audiophile optimizer?

[amirm]

The test is, that I've been able to listen to systems, and improve them, just by listening for artifacts, making an intelligent guess as to what the cause is, and progressing on that.

This is again called self-grading your own exam. Once again to know if you really have such an ability is to have a system which on purpose has these impairments and test conducted blind to see if you can detect them.

So no it doesn't count for anything in this forum Frank.

 

[fas42]

The only way to do that with any level of rigor is to create two completely identical systems but for one thing, in adjacent spaces, and be switched between the two in a blind fashion. The nature of the types of things that are altered makes it impossible to happen any other way.

Progressing from crap or mediocre hifi, to convincing sound is sufficient feedback for me - if others are only interested in numbers that's fine too.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The only way to do that with any level of rigor is to create two completely identical systems but for one thing, in adjacent spaces, and be switched between the two in a blind fashion. The nature of the types of things that are altered makes it impossible to happen any other way.

Progressing from crap or mediocre hifi, to convincing sound is sufficient feedback for me - if others are only interested in numbers that's fine too.

Okay, you are starting to get the picture. You don't need two completely separate systems. If you can change one thing and the system goes from mediocre to convincing that one thing is all you need to change.

 

[fas42]

Okay, you are starting to get the picture. You don't need two completely separate systems. If you can change one thing and the system goes from mediocre to convincing that one thing is all you need to change.

Yes, if there is only one thing that needs improving. In the real world there are myriads of little things that all add up to degrade the quality, each doing their negative bit. Which means that all of them have to be resolved, until the last one falls into place - then, of course, one just has to undo the last fix, and note its importance; and following on, likewise for all the rest of the improvements - undo each in turn, in isolation from the others, and note how severe the impact.

Which is where I would be working much of the time - there are one or two items which are not quite good enough, and I would be juggling to get them to a high enough state.

Realistically, from experience I know what to look at with a new setup, and after a solid look over decide to do a series of upgrades - I barely listen to what comes over the speakers. Only when I feel I've examined most of the key elements do I really start listening - to get a status marker for where I am on the "timeline".

 

[amirm]

Progressing from crap or mediocre hifi, to convincing sound is sufficient feedback for me - if others are only interested in numbers that's fine too.

Your method of evaluation of crap to mediocre is improper. You can use your ears but nothing else. If you do that it is cherished more than measurements in this forum and in Audio Engineering and Science.

What is not acceptable is using methodology that completely and routinely generates false results to back up your position in audio.

We use measurements because they are easy to do and replicate. We do not solely rely on them for anything. We combine them with knowledge of the system and psychoacoustics plus mountain of previous work/research including other listening tests to determine if something in audio has value or not.

There is no other way to get reliable data I am afraid.

 

[fas42]

Think of having a faulty car. How do you know it's faulty? Because, from experience, you know it's not behaving normally. Do you take measurements to verify its faultiness, take it to the garage, and on return do another set of measurements to verify its "fixedness"? Or do you just use the vehicle, and then abuse the mechanic because he didn't "fix it right"?

That's how I approach getting audio playback right ...

 

[amirm]

Think of having a faulty car. How do you know it's faulty? Because, from experience, you know it's not behaving normally. Do you take measurements to verify its faultiness, take it to the garage, and on return do another set of measurements to verify its "fixedness"? Or do you just use the vehicle, and then abuse the mechanic because he didn't "fix it right"?

That's how I approach getting audio playback right ...

As I said, it is the wrong approach. It has been shown over and over again.

What you think is broken in audio is based on a perception that is quite and routinely faulty. Not so with the car. If my car doesn't start, it is objectively broken. It doesn't do that because I think it should not start. Another person, i.e. the mechanic can see and then troubleshoot the problem. His preconceived notions do not make the car broken or not as they do with you and audio.

Ultimately you have to know that in every instance someone has tried to prove your approach to be right, they have failed to do so when all other information other than sound is taken away. You can't simultaneously say you rely on your hearing perception and then flank a hearing-only test over and over again.

The only reason this logic is hard for you to appreciate is because you have not tested yourself by someone else that knows these problems. You must submit yourself to these tests and only then will you appreciate the errors in your method. I know because I was like you for many years.

 

[Thomas savage]

This thread reads like a creationist walked into a conference on the theory of evolution....

We need to make a area in fight club ' Frank vs science ' and punt the posts over there so threads don't get derailed with the same nonsensical, circular and throughly inane arguments that spring up like this.

Most of our threads get derailed with this conversation dynamic when folks argue ( try and explain) with Frank.. Really there is little to no value in the resulting content.

 

[amirm]

Since you are on WBF forum Frank, this should resonate with you. You know Mike Lavigne. For those who don't know him, he has a super expensive system and cherished as one of the highest high-end audiophiles out there. Like you Frank he is convinced that what he perceives in audio is the reality.

Well, back in 2011 he was so sure that he could tell his MIT Opus cable from others that he accepted a blind test challenge in his own home with his gear. The results are were this: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...41184-observations-controlled-cable-test.html

"So our results with Mike as our listener were clear: for this particular methodology, Mike could not accurately identify a difference in the cables."

Here he was so sure of his ability hear differences in cables but the moment all but the sound of cables were presented to him, he was unable to do so.

Mike posts this about the experience: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...184-observations-controlled-cable-test-2.html

"yes; i have, to some degree, changed my perspective on cable differences....but...my mind is still processing the results and what they mean for me. i hope that i can coherently relate the various thoughts that go thru my mind. as Chris mentioned; the controls were successful at keeping me from knowing which cable was which. for each test i felt confident about my choice (except #6...see below).
[...]
when i made my choice known for #8 i was confident that i was 100% for all 7. then my friend Ted said 'that's it.....test over'. we had discussed prior that any result 7 out of 10 or better or 15 out of 20 or better would mean a positive result and to continue. once we got to only 3 out of 7 it was clear that we were not going to get a positive result.

why did i fail?.....or put another way.....why did this test show no real difference? was i overconfident?

yes; regardless of the eventual answer i was not respectful enough of the challenge.

[...]

in my mind i am not confident that i will ever be able to hear reliable differences between the Monster and the Opus to pass a Blind test. OTOH i am also not sure i won't be able to do it."

After countless years of believing in cable difference through the same type of experiences you talk about, he was shown to be completely wrong.

Sadly he has forgotten all of this now and is back to believing in his faulty methodology. Which is fine but in this forum we don't do that. We learn from such data and advance our knowledge of proper audio evaluation.

 

[Sal1950]

The only reason this logic is hard for you to appreciate is because you have not tested yourself by someone else that knows these problems. You must submit yourself to these tests and only then will you appreciate the errors in your method. I know because I was like you for many years.

He knows and understands these things very well Amir.
He uses his circular argument because it's the only thing at his disposal to support his false claims. You've been having this exact same debate with believers for many years now. The only question that remains is, does he really believe the things he says or is he just continually pulling your chain? LOL

 

[Thomas savage]

Even if Frank is right and everyone else in audio science is wrong his methods are not communicable as they don't relate to any known value or sets of values. Nothing is repeatable, basically we are dealing with a magician who claims to be really bending spoons by Means of psychokinesis.

It's a waste of everybody's time frankly.

 

[fas42]

As I said, it is the wrong approach. It has been shown over and over again.

What you think is broken in audio is based on a perception that is quite and routinely faulty. Not so with the car. If my car doesn't start, it is objectively broken. It doesn't do that because I think it should not start. Another person, i.e. the mechanic can see and then troubleshoot the problem. His preconceived notions do not make the car broken or not as they do with you and audio.

Ultimately you have to know that in every instance someone has tried to prove your approach to be right, they have failed to do so when all other information other than sound is taken away. You can't simultaneously say you rely on your hearing perception and then flank a hearing-only test over and over again.

The only reason this logic is hard for you to appreciate is because you have not tested yourself by someone else that knows these problems. You must submit yourself to these tests and only then will you appreciate the errors in your method. I know because I was like you for many years.

What's "broken" is the audio system when it does not produce convincing sound. I have defined what I call convincing sound by a number of subjective characteristics of the sound, any of which could be tested by blind testing if so required. Therefore, using your analogy, the car won't start - this is a more extreme situation, a better scenario is that the car starts to vibrate at certain speeds, on certain road surfaces - something which it didn't do when you bought it - the mechanic hears your complaint, can't make the car misbehave - attempts to "fix" it, but you then discover it still has that problem. So, who has the problem, you or the mechanic? Is the car faulty, or not?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Frak, since you are on WBF forum Frank, this should resonate with you. You know Mike Lavigne. For those who don't know him, he has a super expensive system and cherished as one of the highest high-end audiophiles out there. Like you Frank he is convinced that what he perceives in audio is the reality.

Well, back in 2011 he was so sure that he could tell his MIT Opus cable from others that he accepted a blind test challenge in his own home with his gear. The results are were this: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...41184-observations-controlled-cable-test.html

"So our results with Mike as our listener were clear: for this particular methodology, Mike could not accurately identify a difference in the cables."

Here he was so sure of his ability hear differences in cables but the moment all but the sound of cables were presented to him, he was unable to do so.

Mike posts this about the experience: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...184-observations-controlled-cable-test-2.html

"yes; i have, to some degree, changed my perspective on cable differences....but...my mind is still processing the results and what they mean for me. i hope that i can coherently relate the various thoughts that go thru my mind. as Chris mentioned; the controls were successful at keeping me from knowing which cable was which. for each test i felt confident about my choice (except #6...see below).
[...]
when i made my choice known for #8 i was confident that i was 100% for all 7. then my friend Ted said 'that's it.....test over'. we had discussed prior that any result 7 out of 10 or better or 15 out of 20 or better would mean a positive result and to continue. once we got to only 3 out of 7 it was clear that we were not going to get a positive result.

why did i fail?.....or put another way.....why did this test show no real difference? was i overconfident?

yes; regardless of the eventual answer i was not respectful enough of the challenge.

[...]

in my mind i am not confident that i will ever be able to hear reliable differences between the Monster and the Opus to pass a Blind test. OTOH i am also not sure i won't be able to do it."

After countless years of believing in cable difference through the same type of experiences you talk about, he was shown to be completely wrong.

Sadly he has forgotten all of this now and is back to believing in his faulty methodology. Which is fine but in this forum we don't do that. We learn from such data and advance our knowledge of proper audio evaluation.

Yes, I read this back when it happened. I have always thought Mr. Lavigne a most horrid reviewer. Actually no worse than others. But for someone to put themselves to the test, and fail and worse fail to inculcate what that failure meant.....I am at a loss for words to describe the pitifulness of it all. People speak of learning from their mistakes, the school of hard knocks etc. Mr. Lavigne has shown he is someone incapable of learning from mistakes. If you can't learn from that, you are in some isolated circuitous loop that prevents you from having the possibility of learning. NO POSSIBILITY of LEARNING! Let me repeat.....NO POSSIBILITY of Learning!

Yet the guy is one of the most highly thought of reviewers with the most discerning of ears. Mostly on his rep for his expensive gear. I do believe beyond his horrendously expensive system, does he not have a converted hideously expensive barn that is a stand alone listening room? This revered reviewer with no possibility of learning. Someone who should be very embarrassed, but doesn't even get that part of it.

 

[Blumlein 88]

What's "broken" is the audio system when it does not produce convincing sound. I have defined what I call convincing sound by a number of subjective characteristics of the sound, any of which could be tested by blind testing if so required. Therefore, using your analogy, the car won't start - this is a more extreme situation, a better scenario is that the car starts to vibrate at certain speeds, on certain road surfaces - something which it didn't do when you bought it - the mechanic hears your complaint, can't make the car misbehave - attempts to "fix" it, but you then discover it still has that problem. So, who has the problem, you or the mechanic? Is the car faulty, or not?

Well if you were the mechanic Frank, how do you approach a fix after this?

I was something of a highly regarded troubleshooter in my field for problems like this. Problems others believed weren't real and didn't fix. I nevertheless would eventually find the problem listening to those using the equipment and fix it. My approach wasn't magic. It was meticulous narrowing down until I could find out what was really happening, and then the fix was obvious. It did sometimes involve investigating and changing parameters that had nothing to do with the problem in the end. Only once I eliminated some possible issues could you proceed. It wasn't magic. Some interactions were very arcane, but no magic.

 

[fas42]

Even if Frank is right and everyone else in audio science is wrong his methods are not communicable as they don't relate to any known value or sets of values. Nothing is repeatable, basically we are dealing with a magician who claims to be really bending spoons by Means of psychokinesis.

It's a waste of everybody's time frankly.

Thomas, it's the strength of a chain issue. If the chain has to hold up a person weighing 90kg, then if there is one link of the chain that can only support 80kg, the chain breaks and the person plunges to his death. Strengthen that one link to 100kg, and our victim is happy, can hover there for hours. Huge difference in outcome, for small difference in measured performance - no magic, just careful assessment of each link in the chain.

 

[fas42]

Well if you were the mechanic Frank, how do you approach a fix after this?

I was something of a highly regarded troubleshooter in my field for problems like this. Problems others believed weren't real and didn't fix. I nevertheless would eventually find the problem listening to those using the equipment and fix it. My approach wasn't magic. It was meticulous narrowing down until I could find out what was really happening, and then the fix was obvious. It did sometimes involve investigating and changing parameters that had nothing to do with the problem in the end. Only once I eliminated some possible issues could you proceed. It wasn't magic. Some interactions were very arcane, but no magic.

Dennis, I totally agree, with your methods. The point being that all cars up to that point that I had experienced, to continue the analogy, all had vibration problems - I didn't know any different, from anyone else - I just thought, that's the way it was. But one day I fluked getting the car to run smoothly, simply by adjusting everything that made sense to look at. Woooah!! What's going on here?? ... and everything developed from that ...

Edit: how do I fix it? Like nearly all good mechanics, it's a combination of experience and intelligent guesswork; varying one parameter and checking for an effect; then going to the next variable, trying again - I've spent months and months trying one thing, then another; it can be a long process.

 

[Thomas savage]

Thomas, it's the strength of a chain issue. If the chain has to hold up a person weighing 90kg, then if there is one link of the chain that can only support 80kg, the chain breaks and the person plunges to his death. Strengthen that one link to 100kg, and our victim is happy, can hover there for hours. Huge difference is outcome, for small difference in measured performance - no magic, just careful assessment of each link in the chain.

This is meaningless though, these analogies carry no recognisable value in terms of the advancement of audio science.

Nor do they serve as a guide to obtaining better sound.. Those two things are why we are here as a forum. That and having a laugh..

This is all horrendously self indulgent and totally inane.

 

[RayDunzl]

Thomas, it's the strength of a chain issue. If the chain has to hold up a person weighing 90kg, then if there is one link of the chain that can only support 80kg, the chain breaks and the person plunges to his death. Strengthen that one link to 100kg, and our victim is happy, can hover there for hours.

Unless the rest of the chain's link strengths are between 81 and 89 kg.

 

[Thomas savage]

Seems there is Nothing to add concerning the op, take these nonsensical anthropomorphisms elsewhere .. I will create a thread in fight club..

This ones locked while I delete half of it...

I'm going to leave this thread in tact, it is however the last thread that will be allowed to degenerate in this way.. If I sniff even the lightest fragrance of such inane circular argument in the future I'm deleting it.

It's a crime against humanity