Amir vs. Abyss: The Battle We Need

[Sukie]

I am sorry, but you continue to make my point, and I do not want to make you feel defensive by examining your motivations. Apologies if I did so, but this next bit may really make you uncomfortable. My motives for continuing this exchange are simply to highlight exactly what I was trying to explain.

You instantly responded in the ASR standard way - double blind or abx or peer review - then no more debate (thinking) is possible unless these criteria are met, and everything I say which follows can easily be discounted or ignored or mocked.

How did you determine that I was being genuine with the example about the amps? Rather than just using the example in the making of a point!? What I mean is that you read my post then had a thought, then posted your response, but the basis for your whole post is built on the idea that my testing was subjective and flawed. At no point did you see the example I used in the context of the idea I was trying to communicate about dogma. In other words regardless of an opportunity to think critically, the bits that resonated with you were the flaws in my example and the need to set me straight.

Now I did not saying either way what my motivations were for using that example in my first post - but you had already decided - and continued despite the opportunity to rethink!

Sorry, I thought you were making a point about blind testing amps rather some general exercise in philosophical condescion.

If you're not interested in evidence (the one thing that will allay my healthy scepticism), then there's not much more to say.

 

[solderdude]

Hey all, new user and new almost-audiophile here.

I'm a skeptically-distanced fan of Abyss. I love their videos. I like the family. They seem smart, knowledgable, and—most importantly—honest. I'm also somewhat biased since I have their AB 1266 TC headphones, and one of their super-expensive cables for it (paired with a Bartók, if anyone cares).

Anyway, like a few weeks ago I was thinking about trying to rig up some way of measuring high-res and low-res files on a graph, like to see objectively where there were frequency differences. I read a lot, and I MASSIVELY distrust my own ears and brain. Placebo effect is strong enough to be measured as a REAL effect. It's crazy.

Abyss thinks every single thing matters to sound quality, and they talk for hours about this. Amir thinks (mostly) that only the measurements matter.

So who wants to see Amir sit down with those three in a discussion, with some equipment, and just talk it through. WITH DATA. And even if the data show that there's no difference, but we can get a large number of people (audiophiles or not) saying they can tell a difference in this vs. that, then maybe we start looking for what is producing that impression?

You know, like science!

For example, wouldn't it be crazy if we could isolate 1) the actual objective differences in stuff, and 2) non-machine-measurable differences in perception that come from X, Y, or Z variables?

In other words, if I get a placebo bump from X, which costs $4 dollars—and it sounds as good as spending $16,400 on speakers. Amazing, I'm buying that placebo.

I think a lot of people underestimate the effect of human psychology in this whole audio game. People might actually have better experiences due to a massive psychological filter of having put 300 hours of effort into their system. Like an ACTUAL better experience, which we'd be able to measure if we lived in the future and had tons of FMRI data.

Anyway, just throwing the idea out there. If we have two smart entities, who we assume are acting in good faith, let's get them connected!

I know this sport can have a lot of religious hate, but I'm confident that we can push past that in search of truth. Call me an optimist.

SO. HOW CAN WE MAKE THIS HAPPEN?

I don't think this can be made to happen. It's like trying to get Nancy Pelosi and Trump to debate some sensitive topics and get one of them to admit they are wrong. It's like getting religious fanatics of 2 different religions to have a friendly debate.

There is no way one can get folks with opposing views to agree.

So then I find Amir. Like literally last night. And I watch like hours of his stuff. Read tons on this forum, etc. And after a year of study in this field, I see some clear sides.

That year of study is starting from finding Amir's videos last night so 1 night of study ?

Abyss thinks every single thing matters to sound quality, and they talk for hours about this. Amir thinks (mostly) that only the measurements matter.

When one measures cables one can always find measurable differences. All amps, DACs, speakers, headphones, vinyl carts, mics, rooms, and even hearing measures differently. So measurements matter as they show differences that may or may not be reaching audible limits.

Then we can differentiate between acoustical and electrical domain.

We can say measurements are all that matter and look at only 1 or a few that the measurebator finds important or makes acc. to some standards (official or not) to level a playing field. That may NOT be all measurements that are needed to fully characterize the device(s) under test.

There is interaction between the electronics realm and transducer realm. This often is not measured because of the HUGE amount of possible combinations having different interactions.

Then there is production spread. devices having not obvious defects. Acoustics differ between home and test circumstances. For headphones there are differences between the HATS and practical usage that can differ many, many audible dB's. Then there are tests that weren't done but might have needed to be done.

Then we have hearing, acoustics, perception, preference, biasses (various), unconscious and conscious processes in the brain, training, different recordings, different ways of listening. literally tons of variables that may be measurable or roughly quantifiable and some of them are also time of day dependent or on other psychological aspects. There is a belief that formed due to experiences. That may differ due to different 'techniques' used.


There you have the tons of reasons why measurements matter. Not all measurements may have been done. Not all measurements may have been done correctly. Measurements (an entire suite not just one or too) need to be interpreted correctly. On top of that one needs to fully understand what each measurement can and cannot show and the link between the measurement results.
One has to understand about levels, perception, hearing thresholds, and tons of experience in this field.
On top of that one also has to explain test results and make them understandable to interested parties.

Measurements matter. Hearing and preference matters. Audio 'religion' matters. Enjoyment matters. The wallet matters. Where one likes to emphasize their own importance matters.

There is no right or wrong here. There are points of view and how one is going about to achieve a goal that differs. Knowledge differs. Experiences differ.

The differences are too big, egos are too big to form any consensus or appoint clear winners on certain points while keeping things civil.

I say... everyone does their thing and be happy.. leave well enough alone.
Only when 'opposing' parties are both committed to search for 'the ultimate' truth and have this as the ultimate goal and are fully open and desire dialog without making someone else look bad or wrong there could be some agreements on some specific aspects.
The chances of this happening are astronomically small.

In my opinion the investigative measurebators have more 'truth' on their hand. The audiophools with copious amounts of money at their disposal only have that... money. It can buy you some great things. Illusion or not, everything that increases enjoyment simply does that.

And then there also is the 'pride of ownership' and 'knowing you own something terrific acc. to (fill in famous person(s))' effect.

Enjoyment can be found in many ways.
Measurements only matter if you understand them all... fully.

 

[abdo123]

I really advice you to start a new thread for purchase advice.

clearly describe your budget, your room size, how reflective your room is and what features are you're looking for in your build.

Then me and other members will be more than happy to offer advice.

Try to perceive the measurements of electronics on this forum as a way to compare the performance of electronics in a standardized fashion. it's very easy to tell whether electronics are behaving the way they should be or not. This is not limited to audio.

As for headphones and Speakers, you really have to find what YOU prefer, not some random (or famous) person on Youtube preferes. Once you know what you prefer, pick Speakers that measure similarly.

For example, The Harman headphone target curve is perfect for me, While the Harman in-room (speakers) target curve is way too much bass for me. on the other hand, I found the Dirac target curve to be just right in that case.

You need to go and do that journey by yourself, and buy what YOU like.

 

[Coach_Kaarlo]

Sorry, I thought you were making a point about blind testing amps rather some general exercise in philosophical condescion.

If you're not interested in evidence (the one thing that will allay my healthy scepticism), then there's not much more to say.

Condescension. Sorry for that but it was necessary.


Well if you are / were genuinely interested.....

Waiting for some more fine weather to record some audio of each setup to share on here and see what the poll says - who can hear and who cannot.

 

[Maki]

Audiophile internet bloodsports? I'm down.

 

[KSTR]

So who wants to see Amir sit down with those three in a discussion, with some equipment, and just talk it through. WITH DATA. And even if the data show that there's no difference, but we can get a large number of people (audiophiles or not) saying they can tell a difference in this vs. that, then maybe we start looking for what is producing that impression?

It's actually quite simple:

• Sighted listening impressions are not facts of hearing, they are just facts of perception valid for the given individual and the given situation and are influenced by pretty much anything, with the actual signal at the eardrums being rather low on the list. Anecdotal evidence.
• To get to hearing facts, those impressions must be validated in rigorous blind tests which strive to eliminate or greatly reduce any influence from anything else than eardrum signals. Blind test does not automatically mean fast A/B-switching, or any form of stressing "exam" situation the listener finds himself/herself in, etc. That's a part most sceptics get wrong.
• Once we have those hearing facts we can and will always be able to find and isolate the difference in the signal which dominantly caused the difference in those 'certified' listening impressions. Some prerequisites must be met, notably that the measurement setup is the listening setup so that no further variables/unknowns are introduced. The resolution of today's differential test methods has skyrocketed way way beyond any reasonable thresholds of hearing by many orders of magnitude. So if there is anything out there, we can find it.

For an example how deep we can dig in today with differential testing look here. Differential testing is well suited to examine problems with only a few variables changing just a little bit... like when comparing cables...

 

[Sukie]

Well if you are / were genuinely interested.....

Waiting for some more fine weather to record some audio of each setup to share on here and see what the poll says - who can hear and who cannot.

I am genuinely interested

I understand that you think I'm manifesting the "ASR way", but that isn't the case. For me this isn't a matter of dogma, it's about a rationally constructed method of truth-testing. If you can hear the difference between 2 amplifiers, then that's great. That is true. That is your experience. For it to be objectively true then this truth needs to exists outside of your subjective experience. Double blind testing isn't blind dogma, it's a tried and tested scientific method used to uncover to location of the difference that a person might experience. If you experience subjective differentiation and then can replicate this under blind conditions then there may be an objective verifiable reason as to why this occurs.

Now, if said double blind testing is undertaken, for it to have the type of validity that I mention above, one's methodology needs to be scrutinised. What equipment was used? Did you volume match? What equipment did you use to volume match? Again, this is not blind dogma, but tried and tested scientific methodology involving experiment control.

Unfortunately recording your set up and posting it for a poll wouldn't meet this methodology. I can't help but think that you already know that and are perhaps being deliberately provocative. But, of course, I might be wrong.

 

[Phorize]

Ok since the OP seems genuine, an Intelligence Squared debate between Subjectivists and Objectivists would be pretty cool to gain more exposure in the public domain. Amir, Sean Olive, & Floyd Toole vs. Paul Mcgowan, a rep from Audioquest, & a rep from Abyss. How would be the topic of debate be framed? Something like, Measurements predict sound quality better than our ears.

Loser walks the plank.

It is well illustrated that the debate format is an appalling route to understanding complex problems, respective positions and especially in building consensus-its does provide an excellent platform for cranks and charlatans to trumpet their insane beliefs again and again though. Mutually appreciative discussions are more fruitful, expose areas of interest/substance and weaknesses/virtues of positions. This mode is unpopular because people mostly want to have a pre existing view or intuition reinforced. There’s a reason why it’s usual for 100% of the audience to walk away heralding a win for their ‘side’, their views utterly unchanged. Now in would interested in seeing the sort of thing that Sam Harris does, basically a discussion with some one of a different view, or just expertise in an area. He usually has no success in meeting in the middle with zealots mind you.

 

[Eetu]

- dCS Vivaldi DAC
- Dan D'Agostino Progression Pre-Amp
- Dan D'Agostino Progression Stereo Amp
- Focal Sopra No. 2 Speakers

Your room (including where speakers are placed & where your listening position is) has a huge impact on sound quality. I recommend a few things to minimize the harmful effects: optimal placement, digital room correction, some room treatment and dual or more subs.

So I'd put money on that if you'd replace the dCS & D'Agostinos with miniDSP SHD (or similar solution) and a reasonably priced power amp (Purifi, NC1200, AHB2) and used DRC along with 2 subs it would be no competition.

And if you compare the Stereophile measurements of a D'Agostino amp to something with great engineering you may realize that the money would be better spent elsewhere.

 

[Easternlethal]

Say we take 2 pieces of equipment. Measure them and we get the differences.

Then we have a double blind test. Both can tell the difference and Person A says he prefers one and Person B says he prefers the other. Or both fail and can't tell.

So we know 1) each equipment produces different sounds and 2a) person A likes one and person B likes the other or 2b) neither can tell.

What are we arguing about again?

 

[abdo123]

Say we take 2 pieces of equipment. Measure them and we get the differences.

Then we have a double blind test. Both can tell the difference and Person A says he prefers one and Person B says he prefers the other. Or both fail and can't tell.

So we know 1) each equipment produces different sounds and 2a) person A likes one and person B likes the other or 2b) neither can tell.

What are we arguing about again?

we are arguing that people are coming up with these outcomes without doing double blind tests.

 

[Purité Audio]

Once you have established there is a difference between components, then you are allowed to choose your preference.
Keith

 

[Jimbob54]

Once you have established there is a difference between components, then you are allowed to choose your preference.
Keith

That spoils the fun though of buying new things and coming online and telling people how good and life changing they are.

 

[pma]

Ok since the OP seems genuine, an Intelligence Squared debate between Subjectivists and Objectivists would be pretty cool to gain more exposure in the public domain. Amir, Sean Olive, & Floyd Toole vs. Paul Mcgowan, a rep from Audioquest, & a rep from Abyss. How would be the topic of debate be framed? Something like, Measurements predict sound quality better than our ears.

Loser walks the plank.

I think the biggest problem is the polarity. There are good points at both sides of the barrier, only that it is not simple and cannot be oversimplified to get some understanding.

 

[Koeitje]

Ok since the OP seems genuine, an Intelligence Squared debate between Subjectivists and Objectivists would be pretty cool to gain more exposure in the public domain. Amir, Sean Olive, & Floyd Toole vs. Paul Mcgowan, a rep from Audioquest, & a rep from Abyss. How would be the topic of debate be framed? Something like, Measurements predict sound quality better than our ears.

Loser walks the plank.

That's like having a discussion between immunologists and anti-vaxxers. Not worth your time. Your time is better spend on convincing those who haven't made up their minds yet.

 

[solderdude]

I think the biggest problem is the polarity. There are good points at both sides of the barrier, only that it is not simple and cannot be oversimplified to get some understanding.

There are people living far away from the barrier (polarized) and some closer to the barrier.
Some even cross the barrier regularly depending on the points made. This compounds the matter. How far one is positioned on which barrier.
Needless to say those that are pretty polarized and thus residing far from the barrier may not see eye to eye easily.
To make it worse they themselves might not see themselves that way.
Complicated matter.

 

[Jimbob54]

I am genuinely interested

I understand that you think I'm manifesting the "ASR way", but that isn't the case. For me this isn't a matter of dogma, it's about a rationally constructed method of truth-testing. If you can hear the difference between 2 amplifiers, then that's great. That is true. That is your experience. For it to be objectively true then this truth needs to exists outside of your subjective experience. Double blind testing isn't blind dogma, it's a tried and tested scientific method used to uncover to location of the difference that a person might experience. If you experience subjective differentiation and then can replicate this under blind conditions then there may be an objective verifiable reason as to why this occurs.

Now, if said double blind testing is undertaken, for it to have the type of validity that I mention above, one's methodology needs to be scrutinised. What equipment was used? Did you volume match? What equipment did you use to volume match? Again, this is not blind dogma, but tried and tested scientific methodology involving experiment control.

Unfortunately recording your set up and posting it for a poll wouldn't meet this methodology. I can't help but think that you already know that and are perhaps being deliberately provocative. But, of course, I might be wrong.

He just wants someone to say that he was right after all. And a hug.

https://imgur.com/7H1uenf

 

[danielmiessler]

So, question about everyone recommending these Genelec Active solutions:

Aren't these monitors rather than loudspeakers? Are we saying in this forum that the flattest (truest) sound is best, so let DSP and room correction and all this tech make it as flat as possible?

Essentially beating the audiophile types at their game by doubling down on truth.

Is that the approach here?

 

[Jimbob54]

So, question about everyone recommending these Genelec Active solutions:

Aren't these monitors rather than loudspeakers? Are we saying in this forum that the flattest (truest) sound is best, so let DSP and room correction and all this tech make it as flat as possible?

Essentially beating the audiophile types at their game by doubling down on truth.

Is that the approach here?

For those that have or aspire to that kind of solution, yes. DSP and room correction pretty much essential for all transducers here, regardless of type. Even headphones.

I dont think its about beating anybody- just getting the best out of what you have . Do you not agree?

 

[JustJones]

So, question about everyone recommending these Genelec Active solutions:

Aren't these monitors rather than loudspeakers? Are we saying in this forum that the flattest (truest) sound is best, so let DSP and room correction and all this tech make it as flat as possible?

Essentially beating the audiophile types at their game by doubling down on truth.

Is that the approach here?

I believe monitors are loudspeakers.
Flat FR in the listening window is preferred by me but a house curve for 20hz-20khz.
DSP and room correction helps with getting my subjective preference in my room and is an invaluable tool for achieving that which isn't necessarily flat.
I have no idea about beating anyone just trying to get the best sound reproduction.