Schiit, interesting name...more interesting products!

[jkeny]

You are making good points here, of course.

This business about biases & the need to control them always makes me smile.

What's happening in a blind A/B test when someone, like Amir, no longer perceives the difference he once heard sighted?
He now listens sighted & no longer hears a difference
So, now the bias that so strongly controlled what he heard before has suddenly been lifted & he's no longer under the control of the shiny, expensive bias gene - he now sees the 'truth'

Or is he now under the control of the 'no difference' bias gene which now determines his auditory perceptions for this device?

You know they say some people are easily hypnotised & some are not - perhaps there's a similar division in how people are prone to bias (or just how far they go to fool themselves that they are now hearing the 'truth' rather than substituting one bias for another?

 

[amirm]

You really need to learn how to listen - all I can diagnose is that your MS training has skewed your listening abilities. You continually talk about the shock & embarrassment of 'learning' how wrong your perception was when faced with 'tests' - your examples of teaching the kids about eq, etc. are anecdotes from someone who is uncomfortable with their sense of hearing & don't understand auditory perception

Microsoft did not train me. I trained myself. I also trained myself to small extent using Harman software.

But sure, I can tell you a ton of stories about hearing small distortions that others could not. I let you say it though as it should have more credibility in your mind:

I have jumped in and taken countless blind tests online when challenged as you say above. Hardly anyone else has done that in the history of all of these forums. That either makes me bold, stupid or both.

 

[amirm]

This business about biases & the need to control them always makes me smile.

The point of telling the stories is that such control is hard. Even someone like me who at all times tries at all time to be aware of them, can't be trusted to see past them.

As an example here, I love going to Synergistic suite at shows. Not because I believe in anything they sell but because they have a superb sounding system and lots of great sounding music they play on it. In the past, listening to the presenter, I could not help but "hear" the differences he said existed.

Something interesting happened in the LA Audio show. I was busy jotting down my notes about the music and as a result, did not hear what he was saying. That fact alone caused me to not hear a difference at all! I tried that a second time and it worked just as well. See here: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/la-audio-show-2017-day-3.1715/page-3

So don't think you are so smart. You can't control your biases. It is part of being human.

 

[jkeny]

The point of telling the stories is that such control is hard. Even someone like me who at all times tries at all time to be aware of them, can't be trusted to see past them.

As an example here, I love going to Synergistic suite at shows. Not because I believe in anything they sell but because they have a superb sounding system and lots of great sounding music they play on it. In the past, listening to the presenter, I could not help but "hear" the differences he said existed.

Something interesting happened in the LA Audio show. I was busy jotting down my notes about the music and as a result, did not hear what he was saying. That fact alone caused me to not hear a difference at all! I tried that a second time and it worked just as well. See here: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/la-audio-show-2017-day-3.1715/page-3

So don't think you are so smart. You can't control your biases. It is part of being human.

Amir, you are so suggestible that the last person who talked to you influences your perceptions - are you sure your not channeling Trump?

Have you ever been hypnotised?

 

[jkeny]

Microsoft did not train me. I trained myself. I also trained myself to small extent using Harman software.

But sure, I can tell you a ton of stories about hearing small distortions that others could not. I let you say it though as it should have more credibility in your mind:

I have jumped in and taken countless blind tests online when challenged as you say above. Hardly anyone else has done that in the history of all of these forums. That either makes me bold, stupid or both.

Sorry, Amir, you failed in your comprehension - I said "You really need to learn how to listen" - what you came back in reply was a series of test results - quid est demonstrandum - you are still very confused - passing some tests does not equal an ability to listen

 

[Steve Williams]

And regarding a recent point that Amir made about exact matching of loudness levels: he is absolutely spot on with that. Recently I also did some DAC comparisons, and more often than not differences that I heard were due to the fact that I had not been matching volume levels for each recording as precisely as I should have (it was difficult in that particular setup). Once I did, most (not all) perceived differences vanished.

Line level matching is not anything new Al. This is far from a revelation IMO. It is common knowledge.

 

[Al M.]

Line level matching is not anything new Al. This is far from a revelation IMO. It is common knowledge.

Of course it is common knowledge, or should be. But I doubt that it is always consistently applied. In fact, I have found that often people don't care about exact volume matching, and are surprised when I bring my SPL meter as a 'weapon' for the occasion. But it's an indispensable tool.

 

[Steve Williams]

I disagree. I don't know any audiophile who doesn't use line level matching to compare components.

 

[amirm]

I disagree. I don't know any audiophile who doesn't use line level matching to compare components.

How do they level match?

 

[Al M.]

I disagree. I don't know any audiophile who doesn't use line level matching to compare components.

I know a few.

What is worse, people compare the experiences of the same recordings on different systems without volume matching. I write down everything, or at least memorize, and then again use my SPL meter as the 'weapon' of choice for matching. Without that, people would make comparisons with differences of up to 5 dB (if not more), which essentially makes it a non-comparison at that point. Why? Because the louder presentation nearly always sounds better just by virtue of being louder.

I am still pissed that I didn't bring my SPL meter to AXPONA. It would have been useful to firm up later comparisons with some experiences there. -- Have you ever seen people with SPL meter in hand at shows? No, nobody cares about volume levels. They should.

 

[amirm]

Yes, I agree with you, probably contra Amir, that long-term listening tests are important.

It is not contra to audio science or my position. You can take as long as you want to compare gear. I have been very consistent to say that the only requirement is to remove knowledge of what is being played and rely only and only on one's ears. How long you use those ears to evaluate one or the other piece is totally up to you.

What I have shared is that in my own personal experience, formal tests, and how our hearing works, long term testing reduces sensitivity. I know I would fail miserably to pass a test that I can pass in quick switching. Again in agreement with formal tests. But if you think your sensitivity is better with long term testing, by all means do.

 

[Steve Williams]

I know a few.

What is worse, people compare the experiences of the same recordings on different systems without volume matching. I write down everything, or at least memorize, and then again use my SPL meter as the 'weapon' of choice for matching. Without that, people would make comparisons with differences of up to 5 dB (if not more), which essentially makes it a non-comparison at that point. Why? Because the louder presentation nearly always sounds better just by virtue of being louder.

Totally agree Al.

I remember several years ago I brought in a tech to do internal calibrations on a new large screen TV we bought. When he came to do the work we were talking and he said that most TV manufacturers calibrate New in the box to show bright because that is what people's eyes are drawn to in the showroom.

 

[Al M.]

It is not contra to audio science or my position. You can take as long as you want to compare gear. I have been very consistent to say that the only requirement is to remove knowledge of what is being played and rely only and only on one's ears. How long you use those ears to evaluate one or the other piece is totally up to you.

What I have shared is that in my own personal experience, formal tests, and how our hearing works, long term testing reduces sensitivity. I know I would fail miserably to pass a test that I can pass in quick switching. Again in agreement with formal tests. But if you think your sensitivity is better with long term testing, by all means do.

Ok, thanks for the clarification, Amir, and apologies that I misinterpreted your position.

 

[microstrip]

I disagree. I don't know any audiophile who doesn't use line level matching to compare components.

Well, most of the time I do not use it, although all my gear (except speakers) is calibrated to .1dB at 1000 Hz. But fortunately very seldom I compare components directly. I listen to a component for some time, then I replace it and listen again. Surely I listen to components to select them for my own system, not to educate the masses about them.

But I seriously doubt that most audiophiles who consider that they use line level matching do it accurately ...

 

[ack]

Ok, thanks for the clarification, Amir, and apologies that I misinterpreted your position.

And I agree with Amir here as well, wholeheartedly in fact. Relying on JUST what I hear is NEVER enough, and real relevant technical data is also required. This all goes back to my motto: Designer->Design->Sound when it comes to equipment selection and critique. With respect to the Yggy, it passes the Designer, Design requirements, and I'd love to hear it as well. I would also argue that no one of us - no one - ever goes by the sound only; I bet we all read up, inquire and try to understand about the products that interest us to one degree or another, from fuses, to so-called "grounding devices" [pffff], to cables (even if it's the purity of the metal, for example), et al.

 

[Al M.]

And I agree with Amir here as well, wholeheartedly in fact. Relying on JUST what I hear is NEVER enough, and real relevant technical data is also required. This all goes back to my motto: Designer->Design->Sound when it comes to equipment selection and critique. With respect to the Yggy, it passes the Designer, Design requirements, and I'd love to hear it as well. I would also argue that no one of us - no one - ever goes by the sound only; I bet we all read up, inquire and try to understand about the products that interest us to one degree or another, from fuses, to so-called "grounding devices" [pffff], to cables (even if it's the purity of the metal, for example), et al.

Yes, Ack, I agree with this as well.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Relying on JUST what I hear is NEVER enough, and real relevant technical data is also required. (...)

OK. Now someone must tell us exactly what is the relevant data for digital sources and electronics - we already know we disagree a lot about the technical data concerning speakers.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Line level matching is not anything new Al. This is far from a revelation IMO. It is common knowledge.

If only. I have known several reviewers for prominent magazines, who could not be bothered. I say this having been in their homes listening to A vs. B with them. And, I have an extensive network of audiophile friends and acquaintances in my area. Regrettably, very, very few seem to care or think it matters. Measurements, even simple level matches on a RatShack meter? Are you nuts? Hey, trust your ears above all else. Does it sound about the same level with this same recording?

And, it is thus that many sonic nirvanas are attained and shouted to the world.

 

[Al M.]

If only. I have known several reviewers for prominent magazines, who could not be bothered. I say this having been in their homes listening to A vs. B with them. And, I have an extensive network of audiophile friends and acquaintances in my area. Regrettably, very, very few seem to care or think it matters. Measurements, even simple level matches on a RatShack meter? Are you nuts? Hey, trust your ears above all else. Does it sound about the same level with this same recording?

And, it is thus that many sonic nirvanas are attained and shouted to the world.

Nothing but agreement from me.

 

[jkeny]

I remember Amir, in the past, posting that he doesn't use volume matching either - he simply turns up the volume on the less preferred device & if he still prefers the other device then volume is not playing a part in his preference!!

Maybe he can remind us of these posts of his?