind listening. In their experience, they've already heard these differences in blind listening. Those would be the listeners I'd be interested in testing. Ideally all they would do is reproduce a test they've already conducted themselves.

No, they've not experienced hearing the differences blind. Big difference. They say they could, they say it is so obvious they know they can do it blind........................but.....................but.............they don't do it blind. Some of us have the same experience of such obviousness, only to one day actually experience blind listening only to find in some unsettling manner those very obvious differences vanished in thin air. Whoosh, your subjectivist confidence is gone with the wind.

 

[Blumlein 88]

This link, from the link to the other thread shows that yes people do hear differences if they are really different.

ABX Double Blind Comparator Data

 

[ROOSKIE]

Sadly despite that, he continues to be a hardcore subjectivist putting no value on measurements or blind testing.

He might not be a subjectivist or an objectivist but rather a hard-core competitor.
Many competitive folks pick a side/pick a team and fight with everything to win. It has nothing to do with being right but rather being so competitive that what is 'right' is winning.

Or maybe he is the doubling down type, that just doesn't want to be wrong or to 'pivot' which is a term used to hold folks to their guns. That is so common.

"For most people, doubling down actually makes them feel good - if only for a short time. Research has found that people experience a short-term increase in their feelings of personal power and control after refusing to apologize. "-https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/know-when-pivot-instead-doubling-down-logan-d-freeman

'Belief perseverance' is also a cool term...

"Belief perseverance (also known as conceptual conservatism) is maintaining a belief despite new information that firmly contradicts it. Such beliefs may even be strengthened when others attempt to present evidence debunking them, a phenomenon known as the backfire effect (compare boomerang effect). For example, in a 2014 article in The Atlantic, journalist Cari Romm describes a study involving vaccination hesitancy. In the study, the subjects expressed their concerns of the side effects of flu shots. After being told that the vaccination was completely safe, they became even less eager to accept them. This new knowledge pushed them to distrust the vaccine even more, reinforcing the idea that they already had before." -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance

 

[ROOSKIE]

That seems to fully answer the thread topic/question.

Time to close and move on?

I personally think you have it backward it doesn't answer the question it just speaks more clearly to the level of resistance which is(has to be) understandable to some degree at least.
I meant that we have to understand and relate or it will just be chips on shoulders. Relate here*

The solution is out there @Newman, but alas it won't be easy. You cool with that? Long games?

So instead of time to close, it is time to figure out what would work in face of things that did not, because I assure you some people do want to do these tests.
I bet you do? How many have you done? I want to as well and have not been a part of anything truly well conducted yet.

Why make the subjectivist show up before most of us have even done a real double blind(or well arranged simple blind) test ourselves. I know Amir a few folks here have done some if not many but I am pretty sure most people have never done one.

*relate*
"In studies, most people overestimate their IQ. For instance, in a classic 1977 study, 94 percent of professors rated themselves above average relative to their peers. In another study, 32 percent of the employees of a software company said they performed better than 19 out of 20 of their colleagues. And Dunning has found that people overestimate how charitable they'll be in future donation drives, but accurately guess their peers' donations.

Drivers consistently rate themselves as better than average -- even when a test of their hazard perception reveals them to be below par, said Mark Horswill, a psychologist at the University of Queensland in Australia."

"But in a strange twist, the most incompetent are also the most likely to overestimate their skills, while the ace performers are more likely to underrate themselves, because if they find a skill easy they assume other people do too, he said." -https://www.cbsnews.com/news/everyone-thinks-they-are-above-average/

My first thought is like why don't libs and conservatives get together and just work things out? LOL. Defining a group is hard enough, let alone finding particularly relevant members of each, let alone getting them together for any type of actual abx testing....my head spins already.

**This is not about politics just the example**
Well really libs & conservatives do get together everyday since the vast majority of people are actually moderates.

Nobody who is seeking to feel whole and balanced and at ease with both what they know and what they do not know wants to be called a lib or a conservative anymore than I want to be called a subjectivist or objectivist. I am serious. It just creates a wall that is not there since this whole thing is about using both aspects wisely, subjective+objective = the whole enchilada. (Or maybe called drawing the line in a great spot.)

That said someone(all of us already humbled by that fact that humans don't really hear all that well in grand scheme) badly needs to stop some people from selling some other people $4k, 8' speaker wires and those cryo'd DAC dongles.

 

[Geert]

In that link above, he claims its very easy to tell the difference between those budget Magni amps. Wouldn't it be even easier to tell with a super high end amp vs. a budget well measuring amp?

If this live test took place, and one subjectivist was able to reliably tell the difference between these well measuring amps. Would that be enough to change your opinion on the matter?

From a practical perspective; we would need to have 2 computer controlled switch boxes (one line level and one speaker level) which can be send over to the testers home, setup by a knowledgeable ASR delegate. Then the ASR guy leaves for the tester to do his thing without stress (although a video recording of the session would be needed, controlled by the computer managing the switch boxes). If we can arrange this worldwide we could really make a difference.

The only problem I see is that when people fail the test they will blame the quality of the switch boxes, computer EMI and the fact that their cables were moved around ...

 

[KSTR]

Just to reiterate, what I’m suggesting is different from what I believe all previous tests have been because all that is asked of the subject is to reproduce a test they’ve already claimed they’ve done and succeeded with gear they’re already familiar with.

Exactly.

I've offered technical assistance for such endeavours from time to time on different forums, to no avail so far. Last time: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ssion-analog-video.36378/page-28#post-1403039.

The main point is in-situ placement of the measurement gear to collect the data "while and where it's actually happening" that a listening impression could be verified with proper blind testing (which shall not be restricted to publicly watchdogged live ABX quickies -- as those tend to be negative unless there are gross differences).

If there really was a detectable audible change (within statistical limits), it must have been present in the signal and thus it must be possible to find differences between the A and B signals and analyse them, that is, we need ways to transparently record while plaback. That's the only way to ever get a positive and find out why we got a positive in that given situation and setup.

 

[Digby]

I'm not sure these binary categories (subjective/objective) function that well except at the extremes. The extreme of subjectivism would be people that believe cables, when functioning within spec, make a difference to sound quality; not to mention other idea that border on voodoo, as much as hi-fi (lifting cables off the ground, unusual stones placed on equipment). The extreme of objectivism would be those that claim they would use a speaker with better measurements in some aspect/higher preference score even when, upon listening in their environment, they prefer a different speaker.

To me, these are both extreme and unusual positions. All I want is the music I like (sadly, often not the world's best recordings) to sound how I prefer it, in my room. The equipment needs to be accurate to the source, to an extent, but ever increasing accuracy may not = increasing enjoyment.

I think the goal of accurate reproduction is a noble one, but when there is a HUGE amount of variance in the equipment studios use. The size/shape of room, the loudspeakers for mastering, differences in soundproofing, different mastering engineers with different hearing abilities, then you have an accurate pair of speakers presenting vastly different sound qualities, based on all these variables.

Having a reasonably accurate speaker is better than not, but I don't think having the most accurate speaker, according to Harman scale or certain measurements, is in and of itself a recipe for having the best listening experience. My concern is the best listening experience, for me, in my environment. That is likely not the same as what would be the best experience, for you, in your environment.

The whole thing (finding the best equipment for an individual) seems to be incredibly complex. I don't think it can be explained fully by either extreme. The 'truth' is likely somewhere in the middle.

 

[Geert]

The whole thing (finding the best equipment for an individual) seems to be incredibly complex. I don't think it can be explained fully by either extreme. The 'truth' is likely somewhere in the middle.

This topic is not about what sounds best to people. The question at hand is can they prove they can hear differences between similar types of components they claim to hear.

 

[Digby]

This topic is not about what sounds best to people. The question at hand is can they prove they can hear differences between similar types of components they claim to hear.

True, it's an aside, but my point is that the binary definition only works at the extremes. I think in reality almost everyone is some mix of these two camps. There is significant overlap.

 

[Killingbeans]

Also, these should happen in person after the tester and subject have had a chance to get to know each other.

Why? In an ideal test those two people wouldn't be in the same room at any point.

 

[Newman]

I personally think you have it backward it doesn't answer the question

The question is “Why haven’t they met?”
The answer given is “Because sighted-listening subjectivists have not agreed to come to such meetings, even for big prize money.”

That is the answer to the question.

If you don’t think it answers the question, you haven’t understood the question.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

One campaign, is just too rigid on conditions.
The other . . . .
Well they know, they are right, no need for a meeting!

 

[SIY]

Tiefenbrun/Lipshitz is another.

The remarkably lame excuses for why ridiculous claims don't survive basic controls are universal, they're the same ones that faith-based audiophiles (and commercial hucksters) used 40 years ago, and sadly they're still being trotted out here as well.

It's simple: if you can't hear it without peeking, you can't hear it. If you can hear it without peeking, you can hear it.

Basic controls.

 

[solderdude]

It really seemed like GoldenSound had the right idea about how the test should be conducted

He even took delivery of an ABX test device over a year ago. No tests were publicly done. I assume he played with it and could not pass tests and continued with the subjective babble. This is what people expect from him (and Marv). The occasional test with the AP555 and a lot of 'how it sounds' comments

I don't think either of them will be doing a blind test with statistical relevance witnessed or controlled by someone that knows how it should be done.
It would be damaging to their reputations. Of course many excuses can be found to turn down such an invite.
(note: this is my opinion)

Besides... it isn't really needed because in the end audio is just a (very personal) hobby and people are free to believe and do what they want and spend their money every way they want as long as they not do harm to others.
Even write what they want/believe as long as you do not insult others and respect other opinions. No matter how wrong they are/seem to be.
One can argue that spreading 'misinformation' is harming others but in the end if someone chooses to believe gurus or others and spend their money on crap or placebo this is still their decision and their money. And ... placebo WORKS so there's that. More enjoyment could be worth money to an individual.

Disagreement is what the flaming wars are all about. Differences of opinion about facts and myths and what these are in their minds.
No matter what the subject is there are always people that believe/know the opposite of what others believe/know. That's life.

Do the right thing: Educate, give your opinion and explain and hope it makes the other think or act. If they ignore that... their decision.

 

[Digby]

It's simple: if you can't hear it without peeking, you can't hear it. If you can hear it without peeking, you can hear it.

Basic controls.

Is there a standard in these tests as to how long you listen to one set of equipment before switching, say 2 minutes or 3 minutes? I ask because sometimes when I've done non-blind comparisons, I've heard something over longer time spans (say 5-10 minutes) that I missed in shorter intervals. Difficult to tell whether this is more imagination than anything else though, in that if you're trying to notice difference, you/your brain will likely find it, whether it exists or not?