Post research here that casts doubt on ASR objectivism

[solderdude]

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?

Truth finding ?
relation finding between perceived (without knowing what is used) sound and measured aspects.

You cannot do this on sighted subjective findings as they also include other biases.

You should not confuse technical performance with personal preference. You seek the latter. This is fine and is what 99% of audiophiles do and makes the most sense from an 'lets enjoy music reproduction' standpoint.
This, however, has nothing to do with technical performance and signal fidelity. This is what ASR is all about. For the Electronics realm this can be done accurately, for transducers it is more difficult/inconclusive to accurately measure and interpret. Certainly when room effects have to be taken into account. Add to that personal preference, hearing and perception and finding correlation is problematic to say the least.
At least this is not the case with electronics, that is, when correct tests and test methods are used and all aspects are taken into consideration.

Things a review also cannot show is different conditions between users, longevity issues, some 'hidden' faults etc.
The latter ones also cannot be shown with subjective evaluations only.

 

[Unground]

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.

I get what you mean, but I think you're making the point. Perception is one thing, measurable fact is another. We can learn to measure something with greater precision, we can find new explanations for physical phenomena, but that doesn't change the fact that some things are proven evidentially, and that's it. If we move outside of that, it's time to get the crystals out. I guess the point is that some people seem to assume that because they don't understand something, that means that the thing is not understood.

 

[audio2design]

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.

No, this is not a knowledge / time period thing. This is effectively lying but getting away with it because the market is small and the consequences are not dangerous. We know their statements are false today. However the ego of audiophiles to believe they are special allows them to accept these wild claims because it furthers them being special.

 

[audio2design]

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.

The problem would be only detecting saturation in the digital domain and not in the analog domain where it needs to be done. If you have two adjacent +1 in a stream of silence then you had an analog signal well beyond the analog input range.

 

[artburda]

No, this is not a knowledge / time period thing. This is effectively lying but getting away with it because the market is small and the consequences are not dangerous. We know their statements are false today.

That‘s exactly the point. In order to be able to design something with certain specs and feature you would at least in this manufacturing step have to do controlled testings, to know that what you are producing is actually up to spec. However, these manifacturers make claims that we know to be untrue, because if there is no method of testing for it, then how the f*** can they know that they are producing it?

 

[Deleted member 31910]

I get what you mean, but I think you're making the point. Perception is one thing, measurable fact is another. We can learn to measure something with greater precision, we can find new explanations for physical phenomena, but that doesn't change the fact that some things are proven evidentially, and that's it. If we move outside of that, it's time to get the crystals out. I guess the point is that some people seem to assume that because they don't understand something, that means that the thing is not understood.

I don't claim to understand really any of this, especially in terms of measurements and what that relates to in terms of audio reproduction. I've spent all my time collecting pieces of gear based on the impressions of others that fall within my budget. I've never bought anything based on how it measures and have only recently discovered this forum. I suspect for many people who enjoy audio they are coming from a similar background.

I guess I consider myself somewhere in between objectivist/subjectivist... probably leaning more toward objectivist simply because I cannot afford any true hi fi gear. Most everything I own is from the 80s and 90s aside from the two DACs I have purchased. I did recently purchase a new, modern preamp that supposedly measures well and I found it personally to be subpar compared to my 1980s preamp. All I can go on is my personal experience. I notice big changes between speakers -- less but still noticeable are the changes between preamps and digital sources -- amps, as I state above, I mostly notice in terms of woofer control and listening fatigue. Since I have never owned any new audiophile hi fi gear I can't comment on how it sounds but my experience makes me believe it likely sounds very good... I can only assume that the hi end gear I own from the 80s and 90s, which I believe sounds very good, would likely be improved upon through advancements in the past 30-40 years.

So far my experience, limited as it may be, tells me that just because something measures well doesn't guarantee it will sound better to my ears.

 

[BDWoody]

@danadam it doesn't matter that they can't prove they can hear a difference. What matters is their perception of the world which is a highly subjective experience.

It matters here, because we care about the raw performance, unmitigated by error prone human perception. We try to separate repeatable, supported claims from those that aren't. It doesn't mean people can't like whatever they want to...preference isn't right or wrong.

I don't claim to understand really any of this, especially in terms of measurements and what that relates to in terms of audio reproduction.

Well, you are at the right place to learn! Many of us came from a similar place, and understanding much of what matters isn't hard, but does require a bit of effort.

Doing a properly controlled comparison is also a hassle, no doubt, but it's worth trying one. My audio life is divided into two segments...the time before I did one, and the time after I did one.

Incredibly humbling, but it totally eliminated my susceptibility to the absolute bullshit that pervades too much of the 'High End' audio world.

 

[SIY]

If you can hear something without peeking, you can actually hear it. If you need to peek to hear something, you don't actually hear it.

Basic controls are basic.

Why is this complicated?

 

[Mart68]

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.

How many people actually have an unlimited amount of money to spend on audio equipment? I think it is safe to say that would be less than 0.00000001% of audio enthusiasts. Everyone else, even if they have six figures to spend, wants to get maximum value for their money.

There's also the matter of where to apportion the budget. Understanding what matters and what doesn't is vital in that respect.

We are in a hobby where there are products that demonstrably have no effect but can cost a lot of money. You are arguing that for some people the placebo alone makes that spend worthwhile but the problem with that is that placebo effect will not apply to all equally, since it has no basis in reality. Even if it does apply to some it will only apply sometimes, it will not be consistent.

On the other hand spending the money on, say. better engineered speakers, will make a real difference, one that is consistent over time and across all people.

This is not the same thing as 'saving money'. It's about obtaining optimum results for any given budget.

Would anyone, if questioned, say that they don't want to achieve optimum results? In any aspect of life?

 

[BluesDaddy]

@mistermuddles appears to be a distillation of every subjectivist argument one encounters on 99% of audio related forums and groups. I'm not sure that he is not, starting with his User ID, a very subtle and imaginative troll. If concrete reality is immaterial to perceptual experience, then why not simply take hallucinogens whenever listening to music? And reliance upon the placebo effect to improve the audio experience (or any experience for that matter) is no better than the charlatan "faith healers" and televangelist who promise healing to those who will "only believe". It is the very definition of being a con artist and abusive.

Also, over the years what has dawned on me, and why audiophools seem so adverse to the concept of Benefit Cost Ratio - it is because they are not really music lovers first, but they are gear collectors. They don't listen to music, they listen to their "systems" and they don't put together a system to enjoy the music (though they may tell themselves they do) but because they love the gear itself. Like a car collector who can't actually drive all the cars he owns, it's not about the driving but about the THING itself. And collectors really don't care about the cost of something as long as they can afford it and get it. I'm on a number of groups where people brag regarding having not just every release an artist has put out, but every PRESSING of each release as well. Arguments ensue on what pressing is "critical" to own and which sound the best. It's not about the music, but about owning something. It is, perhaps, a relatively benign form of OCD though it can become far less benign when people start spending money they don't have in the pursuit of their "hobby".

 

[Dialectic]

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.

I am amused by such fixation on money and prices.

I'm bewildered that some think it's fine for companies to sell--at crazy prices--things that do not do what they say they do. I know we have some longstanding ASR contributors who say we should let adults spend their money however they want.

But would they really want to spend their money on poorly engineered and outrageously expensive devices with phony specifications? I don't think so. Most people want to make reasonably informed decisions.

Admittedly, the placebo effect is countervailing factor: If I think my expensive stuff sounds better, then, yes, it will, to me, in a sighted test. In most domains, however, we do not rely on the placebo effect to select among different alternatives. And the benefit of placebo effect goes away when you know that you're taking a sugar pill or listening to an amplifier that is a distortion generator.

I know a person with school age children who has been in and out of serious financial trouble over the last several years. Found out just last week that he is an audiophile who has six figures worth of stuff recommended by the audiophile rags. (I'm not going to be the person who breaks it to him that ASR exists.) If he had known better, I think he would have made different choices.

 

[mansr]

I am amused by such fixation on money and prices.

I thought veils would only lift in fairy tales
Meant for golden ears, but not for me
PRAT was out to get me
That's the way it seemed
Disappointment haunted all my streams

Then I saw its price, now I'm a believer
Not a trace of doubt in my mind
...

 

[SimpleTheater]

Apply your statement to the science of food tasting.or wine tasting and tell us your viewpoint is valid.

I think this gets to the point very succinctly. For years California wines were looked down on in wine circles, until the blind tasting events revealed they were some of the best in the world.

Sadly, the same goes for audio - and I'm not just talking about equipment. How many men/women have beautiful voices but don't have the "face" to be given contracts?

 

[JSmith]

...

I'm in veils,

I'm a believer
I couldn't leave it if I tried

I thought gear was more or less a givin' thing
Seems the more I spent the less I got
What's the use in listening?
All you get is gain
When I needed music I got gear

Then I saw its price, now I'm a believer
Not a trace of doubt in my mind
...



JSmith

 

[SimpleTheater]

@danadam it doesn't matter that they can't prove they can hear a difference. What matters is their perception of the world which is a highly subjective experience.

My biggest issue with subjective perception is NOT what some person thinks about an over-priced piece of gear in their own home. My biggest issue are REVIEWERS who use subjective criteria to explain why that over-priced gear is the greatest available gear.

So the guy who enjoys some questionable quality amplifier and enjoys it in his own home because he just had two glasses of wine and a beautiful date on his arm, doesn't bother me. But if that guy is a reviewer, and is about to post his audiophile article about that amp after doing a line of coke, well, lets just say I'd like that disclosed so I can replicate his subjective review in my own home.

 

[Newman]

This is the place you can submit any research you have the might cause us to reject these null hypotheses.

Has anyone spotted a single reply that complies with the OP’s request, so far?

Excluding sarcasm and higher forms of humour?

 

[JSmith]

Has anyone spotted a single reply that complies with the OP’s request, so far?

Well tbh I felt post #10 covered it;

Those statements do not belong to this forum or any other brand or entity, they are general statements describing basic principles that are all known and proven.

"It is known."

JSmith

 

[KSTR]

The problem would be only detecting saturation in the digital domain and not in the analog domain where it needs to be done. If you have two adjacent +1 in a stream of silence then you had an analog signal well beyond the analog input range.

No. It happens during digital processing, with any analog signal being perfectly fine. Often, there never was an analog signal to begin with (Synth output, processed samples etc etc).

 

[ahofer]

Well tbh I felt post #10 covered it;

Yeah, but not for everyone who comes to the site. Between this and the "catalogue of blind tests" post, I was hoping to create a place to send new subjectivist visitors.

ALSO, I sort of hope someone comes up with something. It would make the dialogue less repetitive and more interesting.

 

[ahofer]

Edited again to take into account some of the comments. Thank you.