Thoughts on the DBT/ABX debate and relevance of RAHE

[Bruce Abrams]

I've often thought that if we eliminated (primarily because they've become
too predictable and boring) the discussions that invariably devolve into DBT
debates, ie. cables, equipment "burn-in", amplifiers, green pens, etc.,
there would be precious few threads worth following. According to the
regular DBT proponents, most (if not all) CD players, cables (of all kind)
and amplifiers are indistinguishable one from another, so if you heard a
difference and want to discuss it, you first have to validate your
observation via some form of DBT. This yields two possible responses to a
new equipment related thread. One is that since very few (if any) posters
bother to set up a DBT for product evaluation, there is no point of
discussion, since your new "x" defacto, sounds the same as your old "x"
because you can't prove otherwise. The second possible response is that
based on the DBTs that have been done, your old "x" must sound the same as
your new one because it's been established that all "x's" are
indistinguishable. The third possibility which used to occupy most of this
group was the discussion about what the equipment itself sounded like, but
those conversations rarely happen anymore, either because such differences
no longer exist, or because the DBT camp redirects them as DBT discussions
(perhaps because those differences no longer exist.) Either way,
meaningful discussion over audio equipment is becoming increasingly rare.

My initial thinking (and boredom) was that since current generation CD
players sound virtually identical, "properly engineered" amplifiers and
pre-amplifiers sound virtually identical, and cables make no difference;
this NG, indeed all audio discussions should be limited to speaker
discussions. After all, they're all different sounding and no one pair is
perfect and while some may argue, we really have progressed to the point
where we've achieved near perfection upstream. So the discussions that used
to be very important back when amplification wasn't quite as mature of a
technology as it is today, have simply lost their relevance.

So that leaves us with a quandry. What do we who love music and the
science/art of musical reproduction have to talk about? Surely there must
be more than just speakers.

Acoustic treatment, room setup and recordings anyone? I'd be very
interested to hear thoughts from the group as to other possibilities, as
it's clear that we're close to exhausting other equipment's potential for
discussion.

[Steven Sullivan]

Bruce Abrams > wrote:
> I've often thought that if we eliminated (primarily because they've become
> too predictable and boring) the discussions that invariably devolve into DBT
> debates, ie. cables, equipment "burn-in", amplifiers, green pens, etc.,
> there would be precious few threads worth following. According to the
> regular DBT proponents, most (if not all) CD players, cables (of all kind)
> and amplifiers are indistinguishable one from another, so if you heard a
> difference and want to discuss it, you first have to validate your
> observation via some form of DBT.

Nope, you don't 'have' to do even that. All you 'have' to do is
acknowledge that you might be wrong, based on what is known about
perceptual bias.

> (perhaps because those differences no longer exist.) Either way,
> meaningful discussion over audio equipment is becoming increasingly rare.

Topics off the top of my head:
Speakers. Cartridges. Room treatments. Acoustics.
Features of digital players and the preamp/amp chain such
as bass management and DSP. Recording. State of the hobby.
Audiiophile culture. Audiophile magazines. Data compression codecs.

And of course, reports on equipment that
*do* involve some controls and measurements.




--
-S.

[[email protected]]

Bruce Abrams > wrote in message news:<9Ov7b.297825$cF.92706@rwcrnsc53>...
> So that leaves us with a quandry. What do we who love music and the
> science/art of musical reproduction have to talk about? Surely there must
> be more than just speakers.
>
> Acoustic treatment, room setup and recordings anyone? I'd be very
> interested to hear thoughts from the group as to other possibilities, as
> it's clear that we're close to exhausting other equipment's potential for
> discussion.

If you take the topics of speakers, room setup, acoustic treatment and
recordings, then there is no question (at least to me) that
differences between well engineered amps, CD players and cables are
insignificant in comparison. Analog falls somewhere in between,
differences between cartridges, turntables and head amps being greater
than those between CD players, amps & cables but still usually not as
great as the differences room treatment & setup can make.

I think the difference is how one experiences this hobby: do we listen
to the music, or to the equipment? Obviously these are two ideal types
and most of us are somewhere in between. Those in the former half are
building up (and listening to) their music collections while those in
the latter half are building up, tweaking (and listening to) their
gear. We all do a little of both but the balance between the two
varies widely from person to person.

Many years ago I started in the 2nd camp but over time I've gradually
shifted to the 1st camp. What happened was through time & experience
listening to lots of different stuff, I built up a set of equipment
that keeps me happy. So now the goal is to grow the music collection,
tracking down good recordings of good performances.

[randyb]

Bruce Abrams > wrote in message news:<9Ov7b.297825$cF.92706@rwcrnsc53>...
> I've often thought that if we eliminated (primarily because they've become
> too predictable and boring) the discussions that invariably devolve into DBT
> debates, ie. cables, equipment "burn-in", amplifiers, green pens, etc.,
> there would be precious few threads worth following. According to the
> regular DBT proponents, most (if not all) CD players, cables (of all kind)
> and amplifiers are indistinguishable one from another, so if you heard a
> difference and want to discuss it, you first have to validate your
> observation via some form of DBT. This yields two possible responses to a
> new equipment related thread. One is that since very few (if any) posters
> bother to set up a DBT for product evaluation, there is no point of
> discussion, since your new "x" defacto, sounds the same as your old "x"
> because you can't prove otherwise. The second possible response is that
> based on the DBTs that have been done, your old "x" must sound the same as
> your new one because it's been established that all "x's" are
> indistinguishable. The third possibility which used to occupy most of this
> group was the discussion about what the equipment itself sounded like, but
> those conversations rarely happen anymore, either because such differences
> no longer exist, or because the DBT camp redirects them as DBT discussions
> (perhaps because those differences no longer exist.) Either way,
> meaningful discussion over audio equipment is becoming increasingly rare.
>
> My initial thinking (and boredom) was that since current generation CD
> players sound virtually identical, "properly engineered" amplifiers and
> pre-amplifiers sound virtually identical, and cables make no difference;
> this NG, indeed all audio discussions should be limited to speaker
> discussions. After all, they're all different sounding and no one pair is
> perfect and while some may argue, we really have progressed to the point
> where we've achieved near perfection upstream. So the discussions that used
> to be very important back when amplification wasn't quite as mature of a
> technology as it is today, have simply lost their relevance.
>
> So that leaves us with a quandry. What do we who love music and the
> science/art of musical reproduction have to talk about? Surely there must
> be more than just speakers.
>
> Acoustic treatment, room setup and recordings anyone? I'd be very
> interested to hear thoughts from the group as to other possibilities, as
> it's clear that we're close to exhausting other equipment's potential for
> discussion.


I would think there is a lot to talk about. Let's start with the
renaissance in digital room correction systems starting to hit the
market from mass market producers i.e. Pioneer and now Yamaha. I
would think people could talk at length at where this is headed, how
it will affect the speaker industry etc. In the end, even if there
was some minor difference in a cable that affected the sound, it is
minor to some of the things in the works in the form of digital-unless
of course you hate all things digital.

[Nousaine]

Bruce Abrams wrote:

>I've often thought that if we eliminated (primarily because they've become
>too predictable and boring) the discussions that invariably devolve into DBT
>debates, ie. cables, equipment "burn-in", amplifiers, green pens, etc.,
>there would be precious few threads worth following.

Actually if the subjectivist proponents would stop insisting that some
differences that have no evidence of even existing are subjects worthy of
pursuit and would get about validating the claims instead of continuing to
endlessly 'argue' there are plenty of worthy topics.

According to the
>regular DBT proponents, most (if not all) CD players, cables (of all kind)
>and amplifiers are indistinguishable one from another, so if you heard a
>difference and want to discuss it, you first have to validate your
>observation via some form of DBT.

Why would you wish to discuss inaudible differences when there are interesting
things that make real differences?

This yields two possible responses to a
>new equipment related thread. One is that since very few (if any) posters
>bother to set up a DBT for product evaluation, there is no point of
>discussion, since your new "x" defacto, sounds the same as your old "x"
>because you can't prove otherwise.

But one CAN employ many forms of bias controls in listening evaluation. Many of
us do and have done this. That's why I don't start threads about the 'sound' of
my amplifiers. I've already determined they have no sound of their own.

Just because one chooses not to doesn't automatically make his observations
useful to anyone else.

The second possible response is that
>based on the DBTs that have been done, your old "x" must sound the same as
>your new one because it's been established that all "x's" are
>indistinguishable. The third possibility which used to occupy most of this
>group was the discussion about what the equipment itself sounded like, but
>those conversations rarely happen anymore, either because such differences
>no longer exist, or because the DBT camp redirects them as DBT discussions
>(perhaps because those differences no longer exist.)

It's a good thing. Why waste time discussing inaudible differences when
sujectivists can devolve the discussion with endless arguments about why ALL
existing evidence about the sound of amps amd wires must be wrong and why there
isn't a shred of evidence otherwise?

Either way,
>meaningful discussion over audio equipment is becoming increasingly rare.

I don't think that meaningful discussion about the sound of wires is possible.

>My initial thinking (and boredom) was that since current generation CD
>players sound virtually identical, "properly engineered" amplifiers and
>pre-amplifiers sound virtually identical, and cables make no difference;
>this NG, indeed all audio discussions should be limited to speaker
>discussions. After all, they're all different sounding and no one pair is
>perfect and while some may argue, we really have progressed to the point
>where we've achieved near perfection upstream. So the discussions that used
>to be very important back when amplification wasn't quite as mature of a
>technology as it is today, have simply lost their relevance.
>
>So that leaves us with a quandry. What do we who love music and the
>science/art of musical reproduction have to talk about? Surely there must
>be more than just speakers.
>
>Acoustic treatment, room setup and recordings anyone? I'd be very
>interested to hear thoughts from the group as to other possibilities, as
>it's clear that we're close to exhausting other equipment's potential for
>discussion.

Other topics of interest to me are new release formats, alternative surround
playback, data reduction, programs useful for evaluation, evaluative listening
methods and styles, bass managment, speaker placement, effects of differing
room sizes, and small room acoustics.

[Bruce Abrams]

Does anyone have any direct experience with either of the mentioned Yamaha
or Pioneer products, or any other similar products?

"randyb" > wrote in message
...
> Bruce Abrams > wrote in message
news:<9Ov7b.297825$cF.92706@rwcrnsc53>...
> > I've often thought that if we eliminated (primarily because they've
become
> > too predictable and boring) the discussions that invariably devolve into
DBT
> > debates, ie. cables, equipment "burn-in", amplifiers, green pens, etc.,
> > there would be precious few threads worth following. According to the
> > regular DBT proponents, most (if not all) CD players, cables (of all
kind)
> > and amplifiers are indistinguishable one from another, so if you heard a
> > difference and want to discuss it, you first have to validate your
> > observation via some form of DBT. This yields two possible responses to
a
> > new equipment related thread. One is that since very few (if any)
posters
> > bother to set up a DBT for product evaluation, there is no point of
> > discussion, since your new "x" defacto, sounds the same as your old "x"
> > because you can't prove otherwise. The second possible response is that
> > based on the DBTs that have been done, your old "x" must sound the same
as
> > your new one because it's been established that all "x's" are
> > indistinguishable. The third possibility which used to occupy most of
this
> > group was the discussion about what the equipment itself sounded like,
but
> > those conversations rarely happen anymore, either because such
differences
> > no longer exist, or because the DBT camp redirects them as DBT
discussions
> > (perhaps because those differences no longer exist.) Either way,
> > meaningful discussion over audio equipment is becoming increasingly
rare.
> >
> > My initial thinking (and boredom) was that since current generation CD
> > players sound virtually identical, "properly engineered" amplifiers and
> > pre-amplifiers sound virtually identical, and cables make no difference;
> > this NG, indeed all audio discussions should be limited to speaker
> > discussions. After all, they're all different sounding and no one pair
is
> > perfect and while some may argue, we really have progressed to the point
> > where we've achieved near perfection upstream. So the discussions that
used
> > to be very important back when amplification wasn't quite as mature of a
> > technology as it is today, have simply lost their relevance.
> >
> > So that leaves us with a quandry. What do we who love music and the
> > science/art of musical reproduction have to talk about? Surely there
must
> > be more than just speakers.
> >
> > Acoustic treatment, room setup and recordings anyone? I'd be very
> > interested to hear thoughts from the group as to other possibilities, as
> > it's clear that we're close to exhausting other equipment's potential
for
> > discussion.
>
>
> I would think there is a lot to talk about. Let's start with the
> renaissance in digital room correction systems starting to hit the
> market from mass market producers i.e. Pioneer and now Yamaha. I
> would think people could talk at length at where this is headed, how
> it will affect the speaker industry etc. In the end, even if there
> was some minor difference in a cable that affected the sound, it is
> minor to some of the things in the works in the form of digital-unless
> of course you hate all things digital.

[David E. Bath]

In article <9Ov7b.297825$cF.92706@rwcrnsc53>,
Bruce Abrams > writes:
> I've often thought that if we eliminated (primarily because they've become
> too predictable and boring) the discussions that invariably devolve into DBT
> debates, ie. cables, equipment "burn-in", amplifiers, green pens, etc.,
> there would be precious few threads worth following. According to the
> regular DBT proponents, most (if not all) CD players, cables (of all kind)
> and amplifiers are indistinguishable one from another, so if you heard a
> difference and want to discuss it, you first have to validate your
> observation via some form of DBT. This yields two possible responses to a
> new equipment related thread. One is that since very few (if any) posters
> bother to set up a DBT for product evaluation, there is no point of
> discussion, since your new "x" defacto, sounds the same as your old "x"
> because you can't prove otherwise. The second possible response is that
> based on the DBTs that have been done, your old "x" must sound the same as
> your new one because it's been established that all "x's" are
> indistinguishable. The third possibility which used to occupy most of this
> group was the discussion about what the equipment itself sounded like, but
> those conversations rarely happen anymore, either because such differences
> no longer exist, or because the DBT camp redirects them as DBT discussions
> (perhaps because those differences no longer exist.) Either way,
> meaningful discussion over audio equipment is becoming increasingly rare.

That may be what they want to do, but it is not what they are being
allowed to do. We have an ongoing moratorium on allowing non-DBT
discussions from being turned into DBT discussions.

But few of those starting or joining in on non-DBT threads have been
able to resist saying something along the lines of "but I don't need
a DBT to tell the difference" and so open it up to the discussion of
DBTs. They are the ones to blame, not the DBT crowd.

So the moral of the story is to not mention DBTs in subjective
threads or start threads about them if you don't want to hear about
them. So far, very, very few have been able to do so.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator