Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[Phelonious Ponk]

The special hearing of the golden-eared audiophile, beyond normal citizens, beyond what can be measured, beyond what is generally believed to exist, has been tested. The carver challenge, the stereophile "Do All Amps Sound The Same" tests, Meyer and Moran, the CRC and Harman speaker studies -- these and a few others have all challenged the basic beliefs that Audiophiles hear what the public doesn't, what science cannot even measure. Peer review? Not a lot. I'm afraid there's not enough money in it to draw much interest. And of course Audiophiles have found fault with every one of those tests. Maybe rightfully so. But in the rare event that a halfway decent methodology is employed in numbers large enough for some statistical legitimacy -- the Harman and Canadian speaker studies that clearly indicate a direct correlation between measurement and sound, Meyer and Moran, which demonstrated the inaudibility of one of the things audiophiles had claimed was glaring, obvious, unlistenable -- it never seems to inspire reconsideration, further inquiry, probing discussion, or even deep thought. But the rush to discredit, the howls of protest are immediate and relentless. I'm sure all of the above are flawed (harman and M & M are pretty buttoned up, actually). I'm also sure they all have some value) some lessons to teach. The Audiophile community has utterly failed to learn them. Maybe there is something about the opening of one's ears that closes the mind.

Tim

[microstrip]

The special hearing of the golden-eared audiophile, beyond normal citizens, beyond what can be measured, beyond what is generally believed to exist, has been tested. The carver challenge, the stereophile "Do All Amps Sound The Same" tests, Meyer and Moran, the CRC and Harman speaker studies -- these and a few others have all challenged the basic beliefs that Audiophiles hear what the public doesn't, what science cannot even measure. Peer review? Not a lot. I'm afraid there's not enough money in it to draw much interest. And of course Audiophiles have found fault with every one of those tests. Maybe rightfully so. But in the rare event that a halfway decent methodology is employed in numbers large enough for some statistical legitimacy -- the Harman and Canadian speaker studies that clearly indicate a direct correlation between measurement and sound, Meyer and Moran, which demonstrated the inaudibility of one of the things audiophiles had claimed was glaring, obvious, unlistenable -- it never seems to inspire reconsideration, further inquiry, probing discussion, or even deep thought. But the rush to discredit, the howls of protest are immediate and relentless. I'm sure all of the above are flawed (harman and M & M are pretty buttoned up, actually). I'm also sure they all have some value) some lessons to teach. The Audiophile community has utterly failed to learn them. Maybe there is something about the opening of one's ears that closes the mind.

Tim

Tim,

Ii seems you have taken all your very few usual arguments, joined them in a bowl, got your kitchen mixer, and mixed, folded, beat and whipped it all. Just to finish you added a bit of anti-audiophile rant sauce before serving.

You can do better than that. Can I suggest next time you try a blender? At less it will not allow us to see immediately you are mixing valuable and remarkable serious work with outdated and dubious work.

BTW, considering that those who do not share your view have closed minds is a bad tactic. Any basic manual in the art of debating will explain you why.

[MylesBAstor]

Tim,

Ii seems you have taken all your very few usual arguments, joined them in a bowl, got your kitchen mixer, and mixed, folded, beat and whipped it all. Just to finish you added a bit of anti-audiophile rant sauce before serving.

You can do better than that. Can I suggest next time you try a blender? At less it will not allow us to see immediately you are mixing valuable and remarkable serious work with outdated and dubious work.

BTW, considering that those who do not share your view have closed minds is a bad tactic. Any basic manual in the art of debating will explain you why.

The problem is that all the tests tell us exactly what we already know: short term memory isn't a reliable indicator. Any basic psych or motor skills book will tell you that. Actually reading about short term memory should be mandatory but I doubt too many here have actually explored the subject. We don't even fully understand how we convert from short to long term memory, esp. when it comes to unconscious stimuli. Sp this is all a moot subject.

[rbbert]

Long term memory is also unreliable; look at the many different recollections of the same event that different witnesses have.

[microstrip]

The problem is that all the tests tell us exactly what we already know: short term memory isn't a reliable indicator. Any basic psych or motor skills book will tell you that. Actually reading about short term memory should be mandatory but I doubt too many here have actually explored the subject. We don't even fully understand how we convert from short to long term memory, esp. when it comes to unconscious stimuli. Sp this is all a moot subject.

Also, every test has scope and a range of application. Surely for many purposes short term blind tests are the correct tool and much more reliable than long term in biased conditions, if properly carried and analyzed. But they seem inadequate for checking high-end performance.

[Whatmore]

Also, every test has scope and a range of application. Surely for many purposes short term blind tests are the correct tool and much more reliable than long term in biased conditions, if properly carried and analyzed. But they seem inadequate for checking high-end performance.

Surely that has been addressed before. Is there any reason that a blind test has to be short term?

[tomelex]

Or, if you prefer (saying that in this example we could not distinguish them), how different do these measurements need to be before we can tell them apart?

.

Yes, above all else, there is a threshold for hering, and it is far inferior to what measurements can discern. While I suppose its nearly impossible for two things to be identical in every respect, its a fact that our ears can only detect differences in the range of our hearing, and those out of its range are , well, out of its range.

A transfer function....ie how well does what come out egual what came in...in an amplifer can be measured very thoroughly by blasting it with all kinds of combinations of test tones at the same time, various levels, etc, by computer, and the output analyzied, or just simply nulling it against a known good reference that has already been subjected to the blasting technique, and thus if it reaches an acceptable null, its good an identical enough to pass anyones hearing test.

When folks listen to loudspeakers, if they dont have their head in a brace, literally, they will never hear the same sound twice, for other reasons too, speakers heating up, room effects a bigges, ear/brain inteface changes with loudness, mood, mind distractions and thoughts blah blah, humans are way to variable to compete against measurments, and as has been said many times on this forum, even by someone who knows what to listen for in digital aberrations, one can say the same source played through the same equipment, sounds different, just because they were told it was going to be a test of two different components but only one was actually used.

Fine, we all hear differences, DBT or not, seems our organic hearing and ear/brain inteface is fairly well, lets say elastic, when the differences are not large.

[tomelex]

Surely that has been addressed before. Is there any reason that a blind test has to be short term?

Agreed, blind tests can be done for years if one wants. I am now beginning to think that blind tests are actually more revealing of our human hearing and ear/brain interface failings and variability vs electronics gear....and again, if your head is not in a vice, and nothing has changed in the room (no one else there or moving about) then the blind test does not have a chance anyway.

[MylesBAstor]

Long term memory is also unreliable; look at the many different recollections of the same event that different witnesses have.

Or is that again reflecting the conversion of short into long term memory? Short term memory is bottlenecked by using serial rather than parallel processing. See Schmidt and Wrisberg.

http://www.amazon.com/Motor-Learning...t+and+wrisberg

Why is it also that the principle of individuality is lost here/hear? In an article published in Scientific American Mind, a noted researcher from Arizona State concluded that interaural hearing differences are large enough to swamp out any statistical analysis.

[tomelex]

Hello, gentlemen. Please allow me to chime in here. I have heard the Silver 9's, Silver 7's and what some would consider the Silver 6's. I have heard them hooked up to SS pre's as well as tubed pre's, including a 1 of 2 made [22 tube] pre made by Bob himself [referred to as the Silver 1]. I have also been privy to every single TFM amp made to emulate the famed Silver 7 and I can attest that IME, none of the amps sound the same. Not one.

How the Stereophile guys failed is beyond me but that's just me. I'll have to pull up an interview we did with Bob a while back and let him explain it in his own words. What I'm talking about is the actual null test during the CC, along with the percentage of "what makes an SS amp sound like a tube amp".

Tom

Tom, while they may not all sound the same, I think we all agree the proper test would involve all of them played one after *** other, in the same room, with your head locked in a vice and blind. Your hearing and mine is way too variable to even come close to comparing unless done very rigiorously and even then, I don't trust our hearing to be better than for example the results of null tests at the same time, which could easily be done.