Is it possible to just merge all of these threads into one? I've lost track of which bit of software we are discussing and in any event, the arguments are exactly the same every time.
Another playback software to argue over
- Thread starter jkeny
- Start date
Indeed, on both sides. I guess it (as usual) ultimately boils down to "do you believe your ears are an infallible, absolute reference" vs. "do you believe psychoacoustical and perceptual bias factors might have an influence". Between the two, there seems to be an inpenetrable mental wall.
It would seem that a double-blind test is the only straight forward way to go about this. I rarely do that with my own system changes, because the time and effort necessary is not worth it to avoid the prospect of making a mistake and because I've made progress that I find satisfactory by using my ears as my guide. However, it would be appropriate here. The Pacific Northwest Audio Society did a test recently with the $1,500 Crystal Disc, but I haven't read the discussion.
I've argued ad-nauseum with the Head-Fi engineers about whether USB cables can make a difference. To tell you the truth, I don't think any of them are engineers, they're certainly not audiophiles and I doubt they even like music. They seem to be under the impression that if you can't explain things within their understanding of the physical universe then it doesn't exist and that it's not possible to use one's ears (whether "infallible" or not) to discern sound characteristics, you have to use computers, meters and measurements, otherwise it's just a bunch of crooked reviewers writing articles to help the industry prey on audiophiles who can't help themselves. I'm planning to do a USB cable double blind test with some of the club members when I find an opportunity, but regardless of the results I have no doubt these guys will either say the test was rigged or the methods were flawed.
I agree - but a large number of audiophiles seem to doubt the validity of double-blind testing.
Excellent - I wish more people would be willing to go through the (not inconsiderable) effort of arranging proper, controlled and verifiable double blind tests. The best way to deal with critics is to make sure the tests are well controlled and documented, and publishing as much detail as possible.
Fork, can I suggest that when you do your blind testing you include some longer-term listening? By this I mean something close to a complete album or equivalent to the side of an LP. Short-term A/B comparisons are fine for picking out glaring differences in FR or dynamics but miss the subtle cues that trigger emotion. This issue I have with short-term A?B tests (sighted or blind) is that they force us to use our analytical capabilities and ensure that we don't have time or the mood to engage our emotional side.
Fork, some blind tests have already been done. Lots of sighted tests have already been done & like you I mostly trust my ears.
There is enough evidence already on the table & the possibility of trying the software itself is the ultimate test. But those that refuse to try it also call for "arranging proper, controlled and verifiable double blind tests.". I find it to be just another ruse in the armoury of the armchair critics.
There is enough evidence already on the table & the possibility of trying the software itself is the ultimate test. But those that refuse to try it also call for "arranging proper, controlled and verifiable double blind tests.". I find it to be just another ruse in the armoury of the armchair critics.
I'm certainly happy with the blind tests I arranged and performed accidentally. If others feel the need to do their own tests then fine, I hope they just get on with it and report back. How do we arrange a blind test of the blind test results though.....
John whenever clear benefits are being heard in a serious technological effort that should make no difference at all, "proper, controlled and verifiable double blind tests" are called for, regadless of who is inclined to download another experimental player and try it out in their system. And if differences are heard blind, thorough measurements are called for in a search to determine the cause of the audible difference. After all, it could be the loss of noise, or the introduction of it. Who is responsible for said testing? IMHO, whoever is claiming there is a difference while failing to provide any substantive evidence of that, not those who believe the science that says it should make no difference.
As far as I know, no one has been willing to invest the time, effort and money required to demonstrate the efficacy of any audiophile software player. Not even companies charging very high prices for them, with a very high stake in proving that efficacy. Why should those of us who are skeptical be bothered to do, for your satisfaction, what commercial providers have failed to do for their own monetary gain? I have a update of OSX to download; a much better use of my computer's time.
Tim
"I agree - but a large number of audiophiles seem to doubt the validity of double-blind testing."
Not the validity . When is it necessary? Was it properly conducted? Were the results properly interpreted? Most important that you not cite the lack of dbt as proof of your argument.
Not the validity . When is it necessary? Was it properly conducted? Were the results properly interpreted? Most important that you not cite the lack of dbt as proof of your argument.
Right - but I might cite the lack of dbt as lack of proof of somebody else's argument.
I think you are saying the same thing a different way. absence of evidence does not necessarily create a falsity.
So if I say there are black swans,my argument is not defeated merely because I have not found one
So if I were grading a scientific paper without a dbt I would give it an incomplete not an F.Who is responsible for said testing?
"IMHO, whoever is claiming there is a difference while failing to provide any substantive evidence of that, not those who believe the science that says it should make no difference."
IMO both partys have an obligation to prove their point. Often the proof is the same. Do vitamins cure disease? The test is the same for those who believe they do and those who believe they don't.
Agree. It's just not a very strongly supported argument.
Except "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If your claim is well supported by existing scientific theory, it requires slightly less strong evidence than something that goes against it (such as cold fusion).
Again I say "proof", "evidence" "existing scientific theory" are the usual canards introduced prematurely in these discussions.
The evidence is here for all to see - how many people on this thread have actually listened to the software Vs how many argue about the above. The same M.O. is found on every such thread across the audio forums - hence my thread title (sorry you didn't get the sarcasm in the title, Tim & took it literally.). I was hoping the thread title might give pause to the usual arguments but apparently it was instead looked on as an invitation to argue. Oh well!
The time for theory, proof DBTs, etc. is after enough observations are made which confirm the software's audible effects, not before.
The evidence is here for all to see - how many people on this thread have actually listened to the software Vs how many argue about the above. The same M.O. is found on every such thread across the audio forums - hence my thread title (sorry you didn't get the sarcasm in the title, Tim & took it literally.). I was hoping the thread title might give pause to the usual arguments but apparently it was instead looked on as an invitation to argue. Oh well!
The time for theory, proof DBTs, etc. is after enough observations are made which confirm the software's audible effects, not before.
Amazingly enough, I think I agree. So far we don't have enough data confirming any audible effects.
Some people just want to argue over things they have not tried and in some cases have no intention of trying. Not sure why? Is it some sort of intellectual exercise?
You have to wonder if some of these people are actually interested in better sound or they just like to debate?
You have to wonder if some of these people are actually interested in better sound or they just like to debate?
Yes but I find anecdotal evidence, just as compelling as any when it contains some detail & I can self-test that detail. I also find it grows in importance as the volume of such evidence grows.
But like Fork, I trust my ears (not ultimately) to give me my own sense of what is audibly better & it has served me well enough 'til now.
I also do have a couple of ways of listening one of which listens for the gestalt of the piece first before trying to listen for the detailed named differences (which is not always possible). This is one of the possible failings of DBTs - they can be prompting listeners for this type of listening for detail differences.
Then why the constant cry for DBTs, measurements, etc. or are you saying that there are enough observations confirming the audible difference of this software & now it's time to move to the next phase - looking for more evidence?
Last edited:
Indeed, Sean, you have listened to the software & have an opinion.
Others have not listened & yet have an opinion.
Maybe this is the "Whosethebestdebater" section & not the section about computer based audio?
Edit: I believe it would be a good idea to create a debating section on the forum to allow those so inclined to indulge their want & not pollute every thread with their tiresome arguments
You have to wonder if some of these people are actually interested in better sound or if they just like to discuss (and second-guess) the motivations of other people here.
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |