The psychology of it all.

[anmpr1]

Does anyone else find it odd that despite the fact that most DAC's on the DAC list perform well enough to pass the beyond the scope of human hearing test, people are still spending $500-$1000 on a measurably well performing DAC? If the difference doesn't matter because you can't hear it, then why do people keep throwing money at the problem?

There are a lot of reasons to buy a 'more expensive' DAC (or amp, or whatever). It might be strictly cosmetic, could come down to features on the back panel, might be warranty, or that you want to support a particular brand because you think they are good guys... All those are good reasons.

I don't want to get into religion, but there's a Buddhist saying--once you cross the river you don't continue to carry the boat with you, on your journey. As it relates to hi-fi, once you realize that sound is the same for anything in the ASR blue (or even) green section, you forget about all the nonsense, and don't pay anymore attention to it.

ASR DAC reviews are mostly interesting in order to find out who is doing the most for the least. Other than that, secondary factors cited above (not sound related) become important for the consumer.

The other good thing about ASR (almost alone in the reviewing scene) is that it allows one to easily recognize the idiocy. Over at the famous 'analog' site, a reviewer whose name I won't mention, but whose initials are Michael Fremer, tells fans that a fourteen thousand dollar Ethernet switch will make your music 'sound better' through your home network. A little time here, will disabuse someone of spending that kind of money on an Ethernet switch. So from a practical standpoint, the info here could possibly save dollars.

 

[egellings]

Not really - people will still hear what they want to hear, and when things are equal they *still* establish a preference.

I tested the Benchmark AHB2 and the NAD M22 side by side, volume matched. I didn't hear a difference until I had to convince myself I *had* to make a choice since I could not keep both. And so I decided to hear a difference, and picked one because it seems to sound more "fun".

I know the counter argument will be that double blind testing will show the supposed preference is pretty much 50-50 statistically... but people still make "excuses" to justify their choice.

There are other reasons why people might prefer one piece of gear from another identical-sounding piece, such as functionality, appearance and brand recognition/identity.

 

[Newman]

Not really - people will still hear what they want to hear, and when things are equal they *still* establish a preference.

That is literally impossible in a well-controlled DBT. You are mistaken.

Sure, when the test design says “pick one” then they pick one, but that doesn’t mean a preference has been established. They have to consistently pick the same one to establish a preference. When, as you say, “things are equal”, then they *don’t* establish a preference, since their pick varies randomly.

OTOH if you are referring to sighted listening, then sure. But that’s nothing worth talking about, other than to point out that the preference is not based on sound waves, even though the listener typically thinks it is.

 

[pablolie]

That is literally impossible in a well-controlled DBT. You are mistaken.

Sure, when the test design says “pick one” then they pick one, but that doesn’t mean a preference has been established. They have to consistently pick the same one to establish a preference. When, as you say, “things are equal”, then they *don’t* establish a preference, since their pick varies randomly.

Empirically I'd say you "believe" in the healing power of double blind ABX testing. As a zillion discussions show, that is not the case. A 50/50 doesn't *prove* preference - neither does it disprove it.

 

[Newman]

Please explain this ‘belief’ you mention.

 

[pablolie]

Please explain this ‘belief’ you mention.

If ABX was as powerful as you claim, we wouldn't have 95% of the discussions we have in this forum. Simple as that. ABX testing merely leads both sides to entrench themselves on both sides of the argument.

This is not about me. ABX testing works for me, and it has made me reconsider stuff in the past. But it clearly isn't as convincing universally as you imply.

 

[krabapple]

It would be pretty hard to produce a result that indicates a 'preference' , in a properly randomized sufficiently powered DBT of two things that aren't audibly different.

Sure, some people* will completely disregard their DBT result, and declare they still prefer the sound of one thing to another. But that's not a failure of DBT.



*John Atkinson is one

 

[Newman]

If ABX was as powerful as you claim, we wouldn't have 95% of the discussions we have in this forum. Simple as that.

So you are saying ABX doesn’t work because a lot of people don’t want to believe that it works? And that everyone has to believe it works before it works?

That’s bizarre.

OTOH if you are saying its social and personal influencing power over audiophiles is not as great as I claim, then you have erected a straw man, since I never said or implied any such claim.

 

[Axo1989]

I don't want to get into religion, but there's a Buddhist saying--once you cross the river you don't continue to carry the boat with you, on your journey. As it relates to hi-fi, once you realize that sound is the same for anything in the ASR blue (or even) green section, you forget about all the nonsense, and don't pay anymore attention to it.

You should be on safe ground, Buddhism being a philosophical practice, not actually a religion.

And yes, once I realised the differences between our SINAD proxy-measurements across the green and blue ranges were likely inaudible, I stopped worrying that my amp likely ranked in the green section (on good day).

The other good thing about ASR (almost alone in the reviewing scene) is that it allows one to easily recognize the idiocy. Over at the famous 'analog' site, a reviewer whose name I won't mention, but whose initials are Michael Fremer, tells fans that a fourteen thousand dollar Ethernet switch will make your music 'sound better' through your home network. A little time here, will disabuse someone of spending that kind of money on an Ethernet switch. So from a practical standpoint, the info here could possibly save dollars.

This is a great service for almost anyone into audio who doesn't have disposable income larger than the average salary in a developed country. I think the psychology is interesting. Much of the sway of the 'expert' influencer or subtly arrogant salesperson is projecting the impression that they have insider knowledge and privileged status that the potential buyer will have access to once the expensive purchase (or series of expensive purchases) are made. More than a few confidence scams employ this psychological mechanism.

 

[pablolie]

So you are saying ABX doesn’t work because a lot of people don’t want to believe that it works? And that everyone has to believe it works before it works?

That’s bizarre.

OTOH if you are saying its social and personal influencing power over audiophiles is not as great as I claim, then you have erected a straw man, since I never said or implied any such claim.

Dude I clearly told you I personally am an objectivist. You're barking up the wrong tree.

All I am doing is presenting you with the FACTS of what happens when you try to convince subjectivists with ABX. They'll find a thousand reasons after the fact - and some of them are valid: stress of being subjected to a test (which of course they voluntarily submitted to), unfamiliar environment, wrong song choices etc etc etc

And many "objectivists" will not do much better and use the same excuses to claim why they couldn't hear a difference between stuff that's 0.1dB apart even though they swore they could.

 

[Newman]

I already said similar things: some subjectivists will learn from their personal ABX experiences (their stories are documented here on ASR, so they definitely exist), and some will resist and become arch hypocrites who live by the motto “I trust my ears” but only until their ABX Ears contradict their Sighted Listening Ears. They try to resolve this by arguing that ABX fools them and Sighted Listening doesn’t, ie the exact opposite of the truth. For these people, they are over-attached to sighted listening ‘revelations’ about hifi gear, and that attachment drives them away from learning.

You are the one barking up the wrong tree with your straw man that I have some opposing view. It’s called ‘violent agreement’. Gee.

A 50/50 doesn't *prove* preference - neither does it disprove it.

So what? You keep angrily proclaiming your objectivist status, but then you keep making the sort of statement that bad subjectivists come up with to justify ignoring a test outcome. In this case, “science can’t prove anything”. It’s an irrelevant objection. If one participates in a well-controlled listening test and comes up 50/50 after a statistically significant number of trials, one is justified to make the statement with high confidence that the person cannot hear a preference between the two devices. That is an important learning that a 50/50 outcome provides.

 

[Adi777]

Over at the famous 'analog' site, a reviewer whose name I won't mention, but whose initials are Michael Fremer,

 

[Spkrdctr]

Dude I clearly told you I personally am an objectivist. You're barking up the wrong tree.
And many "objectivists" will not do much better and use the same excuses to claim why they couldn't hear a difference between stuff that's 0.1dB apart even though they swore they could.

You mean someone in Audio would exaggerate and horror of horrors, even lie? There have been thousands of posts on here where people claim they can hear things that they can't. I have my almost trademarked phrase of "God like hearing". Many people think they have the hearing of scientific test equipment. Then I go to my next favourite saying "Ask your cat or dog how well you hear", they will tell you you have lousy hearing. So, sadly even objectivists get caught up into this trap of God like hearing. Now, it is not that many of our esteemed people on ASR that are caught. Well, except in the DAC test threads. LOL All in all if anyone is even 80% an objectivist then they are so far ahead of a subjectivist that there is no comparison. All this to say, I enjoyed your post!

 

[Tim Link]

The way I see it, a lot of so called subejctivism is really poor objectivism. Few if any argue that the perceived difference in a sighted listening session is a real perception of the listener. The insistence that the difference is occurring outside the head of the listener is the problem. It's an objective claim that is sometimes made without evidence. Somehow the certainty of the subjective experience gets inextricably wrapped up in a particular explanation for that experience, so when the explanation is questioned it feels like an attack on the subjective experience itself.

 

[fpitas]

The way I see it, a lot of so called subejctivism is really poor objectivism. Few if any argue that the perceived difference in a sighted listening session is a real perception of the listener. The insistence that the difference is occurring outside the head of the listener is the problem. It's an objective claim that is sometimes made without evidence. Somehow the certainty of the subjective experience gets inextricably wrapped up in a particular explanation for that experience, so when the explanation is questioned it feels like an attack on the subjective experience itself.

I get the idea that many people are troubled that they can't entirely trust their senses. But there it is.

 

[Spkrdctr]

I get the idea that many people are troubled that they can't entirely trust their senses. But there it is.

Wow. That sums up a lot of our posts here on ASR. Short, concise and on point. I wish I had said that!

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Not really - people will still hear what they want to hear, and when things are equal they *still* establish a preference.

I tested the Benchmark AHB2 and the NAD M22 side by side, volume matched. I didn't hear a difference until I had to convince myself I *had* to make a choice since I could not keep both. And so I decided to hear a difference, and picked one because it seems to sound more "fun".

I know the counter argument will be that double blind testing will show the supposed preference is pretty much 50-50 statistically... but people still make "excuses" to justify their choice.

yeah...and the DBT will prove those choices are based on nothing real and therefore should not be used as any sort of recommendation of one thing over another. It's not nearly as complicated as people make it out to be. If the test comes out 50/50 and the subject then says "but still I prefer this one" we can shrug and say "people be crazy" and move along.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Empirically I'd say you "believe" in the healing power of double blind ABX testing. As a zillion discussions show, that is not the case. A 50/50 doesn't *prove* preference - neither does it disprove it.

what are you talking about? LOL.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

If ABX was as powerful as you claim, we wouldn't have 95% of the discussions we have in this forum. Simple as that. ABX testing merely leads both sides to entrench themselves on both sides of the argument.

This is not about me. ABX testing works for me, and it has made me reconsider stuff in the past. But it clearly isn't as convincing universally as you imply.

Whether someone chooses to believe reality or live in delusion...that has nothing to do with the results of a controlled test. If a person takes a blind test, and it comes out within the range of random chance, that is the solution. It's simply inarguable.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Dude I clearly told you I personally am an objectivist. You're barking up the wrong tree.

All I am doing is presenting you with the FACTS of what happens when you try to convince subjectivists with ABX. They'll find a thousand reasons after the fact - and some of them are valid: stress of being subjected to a test (which of course they voluntarily submitted to), unfamiliar environment, wrong song choices etc etc etc

And many "objectivists" will not do much better and use the same excuses to claim why they couldn't hear a difference between stuff that's 0.1dB apart even though they swore they could.

None of what you're saying is meaningful. "wrong songs?" So, let them choose the songs. "stress?" So, they can easily and clearly define notable differences between cables and dacs in situations where the comparison is between something currently hooked up and something that used to be hooked up hours or days ago but in a side by side comparison they are too stressed to hear such notable differences? Please. We aren't curing cancer here...it's just audio toys. If taking a test like this stresses them out that much I'd say in their heart of hearts they already know the truth.

Can they come up with excuses for failure? Of course. Are those excuses valid? No.

And your "objectivist" in your example is not an objectivist at all. What kind of objectivist would fail a well-configured blind test and then come up with excuses for failure??