Comparative Listening Tests

microstrip said:

(...) Curiously audio scientists already told us what they think about stereo sound reproduction and its limitations, and why the outcome of stereo is so unpredictable. Why should we expect to use the methods of rigorous science in the high-end field, where science is currently of little help - and besides, in all fairness, shows almost no interest?

Click to expand...

Ron Party said:

(...) Micro, I enjoy reading your posts but in this one instance, well... I'll just leave it alone.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify - the first part of the sentence is a fact. The second is a question, and surely is only MHO. IMO science is currently used in the high-end mainly to support technology and marketing, not as intrinsic audio science.

stehno said:

Why the focus on as you say junk science? Because many of us here who are not well-trained nor well-educated in the sciences seem all too willing to just trust the science type when they say something "scientific". Whereas perhaps somebody like youself is better equipped to more easily and instinctively discern the wheat from the chaff.

If you skimmed many of the threads here or perhaps in many high-end audio websites, you should notice that the vast majority of threads engaging in potentially otherwise meaningful or constructive dialogue suddenly nosedive when the "science types" intervene as they appear wont to do.

Moreover, it doesn't take much for many of us to latch onto and join with the "science type", regardless of their real intelect or expertise. Perhaps because none of us want to look the fool by believing something so nonsensical as bumble bees flying when in time past science dictated it impossible.

Lastly, I get the impression that many-to-most of the science types (maybe all the hacks, bush-leaguers, and also-rans) seem to behave as though everything to be invented or discovered has already been invented and discovered. Hence, if it's not in a science textbook, it must be invalid and discarded. And there ain't nothing scientific about that sort of attitude.

For me personally, I often times consider the science types to be of the most closed-minded of all.

Click to expand...

Good post!

DaveC said:

I have one cable that does increase in SPL during the burn-in period and it's super obvious when actually listening. (...)

Click to expand...

You are the only person claiming such fact and simultaneously showing measured data. However we are shown only this acoustic measurement, no electrical measurements, that would be very interesting. Can I ask what is exactly this cable and the system being used?

jkeny said:

Yes as we see this nosedive often when Amir intervenes
What we also see this "junk information" from him in the (I paraphrase) 'oversampling done in FFTs & the low noise floor' " Summed up by Opus in this post
Some actually thanked him for this junk information & rather than admit he was wrong he continued to try to defend this - scientific method, be damned! Intellectual honesty, be damned!
Disappeared for two weeks & has now resumed posting - no doubt hoping people will have forgotten about his antics
It's not the first time - he served up similar misinformed "junk info" with his claim that asynchronous USB protocol has a resend function & rather than admit he was wrong, attempted to claim it was John Swenson who told him this.

Is this the sort of scientific method Ron believe in?

Click to expand...

There were all sorts of people claiming that on another popular forum a couple years ago. I posted info saying they were wrong and proved it, the result was people deciding it didn't matter and the the transfer had to be "perfect" in every way or you'd hear pops and clicks, etc. These people has absolutely no experience with designing USB audio devices yet they were absolutely sure their position was correct and that USB cables can't be audible. How do people with no clue come up with these beliefs? Why not just say, "Hey, I don't know. It doesn't seem like USB cables should make a difference but I'm no expert so maybe they do."

microstrip said:

You are the only person claiming such fact and simultaneously showing measured data. However we are shown only this acoustic measurement, no electrical measurements, that would be very interesting. Can I ask what is exactly this cable and the system being used?

Click to expand...

Sure, I posted this in it's own thread a while ago. Pioneer S-1EX speakers (TAD concentric Mg midrange/Be tweeter) with the mic 3-4" from the concentric driver, in-room. Cable is SL UPOCC copper litz w/44g stranding, enamel insulation, cotton blend jacket. So each leg has over 500 runs of individually insulated copper wire, lots of surface area. Before is the new cable, after is about 4 days on a cable burn-in device.

However, I don't think this is the same phenomenon as some cables being perceived as louder than others, this occurs with fully burned-in cables and tbh, makes no sense at all from any sort of conventional perspective.

DaveyF said:

Amir, on the other hand, I have to question how many times listener's go into a particular gear change and hear nothing at all, simply because they have closed their mind...and their ears, to the possibility that some change could exist!!

Click to expand...

You say "could." How do we know that? Based on true understanding of audio science and engineering or some lay assumption? Was at a suite today at AXPONA. I told the presenter that certain seat was pretty good sounding. The presenter says, "the guys did very good job sorting out this room." A guy sitting next to me asks, "you mean they optimized the cabling?" Before my jaw fell on the floor, the presenter explained, "no, I meant optimizing the placement of speakers."

I mean how bad has this world gotten that we think optimizing a room sound is due to speaker wires before speaker and seating placement? How far do we allow this "could" to go? No speaker wire can do anything whatsoever to your room modes. Nothing. But we seem to think "it could."

So no, my mind is not open to speaker wires having optimized the bass response to that room.

Or, for that matter, are so "blinkered" that they do not even bother to listen at all to gear, instead assuming that the piece in question could not possibly make any difference and therefore it is not valid!! Hmmm, wonder where these guys reside, LOL.

Click to expand...

Heaven knows the extremists in both audio camps need to have a strong whack on the back of the head. The guys who remove a veil from their system a thousand times need to be shown the door out. As should the people who don't know the first thing about audio and assume fidelity and good engineering don't matter.

And no, they don't hang out in ASR Forum as I have banned them personally. Now if you mean HA and AVS forum, then sure. You will get your head chopped off there by just saying hello . And perhaps for good reason but it should not be that way.

DaveC said:

Interesting... that's pretty close to my theory on the subject. My ICs and SCs have been reported to result in increased SPL many times. I was kinda hoping Klaus had an answer as I don't feel like an actual increase in SPL is possible, yet is was heard by someone who doesn't think cables make a difference with no explanation given for such an "impossible' phenomenon.

Click to expand...

Dave, that is interesting and counter to my experience. I indeed thought that I heard a difference in volume between the two cables. In Al's test, the "B" cable "seemed" louder to me than the "A" cable. I can't prove this, and Al told me he had them level checked, but that is what I thought I heard. Our friend seemed to agree with me. Al later informed me that the "B" cable was in fact his Monster cable, and the "A" cable was your D4 cable which he had in for trial. So, in this case, I am one of those who thought, correctly or incorrectly, that the D4 cable actually sounded less loud than the cable to which it was being compared. Go figure. Just another anecdotal data point.

DaveC said:

Good post!

Click to expand...

Thanks, Dave. Believe it or not, I was being kind.

The cable industry is a profit glutted industry highly dependent on advertising and promotional wishful thinking. As long as the high profits persist, along with the willing customers, so will the mythology. Why would somebody even bother to design a new amp or speaker if all they had to do is package some wire with mumbo jumbo. It is so pervasive, that even the whole industry is on board because no manufacturer would want to admit that their devices work best with 'ordinary' wire, so it has taken on the self fulfilling character of a mass delusion. Even the critics have to buy into it.

I just found out this thread, recently...interesting discussion.

EDIT: I just finished reading Ron's first post of this thread. And before that I've read the last ten posts, plus few in the middle (between first and last page). But it is in Ron's first original post that I found the best solace; narrating Peter's story, and finally giving a very smart conclusion...good intelligent solid sense.

There's not much to add, only to agree about honest receptivity in face of music reproduction and moving onscreen images.
Every single day it is a cultivated art to remain composed and open.

cjfrbw said:

The cable industry is a profit glutted industry highly dependent on advertising and promotional wishful thinking. As long as the high profits persist, along with the willing customers, so will the mythology. Why would somebody even bother to design a new amp or speaker if all they had to do is package some wire with mumbo jumbo. It is so pervasive, that even the whole industry is on board because no manufacturer would want to admit that their devices work best with 'ordinary' wire, so it has taken on the self fulfilling character of a mass delusion. Even the critics have to buy into it.

Click to expand...

Measure best with ordinary wire, might be a fair assessment. And I don't think it's just wishful thinking. Fact is many manufacturers can tune the sound with their cables, in numerous ways. But they're basically not retaining any "purity", or measuring right. It's all subjective, and that is the fact of the matter. It's the marketing that tries to tell us that their cables are better in any kind of way that would indicate better measurements, that is so irritating. People need to believe that cables are "better" instead of just different - which is the truth 90% of the time.

All of that is a reason why I appreciate that DaveC builds on actual principles of engineering, that will measure fine.

amirm said:

You say "could." How do we know that? Based on true understanding of audio science and engineering or some lay assumption? Was at a suite today at AXPONA. I told the presenter that certain seat was pretty good sounding. The presenter says, "the guys did very good job sorting out this room." A guy sitting next to me asks, "you mean they optimized the cabling?" Before my jaw fell on the floor, the presenter explained, "no, I meant optimizing the placement of speakers."

I mean how bad has this world gotten that we think optimizing a room sound is due to speaker wires before speaker and seating placement? How far do we allow this "could" to go? No speaker wire can do anything whatsoever to your room modes. Nothing. But we seem to think "it could."

So no, my mind is not open to speaker wires having optimized the bass response to that room.


Heaven knows the extremists in both audio camps need to have a strong whack on the back of the head. The guys who remove a veil from their system a thousand times need to be shown the door out. As should the people who don't know the first thing about audio and assume fidelity and good engineering don't matter.

And no, they don't hang out in ASR Forum as I have banned them personally. Now if you mean HA and AVS forum, then sure. You will get your head chopped off there by just saying hello . And perhaps for good reason but it should not be that way.

Click to expand...

Amir, the reason I say "could" is because there are a lot of times when the ear will be telling the truth and yet the explanation and the science may not be too obvious. Although, I must say that I personally believe that if something sounds better, then even if the science is not A) there yet or B ) not obvious, then that does not mean we have not listened to something that does have a perfectly good scientific explanation, now or in the future.
What I very much abhor, is when a so-called scientific leaning person, dismisses something with nothing more than a snide comment...and with absolutely no experience with the piece in question. As was the case with many posters on my thread on ASR about the Shakti's.

Ron Resnick said:

DaveyF, I read your Shakti thread on ASR. I give you credit for walking in front of that terribly rude and closed-minded firing squad.

Click to expand...

I read that thread too. Those posts were indeed extremely rude. The arrogance on display over there does not make for a very inviting atmosphere or convivial discussion. I was hoping to learn something from that thread but it was a complete waste.

DaveyF said:

Amir, the reason I say "could" is because there are a lot of times when the ear will be telling the truth and yet the explanation and the science may not be too obvious.

Click to expand...

The ear hears nothing Davey. It is the ear+brain that tell us what is heard. As creatures, we are designed to be hopeful animals. We have a brain that is able to think of countless possibilities of bad things happening to us which would be paralyzing. As such, we can manufacture results and outcomes that simply are not real. But make us happy and positive.

So when you say you hear something, I believe that the combination of your ear+brain said that. Problem is we need to disentangle the ear out of that. Science tells us how to do that. We simply disable the other stimulus that tells the brain to act differently than the presented soundwaves. Do the testing that way, then no one, no objectivist, will deny you what you say.

I mean really. Doing formal testing is far more resource intensive and difficult than just doing the type of comparison testing audiophiles do. Why would audio science 100% rely on that kind of testing if what we do in audiophile world provides reliable results???

And how do we justify going against the entire body of audio research and say we know better when it comes to audio evaluation? Is there precedence for that in other sciences where we do that with straight face?

Although, I must say that I personally believe that if something sounds better, then even if the science is not A) there yet or B ) not obvious, then that does not mean we have not listened to something that does have a perfectly good scientific explanation, now or in the future.

What I very much abhor, is when a so-called scientific leaning person, dismisses something with nothing more than a snide comment...and with absolutely no experience with the piece in question. As was the case with many posters on my thread on ASR about the Shakti's.

Click to expand...

Science is always there to guide you to build reliable listening tests. Come up with a test that shows audible difference where the only thing that change was the audio entering your perception and the entire scientific community will rise up and listen. And that is the subject of this thread. How do we create reliable audible evaluations. That we know how to do. And it has nothing to do with explaining what the device does or does not do.

What happens though is that all such formal tests if done, will lead to negative outcome. Just as I think I read in the start of this thread. That failure is not a failure to explain the function of the device. It is a failure in our fantastic perception we think we have.

As audiophiles we like to think we have above average hearing abilities. It is one of the things that makes us walk around proud. Unfortunately test after test, including formals ones my group did, show audiophiles have no such abilities. On countless tests put forward on forums where we know, 100%, there are objective degradations, audiophiles either don't take the test, or take it and fail it. Yet someone like me with high loss of high frequencies can hear the artifacts 100% of the time.

I am no smarter or better audiophile than anyone. But rather, have training that tells me what to listen for both from audible point of view and design. Here is science 100% helping one become a better listener.

But we don't seem to want to go there. We want to dismiss all science as without value and rely on what is trivially shown to be an unreliable experiment over and over again. I mean did you do my test? It was all sighted. You could run it in 10 seconds. I hear the difference with all my training. It is that training that explains why I hear the difference. So how I don't put value on similar tests when the XYZ tweak is put forward as making a difference. I know that if nothing was changed to the sound, we would still hear a difference. And the more "group think" behind it, the more we hear it.

It is also important to understand that there is a discussion on merit, and there is another to settle score online. Vast majority of these discussions are motivated by the latter. You see examples of it on ASR Forum and here from the other camp. It is a dynamic that unfortunately cannot be avoided. Scars are created.

Anyway, I have to go back to the show. Let me just say that I have not read your thread on ASR Forum. I will do so when I get back and talk to people if they have been rude.

Just fyi, I demoed the Shakti in my room when I had my summits, and also at the distributor's. They worked very well, obviously I cannot comment on any long term negatives, and callaripaolo uses them as well though I think he prefers his SMT wings for the same purpose

PeterA said:

I read that thread too. Those posts were indeed extremely rude. The arrogance on display over there does not make for a very inviting atmosphere or convivial discussion. I was hoping to learn something from that thread but it was a complete waste.

Click to expand...

I read it as well and TBH I see that they did nothing different than they always do there. Rude and arrogant are the passwords there with foul language that wouldn't be tolerated on any other web site but it seems to pass through without a blink by anyone who say nothing and the site owner has no reply there to administer his flock but rather comes here and lectures us

As for talking to the people who have been rude ...............

Steve Williams said:

I read it as well and TBH I see that they did nothing different than they always do there. Rude and arrogant are the passwords there with foul language that wouldn't be tolerated on any other web site but it seems to pass through without a blink by anyone who say nothing and the site owner has no reply there to administer his flock but rather comes here and lectures us

As for talking to the people who have been rude ...............

Click to expand...

When you get a group of arrogant, close-minded, self-regarding know-it-alls together you get behaviour like that - in my time there, I was similarly treated with rude, offensive & snide comments - meant to demean. All of this is allowed as long as it is supporting the opinions of the group-think - more accurate to call it mob-think.

It's ironic that Amir should mention Hydrogen Audio forums (& AVS) as a place for extremists - I regard ASR & HA to be similarly inhabited by arrogant, close-minded, self-regarding know-it-alls - some are members of both forums.

Here's an example of just how unscientific this arrogance becomes & the rabbit holes into which their logic/arrogance leads them - it was stated by Arny Kreuger, the mod (Greynol) & others on that forum, in a discussion about ABX testing that if they can't hear a difference on the first listening trial (of the 10 usually done in ABX) then they just guess randomly for the rest of the 9 trials i.e I paraphrase - they "know" there's no difference & life's too short. I kid you not - this is the level of understanding they have about the scientific method. This was only uncovered because Kreuger submitted an ABX test log which showed that he took only 2-3 seconds between trials i.e he didn't listen to A & B, just hit a button & guessed randomly!!

ASR isn't any better

It's a beautiful Sunday guys. Let's all smile and enjoy the day.

jkeny said:

When you get a group of arrogant, close-minded, self-regarding know-it-alls together you get behaviour like that - in my time there, I was similarly treated with rude, offensive & snide comments - meant to demean. All of this is allowed as long as it is supporting the opinions of the group-think - more accurate to call it mob-think.

It's ironic that Amir should mention Hydrogen Audio forums (& AVS) as a place for extremists - I regard ASR & HA to be similarly inhabited by arrogant, close-minded, self-regarding know-it-alls - some are members of both forums.

Here's an example of just how unscientific this arrogance becomes & the rabbit holes into which their logic/arrogance leads them - it was stated by Arny Kreuger, the mod (Greynol) & others on that forum, in a discussion about ABX testing that if they can't hear a difference on the first listening trial (of the 10 usually done in ABX) then they just guess randomly for the rest of the 9 trials i.e I paraphrase - they "know" there's no difference & life's too short. I kid you not - this is the level of understanding they have about the scientific method. This was only uncovered because Kreuger submitted an ABX test log which showed that he took only 2-3 seconds between trials i.e he didn't listen to A & B, just hit a button & guessed randomly!!

ASR isn't any better

Click to expand...

I would just like to point out there are arrogant mean spirited and close minded people on just about any forum I can think of on any side of any issue, audio or not. Just goes with the territory. I have been told (not here of course) that if I can't hear a difference, my system is not resolving enough. Really? Just have to ignore that kind of stuff.