The ASR "objectivists tribe" ;) has to read the Keynotes at the AES160th by Lars Risbo

[Buckchester]

Oh no I don't think so.

There would be accusing of cheating if no third party is integrated into the test process and so it would be very expensive and time consuming.

Revealing the name of the competitor speaker would cause bad blood. A comparison agains older speakers would not be considerd a propper comparison and can also cause bad blood nevertheless. A comparison with other speakers of the same company is more or less pointless.

It would be very likely a disaster marketing wise. A lot of money. Endless discussion which is typically good, but in this case it would be discussion within the scientific community only and all scientific standards would be checked rigorously, since this is how science works but average joe doesn't know this. The average joe thinks these kind of tests where done all the time and will take away the skepticis from the reaction of the audio science community.

No one has the money and resources to repeat the test. So there would be no third party validation...

Sorry but I think it would be expensive and really hard to get a good outcome out of it.

Yawn…I don’t buy this, but regardless, without evidence why should any of us believe any of these claims by Purifi?

 

[er|κzvio1in]

I think of it like race cars. Lap time predicts race performance pretty 1:1 but it's still worth studying tire temperature, suspension behavior, or aerodynamics. Toole's research is lap time but there may still be unexplored contributors to performance.

No, very often, racers starting from pole position don't win the race.

 

[MattHooper]

No, just abandon philosophy

Ha


As someone once put it: those who reject philosophy are condemned to doing it badly.

Our beliefs, claims and justifications inevitably involve philosophical assumptions… it’s inescapable ….may as well try to do it well

 

[rdenney]

Well, just like audio perception, visual perception is also subjective and varies from individual to individual. I see what you are showing and believe what you are saying about the expected perception in these two images, but to my eye the image on the right looks like an under exposed digital image that was corrected... hence the noise.

...

The edges created by the noise present false detail, or detail that is derived from the original image but not present in it. That's what raises the apparent acutance.

As an on-and-off professional photographer, I have to approximately keep up with equipment just to make sure what I have is sustainable as a product line. Consequently, I own Canon 5D cameras in each of its four main generations (I'm ending that commitment there--I have no wish at present to transition to mirrorless cameras until the fad diminishes and they present as unique buying opportunities). The original 5D has a 13-MP sensor, and the latest is a little over 30. If I view the images at 100%--a sensel from the sensor maps to a pixel on my monitor--lens faults are much easier to see in the second image than the first. But if I downsample the 30-MP image to 13 MP, that ability to see lens faults disappears, and lenses that were not sharp at the pixel level on the high-density sensor become apparently sharp at the pixel level when the pixels are bigger. By the way, that same process eliminates pixel-level noise from the 30-MP sensor by integrating it out, so the image might still be objectively cleaner after downsampling, but with the same resolving power. Canon sold a lot of new generations of lenses to people judging them by viewing the new high-pixel-count images at unrealistically large magnifications on their computer monitors. I have always been happy with that--it makes earlier generations of SOTA-premium lenses a lot cheaper on the used market.

The point is relevant to audio: perception is a tricky thing, but the things that can affect it non-negligibly are always measurable.

Rick "just bought an astonishingly good 25-year-old Canon 500mm f/4L super-telephoto for 20 cents on the dollar" Denney

 

[test1223]

Yawn…I don’t buy this, but regardless, without evidence why should any of us believe any of these claims by Purifi?

Because the majority of people are using (uncontrolled) listening for testing. And even with all the obstacles of these kind of tests, good performance usually get at least some recognition.

If blind listening tests are such a great marketing vehicle why no one is using them? Even the Harmann Group did a relatively low amount of promotion with it?

 

[MattHooper]

That is noise. Measurable in vision and sound.

Yes.

And there are different types of distortion.

So we need to be able to characterize any particular distortion we are interested in.

So right back to my point…

 

[voodooless]

Because the majority of people are using (uncontrolled) listening for testing. And even with all the obstacles of these kind of tests, good performance usually get at least some recognition.

Yeah, that’s what the cable believers say as well.

If blind listening tests are such a great marketing vehicle why no one is using them? Even the Harmann Group did a relatively low amount of promotion with it?

It’s not a good marketing vehicle. We’re AudioScienceReview, not AudioMarketingReview.

 

[Buckchester]

Because the majority of people are using (uncontrolled) listening for testing. And even with all the obstacles of these kind of tests, good performance usually get at least some recognition.

If blind listening tests are such a great marketing vehicle why no one is using them? Even the Harmann Group did a relatively low amount of promotion with it?

So what makes you believe Purifi’s claims?

 

[solderdude]

If blind listening tests are such a great marketing vehicle why no one is using them?

A: PROPERLY executed blind tests are tedious and difficult to do in most cases.
B: It requires multiple persons or at least a computer that controls the test.
C: It is VERY time consuming.
D: ALL the gear and listeners used must be trusted and capable if it needs to provide proof.
E: It requires all gear to be measured/checked for proper operation.
F: It requires listeners that may or may not have to be trained in one or more ways.

Blind listening tests may not give the results the one doing the testing is desiring. Case in point.... an interlink manufacturer can not substantiate any of their claims when proper blind tests were done. That would be pretty bad marketing on their side.
What would be great advertising is merely telling 'discerning people' heard clear differences in 'blind tests' without providing any proof of those tests and how they were done.

So no they are not a marketing vehicle but rather a test method when wanting to eliminate most of the quirks of human listening.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

those who reject philosophy are condemned to doing it badly.

in this they resemble those who embrace it, or the overwhelming majority of them at least

 

[test1223]

It’s not a good marketing vehicle. We’re AudioScienceReview, not AudioMarketingReview.

A: PROPERLY executed blind tests are tedious and difficult to do in most cases.
B: It requires multiple persons or at least a computer that controls the test.
C: It is VERY time consuming.
D: ALL the gear and listeners used must be trusted and capable if it needs to provide proof.
E: It requires all gear to be measured for proper operation.
F: It requires listeners that may or may not have to be trained in one or more ways.

So no they are not a marketing vehicle but rather a test method when wanting to eliminate most of the quirks of human listening.

I strongly agree that these kind of test can't be used as good marketing vehicles. So no one should be surprised that there are next to none blind test published by any company. Therefore I was arguing against the claim of @Buckchester that publishing blind test is a good idea from the perspective of a company...

Yeah, that’s what the cable believers say as well.

Your "guilt by association" argument is very weak and tells much more about you than you think it tells about me. Fight my argument and I am more than fine with it.

So what makes you believe Purifi’s claims?

It is very likely because thy already proved multiple times to be good engineers.


It seems to me many people here think almost no one in the audio world can do proper engineering, expect themselves who "sadly" doesn't do that for a living? About 50,000 companies or even more? and many many people involved in the creation of an audio product and no proper engineering - is this seriously your thought??

 

[Buckchester]

I strongly agree that these kind of test can't be used as good marketing vehicles. So no one should be surprised that there are next to none blind test published by any company. Therefore I was arguing against the claim of @Buckchester that publishing blind test is a good idea from the perspective of a company...



Your "guilt by association" argument is very weak and tells much more about you than you think it tells about me. Fight my argument and I am more than fine with it.


It is very likely because thy already proved multiple times to be good engineers.


It seems to me many people here think almost no one in the audio world can do proper engineering, expect themselves who "sadly" doesn't do that for a living? About 50,000 companies or even more? and many many people involved in the creation of an audio product and no proper engineering - is this seriously your thought??

Yawn once again…if it ain’t audible, then I’m not quite sure why I should care.

 

[voodooless]

Your "guilt by association" argument is very weak and tells much more about you than you think it tells about me. Fight my argument and I am more than fine with it.

You’re miss characterizing my argument. It’s not a guilt-by-association argument at all. The point is that you are defending the same weak evidential standard cable believers defend: uncontrolled listening as if broad recognition under uncontrolled conditions were meaningful validation.

It is very likely because thy already proved multiple times to be good engineers.

Similar argument. Rob Watts is also an excellent engineer. That doesn’t prevent him from making some very dubious claims.

 

[olieb]

Because the majority of people are using (uncontrolled) listening for testing. And even with all the obstacles of these kind of tests, good performance usually get at least some recognition.

Uncontrolled listening is so bad as a method, that it should not be taken for anything than totally obvious differences.
----

So what makes you believe Purifi’s claims?

It is very likely because thy already proved multiple times to be good engineers.

So your argument here is “evidence by eminence“?

This is not about being a competent engineer at all. Even the best engineer can be wrong.
And what is more, Risbo and Purifi are bringing forward claims about something (hysteresis distortion) where the science is either not settled or their claims are in contradiction of the evidence so far. We don't know as there is no information, just vague assertions.
When he is not shy to put forward those highly iconic scientists (Bohr, Millikan and Einstein) it seems reasonable to expect a bit of evidence for all this, don't you think?

 

[Timcognito]

When he is not shy to put forward those highly iconic scientists (Bohr and Einstein) it seems reasonable to expect a bit of evidence for all this, don't you think?

Though a generally agree with your post several of Einstein's theories were not born out in measurements until after his death. Not sure about Bohr.

 

[test1223]

The point is that you are defending the same weak evidential standard cable believers defend: uncontrolled listening as if broad recognition under uncontrolled conditions were meaningful validation.

Uncontrolled listening is so bad as a method, that it should not be taken for anything than totally obvious differences.

Yes it isn't that good but it is the reality. And none blind test are also not the worst evidence, like it is sometimes painted here. Even many many engineers who are aware that you can't detect small differences reliably without blind test have to rely on none blind listening test and some measurements or other stuff which supports their hypothesis. Why because checking everything with a blind test is often to expensive, unpractical or time consuming. Therefore there are many hi-fi companies with good and (most likely) none sense parts in the same product.

So your argument here is “evidence by eminence“?

With the current data yes! If there is new evidence in one or another direction I will of cause change my estimate.

This is not about being a competent engineer at all. Even the best engineer can be wrong.
And what is more, Risbo and Purifi are bringing forward claims about something (hysteresis distortion) where the science is either not settled or their claims are in contradiction of the evidence so far. We don't know as there is no information.
When he is not shy to put forward those highly iconic scientists (Bohr and Einstein) it seems reasonable to expect a bit of evidence for all this, don't you think?

In an ideal world yes, but the burden to prove everything in-depth can't be carried by almost any audio company. You either lose your research findings to your competitors and/ or sink a lot of time and money into a in-depth prove, which you simple haven't the time / money for to conduct.

 

[Sernyl]

IMHO this topic is simple : some parameters have not been discovered yet. Other than "something is heard".
Once they will be identified and detected, they should be measured.
This is an universal scientific approach.
(There may be an initial concept, but it is not valid until demonstrated)
“If you can not measure it, you cannot improve it” (Lord Kelvin)

 

[Buckchester]

Though a generally agree with your post several of Einstein's theories were not born out in measurements until after his death. Not sure about Bohr.

The point is Lars is no Einstein. Einstein was not the rule, he was the exception. Usually when few believe a new hypothesis it is because it is flawed or incorrect.

 

[Timcognito]

I'm in alignment with last two posts.

 

[olieb]

With the current data yes! If there is new evidence in one or another direction I will of cause change my estimate.

You have left the scientific sector! Godspeed!

Even many many engineers who are aware that you can't detect small differences reliably without blind test have to rely on none blind listening test and some measurements or other stuff which supports their hypothesis. Why because checking everything with a blind test is often to expensive, unpractical or time consuming.

This is not how engineering works. You do not use the most tedious, expensive and slow measuring method (blind listening tests), if anything else is available.
And therefore in engineering there are calipers, clocks and scales. And in modern times lasers, ADCs and analysers of all kind. This is what you use to check for differences.
Only if you are chasing something new and unknown and you do not know how to do it with your tools, you have to resort to the basic stuff of observation: in audio that means listening with your ears, and if is is supposed to work at least to some degree, it has to be controlled (aka blind and level matched and ...)
But this is more science than engineering and so it is another sector. But it is the sector that Lars puts himself in, and quite outspokenly so.