Human beliefs sure are weird. Why is it so difficult to get audiophiles to accept the existence of perceptual bias?

[BDWoody]

So basically it is all unwarranted self-importance? It is my theory that when people can "hear" something that other people cannot (and there is a measurable and audible difference) that is simply a matter of training or experience. I think with enough practice probably most people could do it. Although how you would teach something like that is kind of a tricky question.

The key in what you said is that there is a measurable and audible difference to start with. In that case I absolutely am with you that training, etc. could definitely help.

It's when there's no difference and people claim differences that empirically aren't there, yet refuse anything that could even acknowledge a flawed 'impression/review/whatever. Usually it's those who've already spent their money. They are committed at that point, so it's virtually impossible to be convinced to do anything other than tell everyone that they must have bad ears, systems, attitudes, whatever.

Scales with $$$ already down the crapper seems to me.

 

[Thomas savage]

Funnily enough our imagination of the past , our ' memory' is not quite what it seems.

As I understand it we 'create' our memories via a bunch of assumptions that are rather dodgy .

Our brain also just assumes a bunch of things that really do compromise our perception of the present in all sorts of ways.

TotalHumans

Oh well , maybe we can get a refund.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

And, in all fairness, when it was brought up in a thread that Amirm should do the listening tests with equipment before doing the measurements the person that suggested it got a lot of heat for suggesting that Amirm couldn't be objective at the listening test with knowing the test results.

If the listening tests were done blind, it would not matter if he did them before or after.

 

[PierreV]

So yeah, I agree....if Amir is going to do listening tests, he should do them before testing.

In my small scale tests (lots of REW measurements and deltawave analysis basically) I do both.

For example, when I tested 6 different amps in the same conditions in my office, I took notes at the first listening pass, and focused on what I felt was different. Then took measurements with REW and recorded and analyzed the recording with deltawave. Finally, I got back to listening with the data.
For the record, I did not hear or measure much difference between three post 2000 solid state amplifiers (D & A/B), had one early 90ies solid state amplifier sound very different (probably bad caps), and two tube hybrids very different.

So I would say that before and after would be interesting.

But not sure this is doable in Amir's position.

- if he hears the wrong differences or likes a poorly measuring device, he'll lose credit in the eyes of some
- if he doesn't hear any issue/differences and measurements reveal a big issue, he "loses" again.
- if he nails it every time, he'll be accused of cheating.
- if he likes everything or find everything similar, it defeats the purpose of this site.

But all considered, I think Amir's post measurements listening tests are not too biased by the measurements and he is actually, on average, much nicer in his comments on the listening part than on the measurement part.

Subjective audiophiles rarely double-check their listening impressions with measurements anyway. Just as above, there would be no gain for them either. In Stereophile's case, the listening and measurements are usually done by different people, which often gives an opportunity to JA to use all kind of rhetorical tricks to reconcile impressions with numbers.

 

[watchnerd]

As a minor aside, one of the joys / frustrations of vinyl playback is that it's so flawed, tweaky, and imperfect, much of the tomfoolery of horsing around with a turntable / arm / VTF / alignment geometries / etc, not to mention cartridges themselves, really is measurably different, and often provably above threshold of audibility.

So audiophiles who want to to have an "involved" experience where their subjective experience is validated by objective data are better off putting their listening optimization energies into vinyl (instead of DACs and amps) where there is a lifetime's worth of expensive dicking around with imperfection.

 

[watchnerd]

If the listening tests were done blind, it would not matter if he did them before or after.

Sure. But are they?

I'm usually under the impression they're not.

 

[watchnerd]

Funnily enough our imagination of the past , our ' memory' is not quite what it seems.

As I understand it we 'create' our memories via a bunch of assumptions that are rather dodgy .

Our brain also just assumes a bunch of things that really do compromise our perception of the present in all sorts of ways.

TotalHumans

Oh well , maybe we can get a refund.

As flawed as our perceptions, memories, and cognition are, at least they seem to have been slightly advantageous / evolutionary selective in our pre-industrial past.

But what's going to happen when we go to a new planet and everything is different: length of day, amount of gravity, spectrum of light, etc?

 

[BDWoody]

As a minor aside, one of the joys / frustrations of vinyl playback is that it's so flawed, tweaky, and imperfect, much of the tomfoolery of horsing around with a turntable / arm / VTF / alignment geometries / etc, not to mention cartridges themselves, really is measurably different, and often provably above threshold of audibility.

So audiophiles who want to to have an "involved" experience where their subjective experience is validated by objective data are better off putting their listening optimization energies into vinyl (instead of DACs and amps) where there is a lifetime's worth of expensive dicking around with imperfection.

I've recently started getting back into vinyl for those reasons...and because I have a very nice older Fisher that I finally have the room to set up properly. I just got a new phono preamp for it, and am looking forward to making myself crazy trying to make it sound like it likely isn't capable of.

I drive a car with a stick.
I wear a mechanical watch.
I shave with a brush and a straight razor.
I like watching the record turn while ponder the magic of rubbing a rock against plastic and hearing music...


That said, anybody know much about the older Fisher/Trio DD decks? Hard to find much info.

 

[restorer-john]

But all considered, I think Amir's post measurements listening tests are not too biased by the measurements and he is actually, on average, much nicer in his comments on the listening part than on the measurement part.

I don't think you'd find a "measurements guy" who would be prepared to listen first, write their subjective report, actually publish it, and then measure second and publish the objective report. There is way too much opportunity for looking silly.

In Amir's case, the "impressions" or subjective reviewing can't help but align with the prior testing performed as he performs both functions.

I also test first, listen later, with most gear. Consider most people don't test at all.

 

[watchnerd]

I drive a car with a stick.
I wear a mechanical watch.
I shave with a brush and a straight razor.
I like watching the record turn while ponder the magic of rubbing a rock against plastic and hearing music...

Ditto to all of the above for me, as well.

I've recently started getting back into vinyl for those reasons...and because I have a very nice older Fisher that I finally have the room to set up properly. I just got a new phono preamp for it, and am looking forward to making myself crazy trying to make it sound like it likely isn't capable of.

Likewise.

Example: I know my speed is off by about 1%, and my wow&flutter is 'good to very good' for a belt drive, but I want to try to make it better. Am I likely to succeed without going to a direct drive TT? Probably not...or at least not easily.

And have you tried 45 RPM LPs yet? That's a whole another area of subjective experience and expense....although completely justifiable from a physics / cutter head POV.

 

[restorer-john]

That said, anybody know much about the older Fisher/Trio DD decks? Hard to find much info.

Fisher was Sanyo. Trio was Kenwood.

Some of the big Trio/Kenwood DDs were beautiful looking things. Their arms are particularly nice. I've found that Kenwood main bearings were their weak point. Very heavy platters and smaller/softer main bearings mean many of them you will come across, have perceptible main bearing play. People didn't oil them and at some time in their 40+ years, they've been driven across town, or interstate, on the back seat of a car with the platter on.

The toughest bearings (IME) seem to be all of Technics' range.

 

[MattHooper]

As a minor aside, one of the joys / frustrations of vinyl playback is that it's so flawed, tweaky, and imperfect, much of the tomfoolery of horsing around with a turntable / arm / VTF / alignment geometries / etc, not to mention cartridges themselves, really is measurably different, and often provably above threshold of audibility.

So audiophiles who want to to have an "involved" experience where their subjective experience is validated by objective data are better off putting their listening optimization energies into vinyl (instead of DACs and amps) where there is a lifetime's worth of expensive dicking around with imperfection.

Indeed.

Personally, I can't think of anything more boring than reading about DACs in terms of the relevance for my audio system. I've had my benchmark DAC for years, performs transparently...no itch at all to change it and can't think up a reason why. In terms of simply experience music, I can listen via my digital or analog system. But the analog system is more overall involving (to me), for some of the reasons above, and others.

 

[RayDunzl]

If the listening tests were done blind, it would not matter if he did them (the measurements) before or after.

I might disagree, on the basis that with prior measurement, there would be a bias toward something specific for which to listen, which otherwise might slip by.

 

[MattHooper]

As to the OP:

Really the problem of subjectivism - and the divide between distrusting/employing skepticism about our experience vs trusting it -is likely the single biggest divide there is. It's everywhere.

But even putting all the known biases to the side, it's understandably hard to move people who have had what they take to be "an experience."
Experiences are the main way we interact with the world, so it's not an easy thing to shake off. That's why you can point to what we know of perceptual bias until blue in the face, but the subjectivist just says "Look, I KNOW what I experienced, and if you want to have any valid input on this you need to try and experience it the same way. Subjectively."

I think the best way of trying to enlighten anyone who thinks he had an "experience" is via another experience. For instance, think of how many of us here have been especially moved towards our position by personal experience that has challenged our perceptions - e.g. blind testing. It wasn't ALL armchair theorizing. And that's also why scientists in general (I'm not one) have a leg up on the public in terms of truly understanding the nature of bias. Most scientists have experiences with the nature of bias, it's polluting effects, and with taking it seriously by developing methods to winnow bias out of the results. (At least, when they are applying critical thinking to getting things done in their field. Obviously, even many scientists fall right in to various biases when they leave those stringent checks-and-balances to think about things in their own life).

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I might disagree, on the basis that with prior measurement, there would be a bias toward something specific for which to listen, which otherwise might slip by.

Don't tell him the results until all's done.

 

[SIY]

I might disagree, on the basis that with prior measurement, there would be a bias toward something specific for which to listen, which otherwise might slip by.

Feature, not bug, if I'm understanding you correctly.

 

[BDWoody]

Fisher was Sanyo. Trio was Kenwood.

Some of the big Trio/Kenwood DDs were beautiful looking things. Their arms are particularly nice. I've found that Kenwood main bearings were their weak point. Very heavy platters and smaller/softer main bearings mean many of them you will come across, have perceptible main bearing play. People didn't oil them and at some time in their 40+ years, they've been driven across town, or interstate, on the back seat of a car with the platter on.

The toughest bearings (IME) seem to be all of Technics' range.

Sorry! My mistake of course... This is the 880Dll if you know it.
I will make sure that gets checked... Thanks!

 

[restorer-john]

If the listening tests were done blind, it would not matter if he did them before or after.

He'd need reference devices for each class of product and an ABX setup for each. Anything else would be impossibly time consuming.

 

[restorer-john]

I will make sure that gets checked... Thanks!

Put your index fingers on opposite outer edges of the platter and push down alternatively. If there is is any 'rocking' movement at all (even a tiny barely perceptible movement), the bearing needs attention. Clean it out, re-lubricate and compare. If there's still some movement, move up in oil viscosity.

Disclaimer: If you aren't comfortable dismantling the DD motor, get an expert to do it. Things can get lost if you aren't careful and magnets can get damaged. IIRC, the Kenwood motors need to be removed from underneath and then the bell housing/magnet/shaft will just pull upwards. I'd have to have a look at one here to confirm.

 

[invaderzim]

If the listening tests were done blind, it would not matter if he did them before or after.

True. But it is my understanding that the tests aren't blind comparison but sighted single component tests.