[Steven Sullivan]

Mike wrote:
On Jul 16, 4:00 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message


Conventional tests assume that the ear/ brain works like
measuring equipment.

It's well known that human listening is often very inconsistent, and can be
affected by the listener's beliefs. I know of no test equipment that works
that way. Test equipment tends to be very consistent, and being inanimate,
it has no beliefs at all to bias it.

Exactly, that's why it is such a poor assumption that people
experience the same thing each time they listen to a section (small or
large) of music. I've never heard of an ABX test that didn't assume
that.

I've never head of an ABX that did.

Every ABX allows the listener to listen as many times as they want
to A, B, and X, before making a call as to whether X is A or B.

By your scenario, it would be impossible to identify
two presentations as being the *same*. But it's not.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"George Graves" wrote in message


What's interesting is that when
we "subjective testers" get together, we all seem to find
the same characteristics for the same equipment, even
though we all came by these "sonic signatures"
independently of one another on our own systems.

True, that subjective reviewers tend to draw their descriptive words and
phrases from a relatively small pool, and there's a tendency for subjective
reviews to all sound the same.

There's also group bias effects when people make choices in
groups. That's why good comparisons insure that there's
no influence from others in the room...including the
proctor.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

Walt wrote:
George Graves wrote:

... If the volumes were carefully matched, then little or no results
were obtained, and if not, the louder of the components under test, always
was picked as the best.

Hold on there. The point of a double-blind test is to determine whether
the subject can hear a *difference* between the samples. Not to
determine which one is "best" (whatever that means).

If the volume is not matched, then of course the subject can hear a
difference - "sample A is louder".

But that's not what people tend to report, if the levels aren't grossly
mismatched. Small mismatches in level are commonly reported as difference
in *quality* ("A sounds better"), or parameters *other than*
loudness (e.g., "A sound clearer'"). THis is a known psychouacoustic
effect. THis is why it's important to carefully match levels in
comparisons.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike" wrote in message


I would like to discuss what assumptions one has to make
about the ear/ brain to investigate it.

What do standard references say about this? Is this proposed discussion
going to be based on established facts or idle speculation?

You write as
though this were some kind of personal battle of opposing
viewpoints.

That tone was set by the OP.

You also seem to need things to be precisely
defined in order to believe they exist.

No Mike, that is your viewpoint.

It's obvious
hearing operates differently under different conditions.

Yes it is, and this is one reason that bias-controlled testing was
developed.

For example, you have many choices about _what_ to listen
for, and you can easily choose one thing but miss
something else, so your intention is one condition.

Ever study the topic of listener training?

But every blind test I'm aware of makes the assumption
that we have the same experience each time we listen to
something.

Time to broaden your knowlege base, Mike. BTW you're making the most common
error that people make about blind tests - they think that if they come up
with some situation, it applies to only blind tests. In fact, the idea that
we have the same experience each time we listen to something is one of the
major weaknesses of sighted listening with few if any experimental controls.

That's a very poor assumption, and that makes
the results suspect.

Thank you for pointing out one of the problems that has spurred the
development of bias-controlled listening tests, Mike.

If it's incumbent on anyone to
provide proof, it's incumbent on those who do the
experiments to show that they have a firm basis.

Yes Mike, there is a serious problem with people making claims about hearing
differences, based on experiments that are built on very shakey ground.

[Arny Krueger]

"George Graves" wrote in message

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:02:07 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"George Graves" wrote in message

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:56:01 -0700, Michael Warner wrote
(in article ):

On 16 Jul 2007 04:08:05 GMT, George Graves wrote:

The results were never promising in my
experience. If the volumes were carefully matched,
then little or no results
were obtained

IOW, the audible differences audiophiles claim to hear
don't actually exist. Isn't that great? You can find
something more productive
to waste your money on.

ABX differences and that differences that I couldn't
hear in direct comparison were easily heard on
extended listening sessions

Yeah. Non-blind listening sessions, I bet :-)

I might question the level matching.

And it could be otherwise, how? I'm the one replacing my
reference component with the DUT. Of course its
non-blind.

Long term listening tests have been done where the
replacement process was hidden from the listener, and
randomized.

Yeah, I've done them too. It works. I can listen to a
component where I don't know what I'm listening too and
make comments that characterize the sound I hear.

However, those comments might be random noises. How do you know that your
comments are related to a specific component?

Am I commenting on one component or on the
entire playback chain.

That is irrelevant to any discussion of blind testing because it is true of
sighted testing as well.

If I'm not intimately familiar
with the sound of the entire system, then it's obvious
that my findings are about the latter.

That is irrelevant to any discussion of blind testing because it is true of
sighted testing as well.

Not too useful.

Agreed.

But if someone comes into my home, and replaces a
component blindly so that I don't know what it is, and I
use material with which I'm familiar with which to
listen, then any changes from what I normally hear are
obviously going to be attributable to whatever component
was exchanged (or the way in which the "foreign"
component interacts with the rest of my system).

No there may be no changes at all. Or the changes you think you hear may
imaginary or wrong, and different from the actual changes that took place.

Wouldn't
this make sense?

[Arny Krueger]

"George Graves" wrote in message

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:55:58 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"George Graves" wrote in message


What's interesting is that when
we "subjective testers" get together, we all seem to
find the same characteristics for the same equipment,
even though we all came by these "sonic signatures"
independently of one another on our own systems.

True, that subjective reviewers tend to draw their
descriptive words and phrases from a relatively small
pool, and there's a tendency for subjective reviews to
all sound the same.

Nice rationalization,

No, fact.

but you're overlooking something.

If I say that a certain pre-amp has a sandpaper-like
dryness in the upper octaves as opposed to being syruppy,
or dark, or grainy, and other subjective reviewers come
to the same conclusion independently, then, it would
almost have to follow that this particular component,
does, indeed, exhibit that characteristic, would it not?

If the meanings of these words were standardized, and independent tests
with known distortions showed that reviewers used words consistently and
reliably, and if it were known that reviewers operated completely
independently, then maybe.

However, high end audio reviewing seems to be a very incestuous business,
and reviewers seem to be very interested in what other reviewers say about
the equipment they review. This has been particularly true since the advent
of the Internet.

[Peter Wieck]

On Jul 15, 8:18 pm, Mike wrote:
Just wondering if anyone's interested in discussing the validity of
blind testing; that is, the epistemological underpinning.

Blind testing removes only one variable, but it is that one variable
that has captured the hearts and minds of many in the "high-end"
hobby.To be brutally blunt, that variable is built about the closely-
held belief that "if it is expensive and well-hyped it must be good"
in many combinations and permutations. Anything that threatens a
closely-held belief will be denegrated as invalid. Much smoke and
mirrors will be utilized, all sorts of 'pholisophy' will be expounded
and much blather as well. Often by sincerely honest individuals who
are true-believers in their faith. But such testing should be just as
able to prove (*or not*) differences between similarly priced-and-
theoretical-quality equipment as between high-and-low-end equipment.
But its threat lies in its simply not caring what is behind the
curtain.

For any test of any nature to be valid, it must be repeatable and
develop the same results reliably. A repeated and reliable "no-result"
is actually a perfectly valid result. Honest, well-designed tests will
as often show no results as repeatable results. To harp some, honest,
well-designed tests will take time. Both in the design and in the
execution. Sometimes a great deal of it.

If one accepts the postulate that the only true measure of any audio
system is its ability to withstand the test of time in one's own
listening area, then one must also accept that any previous test/
audition must accept repeats *as-necessary* to prove either *some*
reliable result or *no* reliable result. This may take a great deal of
time, again.

Just a few random musings.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"George Graves" wrote in message


How can the Asch effect be an issue, when another
reviewer who I do not know in another publication comes
to exactly the same conclusions that I have come to, when
neither of us knew that the other was auditioning the
same piece of equipment?

Prove that such a thing ever happened. I suspect that considerable
latitude will be required to show that two reviewers reached the identical
same conclusions.

I cannot speak for others, of course, but, my audio
perception is based upon my memory or real, live music.

The problem with that line of logic is that the sound of music is constantly
changing and evolving. A live sound can be a true standard for judging the
reproduction of recordings only if the reviewers were present for the
original recording session. This is very rare, and there are other
requirements as well that are not met.

I go to concerts constantly. I frequent local jazz clubs,
attend concerts of symphonic as well as chamber music
several times a week.

So what? Every musician plays a little different every time they play. Every
instrument is changing its sound as it is tuned and used. Every listening
location in every room sounds different. Every room sounds different.

While I'm sure that my memory of
live music is imperfect, it makes me a better judge, I
think, than someone who merely compares one audio
component to another, relying on nothing for a touchstone
to reality or a reference.

In another of your posts George, you admitted that the sound quality of the
whole audio system matters. We all know about complementary distortions. If
a piece of audio gear sounds good in a certain system, what is the global
applicability of that knowlege? None?

usical perception is
extremely complex and many things can change the sound of
music from one listening instance to the next,

Hold that thought!

but I do
know that there are certain instrumental "signatures"
that manage to survive the differences imposed by venue
acoustics, relative seating location, etc. and I try to
cue-in on those.

I haven't suspended disbelief enough to belive that such a thing could be
true with enough precision to reliably detect the kinds of small differences
that are common today.

I also make my own recordings of many of these. I use a
MiniDisc Hi-MD recorder in the 16-bit linear record mode
and a Sony LT-929 'MS' stereo microphone for many of them
(especially jazz club performance - and yes, I always ask
permission). When I use these recordings as well as
symphonic recordings that I have made using professional
equipment as my source materials when evaluating
equipment, I can easily tell when a piece of equipment
has introduced some coloration that is not consonant with
the sound of live music.

Proven by which carefully-controlled experiements?

None of this is perfect, to say the least, but it does
make my perceptions of a piece of equipment's sonic
signature similar to that of other reviewers auditioning
the same make and model piece of equipment. This has
happened to me so many times that I know its not
coincidence. I think that John Atkinson of Stereophile
posts here occasionally. I believe that if you ask him,
he''ll tell you that the same thing has happened to him,
probably countless times. It's not a rare occurrence.
This validates long-term listening tests vs ABX tests as
far as I'm concerned.

Since ABX tests can easily be, and have been "long-term listening tests",
the last statement's obvious falseness throws serious doubts on the validity
of the rest of the questionable assertions in this post.

[Arny Krueger]

[Moderator's note: This is straying from audio discussion so unless a
followup has audio content, this sub-thread is ended. -- deb ]

wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Epistemology is the study of *why* we believe what we
believe, not what we believe.

I think it would be more correct to say that epistemology
is the science of the limits of knowledge, and, in a way,
how we can ascertain knowledge within these limits
(method).

One published defintion is:

"Epistemology or theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy that
studies the nature, methods, limitations, and validity of knowledge and
belief."

The study of the limitations of knowlege is only a fraction of the domain of
epistemology. Furthermore, the study of the limitatsion of knowlege is a
subset of my very brief definition, since studying the limits of knowlege is
contained in the study of why we believe.

I see it more as the "what" than the "why."

Obviously I haven't expressed myself well. The "what" that I was referring
to would be a specific instance of knowlege. That should have been apparent
from its context, which was a discussion of epistemology as it relates to
bias-controlled listening tests. The "what" is bias-controlled listening
tests.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike" wrote in message

On Jul 16, 4:00 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message


Conventional tests assume that the ear/ brain works like
measuring equipment.

It's well known that human listening is often very
inconsistent, and can be affected by the listener's
beliefs. I know of no test equipment that works that
way. Test equipment tends to be very consistent, and
being inanimate, it has no beliefs at all to bias it.

Exactly, that's why it is such a poor assumption that
people experience the same thing each time they listen to
a section (small or large) of music. I've never heard of
an ABX test that didn't assume that.

I've never heard of an ABX listening test that presumed that people hear the
same thing every time they listen to a section of music. The presumption
that people may hear different things is one reason why ABX tests are
composed of mulitple trials, and why statistics are used to analyze the
results of the multiple trials.

If ABX presumed that people hear the same thing every time they listen to a
section of music, then there would be no need for multiple trials. Since
multiple trials are part and parcel of the ABX test's definition, your
assertion is completely false. Not only have you got this important premise
of your OP completely wrong, you've exactly reversed its true meaning.

[Walt]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Walt wrote:
George Graves wrote:

... If the volumes were carefully matched, then little or no
results were obtained, and if not, the louder of the components under
test, always was picked as the best.

Hold on there. The point of a double-blind test is to determine
whether the subject can hear a *difference* between the samples. Not to
determine which one is "best" (whatever that means).

DBT can be used to determine if preference is due to sound, or to
something else. Of course, it will already have been determined
that the two things sound *different*. Such is the case for
using DBTs to study loudspeaker preference.

Yes, you, George and Harry are correct that dbt can be used to determine
preference *after* it's been shown that the two things are different.

I mispoke. Let's try again:

The first hurdle of a double-blind test is to determine whether
the subject can hear a *difference* between the samples. Only after a
difference has been shown can one use dbt to determine which one is
"best" (whatever that means).

//Walt

[bob]

On Jul 17, 6:57 pm, George Graves wrote:

equipment sounds to me. What's interesting is that when we "subjective
testers" get together, we all seem to find the same characteristics for the
same equipment, even though we all came by these "sonic signatures"
independently of one another on our own systems and they usually don't show
up under ABX testing conditions. Mass hysteria? You tell me.

How do you know that you all came to the same conclusions
independently? How do you know you all weren't affected by reading the
same product literature, or reviews, or talking to the same audio
salesman--or even listening to different audio salesmen, who all read
the same product literature? How do you know that your opinions
weren't shaped by talking to each other? Sit in a room with some
audiophiles sometime and watch them negotiate their way to a
consensus.

For that matter, how do you know everyone agrees? In a field where
people use rather fuzzy laguage to describe their perceptions, how do
you know that two people mean the same thing when they report a
component as "bright" or "warm"? And if one person says it's bright,
and the other says it's warm, is it because they hear it differently,
or because they use different words to describe the same thing?

You don't know.

bob

[bob]

On Jul 18, 6:51 pm, Mike wrote:
I would like to discuss what assumptions one has to make about the ear/
brain to investigate it.

You're the one making the assumption here--that people's perceptions
change and therefore DBTs *can't* work. The problem is, they do work.
They provide reliable results consistent with other knowledge. So it's
your assumption that must be wrong.

You write as though this were some kind of
personal battle of opposing viewpoints.

You write as if you think this is NOT a scientific question--a common
stance for those who don't have any data on their side.

You also seem to need things
to be precisely defined in order to believe they exist. It's obvious
hearing operates differently under different conditions. For example,
you have many choices about _what_ to listen for, and you can easily
choose one thing but miss something else, so your intention is one
condition.

But every blind test I'm aware of makes the assumption that we have
the same experience each time we listen to something.

No, they don't. They make the assumption that if you apply the same
stimulus to the ear, the same signal will be sent to the brain. That's
all.

That's a very
poor assumption, and that makes the results suspect. If it's incumbent
on anyone to provide proof, it's incumbent on those who do the
experiments to show that they have a firm basis.

This evidences a profound lack of understanding about how science
works.

snip

I'm not "getting away from the experience of music." You're the one
making the claims--and the wild assumptions--here. You're assuming, or
claiming, that "experiencing music" will somehow change the
sensitivity of our hearing. But you have no evidence for this.

You're assuming it does not change the sensitivity, and provide no
evidence for that.

I'm not assuming any such thing. I'm looking at the data. And the data
tells me that, if anything, "experiencing music" makes you LESS
sensitive to small audible differences, not more. (Not really--at
least, it's not a question of sensitivity. It's that, for various
reasons, it is harder to reliably hear differences in music than in
some other sounds, and it is much harder if you try to do it over an
extended timeframe.)

Indeed,
available evidence suggests the opposite--that extended music
listening is a LESS sensitive way to test for audible differences.

"Extended" vs "non-extended" is not the point. Even "enjoying music"
is not the point. The point is that our experience as a whole changes
each time we listen.

So what? We're not testing what you're calling "experience." We
testing sensitivity to a stimulus. Any "experience" is going to be
affected by mulitple stimuli, plus memory. DBTs are designed to
control, better than any alternative approach possibly could, for
those other factors, and isolate the effect of a single change in
stimulus. Even if you were right, ever other way of answering the
question--including especially the ways popular among the high-end
Kool-Aid drinkers--would be worse.

And, just to drive home the most important point: YOU HAVE NO DATA.

bob

[George Graves]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:04:35 -0700, Walt wrote
(in article ):

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Walt wrote:
George Graves wrote:

... If the volumes were carefully matched, then little or no
results were obtained, and if not, the louder of the components under
test, always was picked as the best.

Hold on there. The point of a double-blind test is to determine
whether the subject can hear a *difference* between the samples. Not to
determine which one is "best" (whatever that means).

DBT can be used to determine if preference is due to sound, or to
something else. Of course, it will already have been determined
that the two things sound *different*. Such is the case for
using DBTs to study loudspeaker preference.

Yes, you, George and Harry are correct that dbt can be used to determine
preference *after* it's been shown that the two things are different.

I mispoke. Let's try again:

The first hurdle of a double-blind test is to determine whether
the subject can hear a *difference* between the samples. Only after a
difference has been shown can one use dbt to determine which one is
"best" (whatever that means).

//Walt

Now, you've hit upon a very good point. In the absence of any reference
sound, which one is "best" is a meaningless phrase on any but a personal
level. For instance, if a certain listener likes big bass and bright highs
and forward sounding midrange, then any component that produces sound like
that will be found, by that listener, to be better than another component
that does not exhibit any of those characteristics even if the component that
he does not like sounds more neutral or more like real music (not necessarily
the same thing). Now, this in itself can be useful if the listener is a
reviewer and his readership knows of his preferences for that type of sound.
Even if the reader has exactly the opposite tastes, he will know that the
more enthusiasm this reviewer exhibits for particular piece of equipment, the
less it's apt to please him. But that's a whole different subject.

[George Graves]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:58:21 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 15, 8:18 pm, Mike wrote:
Just wondering if anyone's interested in discussing the validity of
blind testing; that is, the epistemological underpinning.

Blind testing removes only one variable, but it is that one variable
that has captured the hearts and minds of many in the "high-end"
hobby.To be brutally blunt, that variable is built about the closely-
held belief that "if it is expensive and well-hyped it must be good"
in many combinations and permutations. Anything that threatens a
closely-held belief will be denegrated as invalid. Much smoke and
mirrors will be utilized, all sorts of 'pholisophy' will be expounded
and much blather as well. Often by sincerely honest individuals who
are true-believers in their faith. But such testing should be just as
able to prove (*or not*) differences between similarly priced-and-
theoretical-quality equipment as between high-and-low-end equipment.
But its threat lies in its simply not caring what is behind the
curtain.

For any test of any nature to be valid, it must be repeatable and
develop the same results reliably. A repeated and reliable "no-result"
is actually a perfectly valid result. Honest, well-designed tests will
as often show no results as repeatable results. To harp some, honest,
well-designed tests will take time. Both in the design and in the
execution. Sometimes a great deal of it.

If one accepts the postulate that the only true measure of any audio
system is its ability to withstand the test of time in one's own
listening area, then one must also accept that any previous test/
audition must accept repeats *as-necessary* to prove either *some*
reliable result or *no* reliable result. This may take a great deal of
time, again.

Just a few random musings.

Well, you are quite correct. One of the joys I get from high-end audio is
finding (and reporting on) lower priced equipment that sonically performs
equally well or better than much of the well-hyped and expensive spread. Of
course, there are other things to consider too, such as build quality. No
sense of having a piece of equipment that performs stunningly if, for
instance, the RCA jacks fail after a few cable insertions or the volume
control or mode switches get noisy after being used a few months.

[George Graves]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:51:34 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"George Graves" wrote in message

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:55:58 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"George Graves" wrote in message


What's interesting is that when
we "subjective testers" get together, we all seem to
find the same characteristics for the same equipment,
even though we all came by these "sonic signatures"
independently of one another on our own systems.

True, that subjective reviewers tend to draw their
descriptive words and phrases from a relatively small
pool, and there's a tendency for subjective reviews to
all sound the same.

Nice rationalization,

No, fact.

but you're overlooking something.

If I say that a certain pre-amp has a sandpaper-like
dryness in the upper octaves as opposed to being syruppy,
or dark, or grainy, and other subjective reviewers come
to the same conclusion independently, then, it would
almost have to follow that this particular component,
does, indeed, exhibit that characteristic, would it not?

If the meanings of these words were standardized, and independent tests
with known distortions showed that reviewers used words consistently and
reliably, and if it were known that reviewers operated completely
independently, then maybe.

How would one know that? Most of the things that people hear have never been
quantified. Hell, that's why subjective reviewing started in the first place.
Equipment got to the point where it all measured the same, yet sounded
different. Obviously, somebody wasn't measuring the right things. Eventually
new types of distortion where quantified and ways were found to measure them,
but more importantly, design methodologies were developed to largely
eliminate many of these "new distortions". It was found, for instance that
large amounts of overall feedback in solid-state amplifiers caused something
called transient intermodulation distortion (TIM). Now the standard practice
is to design amps without overall feedback loops, but to rather, use only
stage-by-stage feedback, and some designers have found ways to use none at
all. Slew-Induced Distortion (SID) was first identified and then tamed by
using solid-state active devices which switched must faster and had a much
higher gain bandwidth than what was being used before. Distortion generated
by passive components was, until about 20 years ago, unheard of until it was
found that certain types of dielectric materials in capacitors held onto
"old" signals long after the event that generated them had ended, only to
"leak" those by now uncorrelated signals on top of signals currently being
passed by the capacitor. This phenomenon, now known as dielectric absorption
distortion is now mitigated by using dielectric materials that have low
absorption properties like polypropylene and polystyrene. But amplifying
devices still sound different from one another, so there are still non-linear
properties of these devices that we don't understand. Maybe someday,
amplifiers will become what Stewart Hegeman once characterized as "a straight
wire, with gain" and subjective testing won't be needed any more for
electronics, but we aren't there yet - not even close!

However, high end audio reviewing seems to be a very incestuous business,
and reviewers seem to be very interested in what other reviewers say about
the equipment they review. This has been particularly true since the advent
of the Internet.

Actually, that would seem to your own skeptical paranoia at work. I know many
of the better regarded reviewers, have worked with many of them and regard
not a few as my friends. They try hard to be honest and forthright with their
opinions and none would think of writing anything that they hadn't
experienced with their own ears (I certainly know that I don't) and I think,
that overall, they succeed admirably.

[Mike]

On Jul 19, 4:07 pm, bob wrote:
On Jul 18, 6:51 pm, Mike wrote:

I would like to discuss what assumptions one has to make about the ear/
brain to investigate it.

You're the one making the assumption here--that people's perceptions
change and therefore DBTs *can't* work. The problem is, they do work.
They provide reliable results consistent with other knowledge. So it's
your assumption that must be wrong.

DBT's work for what they work at. Any difference large enough to
overcome uncontrolled effects. They don't control the perception of
music, however. And the experience of music changes each time one
listens. There's no assumption he just simple facts that in fact,
we all seem to agree on.


You write as though this were some kind of
personal battle of opposing viewpoints.

You write as if you think this is NOT a scientific question--a common
stance for those who don't have any data on their side.

It's a scientific question, but it's poor science to make
generalizations about data while ignoring where that data came from.


You also seem to need things
to be precisely defined in order to believe they exist. It's obvious
hearing operates differently under different conditions. For example,
you have many choices about _what_ to listen for, and you can easily
choose one thing but miss something else, so your intention is one
condition.

But every blind test I'm aware of makes the assumption that we have
the same experience each time we listen to something.

No, they don't. They make the assumption that if you apply the same
stimulus to the ear, the same signal will be sent to the brain. That's
all.

Wrong. They are based on the brain being able to construct a conscious
experience out of that signal. That's the only way you know what to
choose. And there are vast numbers of highly distinct ways to
construct an experience out of a given signal, and in fact most of
those ways are not amenable to direct conscious control.


That's a very
poor assumption, and that makes the results suspect. If it's incumbent
on anyone to provide proof, it's incumbent on those who do the
experiments to show that they have a firm basis.

This evidences a profound lack of understanding about how science
works.

snip

I'm not "getting away from the experience of music." You're the one
making the claims--and the wild assumptions--here. You're assuming, or
claiming, that "experiencing music" will somehow change the
sensitivity of our hearing. But you have no evidence for this.

You're assuming it does not change the sensitivity, and provide no
evidence for that.

I'm not assuming any such thing. I'm looking at the data. And the data
tells me that, if anything, "experiencing music" makes you LESS
sensitive to small audible differences, not more. (Not really--at
least, it's not a question of sensitivity. It's that, for various
reasons, it is harder to reliably hear differences in music than in
some other sounds, and it is much harder if you try to do it over an
extended timeframe.)

There are a lot of invalid ways to try to draw that conclusion. What
we need is a test that can control the experience of music---this is
not the same thing as listening for a long time, and not the same
thing as using music as a test signal.


Indeed,
available evidence suggests the opposite--that extended music
listening is a LESS sensitive way to test for audible differences.

"Extended" vs "non-extended" is not the point. Even "enjoying music"
is not the point. The point is that our experience as a whole changes
each time we listen.

So what? We're not testing what you're calling "experience."

For aforementioned reasons, we are.

We
testing sensitivity to a stimulus. Any "experience" is going to be
affected by mulitple stimuli, plus memory. DBTs are designed to
control, better than any alternative approach possibly could, for
those other factors, and isolate the effect of a single change in
stimulus.

It only isolates changes which are large enough to overcome the
"noise" created by the effects of hearing sounds multiple times or
memory, as you mention.

Even if you were right, ever other way of answering the
question--including especially the ways popular among the high-end
Kool-Aid drinkers--would be worse.

I think they are all equally bad.


And, just to drive home the most important point: YOU HAVE NO DATA.

I read that as saying, you would rather comfort yourself with
irrelevant data than ask where it came from.

Mike

[Mike]

On Jul 19, 3:42 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message


For example, you have many choices about _what_ to listen
for, and you can easily choose one thing but miss
something else, so your intention is one condition.

Ever study the topic of listener training?

The changes in perception of music from repetition to repetition are
not directly under conscious control. Describe a form of listener
training which addresses this.


But every blind test I'm aware of makes the assumption
that we have the same experience each time we listen to
something.

Time to broaden your knowlege base, Mike. BTW you're making the most common
error that people make about blind tests - they think that if they come up
with some situation, it applies to only blind tests. In fact, the idea that
we have the same experience each time we listen to something is one of the
major weaknesses of sighted listening with few if any experimental controls.

Ah.. the claim that blind testing must be valid because sighted
testing isn't. I think they both have serious problems in regard to
perception of music.


That's a very poor assumption, and that makes
the results suspect.

Thank you for pointing out one of the problems that has spurred the
development of bias-controlled listening tests, Mike.

Ironic, isn't it, that "bias-controlled" listening doesn't control one
of the largest sources of variation in perception of music?

Mike

[Mike]

On Jul 17, 3:53 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Mike wrote:
and do not reach our brains?"
I think even you would disagree with that definition if you thought
about it. They are testing whether two different sounds can be told
apart, or to say it another way, whether they produce two different
experiences. You can't get away from the experience of music unless
you are trying to arbitrarily separate the experience of sound from
the experience of music. That's one poor assumption.

I can listen to the eact same recorded performance of a work on the exact
same rig -- even minutes apart -- and have different 'experiences' of it.
For example, I might be more bored by it the second time. But of course
the *sound* hasn't changed at all. Yet by your logic, I've listened to
two different sounds.

Wrong. The experience of music is affected by things other than the
physical sound signal, but it's a poor assumption to say that the
physical signal can still be perceived as a whole when you've removed
the experience of music.


Imagine if that logic were carried over into all scientific work.

Maybe you have a theory about how sounds
that do not reach our brains can nonetheless affect how we experience
music. If so, I'm not sure I want to hear it.

Yet conventional blind testing (ABX with many quick trials for
example) does not control them. Conventional tests assume that the ear/
brain works like measuring equipment. It assumes (1) we experience the
same thing each time we listen,

No, they don't at all. In fact, they control for this by requiring
mulitple trials and/or subjects.
Exactly.. they require multiple trials while not controlling what's
going on inside your brain during each trial.

That's the POINT. Your *brain* will quite readily 'hear' difference where
*none exists*.

And will also be unclear or confused when differences *do* exist. A
DBT is testing not just the limits of "audibility" but the limits of
confusion as well. In other words, to correctly identify X, your brain
needs the proper circuitry to process the difference, but you also
need clear enough conscious perception to *know* that difference
exists. Quick switching, just to name one common type of DBT which is
claimed to be an accurate representation of the lower limits of human
sensitivity, is a great way to obscure the music in the signal.

The old 'phantom switch' setup is a classic example, where
literally nothing is changed, but the listener is led to believe that
something has been changed. Usually they report hearing 'differnece' --
sometimes a comically large one.

So, let the brain 'do' what it likes. Running the comparison 'blind'
takes care of its tendency to overestimate the occurence of 'difference'.
Meanwhile, with training, some tiny measurable differences -- e.g., on the
order of 0.2 dB in some frequency ranges -- can be confidently shown to be
discernable via DBT. Others...not so much. Which makes sense; no one
should expect that all measurable differences are perceptible (whereas all
perceptible differences so far, have turned out to have a measurement
affected by them, indirectly if not directly).

and (2) we can perceive details in
sound independently of our intentions or state of mind.

They don't assume this either. In fact, those conducting good DBTs go
to some lengths to make sure that their subjects are in a state of
mind that is conducive to detecting minute sonic differences.
Right.. they have defined "minute sonic differences" as something
different than perceiving music.That definition itself becomes a
limiting factor in how well you can generalize the results.

"perceived" difference in music, as for any sound, can occur even when the
music itself is exactly the same. How do you propose to get around this
fundamental problem?

See my first post. I don't think anyone knows how to get around it,
yet.

Mike

[Mike]

On Jul 19, 3:58 pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jul 15, 8:18 pm, Mike wrote:

Just wondering if anyone's interested in discussing the validity of
blind testing; that is, the epistemological underpinning.

Blind testing removes only one variable, but it is that one variable
that has captured the hearts and minds of many in the "high-end"
hobby.To be brutally blunt, that variable is built about the closely-
held belief that "if it is expensive and well-hyped it must be good"
in many combinations and permutations. Anything that threatens a
closely-held belief will be denegrated as invalid. Much smoke and
mirrors will be utilized, all sorts of 'pholisophy' will be expounded
and much blather as well. Often by sincerely honest individuals who
are true-believers in their faith. But such testing should be just as
able to prove (*or not*) differences between similarly priced-and-
theoretical-quality equipment as between high-and-low-end equipment.
But its threat lies in its simply not caring what is behind the
curtain.

Straw man argument, here. I'm not talking up the virtues of sighted
listening, and I've love nothing better than to enjoy inexpensive, but
well-designed audio equipment.

Mike

[Arny Krueger]

"Walt" wrote in message


The first hurdle of a double-blind test is to determine
whether the subject can hear a *difference* between the samples.

I agree with the basic idea that for there to be a preference for something
over other things, there has to be a reliably perceptible difference between
them.

However, that's not a hurdle for the test, that's a hurdle for the listener.

Only after a difference has been shown can one use dbt to
determine which one is "best" (whatever that means).

The generally agreed-upon purpose of a test is to determine the conformance
or lack of conformance to an established standard. If you wish to introduce
the concept of there being a best, then the best is the one that most fully
conforms to the standard, or does so in the best way, etc.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


If one accepts the postulate that the only true measure
of any audio system is its ability to withstand the test
of time in one's own listening area, then one must also
accept that any previous test/ audition must accept
repeats *as-necessary* to prove either *some* reliable
result or *no* reliable result. This may take a great
deal of time, again.

The postulate that the only true measure of any audio system is its ability
to withstand the test
of time in one's own listening area can be questionable.

For example, some people will tolerate amazingly bad-sounding equipment and
equipment installations for amazingly long periods of time. They may even
admit that the equipment has some serious faults.

The test that is now known as the ABX test was developed by audiophiles in
order to bring some order and fairness to controversies over which piece of
equipment is the more sonically accurate performer. I was a party to exactly
that very kind of controversy, and I developed the first test that was
eventually called an ABX test in order to shed light on equipment sound
quality to help resolve that controversy. That such a common result of ABX
testing would be a finding of "no reliably detectible differences" was
completely and totally unexpected by me.

[Harry Lavo]

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Walt wrote:
George Graves wrote:

... If the volumes were carefully matched, then little or no
results were obtained, and if not, the louder of the components under
test, always was picked as the best.

Hold on there. The point of a double-blind test is to determine
whether the subject can hear a *difference* between the samples. Not to
determine which one is "best" (whatever that means).

DBT can be used to determine if preference is due to sound, or to
something else. Of course, it will already have been determined
that the two things sound *different*. Such is the case for
using DBTs to study loudspeaker preference.

Yes, you, George and Harry are correct that dbt can be used to determine
preference *after* it's been shown that the two things are different.

I mispoke. Let's try again:

The first hurdle of a double-blind test is to determine whether
the subject can hear a *difference* between the samples. Only after a
difference has been shown can one use dbt to determine which one is "best"
(whatever that means).

//Walt

Actually, that sounds logical but it is not true. There is the
psychological phenomenon known as "subliminal" or beneath the surface.
Occassionally we experienced this in food, where something was not
identified as "different" but did result in a statistically significant
preference. This usually shows up in proto-monadic testing, where there is
an insensitivity (statistically) to difference but often not to preference.

Of course the opposite is also true....you can have no difference in
preference while having statistical identification differences noted. This
is not uncommon in paired comparison testing.

Undoubtably audio testing of various types have their own quirks and
characteristics. Unfortunately some here have latched onto ABX and ABC/hr
as the be-all and end-all of audio testing without being willing to discuss,
much less explore, what some of the strengths and weaknesses of such tests
may be. The only professional work being done in this field seems to be at
HK.

Here is an analogy (although only a related, not a close, one):

It used to be believed that consumers made rationale choices. The model was
awareness-knowledge-trial-preference-use.

This seemed the proper model for consumers making high-risk purchases at
that time. However, by the end of the sixties those of us doing work in
consumer behavior in the large consumer packaged goods companies knew the
model was wrong. The actual model for low-risk purchases was
awareness-impulse-trial-preference-justification-use.

This same model seems to have overtaken our political system and perhaps
other high-risk areas of "purchase" as well. It is meat for another thread
on why our political system somehow no longer appears to be a serious,
high-risk category.

It should be noted, however, that so long as today's high-priced gear is not
viewed as high-risk (because of the broadening descrepancy between the
well-off and the remainder of us) then it may fall more into the
impulse-purchase-model for high-income consumers. The corallary is that
critics who increasingly see even modestly-priced gear as high-risk
(relative to income) become increasingly desparate to somehow make
purchasing high-priced gear "immoral" or at least "unwise" (often expressed
as "foolish" as in "audiophools"). Because to them, any purchase of even a
few hundred dollars must be carefully considered.

So, back to the beginning of this post....beware of "logical models". When
it comes to human beings (including hearing), all is not likely to be what
it seems.

[George Graves]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:12:39 -0700, Mike wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 17, 3:53 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Mike wrote:
and do not reach our brains?"
I think even you would disagree with that definition if you thought
about it. They are testing whether two different sounds can be told
apart, or to say it another way, whether they produce two different
experiences. You can't get away from the experience of music unless
you are trying to arbitrarily separate the experience of sound from
the experience of music. That's one poor assumption.

I can listen to the eact same recorded performance of a work on the exact
same rig -- even minutes apart -- and have different 'experiences' of it.
For example, I might be more bored by it the second time. But of course
the *sound* hasn't changed at all. Yet by your logic, I've listened to
two different sounds.

Wrong. The experience of music is affected by things other than the
physical sound signal, but it's a poor assumption to say that the
physical signal can still be perceived as a whole when you've removed
the experience of music.


Imagine if that logic were carried over into all scientific work.

Maybe you have a theory about how sounds
that do not reach our brains can nonetheless affect how we experience
music. If so, I'm not sure I want to hear it.

Yet conventional blind testing (ABX with many quick trials for
example) does not control them. Conventional tests assume that the ear/
brain works like measuring equipment. It assumes (1) we experience the
same thing each time we listen,

No, they don't at all. In fact, they control for this by requiring
mulitple trials and/or subjects.
Exactly.. they require multiple trials while not controlling what's
going on inside your brain during each trial.

That's the POINT. Your *brain* will quite readily 'hear' difference where
*none exists*.

And will also be unclear or confused when differences *do* exist. A
DBT is testing not just the limits of "audibility" but the limits of
confusion as well. In other words, to correctly identify X, your brain
needs the proper circuitry to process the difference, but you also
need clear enough conscious perception to *know* that difference
exists. Quick switching, just to name one common type of DBT which is
claimed to be an accurate representation of the lower limits of human
sensitivity, is a great way to obscure the music in the signal.

The old 'phantom switch' setup is a classic example, where
literally nothing is changed, but the listener is led to believe that
something has been changed. Usually they report hearing 'differnece' --
sometimes a comically large one.

So, let the brain 'do' what it likes. Running the comparison 'blind'
takes care of its tendency to overestimate the occurence of 'difference'.
Meanwhile, with training, some tiny measurable differences -- e.g., on the
order of 0.2 dB in some frequency ranges -- can be confidently shown to be
discernable via DBT. Others...not so much. Which makes sense; no one
should expect that all measurable differences are perceptible (whereas all
perceptible differences so far, have turned out to have a measurement
affected by them, indirectly if not directly).

and (2) we can perceive details in
sound independently of our intentions or state of mind.

They don't assume this either. In fact, those conducting good DBTs go
to some lengths to make sure that their subjects are in a state of
mind that is conducive to detecting minute sonic differences.
Right.. they have defined "minute sonic differences" as something
different than perceiving music.That definition itself becomes a
limiting factor in how well you can generalize the results.

"perceived" difference in music, as for any sound, can occur even when the
music itself is exactly the same. How do you propose to get around this
fundamental problem?

See my first post. I don't think anyone knows how to get around it,
yet.

Mike

It seems to me that many of these proponents of DBT are saying one thing, but
they mean another. And here, we get into the can-of-worms about "golden-ears"
vs everybody else. Many "objectivists" scoff at the notion of what they call
"Golden-Eared Audiophiles" and use that as a reason why many "subjectivists"
don't like DBT. Their real point (and some have been skirting the issue here
without actually coming right out and saying it) is that all audio equipment
sounds the same and that a DBT will show, conclusively that this is so, and
that people who do not like the DBT methodology for audio equipment don't
like it because any blind test will prove that these "golden-ear" types can't
hear any differences between the devices under test because these differences
don't exist.

[George Graves]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:15:10 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


If one accepts the postulate that the only true measure
of any audio system is its ability to withstand the test
of time in one's own listening area, then one must also
accept that any previous test/ audition must accept
repeats *as-necessary* to prove either *some* reliable
result or *no* reliable result. This may take a great
deal of time, again.

The postulate that the only true measure of any audio system is its ability
to withstand the test
of time in one's own listening area can be questionable.

For example, some people will tolerate amazingly bad-sounding equipment and
equipment installations for amazingly long periods of time. They may even
admit that the equipment has some serious faults.

The test that is now known as the ABX test was developed by audiophiles in
order to bring some order and fairness to controversies over which piece of
equipment is the more sonically accurate performer. I was a party to exactly
that very kind of controversy, and I developed the first test that was
eventually called an ABX test in order to shed light on equipment sound
quality to help resolve that controversy. That such a common result of ABX
testing would be a finding of "no reliably detectible differences" was
completely and totally unexpected by me.


There are two ways to interpret that result, Arny: 1) That there is, indeed,
no difference between the particular components under test, or 2) that
whatever differences that there may be are masked either by the test
methodology, the rest of the equipment being used, or that the psychological
strain of being "on the hot seat" has somehow compromised the listeners'
critical facilities. It seems to me that whichever of these interpretations
one subscribes to will determine upon which side of the issue of the worth of
DBT/ABX testing that one supports.

[Peter Wieck]

On Jul 20, 4:15 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

For example, some people will tolerate amazingly bad-sounding equipment and
equipment installations for amazingly long periods of time. They may even
admit that the equipment has some serious faults.

Absolute twaddle.... Actually, the term 'twaddle' embues dignity far
beyond what it deserves.

If they like the sound, then that is entirely all that is necessary.
Sighted or otherwise, and cost entirely notwithstanding.

The ancients coined a phrase "De gustibus non est disputandum".

Loosly translated: There is no accounting for taste. What you think
might be utter crap may be the food of multiple orgiastic pleasures to
another. You have no corner on good taste, they have no corner on bad
taste... either way, they like what they like and no amount of
bleating and moaning or subjective whining on your part will change
that. You really need to separate *your* preferences from that of
others, and *what can be measured* from what people prefer to hear.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike" wrote in message

On Jul 19, 3:42 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message


For example, you have many choices about _what_ to
listen for, and you can easily choose one thing but miss
something else, so your intention is one condition.

Ever study the topic of listener training?

The changes in perception of music from repetition to
repetition are not directly under conscious control.
Describe a form of listener training which addresses this.

You're not following the discussion. We've already debunked the idea that
changes in perception from repetition to repetion are a situation that
bias-controlled testing addresses well.

But every blind test I'm aware of makes the assumption
that we have the same experience each time we listen to
something.

Time to broaden your knowlege base, Mike. BTW you're
making the most common error that people make about
blind tests - they think that if they come up with some
situation, it applies to only blind tests. In fact, the
idea that we have the same experience each time we
listen to something is one of the major weaknesses of
sighted listening with few if any experimental controls.

Ah.. the claim that blind testing must be valid because
sighted testing isn't.

Thanks for agreeing that sighted testing has very limited validity because
of all of the uncontrolled variables. However nobody is making the claim
that blind testing must be valid because sighted testing isn't, is you.

I think they both have serious
problems in regard to perception of music.

I thought that we were discussing differences in the sound reproduction
abilities of various pieces of equipment, not the perception of music.

That's a very poor assumption, and that makes
the results suspect.

Thank you for pointing out one of the problems that has
spurred the development of bias-controlled listening
tests, Mike.

Ironic, isn't it, that "bias-controlled" listening
doesn't control one of the largest sources of variation
in perception of music?

Since bias-controlled testing addresses normal variations in the perception
of sound quality by statistical means, there's no need to control them out
of existence.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike" wrote in message

On Jul 19, 4:07 pm, bob wrote:
On Jul 18, 6:51 pm, Mike wrote:

I would like to discuss what assumptions one has to
make about the ear/ brain to investigate it.

You're the one making the assumption here--that people's
perceptions change and therefore DBTs *can't* work. The
problem is, they do work. They provide reliable results
consistent with other knowledge. So it's your assumption
that must be wrong.

DBT's work for what they work at.

DBTs are the gold standard for subjective testing.

Any difference large
enough to overcome uncontrolled effects.

DBTs have been found to be an inefficient, if not *the* efficient means for
making reliable and sensitive judgments about issues related to audibility.

They don't control the perception of music, however.

DBT procedures can overcome random variations in the perception of music.
Remember that comparing equipment is about the perception of all kinds of
sound, and not limited to just music.

And the experience of music changes each time one listens.

DBTs can easily account for this well-known effect.

There's no assumption he just simple facts that in
fact, we all seem to agree on.

In fact, you've got the facts wrong.

You write as though this were some kind of
personal battle of opposing viewpoints.

You write as if you think this is NOT a scientific
question--a common stance for those who don't have any
data on their side.

It's a scientific question, but it's poor science to make
generalizations about data while ignoring where that data
came from.

I don't see anybody ignoring where the data comes from. This must then be a
straw man argument.

You also seem to need things
to be precisely defined in order to believe they exist.
It's obvious hearing operates differently under
different conditions. For example, you have many
choices about _what_ to listen for, and you can easily
choose one thing but miss something else, so your
intention is one condition.

But every blind test I'm aware of makes the assumption
that we have the same experience each time we listen to
something.

No, they don't. They make the assumption that if you
apply the same stimulus to the ear, the same signal will
be sent to the brain. That's all.

Wrong.

No, the statement above is right.

They are based on the brain being able to
construct a conscious experience out of that signal.

Not necessarily. DBTs don't make any assumptions about how sound is
perceived, only that its perceptions have results that can be perceived.

That's the only way you know what to choose.

In fact DBTs put no such restrictions on how the listener pecieves.

And there
are vast numbers of highly distinct ways to construct an
experience out of a given signal, and in fact most of
those ways are not amenable to direct conscious control.

All of those means are allowable in DBTs.

That's a very
poor assumption, and that makes the results suspect. If
it's incumbent on anyone to provide proof, it's
incumbent on those who do the experiments to show that
they have a firm basis.

This evidences a profound lack of understanding about
how science works.

At this point, it seems like all of the OP's initial claims have been
debunked.

snip

I'm not "getting away from the experience of music."
You're the one making the claims--and the wild
assumptions--here. You're assuming, or claiming, that
"experiencing music" will somehow change the
sensitivity of our hearing. But you have no evidence
for this.

You're assuming it does not change the sensitivity, and
provide no evidence for that.

I'm not assuming any such thing. I'm looking at the
data. And the data tells me that, if anything,
"experiencing music" makes you LESS sensitive to small
audible differences, not more. (Not really--at least,
it's not a question of sensitivity. It's that, for
various reasons, it is harder to reliably hear
differences in music than in some other sounds, and it
is much harder if you try to do it over an extended
timeframe.)

There are a lot of invalid ways to try to draw that
conclusion.

So what? We know how to avoid them. For example, we know that very long term
listening tests are among the more difficult means for drawing conclusions
about sound quality.

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jul 20, 4:15 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

For example, some people will tolerate amazingly bad-sounding equipment and
equipment installations for amazingly long periods of time. They may even
admit that the equipment has some serious faults.

Absolute twaddle.... Actually, the term 'twaddle' embues dignity far
beyond what it deserves.

If they like the sound, then that is entirely all that is necessary.

for what?

Loosly translated: There is no accounting for taste. What you think
might be utter crap may be the food of multiple orgiastic pleasures to
another. You have no corner on good taste, they have no corner on bad
taste... either way, they like what they like and no amount of
bleating and moaning or subjective whining on your part will change
that. You really need to separate *your* preferences from that of
others, and *what can be measured* from what people prefer to hear.

Remarkably, the entire 'high-end' industry is predicated on
just the OPPOSITE stance: that there *is* a standard of good
audio taste, and it separates 'high fi' from 'mid fi'.
Heck, one of their house organs even calls itself *The Absolute
Sound*.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

George Graves wrote:
It seems to me that many of these proponents of DBT are saying one thing, but
they mean another. And here, we get into the can-of-worms about "golden-ears"
vs everybody else. Many "objectivists" scoff at the notion of what they call
"Golden-Eared Audiophiles" and use that as a reason why many "subjectivists"
don't like DBT. Their real point (and some have been skirting the issue here
without actually coming right out and saying it) is that all audio equipment
sounds the same

That's a gross mischaracterization of what 'their' real point is

and that a DBT will show, conclusively that this is so

another gross mischaracterization of what 'they' are really saying.

, and
that people who do not like the DBT methodology for audio equipment don't
like it because any blind test will prove that these "golden-ear" types can't
hear any differences between the devices under test because these differences
don't exist.

Likely true for some devices, likely untrue for others.

Mr. Graves, your 'rebuttals' have recently been variations on 'I don't
care what you say, I just know I hear these differences'; now you've moved
on to the even less defensible 'Objectivists say all audio gear sounds the
same'. I'm not hopeful.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Peter Wieck]

On Jul 21, 10:46 am, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Remarkably, the entire 'high-end' industry is predicated on
just the OPPOSITE stance: that there *is* a standard of good
audio taste, and it separates 'high fi' from 'mid fi'.
Heck, one of their house organs even calls itself *The Absolute
Sound*.

Of course. And for the gullible well-healed this is a requirement that
exceeds any need they might actually have for "good sound". But
getting right down to the nitty-gritty, some individuals prefer Eggs
Benedict for their breakfast, some prefer a Hostess Sno-Ball (lest you
not know what I mean: http://www.freshchocodiles.com/hostess/snoballs.html
)

Keep in mind that the Sno Ball crowd would (very nearly correctly)
point out that Eggs Benedict may be described as an 'educated Egg-
McMuffin.

But if the end-user is happy with the results, whether or not anyone
here might wrinkle their nose at this same result is entirely not the
point. And that most of us feel secure enough not to be overly
influenced by the "high-end Industry" is a continuous source of
annoyance and frustration to that same industry.

MY OPINION ONLY FOLLOWS: As it happens now, there are three "high end
industries", one consisting of long lines of vastly over-priced,
poorly made but very well packaged Chinese goods attempting to cash in
on the yiches of tubes and so forth. There is the "Name Brand" section
of the industry that does what it can to convince one that price
actually drives quality in a linear relationship (it doesn't, of
course), and then there is that part of the industry that has very
nearly vanished... the actual cutting edge of wild (mostly)
individuals and small groups who are actually trying to make something
better and different vs. repackaging old designs with more-or-less
chrome, fancy wood trim and matte-finish plexiglas detailing.

99-44/100ths percent of the stuff developed by the first two groups is
sold to individuals who would not know a transistor from a triode or a
toroid from a taurus. They would not understand bias, Class A, AB, AB1
and so forth other than the flash and hype sold to them in the
showroom. Nor would they understand specifications with specific
reference to what they *DO NOT* mean.

That last 56/100ths will be purchased by those, whatever it might be,
who in short order start to wonder what all the fuss is about. And in
nearly equally short order, they will start to concentrate on the
output from the third class of suppliers. And this class also and
generally publishes their output such that a reasonably skilled and
patient person might duplicate them for him or her self. And this last
class is anathema to the first two groups.

So, yeah, the majority industry as it is now constituted is something
between a farce and a joke, about as honest as a career politician
with the general ethics of an archbishop. With that in mind, none of
us have the means or the right to dictate what is 'good' or 'bad' to
someone else or their ears. We might wax profound on build quality,
our opinion, measurements and other things, but dictate? Not hardly.
So in general conversation, if someone tells me how "phenomenal" their
new Wave Radio sounds and how I would "just love it" and then asks me
my "real" opinion of it, I am gentle, I do not roll my eyes and I do
not call them an idiot. Nor do I do any differently when another waxes
poetic on their horn-loaded full-range, single-driver speakers that
cost them as much as a small car (new). De Gustibus non est
disputandum.

Please pass the Sno-Balls.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[George Graves]

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:46:56 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jul 20, 4:15 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

For example, some people will tolerate amazingly bad-sounding equipment and
equipment installations for amazingly long periods of time. They may even
admit that the equipment has some serious faults.

Absolute twaddle.... Actually, the term 'twaddle' embues dignity far
beyond what it deserves.

If they like the sound, then that is entirely all that is necessary.

for what?

Loosly translated: There is no accounting for taste. What you think
might be utter crap may be the food of multiple orgiastic pleasures to
another. You have no corner on good taste, they have no corner on bad
taste... either way, they like what they like and no amount of
bleating and moaning or subjective whining on your part will change
that. You really need to separate *your* preferences from that of
others, and *what can be measured* from what people prefer to hear.

Remarkably, the entire 'high-end' industry is predicated on
just the OPPOSITE stance: that there *is* a standard of good
audio taste, and it separates 'high fi' from 'mid fi'.
Heck, one of their house organs even calls itself *The Absolute
Sound*.

Sure, there IS a standard for "Good Audio Taste" but it's predicated upon a
fairly narrow set of criteria

1) The "Absolute Sound" refers, of course, to the sound of real, live music,
played in real space (as opposed to some nebulous notion of "it sounds
good").

2) The purpose of "High-Fidelity" is to recreate, in the listener's space the
sound of this "real music, played in real space" in as close an approximation
as is technologically possible.

3) That this goal is the ONLY goal of High-Fidelity sound reproduction and
the industry that supports it.

OTOH, this is likely not the average Joe's goal at all. Many people who buy
audio systems have never heard (or actually paid any attention to - or,
indeed, even care about) live music. Most people's perception of live music
is a rock band heard through sound reinforcement equipment and herein lies
the fallacy of the above. If your goal is a system which sounds like a rock
concert, then the above lofty set of goals means nothing because sound
reinforcement equipment is not designed to be accurate. Of course, then we
get into the area of contention which says that the sound system that a rock
group uses IS that rock group's "Absolute Sound" and if one's playback
system doesn't sound like the PA system that the group uses on the road, then
it's not reproducing the group the way one would hear it in the flesh. Then
of course, one would need a different sounding system for each rock group's
recordings being played. Quite a can of worms.

Listening to a live concert of real musicians playing real acoustic
instruments in real space is a common experience that all can share equally.
Assuming that as the criteria for establishing goals for an industry striving
to make equipment to reproduce music seems a logical course. After all, a
rigid set of criteria for any endeavor is needed, if for no other reason than
to be a point of departure. Remember, a man walking in a blinding snow storm
which deprives him of references will ALWAYS walk in circles.

[George Graves]

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:40:23 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 21, 10:46 am, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Remarkably, the entire 'high-end' industry is predicated on
just the OPPOSITE stance: that there *is* a standard of good
audio taste, and it separates 'high fi' from 'mid fi'.
Heck, one of their house organs even calls itself *The Absolute
Sound*.

Of course. And for the gullible well-healed this is a requirement that
exceeds any need they might actually have for "good sound". But
getting right down to the nitty-gritty, some individuals prefer Eggs
Benedict for their breakfast, some prefer a Hostess Sno-Ball (lest you
not know what I mean: http://www.freshchocodiles.com/hostess/snoballs.html


Keep in mind that the Sno Ball crowd would (very nearly correctly)
point out that Eggs Benedict may be described as an 'educated Egg-
McMuffin.

But if the end-user is happy with the results, whether or not anyone
here might wrinkle their nose at this same result is entirely not the
point. And that most of us feel secure enough not to be overly
influenced by the "high-end Industry" is a continuous source of
annoyance and frustration to that same industry.

MY OPINION ONLY FOLLOWS: As it happens now, there are three "high end
industries", one consisting of long lines of vastly over-priced,
poorly made but very well packaged Chinese goods attempting to cash in
on the yiches of tubes and so forth. There is the "Name Brand" section
of the industry that does what it can to convince one that price
actually drives quality in a linear relationship (it doesn't, of
course), and then there is that part of the industry that has very
nearly vanished... the actual cutting edge of wild (mostly)
individuals and small groups who are actually trying to make something
better and different vs. repackaging old designs with more-or-less
chrome, fancy wood trim and matte-finish plexiglas detailing.

99-44/100ths percent of the stuff developed by the first two groups is
sold to individuals who would not know a transistor from a triode or a
toroid from a taurus. They would not understand bias, Class A, AB, AB1
and so forth other than the flash and hype sold to them in the
showroom. Nor would they understand specifications with specific
reference to what they *DO NOT* mean.

That last 56/100ths will be purchased by those, whatever it might be,
who in short order start to wonder what all the fuss is about. And in
nearly equally short order, they will start to concentrate on the
output from the third class of suppliers. And this class also and
generally publishes their output such that a reasonably skilled and
patient person might duplicate them for him or her self. And this last
class is anathema to the first two groups.

So, yeah, the majority industry as it is now constituted is something
between a farce and a joke, about as honest as a career politician
with the general ethics of an archbishop. With that in mind, none of
us have the means or the right to dictate what is 'good' or 'bad' to
someone else or their ears. We might wax profound on build quality,
our opinion, measurements and other things, but dictate? Not hardly.
So in general conversation, if someone tells me how "phenomenal" their
new Wave Radio sounds and how I would "just love it" and then asks me
my "real" opinion of it, I am gentle, I do not roll my eyes and I do
not call them an idiot. Nor do I do any differently when another waxes
poetic on their horn-loaded full-range, single-driver speakers that
cost them as much as a small car (new). De Gustibus non est
disputandum.

Please pass the Sno-Balls.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

The only important criterion for the Hi-Fi industry should be: does it sound
like real music played in real space, and if not, what is the difference? A
corollary to this would be "of these two components, which sounds the most
like the real thing?" After all, the word High-Fidelity itself means a high
degree of faithfulness. Faithful to what? There must be a "what", you know,
otherwise the the entire endeavor is fruitless. Also at what point does the
degree of faithfulness become "high enough" to be classified as high-fidelity
as opposed to low-fidelity, or middling-fidelity?

I'm merely trying to point out here that an industry/hobby which has no goals
is traveling in circles and it seems to me that the modern audio community
has completely abandoned it's original goals in favor of a general "if it
sounds good" anarchy. Also, a large portion of the industry has gone-off
chasing the wealthy dilettante, abandoning the enthusiast market completely.

As an example of the above, I know a guy who owned a very nice audio emporium
in this area who told me one time that he can make his entire month's income
by just selling and installing one extremely expensive system in one
millionaire's home. He said that since he found that out, he no longer had to
put up with audiophiles and their budgets and their listening for hours just
to buy one piece of gear per year. True to his perception, he closed his
storefront and became an "audio/video consultant" to the wealthy. There are
plenty of them around here too (Silicon Valley, CA), so I suspect that he's
doing well.

Let's hope, for his sake, that there is an endless supply of millionaires
needing complete new systems, because few if any are repeat customers. They
buy the most expensive so that they can brag about how much the system costs,
and that's just about their total interest in it.

[Arny Krueger]

"George Graves" wrote in message

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:51:34 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"George Graves" wrote in message

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:55:58 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"George Graves" wrote in
message

What's interesting is that when
we "subjective testers" get together, we all seem to
find the same characteristics for the same equipment,
even though we all came by these "sonic signatures"
independently of one another on our own systems.

True, that subjective reviewers tend to draw their
descriptive words and phrases from a relatively small
pool, and there's a tendency for subjective reviews to
all sound the same.

Nice rationalization,

No, fact.

but you're overlooking something.

If I say that a certain pre-amp has a sandpaper-like
dryness in the upper octaves as opposed to being
syruppy, or dark, or grainy, and other subjective
reviewers come to the same conclusion independently,
then, it would almost have to follow that this
particular component, does, indeed, exhibit that
characteristic, would it not?

If the meanings of these words were standardized, and
independent tests with known distortions showed that
reviewers used words consistently and reliably, and if
it were known that reviewers operated completely
independently, then maybe.

How would one know that?

Good question. Since we don't know these things, we don't have any reason to
trust the poetic words written by reviewers.

Most of the things that people
hear have never been quantified.

That is simply not true.

Hell, that's why
subjective reviewing started in the first place.

It is true that when subjective reviewing started over 50 years ago, we did
not understand as much about audibility as we do now. However, there's no
need to presume that our understanding of these things hasn't improved
dramatically since then.

Equipment got to the point where it all measured the
same, yet sounded different.

This is a myth.

Obviously, somebody wasn't measuring the right things.

Revisionist history.

Eventually new types of
distortion where quantified and ways were found to
measure them, but more importantly, design methodologies
were developed to largely eliminate many of these "new
distortions".

No new forms of distortion have been discovered in the past 50 years.

It was found, for instance that large
amounts of overall feedback in solid-state amplifiers
caused something called transient intermodulation
distortion (TIM).

TIM has been debunked. Tim turned out to be a special case of nonlinear
distortion. It is also possible to have TIM without loop feedback.

Now the standard practice is to design
amps without overall feedback loops, but to rather, use
only stage-by-stage feedback, and some designers have
found ways to use none at all.

This is false. I can show any number of schematics of modern power
amplifiers that retain loop feedback.

Slew-Induced Distortion
(SID) was first identified and then tamed by using
solid-state active devices which switched must faster and
had a much higher gain bandwidth than what was being used
before.

Wrong. SID and TIM are different words for essentially the same thing. SID
was debunked the same as TIM. Presenting them as being different things is
an error. Presenting them as being meaninful today is backwards.

Distortion generated by passive components was,
until about 20 years ago, unheard of until it was found
that certain types of dielectric materials in capacitors
held onto "old" signals long after the event that
generated them had ended, only to "leak" those by now
uncorrelated signals on top of signals currently being
passed by the capacitor.

This has been known about for at least 50 years. It is very old news. The
means for managing it have been well-known for at least 40 years.

This phenomenon, now known as
dielectric absorption distortion is now mitigated by
using dielectric materials that have low absorption
properties like polypropylene and polystyrene. But
amplifying devices still sound different from one
another, so there are still non-linear properties of
these devices that we don't understand.

This is false on several counts. DA does not cause nonlinear distortion. Its
effects on audio have been debunked for something like 5-10 years by Robert
Pease of National Semiconductors, among others. There are forms of
nonlinear distoriton that are due to certain capacitor dielectrics, but do
not relate to film capacitors.

Maybe someday,
amplifiers will become what Stewart Hegeman once
characterized as "a straight wire, with gain" and
subjective testing won't be needed any more for
electronics, but we aren't there yet - not even close!

This is incorrect. It is relatively easy to do "straight wire bypass
testing" that shows that many modern power amplifiers are subjectively
speaking, "stright wires with gain".

However, high end audio reviewing seems to be a very
incestuous business, and reviewers seem to be very
interested in what other reviewers say about the
equipment they review. This has been particularly true
since the advent of the Internet.

Actually, that would seem to your own skeptical paranoia
at work.

No, it is poor information being mistakenly taken for fact, as I have
detailed above.

I know many of the better regarded reviewers,
have worked with many of them and regard not a few as my
friends.

Speaks to potentical prejudice and bias.

They try hard to be honest and forthright with
their opinions and none would think of writing anything
that they hadn't experienced with their own ears (I
certainly know that I don't) and I think, that overall,
they succeed admirably.

In many cases I don't doubt their good intentions.

[Arny Krueger]

"George Graves" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:15:10 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

The test that is now known as the ABX test was developed
by audiophiles in order to bring some order and fairness
to controversies over which piece of equipment is the
more sonically accurate performer. I was a party to
exactly that very kind of controversy, and I developed
the first test that was eventually called an ABX test in
order to shed light on equipment sound quality to help
resolve that controversy. That such a common result of
ABX testing would be a finding of "no reliably
detectible differences" was completely and totally
unexpected by me.

There are two ways to interpret that result, Arny: 1)
That there is, indeed, no difference between the
particular components under test,

This alternative has been found to be faulty, because indeed, all equipment
is different. Even the various channels of equipment with as few as two
channels can be found to measure at least somewhat differently from each
other.

or 2) that whatever
differences that there may be are masked either by the
test methodology, the rest of the equipment being used,
or that the psychological strain of being "on the hot
seat" has somehow compromised the listeners' critical
facilities.

All of these alternatives have been carefully addressed.

(1) The effects of associated equipment have been addressed by a number of
different means.
(1a) The associated components have been selected to among the finest
components known to exist over a period of about 30 years. During this
period of time, the perceived quality of all forms of components have
greatly improved.
(1b) The associated components used have been minimized by various means so
that only a very few components have been parts of test systems.
(2) Psychological strain during listening tests have been minimized by
various means.
(2a) The strain of working with unfamiliar equipment and recprdings has been
minimized by using existing home systems and familiar recordings.
(2b) The potential strain of listening using short selections has been
minimized by doing long term listening tests.
(2c) The strain of listening for long periods of time has been minimized by
doing listening tests over a period of several days with extensive resting
periods.
(2d) The strain of performing with others present has ben minimized by
allowing people to do their own tests by themselves.
(2e) Various relaxation techniques have been used during listening sessions.

It seems to me that whichever of these
interpretations one subscribes to will determine upon
which side of the issue of the worth of DBT/ABX testing
that one supports.

In addition the same tests have been on occasion repeated using different
listening test methodologies, including same/different, ABC/hr, a test
called ABX that is used by people researching hearing that is in fact a
different test, testing methodologies used in the foods industry, etc.

The results of all verifiable listening test methodologies tend to be very
similar. If there are differences, the ABX test we origionated tends to be
the most sensitive for hearing differences.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


MY OPINION ONLY FOLLOWS: As it happens now, there are
three "high end industries",

one consisting of long lines of vastly over-priced,
poorly made but very well packaged Chinese goods
attempting to cash in on the yiches of tubes and so forth.

Agreed.

There is the "Name Brand" section
of the industry that does what it can to convince one
that price actually drives quality in a linear relationship (it
doesn't, of course),

Agreed, but it may overlap industry number one.

and then there is that part of the industry that
has very nearly vanished... the actual cutting edge of wild
(mostly) individuals and small groups who are actually trying to
make something better and different vs. repackaging old
designs with more-or-less
chrome, fancy wood trim and matte-finish plexiglas detailing.

Also agreed.

99-44/100ths percent of the stuff developed by the first
two groups is sold to individuals who would not know a
transistor from a triode or a toroid from a taurus.

Interestingly enough, some of them think that they are extremely
well-educated. As I showed for example in another post where someone tried
to pontificate expertly about Slew Rate Distortion and Dielectric
Absorbtion, their knowlege is often obsolete, based on that which has been
proven to be urban myth, or they just plain have things wrong.

They would not understand bias, Class A, AB, AB1
and so forth other than the flash and hype sold to them
in the showroom. Nor would they understand specifications with
specific reference to what they *DO NOT* mean.

Also agreed.

That last 56/100ths will be purchased by those, whatever
it might be,
who in short order start to wonder what all the fuss is
about. And in nearly equally short order, they will start
to concentrate on the
output from the third class of suppliers. And this class
also and generally publishes their output such that a
reasonably skilled and patient person might duplicate
them for him or her self. And this last class is anathema
to the first two groups.

I call this the "High Performance Audio" segment of the market. These people
are often well enough heeled, and tend to own high performance cars, high
performance cameras, guns and other techno-esoterica. While they may have
signficiant investments in audio, they don't seem to gravitate to the most
expensive components, with the possible exception of loudspeakers.

So, yeah, the majority industry as it is now constituted
is something between a farce and a joke, about as honest
as a career politician with the general ethics of an archbishop.

Some who have posted on this thread have even mentioned some of the high
priests of high farce audio.

With that in
mind, none of us have the means or the right to dictate what is 'good'
or 'bad' to someone else or their ears.

I don't find that this follows from the premises presented.

We might wax profound on build quality,
our opinion, measurements and other things, but dictate?

The choice of the word dictate may constitute the exclusion of a rich range
of middle choices.

So in general conversation, if someone tells me how
"phenomenal" their
new Wave Radio sounds and how I would "just love it" and
then asks me
my "real" opinion of it, I am gentle, I do not roll my
eyes and I do not call them an idiot.

Posession of even just mediocre personal social and rhetorical skills
suggests a more polite and effective course of action.

Nor do I do any differently when
another waxes poetic on their horn-loaded full-range,
single-driver speakers that
cost them as much as a small car (new).

De Gustibus non est disputandum.

No accounting for taste, right?

Please pass the Sno-Balls.

Agreed, there are times when a Sno-Ball or Twinkie can hit the spot. But a
slice of well-made kosher sponge cake topped with freshly whipped cream has
its charms, as a higher-end alternative to a Twinkie. I believe the
composite is not Kosher, though (for those to whom it may concern!)

[Arny Krueger]

"George Graves" wrote in message


The only important criterion for the Hi-Fi industry
should be: does it sound like real music played in real
space, and if not, what is the difference?

If you understand the reproduction of music, this is currently an impossible
goal.

A corollary to
this would be "of these two components, which sounds the
most like the real thing?"

This general goal can be abstracted to:

"Can this component pass a straight-wire bypass test" (If such a test is
relevant and possible for the particular kind of component).

After all, the word
High-Fidelity itself means a high degree of faithfulness.

Agreed.

Faithful to what?

There must be a "what", you know,
otherwise the the entire endeavor is fruitless.

Agreed. The usual "what" is a live performance, but there are some hidden
gotchas in there.

Also at
what point does the degree of faithfulness become "high
enough" to be classified as high-fidelity as opposed to
low-fidelity, or middling-fidelity?

The highest reasoanble standard would seem to be "indistiguishable from the
origional".

I'm merely trying to point out here that an
industry/hobby which has no goals is traveling in circles

Agreed.

and it seems to me that the modern audio community has
completely abandoned it's original goals in favor of a
general "if it sounds good" anarchy.

Agreed.

Also, a large
portion of the industry has gone-off chasing the wealthy
dilettante, abandoning the enthusiast market completely.

Agreed.

As an example of the above, I know a guy who owned a very
nice audio emporium in this area who told me one time
that he can make his entire month's income by just
selling and installing one extremely expensive system in
one millionaire's home.

Word has it that millionaires of that kind are going into short supply.

He said that since he found that
out, he no longer had to put up with audiophiles and
their budgets and their listening for hours just to buy
one piece of gear per year.

I've seen this sort of thing up front and personal, during my own
(relatively brief) buying sessions at high end audio stores.

True to his perception, he
closed his storefront and became an "audio/video
consultant" to the wealthy. There are plenty of them
around here too (Silicon Valley, CA), so I suspect that
he's doing well.

Perhaps.

Let's hope, for his sake, that there is an endless supply
of millionaires needing complete new systems, because few
if any are repeat customers. They buy the most expensive
so that they can brag about how much the system costs,
and that's just about their total interest in it.

A few of them are IME true and genuine audiophiles. Ostentatious purchases
are for the new and foolish rich.

[Arny Krueger]

"George Graves" wrote in message


It seems to me that many of these proponents of DBT are
saying one thing, but they mean another.

Examples?

Note change of topic

And here, we get
into the can-of-worms about "golden-ears" vs everybody
else. Many "objectivists" scoff at the notion of what
they call "Golden-Eared Audiophiles" and use that as a
reason why many "subjectivists" don't like DBT.

Doesn't seem to follow. How can someone use their own scoffing of someone
for an explanation for that someone's behavior?

I'll admit it, the behavior of some audiophiles seems to me to be based on
their own lack of relevant knowlege. It's often easy to find holes in their
statements that are big enough to drive a big truck through. Almost every
audiophile I've seen scoffing at DBTs has never done a proper DBT for
themselves, for example. Head of the pack are the very few audiophile
journalists, most who have never documented a DBT themselves. The few who do
try to do some kind of bias-controlled tests don't follow established
procedures and end up making some embarassing mistakes.

Their
real point (and some have been skirting the issue here
without actually coming right out and saying it) is that
all audio equipment sounds the same and that a DBT will
show, conclusively that this is so, and that people who
do not like the DBT methodology for audio equipment don't
like it because any blind test will prove that these
"golden-ear" types can't hear any differences between the
devices under test because these differences don't exist.

That's the usual false accusation in a nutshell.

The observableort the conclusion that a certain amount of equipment sounds
differernt, but that there are a lot less actual audible differences between
equipment than are reported by home listeners and in the audiophile press
such as TAS and SP.

Most of the differences that people claim to hear is due to the fact that
they don't follow good basic experimental design, which involves doing tests
where the quantity of independent variables is minimized, and the few actual
independent variables are varied strategically.

Most audiophile tests don't even involve simple controls like level
matching. So, of course everything sounds different - it is playing at
audibly different levels. Most audiopile tests don't carefully match the
portion of the test reocording that is used for the evaluation. So of
course, everything sounds different - its playing different music. Most
audiophile tests don't conceal the identity of the equipment that is playing
during the test, so of course it sounds different - they've just heard sales
pitches and read magazine articles and web messages that say it sounds
different.

[George Graves]

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:14:27 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"George Graves" wrote in message


The only important criterion for the Hi-Fi industry
should be: does it sound like real music played in real
space, and if not, what is the difference?

If you understand the reproduction of music, this is currently an impossible
goal.

Of course, it's an impossible goal. It's an "Ideal", something to strive for,
but always out of reach.

A corollary to
this would be "of these two components, which sounds the
most like the real thing?"

This general goal can be abstracted to:

"Can this component pass a straight-wire bypass test" (If such a test is
relevant and possible for the particular kind of component).

How can one "straight wire" an entire system? Amplifiers, sure, but CD
players? Record decks? Speakers?

After all, the word
High-Fidelity itself means a high degree of faithfulness.

Agreed.

Faithful to what?

There must be a "what", you know,
otherwise the the entire endeavor is fruitless.

Agreed. The usual "what" is a live performance, but there are some hidden
gotchas in there.

Also at
what point does the degree of faithfulness become "high
enough" to be classified as high-fidelity as opposed to
low-fidelity, or middling-fidelity?

The highest reasoanble standard would seem to be "indistiguishable from the
origional".

Agreed.

I'm merely trying to point out here that an
industry/hobby which has no goals is traveling in circles

Agreed.

and it seems to me that the modern audio community has
completely abandoned it's original goals in favor of a
general "if it sounds good" anarchy.

Agreed.

Also, a large
portion of the industry has gone-off chasing the wealthy
dilettante, abandoning the enthusiast market completely.

Agreed.

As an example of the above, I know a guy who owned a very
nice audio emporium in this area who told me one time
that he can make his entire month's income by just
selling and installing one extremely expensive system in
one millionaire's home.

Word has it that millionaires of that kind are going into short supply.

He said that since he found that
out, he no longer had to put up with audiophiles and
their budgets and their listening for hours just to buy
one piece of gear per year.

I've seen this sort of thing up front and personal, during my own
(relatively brief) buying sessions at high end audio stores.

True to his perception, he
closed his storefront and became an "audio/video
consultant" to the wealthy. There are plenty of them
around here too (Silicon Valley, CA), so I suspect that
he's doing well.

Perhaps.

Let's hope, for his sake, that there is an endless supply
of millionaires needing complete new systems, because few
if any are repeat customers. They buy the most expensive
so that they can brag about how much the system costs,
and that's just about their total interest in it.

A few of them are IME true and genuine audiophiles. Ostentatious purchases
are for the new and foolish rich.

Perhaps, but in this area most of the rich fall into that latter category.
Like an ex-client of mine. Has a half-million dollar audio system in the
"music room" of his new 5000 sq ft. two-story home built on a 3000 Sq ft, lot
... Owns a half dozen CDs. Period. All 'Seventies R&R. Also has a Bosendorfer
9ft Concert Grand in said "music room". NOBODY in the house plays piano or
takes lessons. To my knowledge it's never touched (except when the tuner
comes to tune it). Talk about ostentation.

[Walt]

George Graves wrote:
It seems to me that many of these proponents of DBT are saying one thing, but
they mean another. And here, we get into the can-of-worms about "golden-ears"
vs everybody else. Many "objectivists" scoff at the notion of what they call
"Golden-Eared Audiophiles" and use that as a reason why many "subjectivists"
don't like DBT. Their real point (and some have been skirting the issue here
without actually coming right out and saying it) is that all audio equipment
sounds the same and that a DBT will show, conclusively that this is so, and
that people who do not like the DBT methodology for audio equipment don't
like it because any blind test will prove that these "golden-ear" types can't
hear any differences between the devices under test because these differences
don't exist.

Wow. You like really *wasted* that strawman. I mean, I've got straw
all over me now. Hope you're happy.

First: it is most certianly not the point that "all audio equipment
sounds the same". I have never heard anyone claim that. Cite please?

Second: DBT cannot establish that there is no difference . DBT can try
to establish that there is a difference, and if no difference is
established the most that can be said is that the "test failed to detect
a difference". A subtle, but important distinction.

Third: the reason why objectivists scoff at some "golden-eared
audiophiles" is that the differences that they claim to be readily
apparent and blatantly obvious mysteriously fail to manifest themselves
when the reviewer doesn't know which component he's listening to. Makes
you wonder, doesn't it?

Note the use of the word "some" in point three.