-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
.
- Thread starter Grave
- Start date
I see no value in this.. who cares about this guy why are you giving him views lol
BillG
Major Contributor
Fair enough @BillG but we are here to lift ourselves up not drag others down, going after these guys like @Grave has makes what we are doing here harder and ultimately less effective.
I’d delete the thread but the reaction it’s got rather ironically sends a positive message about our community here.
Edit , Well it did for awhile lol ..
I’d delete the thread but the reaction it’s got rather ironically sends a positive message about our community here.
Edit , Well it did for awhile lol ..
Last edited:
BillG
Major Contributor
A good number of audiophiles are driven by emotion, though, which makes it incredibly difficult to reach them. So much so, that I personally no longer bother.
Kind regards,
Bill...
etc6849
Active Member
Out of irony, blind testing makes no sense and is only one step better than the reviews Guttenburg does.
The only way to truly (i.e. accurately) compare fidelity is through objective measurements, period. I'm not talking about simple measurements either, but things like distortion versus power output for the first few watts, etc... It's totally fine if reviewers still want to listen before posting the measurements, but why bother doing a job you don't have the right equipment or knowledge to do right?
Just think about it. The room alone is going to greatly influence any sort of listening experience (I don't care if it is blind testing or not, etc...). Also, there is little to no value in me listening to a random track in a new room and on a different system than what I'm used to, blind test or not. To even begin to have accurate listening I'd need to have heard the track 100's of times in the same room, and even then I don't trust my mind more than measurements.
It baffles me we live in a nation where people without the necessary technical qualifications get so much press, but the populous is what makes things this way so I don't blame Guttenburg. People don't respect engineers or scientists in this nation, and seem to think they know more than science. It isn't like that in China from what I am told. Engineers there are treated like how we treat medical doctors here in the US.
I never see any of these reviewers giving medical advice, so why can't they respect engineering and science in the same manner?
The only way to truly (i.e. accurately) compare fidelity is through objective measurements, period. I'm not talking about simple measurements either, but things like distortion versus power output for the first few watts, etc... It's totally fine if reviewers still want to listen before posting the measurements, but why bother doing a job you don't have the right equipment or knowledge to do right?
Just think about it. The room alone is going to greatly influence any sort of listening experience (I don't care if it is blind testing or not, etc...). Also, there is little to no value in me listening to a random track in a new room and on a different system than what I'm used to, blind test or not. To even begin to have accurate listening I'd need to have heard the track 100's of times in the same room, and even then I don't trust my mind more than measurements.
It baffles me we live in a nation where people without the necessary technical qualifications get so much press, but the populous is what makes things this way so I don't blame Guttenburg. People don't respect engineers or scientists in this nation, and seem to think they know more than science. It isn't like that in China from what I am told. Engineers there are treated like how we treat medical doctors here in the US.
I never see any of these reviewers giving medical advice, so why can't they respect engineering and science in the same manner?
He hits the nail on the head when he says, ‘all these years audiophiles having been spending money on equipment that sounds exactly the same’
Also his eyes are very tiny.
Keith
Also his eyes are very tiny.
Keith
I think he is just a bad business person or poor joker when he says there is a lot of money in creating a site that does blind tests and declares everything sounds the same. Yes, there is a business in what he is doing but inversing that doesn't mean it is also good business.
Performing blind tests that have strong results requires tons and tons of efforts. And boring many times so you can't rely on volunteers sitting through hundreds of such tests. And once you start paying them, then it is not a good business anymore.
Performing blind tests that have strong results requires tons and tons of efforts. And boring many times so you can't rely on volunteers sitting through hundreds of such tests. And once you start paying them, then it is not a good business anymore.
Yes but there is that tiny possibility that conventional measurements, in certain cases, under certain circumstances, may be missing something that is audible. DBT still has value if for nothing else but to prove the science.
Guttenberg is one of the worst of believers and deserves to be shown delusional.
The following article caused a considerable splash on the French audiophile internet a few years ago.
http://audiolalies.blogspot.com/2015/03/derriere-le-micro-exactement.html?m=1
If you can read French it's quite something.
It basically says that cheap digital amps are the future of audio.
http://audiolalies.blogspot.com/2015/03/derriere-le-micro-exactement.html?m=1
If you can read French it's quite something.
It basically says that cheap digital amps are the future of audio.
He’s just taking the piss and ridiculing the ‘ other side’ . Unfortunately so many play into the kind of stereotypes that are often painted by guys like him.
He thinks he’s being clever , he’s a smug .. lol
Now let’s stop talking about it.
Just click bait. Guttenberg is an idiot but he doesn't have the full on obnoxious persona of Fremer (few do, thankfully). That said I think he spectacularly misses the point, it's not that there is money to be made by convincing people audio gear sounds the same, rather that some of us object to a cottage industry and associated hangers on that exists to sell snake oil.
etc6849
Active Member
I can agree DBT has more value than purely subjective listening. From what I understand, even highly engineering focused companies listen to their gear once before making 1000 units. However, an engineering focused company is going to put the most weight in performance measurements, and I think once you do that enough, you can figure out which measurements yield which listening results, assuming your room is very well treated and your tests are very controlled, your engineering staff know what they are doing and really care about performance (e.g. you keep marketers out of the design process).
I taught myself a lot about room acoustics to get my room to really perform and sound absolute life-like. It took many iterations and hundreds of hours of my time, and thousands of dollars. However, I will admit the same speakers sound many times better than when I first hooked them to my AVR in an untreated room. I also made other changes along the way such as actively tri-amping all 5 channels, adding multiple subs, and a bunch of other stuff. I measured after each change, and this gave me very valuable insight after each change. After a while, I could see the value each change made towards my goal of having the best possible performance at the main listening position (i.e. ultra low distortion as measured acoustically, very nice waterfall plots with fast LF decay times, very nice ETC plot, etc...).
That said, my point is if I were blindfolded and went back in time somehow before I learned what I know now, I would honestly think they were different speakers, and I just might have blamed the speakers. This obviously isn't an ideal DBT as you'd want controlled conditions and to make one change at a time, but I think there is far more value in understanding the science and engineering involved, then learning to measure things and trusting what the results tell you. DBT could easily make a person blame something that isn't really the weakest link in a system based on what they think they hear or even based on their mood on a given day, etc... Psychoacoustics is going to always apply when you are using listening as a metric, and our brains are too easily fooled.
I do agree DBT could be used to show what might not affect normal performance (i.e. audio jewelry, $1000 cables, etc...), but what is the point when acoustical measurements can be made with a $90 USB mic. Can simple REW measurements expose audio snake oil? Definitely, and it is 100% repeatable with very little effort and uses free software. DBT just seems like a waste of effort (and likely to fail if not done right) versus having someone who knows how to measure and test things objectively. I know there are very few dealers that do this, but objectively measuring and then showing what a user should improve next to get the best bang for the buck should be what an end user demands before they drop another $5-10k (but it seldom is for some reason). Do I blame a dealer for selling someone like that a $500 power cord instead of visiting their room? Yes, but I also have to blame the customer a little for not seeking real technical advice or learning on their own.
To reiterate, I guess I really don't see much practical value in DBT either if that's all you are going to do, and it's not like Guttenburg is going to learn enough to do proper measurements and purchase $27k or more in test equipment so there you have it. He may know how to do acoustic measurements, but that's just going to mainly tell a reader how his room is which won't help a reader much with how a piece of gear will be in their room. Again, I think this leaves electrical testing, which can and should be the main focus of any serious audio review though.
I taught myself a lot about room acoustics to get my room to really perform and sound absolute life-like. It took many iterations and hundreds of hours of my time, and thousands of dollars. However, I will admit the same speakers sound many times better than when I first hooked them to my AVR in an untreated room. I also made other changes along the way such as actively tri-amping all 5 channels, adding multiple subs, and a bunch of other stuff. I measured after each change, and this gave me very valuable insight after each change. After a while, I could see the value each change made towards my goal of having the best possible performance at the main listening position (i.e. ultra low distortion as measured acoustically, very nice waterfall plots with fast LF decay times, very nice ETC plot, etc...).
That said, my point is if I were blindfolded and went back in time somehow before I learned what I know now, I would honestly think they were different speakers, and I just might have blamed the speakers. This obviously isn't an ideal DBT as you'd want controlled conditions and to make one change at a time, but I think there is far more value in understanding the science and engineering involved, then learning to measure things and trusting what the results tell you. DBT could easily make a person blame something that isn't really the weakest link in a system based on what they think they hear or even based on their mood on a given day, etc... Psychoacoustics is going to always apply when you are using listening as a metric, and our brains are too easily fooled.
I do agree DBT could be used to show what might not affect normal performance (i.e. audio jewelry, $1000 cables, etc...), but what is the point when acoustical measurements can be made with a $90 USB mic. Can simple REW measurements expose audio snake oil? Definitely, and it is 100% repeatable with very little effort and uses free software. DBT just seems like a waste of effort (and likely to fail if not done right) versus having someone who knows how to measure and test things objectively. I know there are very few dealers that do this, but objectively measuring and then showing what a user should improve next to get the best bang for the buck should be what an end user demands before they drop another $5-10k (but it seldom is for some reason). Do I blame a dealer for selling someone like that a $500 power cord instead of visiting their room? Yes, but I also have to blame the customer a little for not seeking real technical advice or learning on their own.
To reiterate, I guess I really don't see much practical value in DBT either if that's all you are going to do, and it's not like Guttenburg is going to learn enough to do proper measurements and purchase $27k or more in test equipment so there you have it. He may know how to do acoustic measurements, but that's just going to mainly tell a reader how his room is which won't help a reader much with how a piece of gear will be in their room. Again, I think this leaves electrical testing, which can and should be the main focus of any serious audio review though.
Yes but there is that tiny possibility that conventional measurements, in certain cases, under certain circumstances, may be missing something that is audible. DBT still has value if for nothing else but to prove the science.
Guttenberg is one of the worst of believers and deserves to be shown delusional.
Steve has a talent for getting under peoples' skin and this is a great example. Aside from that, is there any information/value in his brief video?
I think there is a place for listening. At a very basic level, if you like the sound of a piece of equipment then whether or not it measures well or how it compares to other items is not important. And there is a huge difference between there being a measurable difference in performance and that difference being discernible to a listener. That's not to say that I don't value objective measurement, but equally I also think that ultimately if you enjoy something then just enjoy it and don't worry about what anybody else thinks or how it measures. I tend to find most amplifiers, DACs and digital sources to be transparent within reasonable volume levels but I do think there are very real and apparent differences between speakers and headphones and really the only way to figure out if the sound of speakers or headphones are to your taste is to listen to them. And in the case of headphones, since you wear them then comfort is critical, it doesn't matter how good the sound of headphones is if you can' stand wearing them. My issue is with subjective listening tests being used to promote equipment despite measured data and a refusal to validate these subjective claims by means of double blind listening tests. If you can discern a difference in a double blind test it doesn't mean that an opinion claiming a piece of gear is great is right, but at least it demonstrates that there is a discernible difference between it and some sort of reference or competing products. I think the real thing a lot of the subjectivists are worried about is that if they were to take double blind listening tests they'd struggle to identify their favoured pieces of kit. However, I do admire and respect kit that measures well, and it tends to indicate a certain level of engineering competence in design which is re-assuring.
That's news to me! Jeez I could have saved myself a bunch of money.
We can go even deeper and wonder if we actually even exist. Me, I just listen.
You could have indeed. I vividly remember the first time I listened to speakers blind. It made me throw out everything I thought I knew about speakers. And that is one area where folks think speakers sound so different that uncontrolled testing is just fine. It isn't.
I used to have a job where getting a promotion or paying my mortgage depended on knowing the real truth about audio. It is amazing how quickly that sobers you up about this topic. As a hobbyist, you can forever be drunk unfortunately and waste money toward audio booze. So you are not going to get salvation often or easily....
Similar threads
