Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

[GGroch]

Fair, but doesn’t seem as relevant to the discussion of how the forum gangs up on newcomers. Mostly what I see is newcomers boldly asserting that they can hear unmeasured characteristics...

They do hear these characteristics. Are you challenging that? Our views differ as to why they hear them. We call it bias, they call us deaf. Both views have a claim on reality until proved otherwise. DBT might prove it, its not done.

I am not suggesting that what subjectivists hear emanates directly from the voice coils of their headphones. I am suggesting that if subjectivists value the total experience, even if they are ignorant as to why they have that experience, their viewpoint is worthy of consideration.

 

[Blumlein 88]

They do hear these characteristics. Are you challenging that? Our views differ as to why they hear them. We call it bias, they call us deaf. Both views have a claim on reality until proved otherwise. DBT might prove it, its not done.

Measurements can show the chance of what they say they are hearing being pretty much zero in most cases. So what is next? I'm afraid some sort of controlled listening is it for most situations.

To take the most obvious, claims of interconnect cables being different in a normal use in a home system. There is all sorts of science saying there is nothing to sound different there. There is the chance to do on site measurements to see if some noise problem exists. After that one group is not believing the other. One group would be convinced if you had a DBT or other controlled test that something must be happening. The other group usually has nothing other than we hear it and it is so.

Then again such a situation is close to someone saying they can fly by flapping their arms. Instead of saying they are being ridiculous or trying to con us we are saying well okay give us some proof. Maybe the DBT is like asking they contact an aero engineering group for flight testing. No it isn't going to happen, but hey all that is left is simply being even meaner and saying rather unkind things.

 

[ahofer]

They do hear these characteristics. Are you challenging that? Our views differ as to why they hear them. We call it bias, they call us deaf. Both views have a claim on reality until proved otherwise. DBT might prove it, its not done.

I am not suggesting that what subjectivists hear emanates directly from the voice coils of their headphones. I am suggesting that if subjectivists value the total experience, even if they are ignorant as to why they have that experience, their viewpoint is worthy of consideration.

Sorry, I was unclear perhaps. I am referring to insisting that the “characteristics” are clearly *audible* because they hear them. I’ve never contradicted the idea that there are non-audible experiences with gear that may be worth having - I consider them as well. But the newcomers that have been jumped on here go well beyond that, insisting that their experiences are strictly audible.

Inaudible characteristics are interesting in reviews. But they are totally useless if they are described by the reviewer as if they were audible - as slam, PRaT, air, etc., and that sort of BS seems to be what some have been defending here.

But if they are claiming it is audible, both claims are not equally grounded in reality. There is lots of blind test evidence and a ton of solid research describing what is and isn’t audible, and golden ears audiophiles are well on the wrong side of both. That they generally won’t even give a passing acknowledgement to that is the foundation of most of the hostility here.

 

[GGroch]

Measurements can show the chance of what they say they are hearing being pretty much zero in most cases.......

Yep, or not. There was quite a bit of piling on in the comments following the Amazon Basics 60 watt amp test. One poster said they were the most horrible measurements ever, questioning why anyone would design such a monstrosity. I have never heard the amp, never will. But some quick research on S/N standards for basic business/in wall audio systems show the amp beats S/N spec by 10dB for background audio application.

To take the most obvious, claims of interconnect cables being different in a normal use in a home system. There is all sorts of science saying there is nothing to sound different there......Then again such a situation is close to someone saying they can fly by flapping their arms.....

bigguyca mention cables as the most obvious claim. I hope he chimes up, and do not necessarily agree with his argument, but it annoys me that when interesting counterclaims are made (I very much feel bigguyca's post does that) that they are often not fully considered.

Truth: Inauthentic self serving claims based on unfounded statements about cables letting you fly are rampant, duping cash from the innocents.
Truth: When innocents connect these cables to their systems, many suddenly feel themselves fly when they flap their arms.

I hope we can be sophisticated in determining whether these levitating posters represent truth 1 or truth 2. I also hope there is room for a scientific discussion of how measurements impact experience outside of seldom executed blind tests.

 

[righthookmike]

Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously.

 

[rdenney]

They do hear these characteristics. Are you challenging that? Our views differ as to why they hear them. We call it bias, they call us deaf. Both views have a claim on reality until proved otherwise. DBT might prove it, its not done.

I am not suggesting that what subjectivists hear emanates directly from the voice coils of their headphones. I am suggesting that if subjectivists value the total experience, even if they are ignorant as to why they have that experience, their viewpoint is worthy of consideration.

If someone posited an actual measurement, based on articulating a heretofore unspeculated theory, to explain a perception, then testing could commence. But nobody seems to posit those theories. Instead, we receive pure experiential anecdotes.

So, it’s not that controlled testing is the rote response, it’s that it is the only option available to investigate the claim, because no theory or hypothesis has been articulated that could be investigated any other way.

You can’t prove a negative. There are two options: Evidence shows a perceptual effect exists (at which point understanding why it exists and how one might measure it can commence), or evidence is unable to show that a perceptual effect exists, at which point there is no further science that can be attempted.

This is Audio Science Review, not Audio Seance Review, after all. There are other forums for that. If someone insists that measurements cannot detect an important effect, and refuse to demonstrate that the effect is even repeatable let alone important, then what is there to discuss from a scientific perspective? The work of this forum is done before it begins.

But instead most of the effects, when transformed into products, are given theories that are (at best) comically unintelligible or objectively false by those selling or defending those products. And when those fantasies are challenged by experience, those who do so are told that their systems aren’t good revealing enough, or their ears aren’t good enough to detect such a subtle improvement (which was nevertheless described as profound). This is well-known psychological manipulation, because everyone wants to be one of the cool kids. If they challenge those theories on the basis of science, they are told that they worship at the altar of measurements and are insensitive to musical subtleties apparent to those of greater insight. Again, it’s about being one of the cool kids.

I do grant that the pile-on effect can be pretty strong, but you must grant that many who resist the piling on seem to do so for sport rather than because they actually want to learn something. And it’s not like ASR has the corner on the piling-on market.

Personally, I just want people to really use their ears. I submit that people don’t actually notice many of the effects they claim to notice, because they would rather be part of the tribe than admit that they can’t actually hear the effect in question, especially if they have spent a lot for it. That level of bias can indeed be recognized and avoided with some honesty and self-awareness.

Because it often isn’t about people having some unconscious bias that causes them to hear what’s not there, it’s often about people who are simply being dishonest and claiming an effect they can’t actually hear. If we are rigorously honest about what we are hearing, only then can we talk about unconscious bias.

As to piling on, if people would write only what they personally know to be true, piling on would diminish quite a lot. Tribalism does indeed go both ways.

Rick “talking about forum posters, not media—a separate discussion” Denney

 

[righthookmike]

So, I completely understand what you, and others are saying about the DBT. I even agree for the most part. I also notice that most people on ASR seem to be friendly, Patient and freely give their time and knowledge to help others. Part of the fun is to ride each other. When I posted I made sure I qualified my statement as opinion and only applied to my own system. when asked if I DBT'd I stated for this instance it wasn't necessary because It was a quite noticeable difference. I was not only dismissed but ridiculed in numerous ways. I was even gullible to one comment that I didn't realize was sarcastic until later, by which I was embarrassed and quite amused because it was pretty good.... no big deal. then the original poster of this thread went way out of his way, days later, to insult any number of people. Make wild assumptions about personal character, and made a few references that I was pretty sure were directed my way. that's what I thought was out of line. It turned out I had the wrong model of one of the units. Measurements made on this site completely validated my initial claim. It was only the personal attacks , the unwillingness of anyone to even ask to or see a picture of setup , help me work through the steps after I indicated my willingness to do so, and to give many alternate reasons suggesting I was delusional or a complete moron for believing I heard a difference instead of even considering I actually did that surprised me. I am excited by the proposition that I could sell some gear and by multiple components with better measurements. I can upgrade and put money in my pocket! no bias there.. There's a difference between teasing and lambasting. and I would expect the eagerness of others to join in of a different crowd. Didn't expect it here

 

[Mnyb]

What about the complete circle of bias some posters seems to live in "the difference is so obvious that no DBT is needed" how to respond to that?

Many kind members writes yet another long winded essay about how bias actually works to that .

The "the difference is so obvious that no DBT is needed" poster is a perfect specimen to use to demonstrate bias in progress for others, but no one reaches this guy himself ?

 

[Maki]

to give many alternate reasons suggesting I was delusional or a complete moron for believing I heard a difference instead of even considering I actually did that surprised me. I am excited by the proposition that I could sell some gear and by multiple components with better measurements. I can upgrade and put money in my pocket! no bias there.. There's a difference between teasing and lambasting. and I would expect the eagerness of others to join in of a different crowd. Didn't expect it here

Hearing differences due to bias isn't being delusional, it's being human - which is why it's so important to remove it from the equation when drawing solid conclusions based on listening tests. The most probably cause (by a large margin) is that you are hearing differences due to bias. And you are biased, everybody is biased, period. You're biased because you can see the box, know about the brand, experience the feel of the knob, the weight of the unit - etc. etc. To remove that bias, listening must be done blind for any reasonable conclusion to be drawn, barring egregious measurements which fall into audibility. It's like asking why there's a loud object flying overhead. The vast majority of the time it's an airplane. It COULD be a UFO, but is that tiny probability even worth considering?

 

[Frank Dernie]

For me anything about speakers, rooms etc. is interesting complicated and not totally understood.
With electronics, other than power amps, fairly straightforward and not mysterious. < Frank
This is where I feel misunderstood here, When I have said I don't feel we are capable of measuring everything It is the degree that seems to be overblown. I don't mean magical or mysterious or something mind blowing to completely change current knowledge. More of a "huh, that's interesting,..." and giving one personal impression to a very specific question by one person was just an impression given to one person. Which was immediately jumped on and treated as though it was challenging and rendering null science as we know it. not really trying to persuade anyone. Most people cant be persuaded up is up if they think differently

So when it comes to the relatively straightforward, the electronics, what aspect of the electrical signal do you think could be important, or to which we are more sensitive than we think?
There is frequency, and there has been discussion over what frequencies humans are sensitive to, the equal loudness work, which as a spin-off also implies subjective limits by extrapolating to where the threshold of pain crosses the threshold of audibility. This was published in 1933.
There is amplitude, which to an extent is encompassed in the same study because it shows the loudest sound humans tolerate and the quietest they can sense.
There is phase. I find this the most difficult aspect to evaluate because I have had varying experiences myself.
I was not able to hear changes at all about 45 years ago despite the visible wave on the oscilloscope screen becoming totally different.
OTOH I thought I could hear a difference in a demo of a DSP crossover when phase was corrected, but it depended on the recording, there were two recordings where the effect was demonstrated, a modern rock one, where the difference was small to negligible, and an old simply recorded one where the difference was easily heard.

Those are the only 3 characteristics in the electrical signal, which one are you concerned by?

 

[ahofer]

One of the reasons it feels like a pile on is...also a function of perceptions and experience.

Many of us on ASR have heard the subjectivist arguments thousands of times. So when a newcomer arrives, proudly trumpeting the “you can’t measure everything”, or “lots of reviewers hear this”, or “if it didn’t make a difference, how come they are commercially successful” (I have a long essay on the latter here), we all roll our eyes and think “not again”. Our interlocutor thinks he (sadly almost always he) is introducing some brilliant debate.

Furthermore, these newcomers *think* they are engaging with goodwill, although they often dig in and pay no attention to what they are being told, even when it comes with citations and long explanations here on the site. So to us it feels like “argue this to me from first principles again, I can’t be bothered to look at anything”. Whereas they believe they have brought something new to ASR, that we haven’t yet been exposed to the searing truth of subjective reviews/pointlessness of objectivism.

All in all, not a formula for a great beginning. We are arguing with the worst version of the other. We see it on Twitter every day. I’m of a libertarian bent, and libertarians on social media have a phrase for people who barge in thinking they are going to suddenly invalidate libertarianism with the killer example of...roads. ”muh...roads!” is how we abbreviate the experience. With subjectivists it is “muh....night-and-day difference” or “controlled tests not how muh listen!”.

Then there’s our friend Simon of the recent McGurk thread, who brings all of this, really doesn’t know what he doesn’t know, and furthermore, still can’t articulate it.

 

[Mnyb]

One of the reasons it feels like a pile on is...also a function of perceptions and experience.

Many of us on ASR have heard the subjectivist arguments thousands of times. So when a newcomer arrives, proudly trumpeting the “you can’t measure everything”, or “lots of reviewers hear this”, or “if it didn’t make a difference, how come they are commercially successful” (I have a long essay on the latter here), we all roll our eyes and think “not again”. Our interlocutor thinks he (sadly almost always he) is introducing some brilliant debate.
Furthermore, the interlocutor *thinks* he is engaging with goodwill, although they often dig in and pay no attention to what they are being told, even when it comes with citations and long explanations here on the site. So to us it feels like “argue this from first principles again, I can’t be bothered to look at anything”.
All in all, not a formula for a great beginning. We are arguing with the worst version of the other.
Then there’s our friend Simon of the recent McGurk thread, who really doesn’t know what he doesn’t know, and furthermore, still can’t articulate it.

Simon does not have McGurk he has a case of Dunning Kruger no it's not a Champagne brand

 

[Robin L]

 

[pkane]

Truth: Inauthentic self serving claims based on unfounded statements about cables letting you fly are rampant, duping cash from the innocents.
Truth: When innocents connect these cables to their systems, many suddenly feel themselves fly when they flap their arms.

I hope we can be sophisticated in determining whether these levitating posters represent truth 1 or truth 2. I also hope there is room for a scientific discussion of how measurements impact experience outside of seldom executed blind tests.

How would you suggest we go about determining if it's 1 or 2 when someone posts here? I would say that most of those subjectivists jumping into ASR, except for an occasional manufacturer, belong to your truth #2. Does this make a difference? And how would you approach someone from group 2 differently if they come here with an intention of showing to themselves and to others why their beliefs are sacred and can't be questioned? A few do come to learn, but these are often obvious from the first few posts. These are far and few in between, but yes, unfortunately they may also get attacked and turned away as their intentions are misinterpreted. So, how do we determine someone's intent?

 

[Hon]

There is frequency...
There is amplitude...
There is phase....
Those are the only 3 characteristics in the electrical signal, which one are you concerned by?

Let's be concerned about all three:

Consider TIM -- transient intermodulation distortion. Is it concerning? I encountered it years ago when it was brought to light by Marshall Leach when he published a DIY project for building a "low TIM amplifier" in a popular magazine. Parasound seems to still recognize its potential significance, mentioning it in some amp specs. This article describes it in the context of designers back in the day noting "a lack of correlation between conventional amplifier distortion measurements and listening tests...": Audiophile Review

I asked Google about "perceptual bias." Lots of junk, of course. The only substantial piece I found-- a genuine research project based on the perception of colors--concluded that bias quickly fades or even disappears completely--over a short time. I don't think "bias" is a helpful term to throw around in the context of friendly audiofiley discussions; it's too easily weaponized and has unhappy moral overtones.

 

[GGroch]

......I would say that most of those subjectivists jumping into ASR, except for an occasional manufacturer, belong to your truth #2. Does this make a difference? And how would you approach someone from group 2 differently if they come here with an intention of showing to themselves and to others why their beliefs are sacred and can't be questioned?......

I agree with you that in the wild, there are far more people who believe their senses than charlatans trying to scam. I do not know the ratio for those posting here, but I sense there are more of #2.

I think it is a mistake to assume that #2 (sense believers) would not exist unless they had been bamboozled by charlatans.

Our perceptions being influenced by biases caused by previous experiences, stories, tribal beliefs is how life works. We could not function if every judgement we made had to be thought through as if it was the first time we had ever encountered it. The hungry bear would catch us before we had thought things through.

So, assuming that your NAD amp sounds better because of your previous encounters with the brand, the technology, the function first styling etc. is no different from enjoying your wine more because you know its a sought after vintage from a boutique vineyard in France. Somehow it is acceptable to say you think a wine exceptional without someone in a wine forum insisting on a blind test. I wonder what percentage of oenophiles could pass such a test? If they could not, would their enjoyment of wine be improved if from that time forward they drank exclusively the boxed stuff?

I agree with Hon (above) that bias is a loaded word. Kahneman calls it thinking fast. Thinking fast cannot be cured, but our autonomic responses can be changed. Its complicated, we all have a bit of Dunning Kruger I think. A first step may be (to paraphrase a current political figure) treat everyone with respect and do not fast think that you know their motivations until you actually do.

 

[ahofer]

I asked Google about "perceptual bias." Lots of junk, of course. The only substantial piece I found-- a genuine research project based on the perception of colors--concluded that bias quickly fades or even disappears completely--over a short time. I don't think "bias" is a helpful term to throw around in the context of friendly audiofiley discussions; it's too easily weaponized and has unhappy moral overtones.

Do I understand you correctly that you think bias is not a big deal in listening? If so, this is a very pernicious misgoogling. Anyone tempted by this should start with J.J. Johnston to disabuse yourself of this notion, starting with his opening summary in a 2009 workshop. Here's a nice list of lectures.

And, certainly, consider the father of the field, a Nobel prize winner, on whether bias or noise can be avoided by experience:

It’s false to hope that if you become more aware of your errors you will make better decisions, says Danny. There has been no breakthrough on efforts to reduce bias. Furthermore, all the work on biases has distracted from noise, which we know we can reduce.

The only solution is process and method. Controlled experiments and measurements.

 

[pkane]

I agree with you that in the wild, there are far more people who believe their senses than charlatans trying to scam. I do not know the ratio for those posting here, but I sense there are more of #2.

I think it is a mistake to assume that #2 (sense believers) would not exist unless they had been bamboozled by charlatans.

Our perceptions being influenced by biases caused by previous experiences, stories, tribal beliefs is how life works. We could not function if every judgement we made had to be thought through as if it was the first time we had ever encountered it. The hungry bear would catch us before we had thought things through.

So, assuming that your NAD amp sounds better because of your previous encounters with the brand, the technology, the function first styling etc. is no different from enjoying your wine more because you know its a sought after vintage from a boutique vineyard in France. Somehow it is acceptable to say you think a wine exceptional without someone in a wine forum insisting on a blind test. I wonder what percentage of oenophiles could pass such a test? If they could not, would their enjoyment of wine be improved if from that time forward they drank exclusively the boxed stuff.

I agree with Hon (above) that bias is a loaded word. Kahneman calls it thinking fast. Thinking fast cannot be cured, but our autonomic responses can be changed. Its complicated, we all have a bit of Dunning Kruger I think. A first step may be (to paraphrase a current political figure) treat everyone with respect and do not fast think that you know their motivations until you actually do.

I generally agree. Subjective preferences based on styling, brand, etc., are all fine. I don't see these opinions as being a major issue here on ASR, as long someone doesn't come here to convince everyone that that a beeswax fuse lifts veils or a grounding box sucks out distortion and noise.

 

[GGroch]

Do I understand you correctly that you think bias is not a big deal in listening?......

Bias has different meanings and Googling turns up very specific examples like McGurk which may or may not often apply to HiFi.
Here we use it much more broadly.
But, to laymen, it is pejorative.
Bias and prejudice are what the other guy has. Good intuition and insight are what I have.

So I agree with Hon that it is not the best term to throw at newbies on their first visit.

 

[richard12511]

I think that is part of what bigguyca is challenging. If the primary validation of measurement, its tie to reality, is DBT, and no one actually executes DBT then the link of sound measurement to the actual listening experience is theoretical. Most of Amir's measurements include bar graphs ranking tested components, but there is no line indicating where audibility begins, or a line indicating where that audibility negatively impacts the average listener's experience.

Most all of us accept that Amir's tests are objectively done and provide an honest view of relative performance. There is value to that. It is a lot less clear precisely how these measurements impact the real world listening experience. It is that experience that most subjective reviewers outside of ASR focus on.

I think it might be useful to sticky a thread that compiles blind test studies and results for various electronics.