Post research here that casts doubt on ASR objectivism

[Jimbob54]

I understand that the point of this forum is to measure electronics and draw an objective conclusion regarding performance. However, I think that being predisposed to the belief that there are no audible differences between devices that measure similarly influences your perception of reality.

For those that have listened to a lot of gear and compared many systems in their own home, under normal listening conditions, many, or perhaps even most, I think would agree that they hear differences in sound. I don't think it's far fetched to make the suggestion that there is much more to our auditory perception than just hearing alone. It may be true that under certain conditions, such as hearing alone, one may be unable to discern the differences... but as I have stated, people do not typically listen to their systems under these rigid conditions.

This is all very well known and precisely the reason, when considering how components perform, every attempt is made to strip out those other factors that impact our auditory perception. Eyes, the marketing blurb, reviews, price etc. All impact. None affect how the devices themselves perform

 

[Andrew s]

I'm not seeing where I said no differences could be heard at all.

As @BDWoody pointed out, as yet, AFAIK, nobody has identified something that IS audible but can't be measured (see many, many other threads here).

I am not seeing where I said you did.

I said a) I thought you over restated the case. This was referring to you last point on so called snake oil tweaks. It depends on exactly what you mean. Changing a power supply can sometimes make a measurable difference. There is an example in one of the reviews on here. Isolation works on recorded players.

Then b) gave my view on how to proceed followed by an example in post #6.

Regards Andrew

 

[Leporello]

I appreciate your response and it is well received. However, I think that science can't currently explain everything that is going on in terms of our perception of reality.

What I am trying to get at is what we perceive through a controlled, proper double blind test, or whatever kind of test meets your criteria, is different than what we perceive when all of our faculties and biases are being employed in ordinary listening... since people do not enjoy their music in such a controlled way it is not of that much value other then to inform the basis for ones beliefs and shape their bias. Most members of this forum, audiophiles, and music lovers in general, are not in a position to authenticate, validate, or personally attest to these results through their own experience. They lack both the tools and technical expertise. They believe based on the work of others. This is, of course, all fine and there is nothing wrong with these beliefs. They are not better or worse than any other harmless beliefs.

What difference does it make whether what we perceive is the result of a device itself or our bias? For objectivists, I can say, sure, I can see how you might lean toward this point of view purely due to economics and the exorbitant prices of audio gear; however, for those whom money is of no concern, this point of view seems to be narrow and limited in its scope and experience and may even diminish ones ceiling for enjoyment of the hobby.

The topic does interest me which is why I am making an effort to challenge my understanding and hopefully learn something by interacting with it.

One may be unable to pick out a cable or device while being limited to only their hearing, but that doesn't mean that their perception of what they hear and their aural experience isn't heightened when they are able to employ all their faculties such as in normal listening. There may be more going on that we don't yet understand and we have no way to measure or test for it. You can't tell someone their experience is incorrect because they are unable to prove it using only one sense when we know that our perception of reality is determined by much more than hearing alone. It may very well be a combination of things, not just hearing, that allows people to perceive what they hear differently than others... imagination, bias, personal experience, etc... whatever the case may be, if it heightens your enjoyment and allows you to experience something that others deny the existence of... then, well, who is the real winner in this situation? The denier or the believer?

I think its the lack of humility and the audacity to claim scientific certainty that I find most off putting.

So - to summarize your position - are you suggesting that in a conventional blind test the participants' hearing acuity may be reduced compared to a sighted listening test where other senses are also employed? Is there some kind of evidence of this happening? If not, this seems to be yet another appeal to unknown possibilities.

 

[Deleted member 31910]

This is all very well known and precisely the reason, when considering how components perform, every attempt is made to strip out those other factors that impact our auditory perception. Eyes, the marketing blurb, reviews, price etc. All impact. None affect how the devices themselves perform

Yes, I understand, but why go through the trouble to replace all of that bias/belief with different biases/beliefs which can only be realized under extraordinary listening conditions? Is it purely to save money? What other motivation is there?

 

[Deleted member 31910]

So - to summarize your position - are you suggesting that in a conventional blind test the participants' hearing acuity may be reduced compared to a sighted listening test where other senses are also employed? Is there some kind of evidence of this happening? If not, this seems to be yet another appeal to unknown possibilities.

Do you disagree that auditory perception will vary from a conventional blind test compared to ordinary listening?

Not just sighted. Think about it in terms of science and what a controlled setting might mean... what kind of environment one might be in.. a foreign one.. maybe they are not comfortable, maybe they are distracted by the strange environment they are in, feeling pressure or stress, unable to fully relax, maybe they are unable to focus in on what they are hearing the same way they would be able to if they were in their own home, surrounded by familiar things, people, memories and nostalgia, and so many other potential factors! All of these things could affect their perception of what they are hearing and their auditory acuity.

Most audiophiles do their critical listening alone, when they are comfortable and relaxed... perhaps almost like a state of meditation.

 

[Jimbob54]

Yes, I understand, but why go through the trouble to replace all of that bias/belief with different biases/beliefs which can only be realized under extraordinary listening conditions? Is it purely to save money? What other motivation is there?

So, if I buy a £5000 amp that I like the look of, read great (subjective) reviews about I shouldn't care that it performs in every meaningful measurement worse than one at £500?

And if I buy both on a no quibble return policy, I keep the £5000 one because in sighted conditions I still think it is more magical, despite the fact if my eyes were shut I probably wouldn't be able to discern any difference?

That, my friend, is how the hifi business continues to exist in its current state. A blindfold costs £ but can save £££.

Now, if the look of the more expensive one is the only one you could live with in your room, fair enough, your money your choice. Just know you're paying £4.5k for that look, nothing else.

 

[Leporello]

Do you disagree that auditory perception will vary from a conventional blind test compared to ordinary listening?

I simply do not know. As far as I see it, you have made a claim that it may. Please provide the evidence supporting it.

The rest of your post simply repeats all the familiar objections to blind tests. Please provide the evidence supporting those objections without appealing to unknown possibilities.

 

[Leporello]

Yes, I understand, but why go through the trouble to replace all of that bias/belief with different biases/beliefs which can only be realized under extraordinary listening conditions? Is it purely to save money? What other motivation is there?

Your basic error is the idea that all beliefs - because they are just beliefs - are equally valuable. This of course is not true at all. Some beliefs are supported by evidence, some are not. Some are based on empirical testing, some are not.

 

[Deleted member 31910]

So, if I buy a £5000 amp that I like the look of, read great (subjective) reviews about I shouldn't care that it performs in every meaningful measurement worse than one at £500?

And if I buy both on a no quibble return policy, I keep the £5000 one because in sighted conditions I still think it is more magical, despite the fact if my eyes were shut I probably wouldn't be able to discern any difference?

That, my friend, is how the hifi business continues to exist in its current state. A blindfold costs £ but can save £££.

Now, if the look of the more expensive one is the only one you could live with in your room, fair enough, your money your choice. Just know you're paying £4.5k for that look, nothing else.

So, in other words, your only motivation is to save money. I suppose this underlying motivation does not in anyway influence your perception of reality.

Nobody is forcing anyone to buy anything that is not within their means financially.

 

[Andrew s]

Most audiophiles do their critical listening alone, when they are comfortable and relaxed... perhaps almost like a state of meditation.

There have been trials of this I.e. reviewed a leasure conditions but "blind" to the change and they were unable to do better than standard "blind" testing.

Regards Andrew

Regards Andrew

 

[Deleted member 31910]

Your basic error is the idea that all beliefs - because they are just beliefs - are equally valuable. This of course is not true at all. Some beliefs are supported by evidence, some are not. Some are based on empirical testing, some are not.

I don't believe that all beliefs are the same. However, if you take, for example, an objectivist and a subjectivist in terms of audio, what makes one approach/bias better or worse if they achieve similar results?

Not everything that humans perceive/experience can be supported by our current understanding or scientific evidence. Take for example functional diseases such as fibromyalgia or irritable bowel syndrome. I don't think many people would argue that what these people are experiencing doesn't exist because it cannot be supported by empirical testing.

 

[MBL'er]

I am amused by such fixation on money and prices.

 

[Jimbob54]

So, in other words, your only motivation is to save money. I suppose this underlying motivation does not in anyway influence your perception of reality.

Nobody is forcing anyone to buy anything that is not within their means financially.

No, my motivation is to get the best performance and features I need for my money. Which I would assume is the same for many on here.

I'm sure it alters my perception of reality. It does not, however, affect the signals that come out of a dac or amp or indeed the sound waves that come out of the transducers. Nor does any of the factors you're referring to. Nor does the quality of the alcohol I consume when listening, but it does have an impact on my perception.

And this really is a very well trodden path on here so perhaps either post some evidence on this thread or take up your stance here..... https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ngs-that-cannot-be-measured.20808/post-688995

 

[Unground]

Yes, I understand, but why go through the trouble to replace all of that bias/belief with different biases/beliefs which can only be realized under extraordinary listening conditions? Is it purely to save money? What other motivation is there?

From what I've read, a good many on here are fine with people spending their money on whatever kit they like and gaining enjoyment from it. The issue is when marketing claims from manufacturers are not substantiated with facts.

If I buy a roll of wallpaper for £800 because I like the way it looks and it makes me feel good, then nobody can say I'm wrong for buying it, nor can anyone fault the manufacturer for selling it. But if the manufacturer claims the wallpaper costs £800 because it will make my wall stronger, that needs to be tested in a controlled fashion.

And if said manufacturer or its advocates proceed to claim that the wallpaper is making the wall stronger in energy forms that cannot be tested using current knowledge, and that structural engineering knowledge is not relevant, then we have a problem.

If we don't know the difference between objective facts and subjective feelings, then we rapidly descend into the world of crystal healing and reptilian overlords. In other words, we're all in trouble.

Sadly, audio manufacturers seem to mix these things all the time, dressing subjective feelings as objective facts, often with language that appeals to 'what sounds right'. Humans did this routinely a few hundred years ago, and as a result we burned witches and sought the future in chicken entrails and many other such things. Lots of things sound right. Doesn't mean they are. That needs testing.

I like my wallpaper. But it doesn't make my wall stronger.

 

[Leporello]

I don't believe that all beliefs are the same. However, if you take, for example, an objectivist and a subjectivist in terms of audio, what makes one approach/bias better or worse if they achieve similar results?

Not everything that humans perceive/experience can be supported by our current understanding or scientific evidence. Take for example functional diseases such as fibromyalgia or irritable bowel syndrome. I don't think many people would argue that what these people are experiencing doesn't exist because it cannot be supported by empirical testing.

No one has denied the experience of those symptoms, just as no one has denied the experience of differences between different pieces of hifi.

Please provide the evidence to support your claims without appealing to unknown possibilities.

 

[Deleted member 31910]

No, my motivation is to get the best performance and features I need for my money. Which I would assume is the same for many on here.

I'm sure it alters my perception of reality. It does not, however, affect the signals that come out of a dac or amp or indeed the sound waves that come out of the transducers. Nor does any of the factors you're referring to. Nor does the quality of the alcohol I consume when listening, but it does have an impact on my perception.

And this really is a very well trodden path on here so perhaps either post some evidence on this thread or take up your stance here..... https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ngs-that-cannot-be-measured.20808/post-688995

My goal is also to achieve the best experience I can for my money. This is a very subjective thing, however, as some people will value different things in their systems and will come from different economic backgrounds and perspectives.

I was not aware of that other thread, maybe I will peruse..

 

[Deleted member 31910]

No one has denied the experience of those symptoms, just as no one has denied the experience of differences between different pieces of hifi.

Please provide the evidence to support your claims without appealing to unknown possibilities.

If it wasn't already exceedingly obvious, I have no evidence to support my claims -- I'm not really aware of any of my claims. What are my claims specifically? I question things, and I think things, and I enjoy the discussion, but I don't think I am telling anyone they are right or they are wrong... maybe I did, I don't know, I am sure you will remind me if I did.

 

[DSJR]

Where audio gear is concerned, I really do think audiophiles over-estimate our human hearing (I was once told our brains' processing can be up to 70 odd percent visual). Take away the visual and tactile senses and they're usually pretty screwed if asked to compare. Until they've had that done to them, this entire magical subjective shit will continue to go round and round.

A tiny UK manufacturer told me once his prices (very high in the UK market and increasing) were done to give his products cachet in the far eastern markets, where price tags dictate quality (a $12000 phono stage is automatically judged 'better' even if a $3000 one out-performs it and looks as good). It's been discussed here before, but I believe it's real. Why else do Naim sell their Statement pre and mono's at £179,000 - and they do indeed, even here!

 

[Deleted member 31910]

Sadly, audio manufacturers seem to mix these things all the time, dressing subjective feelings as objective facts, often with language that appeals to 'what sounds right'. Humans did this routinely a few hundred years ago, and as a result we burned witches and sought the future in chicken entrails and many other such things. Lots of things sound right. Doesn't mean they are. That needs testing.
.

I think this can be said about any time period though... as human perception, collective knowledge, scientific understanding, etc is something that changes and evolves over time. We can look back in retrospect and think, how could those barbarians do such awful things, but people will look back at us and think the same thing about our current cultural practices and crude understanding of science. It doesn't really change our perception of what we believe to be true and real.

 

[KSTR]

They didn't properly monitor their analog stream a1

Usually the signals go into digital domain right in the "mic-preamp".
The real problem is too aggressive (too fast) brickwall limiting without intermediate upsampling. In a stream of silence, two adjacent "legal" magnitude 1.0 (+32767 or -32768 for 16bit) samples in a stream of zeros (or low level signal) will produce a ~2dB intersample over in the DAC.