Placebo effects in the extreme

[fas42]

Unfortunately the point in question is about reducing system noise, not what sound you subjectively prefer. It is not a given that one follows the other. You simply don't know. The mo3 example is not relevant. With that You have a difinitive original to compare with. You don't with the noise issue in your system.

Sorry I am still lost with the PA system point you are trying to make.

So you are confirming that the best you can is purely a subjective opinion regarding what you like the best.

From having refined systems over many decades I have built up a repertoire of aspects of sound reproduction that I focus on, that tell me whether it's audibly flawed or not - and that's the only thing I worry about: what I "like the best" is the Ferrari that's OK, vs. the identical one that only differs by having one tyre very badly out of balance, meaning at speed the rear vision mirror is vibrating so hard it's ready to fall off. Strangely enough, I don't need measurements to tell me something's wrong, though some engineers might dispute such ...

The audio industry has done a dreadful job of developing measurement techniques that detect these sort of things - it's trapped in the "which sound do you like best?" nonsense, rather than evolving "this is correct sound, and this is damaged sound - can you pick the difference?" procedures.

I like sound which fools me in the same way as the real thing; "damaged" sound just sounds like, well, an ordinary "hifi" setup, or typical PA - it's obviously fake, no matter where you listen to it. Of course, if these aspects don't matter then you might as well buy an Aldi boombox, and be content with that ...

 

[BE718]

Nope, this is just another example of your failure to understand that this test doesn't show what your biased interpretation leads you to conclude. I'm sure you've heard of experimenter's error - your whole post is such a rich vein of learning material for those willing to learn

BE, I used the Socratic method with you before (In relation to my analysis of the Intona) & even though it inflames you & your sense of superiority over being taught anything by someone like me, you should work through your anecdote & your conclusions to learn about your cognitive dissonance.

JK,

The facts are very, very simple.

A track was re- recorded.

There was a loss of fidelity with the DAC replay.

There was a loss of fidelity with the ADC recording the DAC output.

The result was played back on a highly revealing system.

There was a strong subjective preference for the re-recorded lower fidelity track.

Specific Comments were made about the superiority of the lower fidelity track. Descriptors often seen in forums.

None of those comments could be correct as ALL aspects of the recording were degraded by the re-recording.


What don't you understand about this? The subjective preference was for the inferior track. They just liked the distortions (general term) of the lower fidelity track. Nothing wrong with this, but in this test it was clear that subjective opinions were incapable of discerning the superior track.


Secondly the regen Intona test. I forgot to mention that a straight connection was also tested. Everyone struggled to tell the difference between the three. They simply weren't sure and came out with different answers in different tests. Ask the owners of the regen prior to the test and they were confident of big differences.

We didn't have time last night but I will perform the test again. I predict we get close to 50/50 (guessing) when performed a reasonable number of times.


This all backs up what I have been saying, and don't forget these were audiophiles.


JK, of course feel free to reject this reality and substitute it with your own.

Swearing black is white wont get you very far - youll probably get run over on the next zebra crossing.

 

[BE718]

From having refined systems over many decades I have built up a repertoire of aspects of sound reproduction that I focus on, that tell me whether it's audibly flawed or not - and that's the only thing I worry about: what I "like the best" is the Ferrari that's OK, vs. the identical one that only differs by having one tyre very badly out of balance, meaning at speed the rear vision mirror is vibrating so hard it's ready to fall off. Strangely enough, I don't need measurements to tell me something's wrong, though some engineers might dispute such ...

The audio industry has done a dreadful job of developing measurement techniques that detect these sort of things - it's trapped in the "which sound do you like best?" nonsense, rather than evolving "this is correct sound, and this is damaged sound - can you pick the difference?" procedures.

I like sound which fools me in the same way as the real thing; "damaged" sound just sounds like, well, an ordinary "hifi" setup, or typical PA - it's obviously fake, no matter where you listen to it. Of course, if these aspects don't matter then you might as well buy an Aldi boombox, and be content with that ...

I would dispute it in the context of hifi. My example with the simple listening test above demonstrates people just like what they like and are probably quite poor at subjectively determining what is actually better.

However I totally agree with you about the audio industry, and very specifically with the recording industry. There is no reference in monitor speakers for example.

 

[Gregadd]

I would dispute it in the context of hifi. My example with the simple listening test above demonstrates people just like what they like and are probably quite poor at subjectively determining what is actually better.

However I totally agree with you about the audio industry, and very specifically with the recording industry. There is no reference in monitor speakers for example.

Your test has no applicability outside of the participants.

 

[BE718]

Your test has no applicability outside of the participants.

Oh of course not . I have no doubt I could repeat this test and see similar results with others.

Its why people like turntables and claim they are superior, its just euphonic to them.

 

[fas42]

My example with the simple listening test above demonstrates people just like what they like and are probably quite poor at subjectively determining what is actually better.

My take is that the "better" is not as simple as you trying to imply - in conventional technical aspects, the copy above is inferior, but it may have altered sufficiently in characteristics such that the some signature characteristics of the playback system being used, which could give the sound an unpleasant patina, were not so obviously present - the playback system is not a black box in this test, it plays a major part in the final presentation ... I have heard many severely "over-etched" systems playing - anything that reduces the impact of that "distortion" would be a blessing, for me.

 

[Jinjuku]

So, despite you claim that "honest objectivists" admit to the possible limitations of their measurements, you can't cite a previous example of this from you?
What were you saying about "intellectual humility"?

What limits of measurements? All the measurements showed there was nothing going on as far as one cable differentiating from another.

 

[Jinjuku]

1

Knowing there are objective measurements going on swamping 'Night and Day' and 'Readily Apparent Differences'? Yeah right

On the cable burn in challenge no one actually could find any technical fault with the proposed method. All input was welcome by all parties to improve the evaluation method.

It was like Copernicus just walked into an Astrologer Convention (quote by Bob Lee, lead engineer at QSC Audio).

 

[Gregadd]

Knowing there are objective measurements going on swamping 'Night and Day' and 'Readily Apparent Differences'? Yeah right

On the cable burn in challenge no one actually could find any technical fault with the proposed method. All input was welcome by all parties to improve the evaluation method.

It was like Copernicus just walked into an Astrologer Convention (quote by Bob Lee, lead engineer at QSC Audio).

To deal with the fact that what my dealer termed were perfectly good cables being returned, he purchased a cable burn-in device. With the customers consent he would burn-in cables before delivery. I'm sorry I never did find out if it worked.

 

[Jinjuku]

To deal with the fact that what my dealer termed were perfectly good cables being returned, he purchased a cable burn-in device. With the customers consent he would burn-in cables before delivery. I'm sorry I never did find out if it worked.

You have to find as many ways to taking a customers money as legally possible.

 

[jkeny]

JK,

The facts are very, very simple.

A track was re- recorded.

There was a loss of fidelity with the DAC replay.

There was a loss of fidelity with the ADC recording the DAC output.

The result was played back on a highly revealing system.

There was a strong subjective preference for the re-recorded lower fidelity track.

Specific Comments were made about the superiority of the lower fidelity track. Descriptors often seen in forums.

None of those comments could be correct as ALL aspects of the recording were degraded by the re-recording.


What don't you understand about this? The subjective preference was for the inferior track. They just liked the distortions (general term) of the lower fidelity track. Nothing wrong with this, but in this test it was clear that subjective opinions were incapable of discerning the superior track.

Here's where I differ - they all gave their listening impressions favouring the re-recorded track. You use the stock objectivist's statement that this because of added distortion. You have not measured this - it's just your "expert opinion". How do you know that the re-recording has not masked some artifact that was perceived as less natural in the original? What output filter settings were used in the MDAC playback? I guess you are not one of those "objectivists who are not afraid to explore what they heard, show why they heard it" - audiophiles prefer distortion explains it all.

Secondly the regen Intona test. I forgot to mention that a straight connection was also tested. Everyone struggled to tell the difference between the three. They simply weren't sure and came out with different answers. Ask the owners of the regen prior to the test and they were confident of big differences.

We didn't have time last night but I will perform the test again. I predict we get close to 50/50 (guessing) when performed a reasonable number of times.

This all backs up what I have been saying and don't forget these were audiophiles.

JK, of course feel free to reject this reality and substitute it with your own.

First off you are using your playback system which you claim has no noise issues. Therefore, according to you, there's no need for the Intona's galvanic isolation. I seem to remember your listening impressions of the Intona were that you couldn't make up your mind if it was placebo or not. Yet in a blind test there was a distinct preference for it when used with your main system. So we have a blind test, which you seem to distrust & predict a null result next time around.

When you substitute a laptop for your PC, the Regen is preferred over the Intona. Is this because your laptop's USB port has inferior signal quality to your PC's USB port?

Your initial comments on the Regen Vs Intona results "this example just confirms my opinions regarding how flawed people's (including my own) subjective opinions can be." Your desire to jump to premature conclusions demonstrates an overriding bias rather than the image of objectivists being finagled here as "not afraid to explore what they heard, show why they heard it"

 

[jkeny]

What limits of measurements? All the measurements showed there was nothing going on as far as one cable differentiating from another.

You stated that objectivists admit to the limitations of their measurements "all the time" yet you fail to cite ANY example of this admission, instead trying to specifically limit the statement to this test.

If it's done all the time, give us examples, as I've asked many times already.

 

[GaryProtein]

It's the reality of how perception works
All of our perceptions are a filter through which we sense the "something" out there.
For most people this hobby uses the sense of auditory perception to connect with the "something" we call music.
The whole premise contained in your answer is that you can completely measure the "something" & tell how it will be perceived by auditory perception - an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary proof

You totally misinterpreted my post. I was not referring to auditory perception or measurement.

I specifically referred to and quoted the gray image because I wanted to make a distinction between reality and perception. I did not mean to get into a discussion of semantics.

Perception is perception and reality is reality.

There is one reality. Some people's perception of what reality is, is wrong.

That perception is reality is psychological mumbo jumbo bullshit.

 

[opus112]

I specifically referred to and quoted the gray image because I wanted to make a distinction between reality and perception.

Such a distinction is illusory. 'Reality' is not available to awareness, we all work with the output of our perceptual processes.

I did not want to get into a discussion of semantics.

You mean you want people to accept your claims just as claims (text on a screen) without inquiring into what they actually mean?

 

[jkeny]

You totally misinterpreted my post. I was not referring to auditory perception or measurement.

I specifically referred to and quoted the gray image because I wanted to make a distinction between reality and perception. I did not mean to get into a discussion of semantics.

Perception is perception and reality is reality.

There is one reality. Some people's perception of what reality is, is wrong.

That perception is reality is psychological mumbo jumbo bullshit.

No misrepresentation whatsever - Your assumption is you know "reality"?

 

[GaryProtein]

Such a distinction is illusory. 'Reality' is not available to awareness, we all work with the output of our perceptual processes.

You mean you want people to accept your claims just as claims (text on a screen) without inquiring into what they actually mean?

Look up the definitions of "reality" and "perception".

As before, I am not interested in psychological mumbo jumbo bullshit.

No misrepresentation whatsever - Your assumption is you know "reality"?

I never said anything about MY perception of reality.

 

[jkeny]

Look up the definitions of "reality" and "perception".

As before, I am not interested in psychological mumbo jumbo bullshit.

So you introduce an erroneous concept & run away when it's veracity is challenged with your hands flailing & invoking mumbo-jumbo

 

[opus112]

As before, I am not interested in psychological mumbo jumbo bullshit.

How deliciously ironic that this text is an example of what you claim not to be interested in.

For anyone with an interest to learn (as opposed to pontificate beyond their level of understanding) I recommend this TED talk : https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is?language=en

 

[Jinjuku]

You stated that objectivists admit to the limitations of their measurements "all the time" yet you fail to cite ANY example of this admission, instead trying to specifically limit the statement to this test.

If it's done all the time, give us examples, as I've asked many times already.

Could you please find and quote me or redact your statement if you can't back it up?

 

[jkeny]

...
I never said anything about MY perception of reality.

You misunderstand - I was not talking about your perception
You used the simple visual example where it can be shown to be a solid block of colour yet we perceive it as a gradient shaded block.
Now you extrapolate this simplistic analysis to an audio stream.
Are you claiming that a complete analysis of audio streams can be done (the "reality" known), compared to auditory perception & the differences analysed?