Comparative Listening Tests

[stehno]

At the ASR forum, it was not more than a few minutes before I was ridiculed for hearing any difference with the Shakti's in my system. None...I repeat none, of the members over there had ever heard of this device, never mind having actually heard it in their systems! That did not stop them from bashing the product and then later me. So, I guess if you are talking of 'blinkered' minds, then Amir's whole forum membership might also qualify. As you say, he---and they, are all beyond learning, because unless it is has been AB'ed or ABX'ed or some other pointless and time wasting test that they live and die by, it couldn't possibly make any difference to the sound. I think Steve W is absolutely correct, why bother talking or posting responses to these guys...life's too short, IMHO.

DaveyF, it always always comes back to whether or not one has developed any sense of listening skills / trained ears. Not so-called golden ears just simply trained ears.

Perhaps the best analogy might be a website named VSR.com (visual science review) where its members are color blind and their experiences are lmited to only seeing black and white and shades of gray. But every once in a while an outsider participates in a thread there to share a wonderful experience of seeing purple or green or red. It would only take a few minutes there too for that person to be ridiculed.

I attest that is exactly what happened to you at ASR and what happens here at WBF and other high-end audio web sites far more frequently than it ever should.

So many of these matters all boil down to possessing ears to hear vs possessing ears to hear plus the ability to interpret what we hear.

I attest that if the pseudo science types ever decided to develop their listening skills we wouldn't be having many of these conversations. But I also attest that if some-to-many high-end audio enthusiasts also developed their listening skills, we wouldn't be having many of these conversations.

This shouldn't be rocket science - even to the pseudo science types.

BTW, I know you know this. I'm speaking primarily to others who may need to better interpret what they read with their "trustworthy" eyes.

 

[Steve Williams]

He's done with that forum

smart move

Too bad I guess as Amir told everyone here at WBF that Mike is the only person who can teach him anything. I guess Amir has nothing left to learn

 

[Steve Williams]

He just said if Amir comes clean on here and explains why they did what they did he won't share the screenshots. But if he comes on here and lies, he will prove him wrong with the screenshots.

He expects Amir "to come clean" ? Really?

Amir hasn't come clean here regarding all of the errors he has been recently espousing so why would he come clean for Mike

IMO Mike has a decision to make as far as saving face from the shortcomings he states he has experienced at ASR considering that he claims that this editing of his posts and locking him out from posting has adversely affected his business.

 

[DaveC]

smart move

Too bad I guess as Amir told everyone here at WBF that Mike is the only person who can teach him anything. I guess Amir has nothing left to learn

Who cares about learning and finding the truth when you can WIN!?

 

[Steve Williams]

well as I see it Mike has drawn a line in the sand. The ball will be in his court because my bet is you won't get a reply from Amir

How does one say "caught by his fine hairs"

 

[NorthStar]

Mike says he won't share the posts without talking to his lawyer first. He's done with that forum. He says it's like trying to teach calculus to a class of Kindergarten students, and not worth his time. He only posted that thread about the TI clock just to show Amir how real engineers test things, and the types of equipment they have. Then Amir pulls his products into it. Here he called his gear DIY and made in China from breadboards. In reality all of his boards are made in Denmark at the same place AAVIK and Vitus uses, or made in Switzerland by Daniel Weiss. Another attempt at disintegration of his brand based on made up BS.

:b Say Hi to Mike (Blizzard, Mivera) from Bob (NorthStar, NorthSky, LOTR) and all his lovely family. We @ planet Earth love to live life full steam ahead. :b

Life, Love & the Blues

And no matter what, the music ? keeps spinning in the soul of a man & woman. ...To our children's children, always.
...In the heart of the matter, the spirit of the universe.

We sure a funny bunch. :b

 

[jkeny]

Mike says he won't share the posts without talking to his lawyer first. He's done with that forum. He says it's like trying to teach calculus to a class of Kindergarten students, and not worth his time. He only posted that thread about the TI clock just to show Amir how real engineers test things, and the types of equipment they have. Then Amir pulls his products into it. Here he called his gear DIY and made in China from breadboards. In reality all of his boards are made in Denmark at the same place AAVIK and Vitus uses, or made in Switzerland by Daniel Weiss. Another attempt at disintegration of his brand based on made up BS.

Pretty much the same treatment I got over there from BE718 & AMir & others trying to harm my business - typical technicians envy - none of them have ever designed or produced anything that has been tested in the marketplace - the envy of those who can't create anything towards those who can.

 

[Folsom]

In theory, what you say makes sense. But only in theory.

If what you claim is true, then regardless of how revealing a pb system may be, you or anybody else with speakers already placed 3ft or more out from the front wall and with ears to hear should hear zero difference in the soundstage’s perspective size when the speakers are pushed right up against the front wall.

This should be a well known fact to the seasoned enthusiast that the soundstage will collapse toward a flat 2-D presentation to good degree or another the closer a speaker is placed toward the front wall. Hence, demonstrating that the perspective size of a soundstage is dependent on speaker/listening room limitations.

This real world speaker / listening room limitation and placement is equally impacting on the quality of a full-range speaker’s level of musical bass reproduction.

For the seasoned enthusiast, there should be little to no confusion whatsoever between what the mind can’t understand and what it hears compared to what it sees. It only has to do with real physical limitations of reproducing a music presentation.

For example. My listening room is 12' wide x 21' deep x 8' high and though I’m content with the soundstage perspective's size for most recordings, I know it can be significantly wider and deeper. Several years ago, I reconfigured a friend’s system eliminated several of his components and placed the remaining 2 components (a CDP and int. amp) on one of my racks. His room was maybe 17’ wide by 25’ deep x 8’ high. When I came back 2 months later to listen, his soundstage was what seemed to be at 2 times wider than my own and for the first time ever I heard a soundstage so deep it literally sounded like it was coming from well out into his front yard. Pretty incredibile actually.

At the very least I can attest from even just that one experience that I wasn’t confused one iota by what I heard vs what I saw. Especially when takiing into consideration his listening room was on the 2nd story of his house.

Actually we hear room boundaries too, which adds to the confusion that we get visually. It's pretty hard to overcome.

If you move the speakers you have to move yourself so it's not exactly a 1 for 1 change.

I think your friend has demonstrated you can hear beyond.

 

[Al M.]

Who cares about learning and finding the truth when you can WIN!?

You mean our President?

 

[Al M.]

Klaus, I'm sure the series of tests that Al presented that evening were full of flaws. Thank you for explaining the notion that knowledge of the items under test, even though unseen, makes it a sighted test. I did not know that. I think that I did learn a few things, and that is always good. Not knowing that Al had rotated the Tube Traps prior to the last A/B/X test to identify which cable was which convinced me that I could hear a difference but I did not know that a new variable had been introduced, so I what I heard confused me. Does this introduction of a new variable unknown to the test subject qualify as "unsighted" in this instance?

The whole exercise was to assist Al in his cable decision by offering additional listening impressions, biased, unbiased, sighted or unsighted, from a friend who knows his system pretty well. It was not a rigorous investigation, but a casual effort to learn and confirm impressions, flawed as it was. I think it helped Al, and I did learn something. It involved minimal effort and was accomplished with what he had on hand and available to him. It may not have been ideal, but it got him a bit further along in his quest to improve his system. In that sense, it is all good, as the younger generation is fond of saying.

I agree with all you say, Peter.

Your impressions did help me, and the test was more casual than rigorous; it was never designed to be anything other than that. I don't understand why some people need to make a mountain of a molehill when it comes to this issue, really.

 

[jkeny]

I agree with all you say, Peter.

Your impressions did help me, and the test was more casual than rigorous; it was never designed to be anything other than that. I don't understand why some people need to make a mountain of a molehill when it comes to this issue, really.

Yep, technicians tend to rush to conclusions without sufficient evidence - as evidenced here by Amir taking Ron's post as the basis for his ideological rant - it's the nature of the beast. We've seen the same thing in Amir's neophyte measurements again & again - a rush to conclusion based on basic, preliminary tests.

 

[KlausR.]

SAM,

ABX is not a paired comparison test.

I know, but I was referring to step 1 (in isolation) of PeterA's cable test where two cables were compared while knowing that the cables were different. In their contribution C9 to the 39th Mtg. of JASA Munson & Gardner called their test "a modification of the method of paired comparisons".

Klaus, apologies for being cagey. I hope you understand.

No problem, fully understood.

I'm happy to provide references to back up what I say, or at least point in the right direction.

I’ll make use of that when appropriate, thanks. One question right away: do you know of a paper or website that provides an overview of sensory evaluation tests? I had copied the corresponding chapter from Meilgaard’s book but managed to lose that copy.

Klaus

 

[stehno]

Well I'm out of this. If Mike wants to expose him he can sign up here. In the mean time we will see if Amir decides to come clean.

And all this time I thought Amir was just another over-zealous pseudo science type who lacked any trained listening skills. I've no exposure to Amir outside of WBF and since I've avoided him as much as reasonably possible here, even my exposure to Amir here is extremely limited.

But now it seems there may be potentially significant ulterior motives involved. Perhaps to the point where Amir's lacking trained listening skills (which seems quite evident) may just be a cover or smoke screen for his potentially other real motives. Nice.

But I'm still proud of the fact that I had enought instinct to avoid Amir since the day I joined WBF. In fact, it wasn't until about 2 months ago in one of my rare exchanges with Amir when he referenced for me some materials from his tin-eared buddy "The Audio Expert" that I more fully understood the extent of Amir's anemia toward high-end audio. That pretty much did it for me.

 

[stehno]

Actually we hear room boundaries too, which adds to the confusion that we get visually. It's pretty hard to overcome.

....

So long as the visual confusion you express and the "we" doesn't include me, I'm fine with that.

 

[stehno]

I went around and around with Klaus in the past...not worth the effort to do so again. It is talk like this that gives non-scientists the impression that us scientists (yes, I am a scientist...and not a "hack" either) are close minded when actually it is the open mindedness of scientists that allows them to make the amazing discoveries of the last couple hundred years. Klaus talks more like an engineer than a scientists. Many engineers operate that because a technology does ostensibly what it is supposed to do that it is "worked out" and one can simply apply the right formulas to get the desired output. Science is about observation, hypothesis based on observation and then attempts to falsify that hypothesis. Many non-scientists stop at the first step, which is observation but do not or are not able to put those observations into a more general framework that allows for some measure of predictability based on the observations. They just have a collection of observations that they true to use intuitively rather than systematically.

Engineers (not all but a large %) are at the other end of the spectrum where the main aspects of the chemistry and physics are worked out by theory (hypotheses that have stood up to debunking) but don't realize that further observation is required to perhaps get the desired outcome...particularly when a human interface is required and an aestethical decision is the endpoint. This is where in audio there has been an epic fail over the last 70 years, IMO. Engineering without human factor consideration and turning off controlled observation and turning primarily to meter reading. There is a tendency for engineers to be reductionist in the parameters that are critical to the performance of a thing. Klaus wants you to believe that FR is paramount for speaker quality and that electronics and wires are minimal and possibly delusional minor contributors. Careful observation tells you that this viewpoint is obviously flawed. However, these reductionist attempts are simply a manifestation of a belief that it is "worked out"...after all audio is a "mature" technology. Preconceived belief KILLS observation. A scientist should enter every experiment as free of expectation as possible...like a little child and let the observation guide the analysis. Then that can be put into a framework later against previous data and/or hypotheses and if it fits a given paradigm or not. Sadly, experiments are usually gone into with the observations already anticipated...nevermind the interesting stuff is always what you least expected...

Well put, Morricab. Nice and concise. Thanks for putting the cookies on the lower shelf.

I'm reminded of a Tesla quote that obviously does not apply to real scientists,

 

[Al M.]

I'm reminded of a Tesla quote that obviously does not apply to real scientists,

View attachment 32351

That Tesla quote unfortunately applies to a bunch of modern cosmologists and physicists, who theorize about multiverses and string theory without any connection to experimentation and observation. I don't consider such stuff real science. In my daily life as a biochemist I am confronted with experimental reality every day, which is sometimes an uplifitng but often a humbling experience, putting hypotheses to shame, as attractive as they may have seemed. I don't see why some so-called scientists should be exempt from confrontation with observed reality. After all, not just hypothesis, but constant testing of hypothesis, is what science is all about.

 

[Al M.]

Excellent summary and I couldn't agree more as to your description of an engineer vs a scientist.

+ 1

There are also engineers though that do have a scientific outlook and are aware of our current limits of knowledge and measurements.

 

[stehno]

That Tesla quote unfortunately applies to a bunch of modern cosmologists and physicists, who theorize about multiverses and string theory without any connection to experimentation and observation. I don't consider such stuff real science. In my daily life as a biochemist I am confronted with experimental reality every day, which is sometimes an uplifitng but often a humbling experience, putting hypotheses to shame, as attractive as they may have seemed. I don't see why some so-called scientists should be exempt from confrontation with observed reality. After all, not just hypothesis, but constant testing of hypothesis, is what science is all about.

I can neither confirm nor deny which group of scientists Tesla directed his quote toward. But it really doesn't matter to me. Because on its face the fundamentals of Tesla's quote can be extrapolated to include perhaps numerous sectors within the scientific community as well as outside the scientific community.

I interpret Tesla's quote to imply a loss or misunderstanding or mis-application of fundamental principles and purposes, a proper mindset, and/or performing due diligence. In short, I suspect Tesla's really just pointing a finger at groups of supposedly highly intelligent people lacking common sense and all too enamored with themselves and their degrees.

If so, I can now extrapolate Tesla's quote to apply to some-to-many people in some-to-many industries and sectors. Moreover, I can't help but wonder if Tesla's quote was true then how more true it may be today.

 

[Folsom]

So long as the visual confusion you express and the "we" doesn't include me, I'm fine with that.

So you have bad hearing?

You can't really understand that you're hearing rooms until you go into an anerchoic chamber and realize half of your brain thinks you're standing outside, but visually the other half sees walls in front of you.

 

[jkeny]

So you have bad hearing?

You can't really understand that you're hearing rooms until you go into an anerchoic chamber and realize half of your brain thinks you're standing outside, but visually the other half sees walls in front of you.

The point is we perceptually differentiate the room sound from the recording sound just as we do when listening to your wife/partner talking to you in different rooms in the house - he/she sounds the same.
We do this with lots of other things - the noise of vinyl playback is unobtrusive if the playback system is right - it's not gone, it's just that the music us captivating our attention if playback is right.

We can of course shift our focus to attend to the noise or room sounds but in the normal course of listening it should remain unobtrusive