- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 15,461
- Likes
- 34,817
Some kind of quantum mechanical stuff, doubtless.
-
Welcome to ASR. 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!
ASR sponsored double blind test event
- Thread starter Punter
- Start date
It is a thing that makes we wonder why. The first ´debunking´ cable blind tests had been published 20+ years ago with the expected result. Apparently, the history of blind test failures did not bring cable believers to rethink their position. In contrary, it brought quite a number of audiophiles to the conclusion that blind tests are not valid, with some participants even coming up with a lot of excuses why they had messed up the particular test.
My personal conclusion would be: The communication strategy of public blind tests, repeatingly demanding scientific proof and treating ´believers´ as deluded victims of ´esoteric industry's greed´ has largely failed. Maybe it is time to move on and change the approach, if we want to win people's hearts for a rational and scientific view on audio.
Cranks bandwagoning onto stuff that costs almost zero to make? You don't say.
Sgt. Ear Ache
Major Contributor
I don't think it's "failed." We're dealing with something similar to religious belief here. For many of the audiophile myth believers no amount of scientific evidence will change their minds. But ASR has definitely had an impact on the market. Beyond that, there's nothing wrong with having a space such as this where the BS is called out for what it is. If people arrive here and they are open to having their heart's "won" then so be it.
As far as the topic of this thread goes, I tend to think the benefit of blind testing is in most cases a small scale/personal thing. I think anyone who is honestly open to a rational approach to this stuff can do a few really simple little things on their own at home that will reveal to them the reality of just how ludicrous many audiophile claims actually are. For example, a simple hearing test to see just how far into the high frequency realm one can go can remove a lot of mystery. Myself, I can only hear up to about 14.5khz. Above that is silence to me. So, I don't concern myself at all with the ultrasonic realm. I think there's a certain level of intellectual honesty required in order for any of these tests to convince a person of anything. I mean honesty with oneself that is. I've had so many instances over the years where I've bought some new piece of gear and hooked it up and started listening to all my favorite tracks convincing myself that I was hearing "panoramic new vistas of sound" like I'd never heard before. In every one of those instances (excepting of course when the old item was an actual piece of junk) where I've bothered to go back and listen to the old device being replaced I've found that oh wait, those same panoramic vistas actually were there. Nothing new is actually being revealed here. At some point if you're honest with yourself you just accept that good gear is good gear - if it's doing what it is supposed to do (and in most cases we're talking "solved science" that can be achieved at almost every price point) it all sounds exactly the same. Speakers are a bit of a wild card of course but even there the distinctions are often over-played.
I like reading the results of large scale blind testing any time it's done well. It can be highly entertaining. But it's a pretty big under-taking and probably isn't going to change many "true believers" minds.
Last edited:
I agree that scientific evidence would not be the right measure to persuade people who are into some sort of belief already.
Impact maybe yes, but I see that rather on the side of people who always had a technical, scientific or measurement-based approach. That's a good thing, for sure, but it is rather a revival of the 1970s and 1960s approach to hi-fi. Unfortunately, I also see vast skepticism against a rational, tech-based and scientific approach among people who ´just want to enjoy their music´ without strong beliefs. They walked away from that some 40 years ago. That is why I suggest to change the approach.
It is good that there is a space for rational discussions, but i see no point in labelling everything else but one´s own opinion ´BS´, even if there is solid scientific evidence for that. It is not a scientific or a philosophical question on who is right or wrong, but a matter of communication and who is more likely to win the hearts of the indecisive people in between the extremes.
It is simply unattractive and has vastly failed to persuade people without solid beliefs IMHO. Absolutely open for a discussion why is that so.
Impact maybe yes, but I see that rather on the side of people who always had a technical, scientific or measurement-based approach. That's a good thing, for sure, but it is rather a revival of the 1970s and 1960s approach to hi-fi. Unfortunately, I also see vast skepticism against a rational, tech-based and scientific approach among people who ´just want to enjoy their music´ without strong beliefs. They walked away from that some 40 years ago. That is why I suggest to change the approach.
It is good that there is a space for rational discussions, but i see no point in labelling everything else but one´s own opinion ´BS´, even if there is solid scientific evidence for that. It is not a scientific or a philosophical question on who is right or wrong, but a matter of communication and who is more likely to win the hearts of the indecisive people in between the extremes.
It is simply unattractive and has vastly failed to persuade people without solid beliefs IMHO. Absolutely open for a discussion why is that so.
Sgt. Ear Ache
Major Contributor
What approach would you suggest changing to? At some point pointing out how ridiculous a claim is is just telling the truth. Some opinions are BS. If it hurts someone's feelings so be it.
Roland68
Major Contributor
These tests actually existed as early as the early 1990s, but there wasn't a way to publicize them back then.
That was also the time when fraudulent manufacturers and dealers packaged LAPP cables in mesh sleeving for €2-5 per meter and sold them for €500-1,000 per meter, sometimes even more. This continued until at least 2002/2003.
Most buyers will be ashamed of having fallen for such a scam.
Speedskater
Major Contributor
Any public blind test should first start with samples that do sound different. Then move on to samples that have a small difference. Finally test the products in question.
Interestingly, they don't. Even buyers of such products and completely unbiased people. The interesting question for me is: what is the stronger driving force than technical explanation and published experiments with obvious result? Maybe congruency with own experience, maybe personal trust towards any ´influencer´, maybe subjective feeling of belonging to the right peer group? I don't know it. The only thing I know is that disparaging, insisting on scientific evidence and pushing people to proof anything in experiments, are futile attempts.
As mentioned, I don't have a precise concept. From communication point I would say highlighting similarities between subjectivistic and objectivistic hi-fi aficionados, accepting people's personal experience and goals, showing more the positive perspective of what science and engineering can do, doing convincing demos publicly, enabling people to do their own comparison instead of lecturing them on right or wrong - all these things do help.
Don´t get me wrong, I am by no means pleading to accept ridiculous claims. But calling them implausible and showing people a way to understand it themselves, is a different strategy compared to yelling ´overpriced BS´, ´fraud´, ´deluded morons´ on every occasion.
I am advising against the latter not because I care for anyone's feelings being hurt, but because I know how unattractive this looks from outside, being likely to repel unbiased people coming into that market.
Sgt. Ear Ache
Major Contributor
All of the strategies you mention are applied over and over again in various threads here. In general, nobody gets called any names and an effort is made to explain things or to refer new people to relevant threads that already exist explaining things in a friendly manner. Now it's sometimes the case that things devolve in an unfortunate direction but that's usually after it's become pretty clear that there's no honest interest in learning and it's really something more like trolling that's going on. The threads that do go in the "deluded fools" direction tend to be the ones focusing on the really obvious snake-oil BS marketing scams. I don't think it's futile or unreasonable to insist on evidence of ridiculous claims. If someone tells me they can run a 3 minute mile, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say no, I don't think you can. That isn't stating an "opinion." Unless there's actual evidence proving the case, it's simply stating a fact.
ASR is unusual in that it's one of the only "audiophile" sites where people's claims might be called into question. There's lots and lots of places people can go and wax poetic about the "silky, hypnotic airiness" of the dac or the boutique wires they just purchased and nobody will bat an eye. Here, they are likely going to get a much different response. But that shouldn't be surprising to anyone who is aware of where they are right? And yet, it often seems to catch a person off guard and they sometimes don't take it very kindly lol...
Last edited:
Roland68
Major Contributor
I don't know what kind of people you're talking about, but these days there are people who aren't ashamed of anything anymore, not even their own stupidity.
I'm talking about people who fell for snake oil, quacks, and scammers. For example, those cables with €5 material value per meter, where people paid €3,000-10,000 for 2 x 3m speaker cables.
I've met over 100 such people over the past 30 years and heard of even more cases. Only two took action and got their money back. The rest were too ashamed of having been so stupid, even though probably everyone could have gotten their money back.
And it took a lot of trust for them to even talk about it and admit to having been so stupid, and that's not meant to be derogatory in any way, but rather a statement made countless times by those affected.
What I don't mean are high-quality devices, cables, etc., which require a high investment of time, labor, and materials. This falls into the same category as Rolex watches or Louis Vuitton bags, which simply have sentimental value but are no more useful than €20-50 products.
It's certainly not in vain. A constant dripping wears away the stone, just look at the Grand Canyon.
If that weren't true, we'd still be living in the Stone Age, believing the Earth is flat, marathons would never have been run, electricity would only be known as lightning, and human sacrifices would be made for every nonsense.
The only way is to present the facts with persistence and perseverance, to repeatedly provide evidence, and to remain objective. Unfortunately, those who absolutely insist on believing in voodoo and nonsense must be made clear that spreading such nonsense is not desired in this forum and that they should refrain from doing so, if only to protect other inexperienced users.
Depends on your actual goal. If your goal is to make the original author of the claim rethink his/her position or persuade unaffected readers that the theory in question is implausible, it if pretty futile. It is simply not working according to my experience.
On one hand because it is unattractive and fun-killing to be regularly asked for solid evidence. On the other hand because we are dealing with a topic like sound quality which is depending on too many variables to always find solid evidence for every claim.
If the claim involves solid specs and figures, I agree. But that is not the case with the vast majority of implausible audio claims. No-one says ´my high end cable delivers +5dB more bass compared to another cable´, which could easily be measured and debunked.
I have no problem with challenging people's implausible claims and asking for technical explanation, particularly if vendors or salesman are coming up with bold statements. I rather see a problem in the way people are pressed to deliver ´scientific evidence´, as it is also affecting plausible claims, allowing no room for personal experience and being pretty dogmatic when it comes to what is actually accepting as proof.
Have similar experience, but I don't think shame is the main driving force in most of cases. People tend not to revoke their beliefs which had led them to implausible purchases, they don't even admit it to themselves. So why press them? Isn't it more promising to show them better ways of improving sound quality, so they never come to the idea of purchasing another expensive cable?
If is rather a constant beating making the underlying material stiffer and stiffer, if you want to hear my metaphor.
I dispute that. Persistence and perseverance in hammering ´facts´ into people's minds, telling them what is right or wrong, has rather brought us to the situation in which a majority of buyers are believing implausible claims. You are not even bringing inexperienced users on your side, rather the opposite, they turn their backs in disgust.
People don't move on, learn and try a new approach by being repeatingly told how wrong and stupid they had been. Ask any teacher. They need a positive vision, path to personal understanding, a clear aim to move on and positive experience, if you ask me.
solderdude
Grand Contributor
There have been VERY few occasions where 'subjective opinion venting characters' actually started testing certain things in a more scientific way.
Firstly because they (clearly) heard differences (from subtle to night-and-day) and that 'sticks'.
Secondly, testing with rigor is often difficult to do correctly and involves involving other people and or measurements.
Firstly because they (clearly) heard differences (from subtle to night-and-day) and that 'sticks'.
Secondly, testing with rigor is often difficult to do correctly and involves involving other people and or measurements.
Sgt. Ear Ache
Major Contributor
What they claim is that they can hear differences between things that are measurably identical. Saying one dac that measures perfectly transparent sounds in some way different or better than another dac when the actual measured output of the two is identical is just as implausible as saying one has 5db more bass. The same applies to wires. If there is no measurable difference between the signals coming from a wire costing $10 and a wire costing $1000 then it's perfectly reasonable to question claims that one can hear differences between them.
I don't know why you keep referring to people "hammering facts" into peoples minds. This is ASR...Audio Science Review. This place has a mandate whereby objectivity is valued over subjectivity. Adhering to that mandate isn't "hammering facts into peoples heads." It's what the place is all about. If someone doesn't want that this is probably not the web location they should be frequenting.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2020
- Messages
- 929
- Likes
- 3,018
I for one agree with you. Thanks for the thoughtful and very well-structured posts!
It is my experience as well that countering beliefs with facts is seldom successful, and often actually makes the divide deeper than it previously was. It happens too often on ASR, IMHO.
This of course doesn't change the fact that many people on ASR are kind and helpful, and do their best to share their knowledge!
Like you, I have a feeling insistence on proof looks aggressive to those who may not have a scientific or engineering background, and may even evoke anti-scientific and anti-rational emotions in some.
Consequently I agree that a 'softer' approach would probably be a more effective way to educate.
Roland68
Major Contributor
There seems to be a subconscious fear among these people that they might be wrong.
I experience this again and again when we invite so-called "audiophiles" to blind tests. At least one-third don't show up or cancel. The rest, in my experience, can be divided into three categories:
- Deeply converted and open to new experiences and possibilities.
- Beginning of a new perspective, accompanied by several relapses.
- Absolutely ignorant with the most unbelievable excuses as to why the vast differences weren't heard.
The latter rarely show up a second time, but most of them don't talk to us afterward anyway, for whatever reason.
We generally avoid three things.
- We don't discuss the hows and whys of things during the tests when guests are present.
- We don't try to convert the guests; the results speak for themselves.
- We don't trick anyone during the tests; it's just a matter of whether A or B is running.
In the past, we conducted tests with different people to determine how strong the influence of seeing or knowing was.
One run was normal; the second run, we switched the cables using a secret box so that the other device was running (seen device A, played device B).
The differences in hearing were significant, and the rating remained with the seen device.
I experience this again and again when we invite so-called "audiophiles" to blind tests. At least one-third don't show up or cancel. The rest, in my experience, can be divided into three categories:
- Deeply converted and open to new experiences and possibilities.
- Beginning of a new perspective, accompanied by several relapses.
- Absolutely ignorant with the most unbelievable excuses as to why the vast differences weren't heard.
The latter rarely show up a second time, but most of them don't talk to us afterward anyway, for whatever reason.
We generally avoid three things.
- We don't discuss the hows and whys of things during the tests when guests are present.
- We don't try to convert the guests; the results speak for themselves.
- We don't trick anyone during the tests; it's just a matter of whether A or B is running.
In the past, we conducted tests with different people to determine how strong the influence of seeing or knowing was.
One run was normal; the second run, we switched the cables using a secret box so that the other device was running (seen device A, played device B).
The differences in hearing were significant, and the rating remained with the seen device.
solderdude
Grand Contributor
Best test of all....
Change nothing, flip a switch (that does nothing but change a light or so) but tell the audience what they are listening to at that moment.
Very enlightening and gives clear results of what 'bias' actually is.
Change nothing, flip a switch (that does nothing but change a light or so) but tell the audience what they are listening to at that moment.
Very enlightening and gives clear results of what 'bias' actually is.
@dominikz that was exactly my point, great we are agreeing on that one. I would even add that this ´soft approach´ does not mean borderless tolerance to implausible claims, but a different approach to making people rethink them.
Yes, there are many reasons to question such claims, and I am fully on the side of audio objectivists assuming that these claims are implausible and would not stand any reliable test.
The more important question for me is how to communicate that and give people a chance to adopt this conclusion. Calling for scientific evidence, proof by blind testing and hammering facts seemingly does not help, rather the opposite. Same with introducing measurements into the chain of evidence. People who believe in dramatic difference justifying a $1000 cable are almost certainly not believing in the factual relevance of measurements.
It is like piling up scientific arguments and facts from a science book why God does not exist. Pretty unlikely to persuade any solid believer by that.
I am not saying that implausible claims should be accepted here. And while I fully support the idea of science and objectivism in audio, I see them as a natural counterpart to dogmatism and intolerance, keeping relevance only when being open-minded and communicated in a respectful manner. The moment, a closed circle of a central comitee is defining what is scientifically right and wrong forever, the idea of science and developing knowledge, is lost. Interestingly, a lot of subjectivists who get easily fooled by their own perception during listening tests, have a pretty good sense for such dogmatism.
I am afraid it is rather the opposite. The majority very strongly believes that blind tests are irrelevant, so would file them under your ´ignorant´ category. Maybe they subconsciously fear public humiliation, but almost never the conclusion that they themselves were wrong. Hence a lot of excuses why the test has gone wrong.
Yes, there are many reasons to question such claims, and I am fully on the side of audio objectivists assuming that these claims are implausible and would not stand any reliable test.
The more important question for me is how to communicate that and give people a chance to adopt this conclusion. Calling for scientific evidence, proof by blind testing and hammering facts seemingly does not help, rather the opposite. Same with introducing measurements into the chain of evidence. People who believe in dramatic difference justifying a $1000 cable are almost certainly not believing in the factual relevance of measurements.
It is like piling up scientific arguments and facts from a science book why God does not exist. Pretty unlikely to persuade any solid believer by that.
I am not saying that implausible claims should be accepted here. And while I fully support the idea of science and objectivism in audio, I see them as a natural counterpart to dogmatism and intolerance, keeping relevance only when being open-minded and communicated in a respectful manner. The moment, a closed circle of a central comitee is defining what is scientifically right and wrong forever, the idea of science and developing knowledge, is lost. Interestingly, a lot of subjectivists who get easily fooled by their own perception during listening tests, have a pretty good sense for such dogmatism.
I am afraid it is rather the opposite. The majority very strongly believes that blind tests are irrelevant, so would file them under your ´ignorant´ category. Maybe they subconsciously fear public humiliation, but almost never the conclusion that they themselves were wrong. Hence a lot of excuses why the test has gone wrong.
OP
Punter
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2022
- Messages
- 324
- Likes
- 1,516
- Thread Starter
- #39
SamIAmSam hit on the answer in his post. The golden ear types were not fazed by the predictable results of comparing the solid silver interconnects and the chopped up ratty interconnects. The fact that their responses fell into the area of statistical average based on guesswork failed to convince them that they could not tell the difference between the two cables reliably. The conclusion of the testing, where the golden ears requested to hear the audiophile interconnects as a final audition, where they waxed lyrical about the improvements to the sound, only to be confronted with the fact they had been listening to the ratty cables tells you everything you need to know. The audiophools "want to believe" !
JSmith
Master Contributor
Similar threads
