What to do about the ABX test?

[lashto]

... It is 100x easier to write and publish pointless posts.

I have ~700 posts and ~0 DBTs. Living proof

 

[Killingbeans]

How about a bit more 'fairness' !?

Finding the most diplomatic amount of lenience is not straight-forward when it comes to this hobby. There's always an avalanche of horseshit waiting to be released.

I try to give points for effort, but most of the time the feeling of 'not-this-s##t-again' has drained me too much to have the mental surplus.

 

[Sokel]

Finding the most diplomatic amount of lenience is not straight-forward when it comes to this hobby. There's always an avalanche of horseshit waiting to be released.

I try to give points for effort, but most of the time the feeling of 'not-this-s##t-again' has drained me too much to have the mental surplus.

If a forum wants to make a difference measurements only will not enough.
What WILL make a difference is breaking the never ending pattern of "us" and "them".

I know that alliances like that make a strong community.But it will be a small community if it do it the old way "I'm more right than you" despite proofs.
People like to belong,like to get credit for their efforts,like to be part of something.The time that the stick appears they will run back to their comfort.
Truth is a strange thing,can be used to make things better,can be used as a weapon,can be used as a shelter which is the worst way to be used.

We praise science here,but what is the most valuable thing about science is doubt and curiosity,move forward,innovate.
The general feeling of the first timer here is that he's under investigation."Are you with us or the others?"
We are sticking on 5-10 papers (respectable in any way) and we blindly follow.I'm sure the authors of the papers followed a very different route,they doubted things,they tried,they failed and tried again until they gave us this knowledge. If we had them in a close minded forum as members before they publish they would probably get the stick too.

Open mind people,this moves us forward.

 

[lashto]

Finding the most diplomatic amount of lenience is not straight-forward when it comes to this hobby. There's always an avalanche of horseshit waiting to be released.

I try to give points for effort, but most of the time the feeling of 'not-this-s##t-again' has drained me too much to have the mental surplus.

well, none of us is a saint or some monument of patience. But those 'facepalms' can only (exponentially) increase the noise

P.S.
looks to me that you have a lot more of those 'posts', but we are both little children. Maybe a staff member can tell us who are the true champions of 'posts'

 

[Blumlein 88]

I heard it said there are three sides to every argument. Yours, mine and the truth.

Here is a short article by a negotiator from some TED talks. Slightly different idea than the above sentence, but he talks about the third side of arguments. You need to get to the third side to get anywhere when people have different world views. Not sure how we can apply it to the disdain for blind testing expressed by some, or the excessive faith in the infallibility of subjective listening, but maybe some food for thought to shake loose some ideas.

There are three sides to every argument

We can all play a role in helping defuse even the most bitter conflicts. Veteran negotiator William Ury shares his hard-won insights.

ideas.ted.com

 

[Blumlein 88]

well, none of us is a saint or some monument of patience. But those 'facepalms' can only (exponentially) increase the noise

P.S.
looks to me that you have a lot more of those 'posts', but I am quite sure that we are both 'little children'. Maybe a staff member can tell who are the true champions of 'posts'

I get drained by some repeated ignorance. Not meant pejoratively, but rather descriptively. One that bugs me in the face palm kind of way is the old idea timing of digital audio is no finer than the time between samples. Now this is an unequivocal ignorance (again just not knowing how something works) about digital audio. I've posted examples from software, I've posted examples from actually taking real gear and running real signals thru real wire to show it is wrong, and I've posted the Monty Montgomery video and it isn't enough. At which point I will sometimes ask what kind of evidence would convince you?

A similar situation which is less common, but where people don't believe you can record and recover signals below the -96 db level with dithered 16 bit audio.

 

[voodooless]

One that bugs me in the face palm kind of way is the old idea timing of digital audio is no finer than the time between samples. Now this is an unequivocal ignorance (again just not knowing how something works) about digital audio. I've posted examples from software, I've posted examples from actually taking real gear and running real signals thru real wire to show it is wrong, and I've posted the Monty Montgomery video and it isn't enough. At which point I will sometimes ask what kind of evidence would convince you?

And what is the general answer to that question? It is a very good question to ask in general. It tells you something about the mindset and gives you some pointers on how to approach the conversation.

I heard it said there are three sides to every argument. Yours, mine and the truth.

These negotiations that are talked about in the article are about finding a compromise. In this case, though, there is even mathematical proof that you are right. Why would a compromise be acceptable? So I think this will not work. It may be in some cases, but not in this one.

 

[Blumlein 88]

These negotiations that are talked about in the article are about finding a compromise. In this case, though, there is even mathematical proof that you are right. Why would a compromise be acceptable? So I think this will not work. It may be in some cases, but not in this one.

Well spoken like a true believer that thinks there cannot be or should not be a compromise.

It is a conundrum.

I mentioned my own lack of patience regarding digital timing accuracy. Yet any disagreeing with the idea can have it shown to be demonstrably true that digital can accurately time events far below the time between samples. An issue is understanding how it can be so. People have a very hard time believing something they don't understand how it works even after being shown it happens. You would like to think that people could just say, "Okay, I don't see how, but I've seen it demonstrated and that is how it works and that is the truth. I don't know how, but it is." I've been on the wrong side of that and it is tough to let go of your side of the argument.

In such cases it isn't about compromising what is reality, it is about not creating an insurmountable issue with the other side which makes it impossible for you to help them compromise their beliefs. That is what you are attempting to do. Empathy along the way can help, but simply stating facts as facts won't do it.

 

[Killingbeans]

Open mind people,this moves us forward.

Yeah... but don't open your mind so much that your brain falls out.

I'm all for diplomacy, courtesy and curiosity. But treating every idea, claim or opinion as having the same credibility will get us all swallowed by the vast goop of confusion and superstition.

If people make it clear to you that the probability of your claim having merit is vanishingly small, you have to eat that turd. If you refuse to do that, it's up to you to unearth the new groundbreaking evidence that shifts the probability dramatically. If you don't do that, people have every right to keep serving the turd.

There's nothing wrong with having unconventional convictions, but if you expect people to take the claims that come from those convictions at face value, you're setting yourself up for a world of butthurt.

 

[JayGilb]

The general feeling of the first timer here is that he's under investigation."Are you with us or the others?"

I agree. Calling everybody who doesn't agree a troll, will eventually foul the spirit of ASR.

 

[lashto]

I get drained by some repeated ignorance. Not meant pejoratively, but rather descriptively. One that bugs me in the face palm kind of way is the old idea timing of digital audio is no finer than the time between samples. Now this is an unequivocal ignorance (again just not knowing how something works) about digital audio. I've posted examples from software, I've posted examples from actually taking real gear and running real signals thru real wire to show it is wrong, and I've posted the Monty Montgomery video and it isn't enough. At which point I will sometimes ask what kind of evidence would convince you?

A similar situation which is less common, but where people don't believe you can record and recover signals below the -96 db level with dithered 16 bit audio.

you chose a particularly tough issue to get upset about

Monty's video is really good, no idea what could be done to explain that issue better. If the Monty fails, I would just give up on that 'you'.
But the single 'you' is not such a big problem, the bigger problem is that such a question comes up x-times every day. Noone can keep up with that. And there is a never-ending stream of 'new yous' coming daily.

Same as many others, I already asked for a sort of wiki/knowledge-base space on ASR where such questions can be answered. And instead of trying to (re)explain for the n-th time, one can just link that answer.

 

[lashto]

...Empathy along the way can help, but simply stating facts as facts won't do it.

+10 for that. A while ago someone posted an old (arab?) proverb going ~like

The truth will greatly annoy those whom it does not convince

A simple "stating facts as facts" will do the same. Some around here may not care about 'those idiots' but such replies will make all of our lives harder: the annoyed people will just keep coming back more and more and more...

 

[voodooless]

Well spoken like a true believer that thinks there cannot be or should not be a compromise.

I'm not a no-compromise absolutist

I mentioned my own lack of patience regarding digital timing accuracy. Yet any disagreeing with the idea can have it shown to be demonstrably true that digital can accurately time events far below the time between samples. An issue is understanding how it can be so. People have a very hard time believing something they don't understand how it works even after being shown it happens. You would like to think that people could just say, "Okay, I don't see how, but I've seen it demonstrated and that is how it works and that is the truth. I don't know how, but it is." I've been on the wrong side of that and it is tough to let go of your side of the argument.

Well, this is the core issue: how to reach these people and make them understand. Part of it will be to first understand what drives their view and work from that perspective toward something that can relate to.

In such cases it isn't about compromising what is reality, it is about not creating an insurmountable issue with the other side which makes it impossible for you to help them compromise their beliefs. That is what you are attempting to do. Empathy along the way can help, but simply stating facts as facts won't do it.

Exactly!

 

[lashto]

Regular, normal, average people who are brushed off or annoyed do not "come back again and again". They leave.

For sure a lot of them will leave. And some of those leavers will be annoyed enough to create 'alternative-forums'. And we end up with a giant cacophony of 'facepalms'. Just look at the current situation in the US with all the alternative-facts/forums and flat-earthers and... the brand new 2022 'reality'.

Of course, that is not the only possible future and there are also enough reasons to be (somewhat) optimistic.

 

[JayGilb]

What is, exactly, the "spirit of ASR"?

It's an effort to apply scientific principles to measure electronic equipment that reproduces audio spectrum noise. It usually last a few posts into any equipment review before either through shit-posting or deliberate attacks on the measurements or posters who paid a lot of money and are mad someone is not singing the praises of their purchase.
I referred to it as a spirit, because it is usually fleeting.

 

[Randy Bessinger]

I'd suggest that of all the actual ABX tests actually done by ASR members, the overwhelming majority would be on digital files. Those digital files are, of course trivial to analyse prior to performing a foobar style ABX. So, they go in with knowledge before the test and likely are already keyed into what to listen for to obtain a set of results worth posting.

I think there's one ASR member who purchased a Van Alstine ABX comparator as far as I know. One.

So, nobody on ASR (correct me if I'm wrong) is doing even real-time level matched A-B comparisons of multiple (at least 2) amplifiers, be they headphone or speaker amplifiers. Headphones require output switching to the cans themselves, as do speakers.

I have a Van Alistine ABX comparator which I bought recently. Haven’t tried it yet but there are now two is Dennis Murphy the other one you were thinking of? He has one and I noticed in pics he was using it at the recent Cap Audio show.

 

[MattHooper]

It seems true that for all the talk of blind testing on ASR, very few members have ever detailed or posted results of their own blind tests - in particular for equipment (that they may own or otherwise). To the degree most have engaged in blind tests, it seems to be the "someone has posted digital files, can you discern the difference?" type scenarios. That can of course be useful, and we can always learn from whatever research has been done using blind tests. But doing them yourself can sort of let the experience "sink in to your bones" as it were. Especially if you've experienced hearing a "difference" that feels convincing that melts away once the conditions are blinded. I've done several over the years - starting with a modest blind test of some speakers and later, CD players and DACs, expensive AC cables (Shunyata), a range of video cables, blind testing my music servers, more recently blind testing my two preamps. Some produced positive results for detecting differences (speakers/CD player/Preamps), some negative (AC cables/Video cables/Music servers).

Some have said that, at least in the case of the average audiophile performing a blind test on his equipment, it's only relevant or useful for that individual.

To a certain extent I agree.

My first experience posting about my blind tests, in the late 90's, concerned a shoot out between two CD players and a DAC. I seemed to hear some distinct differences and knowing properly functioning CD players/DACs should sound the same, and seeing the skepticism by the more "objectivist" characters on the usenet high end audio newsgroup, I did a blind test. I easily identified the CD players/DAC and posted the results and method. The skeptics were still skeptical and offered ways of tightening up the test. I took their advice, re-ran the tests, and once again posted the method/results and the almost perfect scores for identifying differences. At that point some of the skeptics were still skeptical, and some frankly seemed to be grasping at straws as to how the tests could have been skewed (e.g. suggesting the person switching and the subject could have been exchanging silent cues, which was extremely implausible given our test method).

Ultimately some accepted the results, and some kept their heals dug in. (JJ, who regularly posted there, offered some help and also "came to my defense" in face of the hyper-skepticism being lobbed my way).

My take-away from this was: I tentatively accepted the results of my blind test. By that I mean, I felt sure I heard the differences, and the test seemed pretty good, but I would never rule out error. There was no lab to go over my results. Just a guy trying to do his best.

The other take-away is that no matter what I may have posted, no matter how seemingly unassailable the method was, the skeptics could still find grounds to reject the tests. After all, the skeptic wasn't there! It's entirely possible that I made some sort of error that I didn't detect, but which investigation would have uncovered. So there is ALWAYS that firewall available to not accept the results that "some person posted on the internet." I totally get that. This is why I am not put off by anyone being skeptical should I post results of my personal blind tests. The same would be true for posting that I blind tested Shunyata AC cables against off the shelf AC cables and detected no difference. The "subjectivist" AC cable believer will just find a way to brush off the results too: "you must have poor hearing/a system that isn't resolving enough."

In fact, even in science itself, seemingly rigorous scientific papers are regularly torn apart by other scientists!

So the best I can do is produce a personal experience that helps guide my thinking on what gear interests me, how I spend my money etc.

Though this doesn't necessarily mean posting results of a blind test is worthless to anyone else. I think that depends on the individual as to what credence he will give the test. Some may give it enough credence to say "yeah, that's a little bit more information on the subject." Others won't.

For instance, one member here (was it Levimax?) felt he was hearing differences with a tube amp, but reported the sonic difference wasn't apparent when he ran a blind test.

As I'm someone who "perceives" differences between my tube amps and other amps, I could have replied "well, he just doesn't know what to listen for!" But instead I thought the test was likely valid, and took it as another data point to absorb in to my own view "I've been provided yet more evidence you really can imagine this stuff!" (Which is one reason I did my own blind test for my tube preamp).

 

[krabapple]

It seems true that for all the talk of blind testing on ASR, very few members have ever detailed or posted results of their own blind tests - in particular for equipment (that they may own or otherwise).

Who cares, so long as they don't make dubious claims about audio from sighted comparison?

Be aware of the caveats that sighted perception of sound quality necessitates. Adjust your claims/observational reports accordingly. It's not that hard to do.

 

[Shadrach]

Maybe a notice under the ASR logo:

We won't shout test if you don't shout listen.

 

[Sokel]

Yeah... but don't open your mind so much that your brain falls out.

I'm all for diplomacy, courtesy and curiosity. But treating every idea, claim or opinion as having the same credibility will get us all swallowed by the vast goop of confusion and superstition.

If people make it clear to you that the probability of your claim having merit is vanishingly small, you have to eat that turd. If you refuse to do that, it's up to you to unearth the new groundbreaking evidence that shifts the probability dramatically. If you don't do that, people have every right to keep serving the turd.

There's nothing wrong with having unconventional convictions, but if you expect people to take the claims that come from those convictions at face value, you're setting yourself up for a world of butthurt.

And why do I have to see it from his angle? Ok,he makes a wild claim.Will that drag me down with him or even lower?
I,the "smart" with my new found light in here can easily steer him with knowledge,can't I?

Why do I have to resort in cheap humor or humiliate him?That will not determine him but me.
Have a look at people who really know stuff.They are able to express them with ease and make them simple.
Their followers on the other hand...