Geoff,
I think you're missing the point. Would you say we have learned everything there is to know about Quantum Theory? I don't think anyone would because we would have to know absolutely everything there is to know to make that statement as we would have to know everything there is to know to make any absolute statements. Again, the best science can do is approach absolutes and that is the point I'm making.
What's important is that we use science as the yardstick because we've seen the mess audio is in, and it is a mess, when we rely on people's opinions. We get wood structures that hold wires off the floor because someone selling them can hear the difference, except when he's subjected to a double blind test, and a well known audio writer for this magazine who hears the difference between two batteries, not powering an audio circuit but an LED that varies a gain control.
People recommending equipment that costs more than a top of the line luxury car should be accountable for their actions and their statements. These guys get free equipment, wined and dined and then sell advertising space. Someone tell me how that doesn't affect their preferences? Whether anyone likes Consumer Reports or not at least they take advertisers out of the equation.

Double Blind, disproved by whom? You can't simply say that's been "shot full of holes", you have to give scientific proof and what about the other science I mentioned? Again, if you don't like the Double Blind you improve it, you don't dismiss it for someone's opinion.

Robert

Geoff,
I went through how science works. What skeptics? Who doesn't do tests? Who claims? "Probably just bad evidence"? What tests don't prove anything? This is called Anecdotal Fallacy. Ultraviolet Catastrophe proved something, You're not giving data, why blind tests don't work or any factual evidence or data. You're giving your OPINION!

Art Dudley and John Atkinson don't like blind tests. Read Art Dudley's article on blind testing. Basically he gets nervous when he does blind testing. Why? He compares two products, one he reviewed several months previously and one he is presently reviewing and he hears minute differences between the two. Yet he can't differentiate them in a double blind test when they are sitting next to each other? But he wants readers to accept his opinion, his subjectivity over a double blind test and an A/B subtractive test? Sure he does, think about what's at stake if he can't prove through scientific methods the difference between a 100k amp and one that costs 2500 dollars or less. I asked Art Dudley to post a graph of his hearing spectrum. He admitted that it has diminished over the years but failed to produce exactly what it is. Sure, he doesn't want readers to know he can't hear 14 or 15Khz if that.

You don't like double bind tests, A/B subtractive tests, a hearing spectrum? What exactly would you like to use as a delineation between two pieces of equipment?

It's the King's New Clothes. "Recommended Components"? Built on what? Their subjectivity? I'm selling bridges all next week, how many do you want!

Robert

I'm not giving opinions I'm advocating using science and not opinions. "They" is back to Anecdotal Fallacy.

It's a data point? Fine then lets examine the data, if the algorithm has flaws or the control group has flaws you improve the scientific process, you don't dismiss it and substitute hearsay.

Look, you can't simply say the science is no good like Art Dudley does, you have to give alternatives . So he says the science is flawed and what are we left with? His opinion? That's not good enough.
I gave alternatives, I asked for a hearing spectrum an A/B subtractive test along with blind testing.

Let me give you an example. Sam Tellig reviewed an audio gain control that the designer claimed sounded better when the LED driving the photo cell was powered by Lithium batteries as opposed to Cadmium. No one on the planet can hear that difference, sorry it's scientifically impossible. First the batteries are not in the direct audio chain and secondly looking at both DC voltages reveals zero difference. A subtractive A/B test reveals no difference either. So here's someone claiming something virtually impossible but the problem is that he actually thinks his hearing is that acute,that's scary. That he writes this nonsense for a major magazine and no one calling him on it only makes it more troubling.

When I was a tyke in school our Psychology 101 professor did an experiment. In the middle of class an angry student burst into the room, threw a crumpled piece of paper at the professor and told him what he could do with his tests. After he left the professor asked for details about the individual. Out of 25 or 30 kids only very few got it right. Clothes, size weight, hair color, etc.
That's how fragile our senses are.
It's not automatic. Senses send info to the brain and distortion enters in, fear kicks the Amygdala in and that short circuits observation, what we hear etc.

So what do you want to do? Dismiss science? What would you like to use as a yardstick, what's your answer?

Rob

.

My mind is made up because I want to use science over subjectivity? What's really happening here is that you can't answer the question to what you would propose if you think science is not the best analysis tool. Apparently what your mother forgot to teach you is to be direct and honest.

How do I know your senses aren't fragile, because you say they aren't? Most people would say the same thing and most people would be wrong. The writers for Sterophile want us to believe the same thing, You have the onus of proof just as they do. So far your position, like theirs, doesn't look very favorable. Talk is a cheap commodity, I'll stick with science.

Rob

ChrisS wrote:

Hi Rob,
Who in the entire industry of audio retail does the type of testing that you suggest Stereophile should do? And why just the audio industry? Does anybody else in retail (ie. food, automotive, clothing, etc.), or even any consumer "protection" organizations, do this type of testing?

Sure,
Two cars are compared on their time to 60 mph, 1/4 mile, Cx, interior noise, lateral forces, etc. Auto writers compare slalom G forces, speed through the slalom, etc. and give data proving which car actually performs better in an A/B test.

Food is a little different, we get a cooks opinions on how a food tastes but most of us read the package contents to compare two bags of potato chips for example to see which one has less salt. It's a direct comparison. You can't quantify the taste of foods or someone's taste for music so taste is highly opinionated but let's not confuse taste in music or for that matter taste in amplifier types. You might like tube sound over solid state for instance, that's highly subjective just like the music you prefer. Problems arises when I rate two amps of the same type based on my opinion like Stereophile writers do, and worse grade them in "Recommended Components" without giving the reader an A/B subtractive test and a plot of their hearing spectrum. What do advertisers do? They use the opinions of the writers to sell their products, read the ads. Again, it's the Kings New Clothes. We have someone whose hearing falls off well below 15k giving us intricate details about the highs between two pieces of equipment that he isn't even comparing side by side. But he can't do it in a double blind test! What's wrong with this picture.

Because our love for music is personal does not translate to the science of audio. Again, if you like the look of a set of speakers and you purchase them on that criteria, that's fine. Just know what you're getting and why. You may like the way a dish of food is served to you but if you decide that it's health benefit is a product of appearance than you're not using reason and facts in your assessment.

What is your point? Because other industries don't use science to find the best product, neither should audio magazine writers? Lots of companies would like to sell you products on their opinions, that's how snake oil salesmen make their money!

Rob

geoffkait wrote:

Mosfet50 wrote,

"Let me give you an example. Sam Tellig reviewed an audio gain control that the designer claimed sounded better when the LED driving the photo cell was powered by Lithium batteries as opposed to Cads. No one on the planet can hear that difference, sorry it's scientifically impossible. First the batteries are not in the direct audio chain and secondly looking at both DC voltages reveals zero difference. A subtractive A/B test reveals no difference either. So here's someone claiming something virtually impossible but the problem is that he actually thinks his hearing is that acute,that's scary. That he writes this nonsense for a major magazine and no one calling him on it only makes it more troubling."

Here's the thing, you make a lot of assumptions in your statements regarding the type of batteries and whether you think they make a difference to the sound. The batteries are as much of the system as the power supply or the house AC in a normal system and we all know they can affect the sound, right? So why not batteries. You have preconceived notions of theta is possible that are actually not founded on science. They are your hunches. So, what kind of evidence much less proof is that? Answer at 11. Furthermore, I believe that when someone reports what he heard in listening tests it qualifies as evidence, anecdotal evidence, whereas when you say you feel that batteries can't possibly make a difference it's your gut reaction. Which is not a very scientific way to approach things. Follow? Next up, a tutorial on the difference between proof and evidence.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynmica

I'm not making assumptions at all. I have thousands of dollars of precision electronic equipment and I've tested and designed lots and lots of power supplies from simple linear supplies to SMPS(switch mode power supplies). I can tell you the charging characteristics of Nano Phosphate Lithium Ion batteries, Cads, Lead/Acid, etc.

What I can't do with all this equipment is find one iota of difference between two pure DC voltage sources which batteries supply.
Here's how the potentiometer works that Sam Tellig is reviewing. An LED's voltage is varied and as that LED's brightness changes the photocell in direct path with it changes its resistance based on the amount of light hitting it. That resistance change is the potentiometer and used to control gain or whatever. So, not only is the battery not in the audio path but it's isolated from it! In fact we use similar configurations to isolate two voltage sources in circuits, that's how remote the source, that I can't differentiate on a several thousand dollar scope, is. To say you can hear that difference is, for lack of a better term - rubbish!

Now, since you don't like double blind tests, what, for the third or forth time, is your opposed answer.

Rob

You haven't established that blind tests "don't prove anything" - where is the data supporting your premise?
Sound is dictated by measurements. You're confusing what you like with measurements. Second order tube distortion as seen on a Fast Fourier Transform is a measurement that people can see and associate with. because you like a specific type of distortion does not disprove science it only substantiates it - but it's measurable. Where's the proof that caps that measure the same sound different? you keep giving me your opinion as though it is a fact, its not.

You may like what you hear but that doesn't disprove science it only proves what you like. Again, that's fine, it becomes a problem when you claim to hear differences between to pieces of equipment. Then you have the burden of proof that you actually can.

Things make sense.... apparently not to you.

Rob

No one is questioning what anyone likes, that is in the realm of individual preferences. A "test" for "fun" is human subjectivity which again is not the premise here.

What people? What other cars have they lived with for a period of time? I have no idea who they are what their lives are like, how they think or what they like in a car. It may be entirely different that what I find "fun" in a car.

" my grandfather lived to be 100 and he smoked and drank everyday."

That's what you're giving me and it's called Anecdotal Fallacy in science.

You too are confusing what you like with the ability to discern the intricate differences between two pieces of equipment. How would you do that? That's the question you're not answering either.

Rob

That test may have been done poorly so science should be dismissed as platform for testing two pieces of equipment?
What's your point?
Rob

If you mean by "others" Art Dudley, John Atkinson, Michael Fremer, etc. they do and constantly go great to lengths explaining the finest nuances between equipment.

Now, If an individual claims to hear fine differences between two pieces of equipment, one in the present and one several months in the past, would you expect that with the same two pieces of equipment side by side that individual would easily be able to discern the same differences? I would because it stands to reason, it's logical. What if the individual couldn't discern the differences? Would you "trust" his opinions? I wouldn't. So I'm asking them to prove they can actually do it by the best system we have - science -.
Rob

"The whole blind testing thing is just a big old rabbit hole."
You can't use your opinion to establish a premise in a debate. Establishing a premise requires factual data, please try to remember that in your responses.
Who said "you can generalize results" in a test? I certainly didn't, you're still giving me your opinion. I went through how science works more than once, giving me the place you work doesn't add credence to your answers, they must stand or fall on reason and logic just like mine must.

Rob

You don't throw the baby out with the bath water. If a test, any test, has flaws you improve it. Right now we have nothing but these critics subjectivity and that's not good enough for me. I'm expressing my right to question them because audio is in very bad shape and I personally contribute a good portion of that to these writers through what they write and their "Recommended Components" which is just an extension of their subjectivity.
Again and again, what anyone buys after listening is not the issue, however influenced by what they read.
If you feel that I'm wrong in what I have said then there really is not point for you to continue in this debate because you haven't given any real alternative to science just more and more of your own subjectivity.... Oh, and where you work.

Rob

Machina Dynamica-

Listening is subjective, exactly! Regardless whether it is you, me or some magazine 'expert'!

I went through a complete analysis of Sam Tellig's belief that could hear the difference between two pure DC sources driving an LED and explained why it is virtually impossible for him to have heard any difference. What's important here is that he "honestly" believes that his hearing is so acute that he can actually discern a difference.
I explained why it utterly fails any form of critical thinking and reason to believe how someone (Art Dudley) could fail to differentiate between two pieces of equipment in a double blind test but could highlight the smallest differences between two pieces of equipment that he heard several months apart. And I asked how the same individual in his 60's, with admittedly limited hearing response, could actually discern high frequencies.

I also asked how individuals getting free equipment along with selling advertising space could possibly give totally unbiased fair assessments of equipment and, in fact, if they could even be aware of their biases.
John Atkinson, goes to a blind test ,doesn't hear any differences between two pieces of equipment, buys the cheaper one only to pine for the one he didn't buy. Worse, he buys the second piece of equipment and Shangri-La! So he uses the event to show how flawed double blind tests are. What?? All he's shown is his own subjective biases!

But you think these guys are leading you through the jungle. Tell me when you're sending the check for the bridges I'm selling.
Rob

And then you wonder why I think audio is in a shambles! Make sure you send out your check for the bridges too!

From the guy who thinks demagnetizing CD's improves the sound!

CD's aren't ferrous metal they can't be magnetized or demagnetized! The ink? Ridiculous!

And who makes a demagnetizer... Bedini for one, the laughing stock of over unity scams!

"Other than meals, and travel expenses for factory visits, Stereophile's reviewers and editors do not accept from manufacturers payments or gifts worth more than $100."

So they get wined and dined and gifts.

"Review samples remain the property of the manufacturer, and are promptly returned to the manufacturer following publication of the review, unless a longer-term loan, for reference purposes, is agreed to. Stereophile writers and editors can buy review samples at the usual industry accommodation price (this is usually close to the dealer price), provided they agree not to sell the item within the time period specified by the manufacturer, and that they are willing to abide by whatever other terms the manufacturer might insist on."

" unless a longer-term loan, for reference purposes"

How long term? How many long term products do editors presently have? "Usually" but how about if the dealer gives them a special "accommodation " price? Do you see anywhere that it say it can't be $1.00 or less. The manufacturer "decides" how long before they sell it, one day?

Do we know how much equipment they get for how long or at what price? No.

Do a good majority buy ads? Yes. Do we know what goes on behind the scenes at shows. No. Do we know what agreements editors make with dealers? No.

Lots of loopholes and we're not even to double blind tests, A/B subtractive tests and a hearing spectrum for editors which are the origin of this thread. Remember I'm questioning their abilities.

Rob

You can't demagnetize something that not magnetic. How do you demagnetize a record? It's plastic!!!

Not only do I test, I design and write with several audio designs published and many more on the way.

Rob

Do you think I site the poor testing done at magazines and then go out and do the same thing? I do A/B comparisons, Blind tests and then tell readers to listen for themselves. If I say an amp has a specific quality I show it electronically and I never go into flowery nonsense about how good something sounds, I let readers find out for themselves.

If audiophiles want to be really honest then they will use the same tests I do. Because if they do they'll find out that there are massive amounts of hype in audio. Go out and read blogs by individuals comparing opamps or worse capacitors, and ask them to prove it in a blind or A/B test. See what goes on. Most times you'll get all the nonsense I got here. "Blind tests are no good, everybody knows that." Rubbish!
If you use the tools I laid out honestly you'll find that you'll be rewarded with excellent equipment that fits your own listening style. Go into an audio salon and before listening blind fold yourself and see what happens. Listen to everything and don't ask for names, just listen. The first thing that will happen is that you'll shut out all the visual noise that's influencing your choice and the second thing will be that your hearing will become more acute. Again, if you're really honest with yourself and just stay calm and listen you'll begin to discover what real audio is about. Not advertising, editor hype – just the music! You might find out you actually like tube sound over solid state or you may not depending on the type of music you like. You may also find out that you really can't hear the difference between the $50k amp and the $2k amp.

Get your hearing spectrum tested, amaze yourself on how quickly your high end falls off. I don't know anyone who can hear to 20K.
Find out for yourself, not me, or some writer because we can't tell you what's best for you, only you can do that.
Rob

geoffkait wrote:

Exactly my point. That's what everyone says who doesn't believe n such things as capacitors sounding different or batteries sounding different or cables sounding different. "Tell them to prove it in blind or A/B test." I don't mind too much repeating what I already said several times. That's that you can't prove anything doing a test. One way or the other. My experience is when the differences are subtle it might take hours or days before I can make my mind up one way or the other. Sometimes longer. Hey, what can I tell you? Say, you're not with the Tweak Police are you?

For two capacitors I would certainly consider letting them burn in for at least several hundred hours before testing them or making any judgements as to their sound.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

"That's that you can't prove anything doing a test."

This statement is just wrong! We test sight, hearing, blood, tubes, water temperature, etc, etc. In fact I could go on for days listing things we test, its' the foundation of science!

geoffkait wrote:

OK, I'm prompted to make a list of common reasons why tests aren't all they're cracked up to be and why skeptics should probably not try to portray blind tests or any tests as being either the final arbiter of sound or the coup de grace of expensive cables or controversial tweaks.

1. The equipment used in the test is not properly burned in.
2. The equipment used for the test is not properly warmed up.
3. The equipment used for the test is not sufficiently resolving to detect the differences that might be there.
4. There is at least one mistake in the test equipment set up. E.g., cables mis-connected.
5. One of the components reverses polarity so that the system is out of absolute polarity.
6. The listener(s) physical hearing is impaired or his skill in listening is not what he assumed it is.
7. The connections of all electronics and all wall outlets have not been thoroughly cleaned.
8. Cables are not broken in.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

Show me one thing you just listed that doesn't equally pertain to anyone simply listening to equipment and making statements about what they think they're hearing.