I've done my best to keep the discussion fact-based and professional, and to keep my frustration from bubbling too close to the surface. That said; I am human.
I don't feel smugly superior to anyone really, including audiophiles. I just find many claims of double-blind testing in the audio community to be laughable when the test is really just a group of guys getting together and promising not to look as the cables are swapped around. And I'm not saying all audiophile "tests" are like that. Some definitely put in more effort, but many don't. At least one person in the room will know what's being tested and all in the room know that something audio-related is being tested. A difference is expected to be heard. That makes all claims of blindness fly right out the window.
As I'm sure you're aware, double-blind means that nobody who interacts with the participants knows what's being tested, if anything. As soon as one person (even if it's the experimenter) knows that something is being tested it's no longer a double-blind test. In most audio testing the experimenter is the participant, so any claims of blind anything go straight out the window. Even ABX testing is not necessarily blind and the outcome can be influenced by the instructions given to the participant.
Research is hard. Setting up an experiment with proper scientific controls, including double-blind testing, with a reasonable sample size is difficult and expensive. The statistical analysis of the results is easy, but choosing the correct analysis can be tricky and if you get it wrong your conclusion won't be valid.
None of us live in a double-blind experiment. Well... Maybe you do, but who am I to judge? 😀 So, ultimately, our perception will be impacted by factors other than the stimuli that reach our ears.
Ultimately, audio is a hobby for most of us. For some of us the hobby is trying out many different pieces of gear. For others, it's designing gear that's as close to a straight wire with gain as possible. Vout = A*Vin. For those of us who design linear circuits, THD remains an important and meaningful measurement.
Tom
I don't feel smugly superior to anyone really, including audiophiles. I just find many claims of double-blind testing in the audio community to be laughable when the test is really just a group of guys getting together and promising not to look as the cables are swapped around. And I'm not saying all audiophile "tests" are like that. Some definitely put in more effort, but many don't. At least one person in the room will know what's being tested and all in the room know that something audio-related is being tested. A difference is expected to be heard. That makes all claims of blindness fly right out the window.
As I'm sure you're aware, double-blind means that nobody who interacts with the participants knows what's being tested, if anything. As soon as one person (even if it's the experimenter) knows that something is being tested it's no longer a double-blind test. In most audio testing the experimenter is the participant, so any claims of blind anything go straight out the window. Even ABX testing is not necessarily blind and the outcome can be influenced by the instructions given to the participant.
Research is hard. Setting up an experiment with proper scientific controls, including double-blind testing, with a reasonable sample size is difficult and expensive. The statistical analysis of the results is easy, but choosing the correct analysis can be tricky and if you get it wrong your conclusion won't be valid.
None of us live in a double-blind experiment. Well... Maybe you do, but who am I to judge? 😀 So, ultimately, our perception will be impacted by factors other than the stimuli that reach our ears.
Ultimately, audio is a hobby for most of us. For some of us the hobby is trying out many different pieces of gear. For others, it's designing gear that's as close to a straight wire with gain as possible. Vout = A*Vin. For those of us who design linear circuits, THD remains an important and meaningful measurement.
Tom
I don't think a lot of people understand that there is something that sometimes that can be used instead of DBT. Its well known in the perceptual analysis field and is called, Descriptive Analysis.
Maybe consider thinking about it this way, say you want to test an MD to see if they know what they are doing. You have them examine a patent, then you take them in another room and in front of a panel of examiners have them recite everything they noticed, have the panel rate how well the MD examined the patient, asked the patient questions, analyzed the answers, etc., what follow up tests are indicated, and all the implications thereof, and if the MD could properly answer all the follow up questions asked by the examining panel. Did it have to be all double blind to judge if the MD can diagnose accurately?
Next perhaps consider when Bob Ludwig wants to hire a new mastering engineer. He gives them a test: listen to a recording picked for testing candidates and then describe a list of every specific mastering problem it has. Does that process have to be double blind to know if the candidate noticed all the problems?
Here is the thing: there are people who know how to listen at a professional level. You test them more like you would test an new MD or a prospective mastering engineer. You can learn a lot from the process, because if they can't hear and or can't notice things there is no way they can guess all the details by looking at your deadpan face, not even if you twitch an eyebrow once or twice.
Maybe consider thinking about it this way, say you want to test an MD to see if they know what they are doing. You have them examine a patent, then you take them in another room and in front of a panel of examiners have them recite everything they noticed, have the panel rate how well the MD examined the patient, asked the patient questions, analyzed the answers, etc., what follow up tests are indicated, and all the implications thereof, and if the MD could properly answer all the follow up questions asked by the examining panel. Did it have to be all double blind to judge if the MD can diagnose accurately?
Next perhaps consider when Bob Ludwig wants to hire a new mastering engineer. He gives them a test: listen to a recording picked for testing candidates and then describe a list of every specific mastering problem it has. Does that process have to be double blind to know if the candidate noticed all the problems?
Here is the thing: there are people who know how to listen at a professional level. You test them more like you would test an new MD or a prospective mastering engineer. You can learn a lot from the process, because if they can't hear and or can't notice things there is no way they can guess all the details by looking at your deadpan face, not even if you twitch an eyebrow once or twice.
So what? What? Where is my thumbs up Tom? Or perhaps add one more to the one below?
Last edited:
There is a lot more to know about perceptual science than some anti-audiophiles appear to be familiar with.
I'm not anti-audiophile. I'm pro-science and pro-engineering. The three terms are not orthogonal.
Tom
Tom
I don't believe "some anti-audiophiles" is necessarily containing of some form of innuendo directed at you, seemingly that you are taking personally of a need to respond.
Last edited:
I see nobody else in this "discussion", except as bystanders with bags of popcorn in their hands.
Besides:
Meaning: if somebody is arguing good old solid science against your sophisms, and you immediately answer against, chances are, you are probably answering at him.
Who else?
Just to save you time googling:
Can you explain the clever part?
Synonyms for clever are intelligent, bright, smart, brilliant, talented, gifted, precocious, capable, able, competent, apt, proficient, educated, learned, erudite, academic, bookish, knowledgeable, wise, sagacious, brainy, genius
You may be right, I always thought Markw4 was a clever guy.
Synonyms for clever are intelligent, bright, smart, brilliant, talented, gifted, precocious, capable, able, competent, apt, proficient, educated, learned, erudite, academic, bookish, knowledgeable, wise, sagacious, brainy, genius
You may be right, I always thought Markw4 was a clever guy.
Last edited:
I think I know what you mean. However if you say anti-audiophile is not orthogonal to pro-science and pro-engineering, then it must be definable as a function of pro-science and pro-engineering. That can make the quote seem self-contradictory. Therefore to make sense of the quote above I assume you meant anti-audiophile is orthogonal and thus not a function of one way or the other of being pro-science and pro-engineering. In that case it is possible not to be anti-audiophile, while still being pro-science and pro-engineering.
Sorry for belaboring the point. Just wasn't sure if other people were seeing it the same way as me.
EDIT: Also, nobody called you an anti-audiophile. Nice to know you aren't one though.
EDIT 2: Sometimes I get tired of the, "So what?" etc., BS. Its okay with some of people here if someone goes after me, but not okay if the tables are turned. You know its a biased audience in this thread, with bias on both sides. The more biased, the more cheering and booing you get.
Last edited:
O.K. I am confused now, what are we talking about?...
Where is the OP ?...
This is what I am hearing...
This is what I do not want to see,
This is what I would prefer to see...cat and dog high five
This tenet is taped to my brain:
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood" -- Steven Covey.
This is also taped to my office bookcase:
" I know you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." -- Alan Greenspan
David
Where is the OP ?...
This is what I am hearing...
This is what I do not want to see,
This is what I would prefer to see...cat and dog high five
This tenet is taped to my brain:
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood" -- Steven Covey.
This is also taped to my office bookcase:
" I know you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." -- Alan Greenspan
David
Attachments
Last edited:
Your paranoia is unjustified. No one goes after you. It is just the opposite. You go after anyone daring to mention words distortion measurement.
Without reasonable arguments, you regularly imply that opponent education is lacking or they dogmatically believe in science, while science knows almost nothing about audio and sound perception (at least not that much as reading unreviewed papers and PowerPoint presentations has improved your knowledge).
Now you call some members anti-audiophiles? 🙄
I’ll repeat, you are worse than banned user EvenHarmonics ever was.
Why don’t you open a new thread “Distortion measurements are useless” and enjoy discussion there?
Tom,
With all due respect, you are exaggerating badly. What I have said is that distortion measurements are fine. Hopefully we will see even more of them in the form of distortion residuals.
All I have said that you don't like is that Sean Olive and Earl Geddes have said that THD or THD+N do not correlate with the degree of distastefulness of an audio device, and that I agree.
Also, I don't go after any individual person. If I go after anything, its a meme that we would probably all be better off without. How will the science of audio ever move ahead if we insist on sticking with an archaic metric? Isn't it reasonable that people should be aware of the problems with THD and THD+N when used alone? Do you yourself believe as they do at that other audio website that if THD/THD+N/SINAD is good enough then audible transparency is a given? Do you want to encourage other people to believe it?
Tombo56, you are also exaggerating. I used a term, albeit in a moment of frustration, without attributing it to any person living or dead, much less a member of this forum.
With that, I have nothing more to say at this time.
Last edited:
Paranoia is defined as the unwarranted or delusional belief that one is being persecuted. The delusion seems entirely on your part in that you believe that the case. There is no evidence of that. Although one might find conclusive and meaningful solid scientifically reasoned evidence of that by examining the bodily functions of ducks as per below:
And lots of thumbs up supporters of this universal theory as well...!
Last edited:
Hi Mark,
I have expressly stated many times that most of us look at distortion residuals and noise floor. I've also said that the old THD and IMD number isn't nearly as useful as looking as the entire spectrum. In my posts, you have seen, or can see what I am looking at as I have attached those measurements for all to see.
I have to be honest, whatever happens in your brain is highly variable. There is no metric possible. No references and trying to drag conversations in that direction is completely pointless as a result. Does it affect how one specific person perceives something at that point in time? Sure it does. But it has zero to do with how another "hears" that same selection, or how it might sound the next day to that person.
What does not change and does have references, is repeatable by others are the distortion and IMD tests. We have professional standards and equipment that is calibrated to common standards. It has been seen that in general, the lower the amount of distortion equipment has, the better it sounds by the bulk of people, and by bulk of people, I mean the vast majority. If I service tube gear and lower it's distortion, 100 % of people I did work for calls back to say how much better it sounds. I have the same experience with solid state clients. When I recommend sound equipment that performs better, 100% of people have reported that it does. These are folks who just want to enjoy their tunes. Most often it is their wives or children that notice the differences most easily. That's because the junk people can have between their ears does interfere with an honest appraisal.
I never judge my own work for that reason, and I am very critical of what I do compared to others. Tom is probably along the same lines, and most other people who are good in this field.
You see, most of the modern audio industry is built on myths and stories. Appearance can be important of course, but many "designers" aren't that good to be honest. So to sell their stuff, they have to create a story and explain through inaccurate ideas why their equipment sounds better.
Now if some folks like the sound of old, single-ended tube or solid state stuff - great, that's good for them. But don't ever try to sell the fact that equipment with distortion sounds better, because it clearly doesn't. What it does is "colour" every signal. That isn't better, maybe just to that person's taste, but they are not the majority by any means.
You can find anything on the internet to support any position you may have. That doesn't mean you're right. Heck, child molesters find support on the internet, does that means what they think is okay or normal? What this shows is that percentages of the population can think differently and find like minded people. It doesn't mean they are correct, or in the majority. So reach and grab for anything to support your view, but do not push it on others when it conflicts with the known truths.
Now the topic is capacitors that may cause signal distortion, not how stuff sounds. Also, application determines if a capacitor generates distortion and good design reduces or climates this.
Let's stay on topic shall we? Anyone is free to start a thread on their beliefs, but not to hijack a perfectly valid thread to push an agenda.
I have expressly stated many times that most of us look at distortion residuals and noise floor. I've also said that the old THD and IMD number isn't nearly as useful as looking as the entire spectrum. In my posts, you have seen, or can see what I am looking at as I have attached those measurements for all to see.
I have to be honest, whatever happens in your brain is highly variable. There is no metric possible. No references and trying to drag conversations in that direction is completely pointless as a result. Does it affect how one specific person perceives something at that point in time? Sure it does. But it has zero to do with how another "hears" that same selection, or how it might sound the next day to that person.
What does not change and does have references, is repeatable by others are the distortion and IMD tests. We have professional standards and equipment that is calibrated to common standards. It has been seen that in general, the lower the amount of distortion equipment has, the better it sounds by the bulk of people, and by bulk of people, I mean the vast majority. If I service tube gear and lower it's distortion, 100 % of people I did work for calls back to say how much better it sounds. I have the same experience with solid state clients. When I recommend sound equipment that performs better, 100% of people have reported that it does. These are folks who just want to enjoy their tunes. Most often it is their wives or children that notice the differences most easily. That's because the junk people can have between their ears does interfere with an honest appraisal.
I never judge my own work for that reason, and I am very critical of what I do compared to others. Tom is probably along the same lines, and most other people who are good in this field.
You see, most of the modern audio industry is built on myths and stories. Appearance can be important of course, but many "designers" aren't that good to be honest. So to sell their stuff, they have to create a story and explain through inaccurate ideas why their equipment sounds better.
Now if some folks like the sound of old, single-ended tube or solid state stuff - great, that's good for them. But don't ever try to sell the fact that equipment with distortion sounds better, because it clearly doesn't. What it does is "colour" every signal. That isn't better, maybe just to that person's taste, but they are not the majority by any means.
You can find anything on the internet to support any position you may have. That doesn't mean you're right. Heck, child molesters find support on the internet, does that means what they think is okay or normal? What this shows is that percentages of the population can think differently and find like minded people. It doesn't mean they are correct, or in the majority. So reach and grab for anything to support your view, but do not push it on others when it conflicts with the known truths.
Now the topic is capacitors that may cause signal distortion, not how stuff sounds. Also, application determines if a capacitor generates distortion and good design reduces or climates this.
Let's stay on topic shall we? Anyone is free to start a thread on their beliefs, but not to hijack a perfectly valid thread to push an agenda.
Using such terms as "when it conflicts with the known truths" it seems without possibility for anyone to infer that a capacitor could have a sonic character of "unknown" origin without the banshee wailings of objection by many old school science proponents ... not to exaggerate.
Yes, many of us old school science types find ourselves inconveniently mired in reality - living within the constraints of actual physics is so limiting sometimes.