Blind listening comparisons [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Blind listening comparisons



tube fan
12-25-2010, 09:28 PM
Yes, I am a huge advocate of blind tastings in wine, and an equally big advocate of blind listening of "high end" stereo systems. I still remember hearing a blind comparison of speaker systems (about 50 years ago). When they got to the AR3a, I cried: "stop"! I bought my Fulton Js after comparing them to the latest Infinity speakers blind. Still have them 35 years later!

Trust me, there is very little actual correlation between price and perceived quality, either in wines or in "high end" equipment.

YBArcam
12-25-2010, 09:48 PM
I'm not sure about that last line. Perhaps. But I guess my point is, compare a speaker that is $300, then $800, then $1,500, then $2,500, etc. It might be a Paradigm Atom, then a B&W 685, then a Tannoy DC6, then finally a PMC TB2i. I'd say there's improvement as you go up.

Or amps. NAD 326, Exposure 2010s2, Naim Nait XS. And so on. IMO, more money definitely buys better gear. But that's not to say that a cheaper component can't sound better than a more expensive one. I wouldn't be surprised if the 2010s2 could smoke a few of the more expensive amps that are out there. To me that price (about $1,300) buys a lot of performance.

JohnMichael
12-25-2010, 09:51 PM
I am totaly against blind testing when it comes to audio. I have to listen to the equipment for a period of time before I decide if it is right for me. In quick blind comparisons I can hear differences but not what is best over the long haul. I think blind listening tests are bull****.

TheHills44060
12-25-2010, 10:04 PM
I happen to like blind testing just to keep me honest. But at the same time if I am going to lay down some major cash for a set of gear (especially loudspeakers) i like to see them. Not only do I want my gear to sound good i think it should look good too. Once you get to a certain price point there is no reason a manufacturer cant make the gear sound good and look pleasing to the eye too.

YBArcam
12-25-2010, 11:40 PM
I am totaly against blind testing when it comes to audio. I have to listen to the equipment for a period of time before I decide if it is right for me. In quick blind comparisons I can hear differences but not what is best over the long haul. I think blind listening tests are bull****.

I agree. I think it's tougher to pick up on meaningful differences if you switch quickly between components. I prefer to listen to a system for a couple of months (at least) and get used to the sound. Listen to at least a few songs many times over. You become used to the presentation, and eventually you know what a song is going to sound like at every point within it. You'll know which parts of the song connect most with you. Then when you finally change up the gear, all differences, be they major or minor, becomes much more noticeable.

It's kind of like test driving new cars. Unless one is a perfect fit, they are likely to all be good. Picking out meaningful differences when you drive one right after the other is tough. You may think you like this, and don't like that. But drive one for a few weeks and get used to it, and then make a change, and the differences will be much more clear.

Ajani
12-26-2010, 08:06 AM
.................................................. ..
if I am going to lay down some major cash for a set of gear (especially loudspeakers) i like to see them. Not only do I want my gear to sound good i think it should look good too. Once you get to a certain price point there is no reason a manufacturer cant make the gear sound good and look pleasing to the eye too.

I agree... While I'm sure most persons would disagree with each other on what that "certain price point" is, I think looks matter to many of us... Also, I don't see why a component can't both look and sound good... At $200 a speaker can be excused for not having a nice finish, but at $10,000 there is no excuse IMO...

Ajani
12-26-2010, 08:13 AM
I am totaly against blind testing when it comes to audio. I have to listen to the equipment for a period of time before I decide if it is right for me. In quick blind comparisons I can hear differences but not what is best over the long haul. I think blind listening tests are bull****.
:thumbsup:

Blind tests are fun, but I don't think they're that useful longterm... I remember a criticism of the Pepsi Challenge (DBT); which is that in the small samples given, persons preferred the sweeter taste of Pepsi in hoards... But when it came to drinking an entire glass, persons found the Pepsi too sweet and preferred Coke... Think of how many sweet or salty foods are great as a small snack, but would make you feel sick if you ate a plateful of them... I feel that sums up a lot of problems with DBT... You need to be careful not to draw the wrong conclusions from a quick switch back and forth... I've found that to be very true of components I've auditioned at home and at dealers... Initial impressions can be very positive, but after a month of continuous use, your opinion can go in the complete opposite direction...

Also, even though there is no time limit on a DBT... Who is really able to get someone to help you setup one to last a month or so?

Sir Terrence the Terrible
12-26-2010, 09:11 AM
Blind testing is completely relevant to audio. But I would not use it to choose a component for purchase, as that is the wrong way to use DBT.

DBT is used to define differences without introducing prejudices that sighted testing can do. Like testing the differences between Dolby Digital and DTS, and interconnects against interconnects(or speaker wire). It can be used to test the audible differences between tube and SS amps, or a metal dome against a soft dome within the same speaker.

Listening to equipment for purchase is quite a different thing than listening for differences. One has to reach you emotionally, the other more critically without emotion.

woofersus
12-26-2010, 08:43 PM
Blind testing is completely relevant to audio. But I would not use it to choose a component for purchase, as that is the wrong way to use DBT.

DBT is used to define differences without introducing prejudices that sighted testing can do. Like testing the differences between Dolby Digital and DTS, and interconnects against interconnects(or speaker wire). It can be used to test the audible differences between tube and SS amps, or a metal dome against a soft dome within the same speaker.

Listening to equipment for purchase is quite a different thing than listening for differences. One has to reach you emotionally, the other more critically without emotion.

Agree completely. DBT is a great way to see if a difference can be heard and/or pointed out consistently. However, among gear in which there is an audible difference (sometimes it's obvious without DBT too) a blind test, or "sample" isn't going to help you decide which you prefer. It's not always a case of which is objectively better.

I will also say that both the DBT-is-king crowd and the always-trust-your-ears crowd can be a bit over the top at times. Some people are so dogmatic about DBT that they can never admit anybody hears a difference in anything unless they've followed a 50 step process and the stars align properly and it's supervised by one of the DBT high council members to make sure nobody could possibly have cared beforehand what they would hear. Others are so stunningly un-objective that they never allow for the validity of anything to ever be questioned. There a few forums out there that are so rife with fights over this topic that they become irritating to visit.

GregLee
12-26-2010, 09:10 PM
But I would not use it to choose a component for purchase, as that is the wrong way to use DBT.

DBT is used to define differences without introducing prejudices that sighted testing can do.
So you want to base your purchase decisions on prejudices, rather than on the sound differences revealed through DBT. Well, hmmm, that's just you.

JohnMichael
12-26-2010, 09:36 PM
So you want to base your purchase decisions on prejudices, rather than on the sound differences revealed through DBT. Well, hmmm, that's just you.



Actually I would say it is many of us. Yes you might hear a difference but will that difference please long term. How many times has a component that stood out in blind testing become annoying when used long term. Oh this IC had such extended highs compared to the other. Yet in weeks that extended high was bright and unnatural. Certainly not the way I choose a component for years of listening pleasure.

poppachubby
12-27-2010, 05:45 AM
And here I always thought John Micheal liked blindfolds.

JohnMichael
12-27-2010, 06:09 AM
And here I always thought John Micheal liked blindfolds.



When the complete zippered hood is not available.

Ajani
12-27-2010, 07:51 AM
Agree completely. DBT is a great way to see if a difference can be heard and/or pointed out consistently. However, among gear in which there is an audible difference (sometimes it's obvious without DBT too) a blind test, or "sample" isn't going to help you decide which you prefer. It's not always a case of which is objectively better.

I will also say that both the DBT-is-king crowd and the always-trust-your-ears crowd can be a bit over the top at times. Some people are so dogmatic about DBT that they can never admit anybody hears a difference in anything unless they've followed a 50 step process and the stars align properly and it's supervised by one of the DBT high council members to make sure nobody could possibly have cared beforehand what they would hear. Others are so stunningly un-objective that they never allow for the validity of anything to ever be questioned. There a few forums out there that are so rife with fights over this topic that they become irritating to visit.

There are forums that straight out ban discussion of DBT as it is generally not a productive discussion... It too often descends into all out war between DBT diehards and the ears only crowd...

IMO, there is some truth to both the DBT and the ears only crowd's positions, so there is no need to be black and white about the issue...

I prefer to base my purchase decisions on a combination of measurements and my own long term listening (rather than DBT).... While I understand that something can measure poorly and yet sound good and that something can measure well yet sound really bad, I like products that both measure well and sound good... I don't believe the 2 are mutually exclusive...

GregLee
12-27-2010, 08:44 AM
... war between DBT diehards and the ears only crowd...

How could there be such a war? Do you think those doing DBTs don't use ears, or are using something other than ears? What does "ears only" mean to you?

Ajani
12-27-2010, 09:27 AM
How could there be such a war? Do you think those doing DBTs don't use ears, or are using something other than ears? What does "ears only" mean to you?

Sorry if the short hand was confusing: by ears only I really meant the trust your ears crowd (people who don't think that they need to be blindfolded to hear without bias)...

GregLee
12-27-2010, 09:45 AM
Sorry if the short hand was confusing: by ears only I really meant the trust your ears crowd (people who don't think that they need to be blindfolded to hear without bias)...
So DBTers don't trust their ears? If you're not blindfolded, you trust your ears only, but if you are blindfolded, you trust something other than your ears? Oh, wait, I get it --- you're trying to imply that the DBT crowd are using their minds, as well as their ears.

3LB
12-27-2010, 10:29 AM
Blind testing is completely relevant to audio. But I would not use it to choose a component for purchase, as that is the wrong way to use DBT.

DBT is used to define differences without introducing prejudices that sighted testing can do.

+1

no need to fear the DBT

Woochifer
12-27-2010, 10:31 AM
I think the issue here is simple bias control. There's definitely a tendency, whether consciously or otherwise, to hear what we want to hear. A blind comparison is a very useful tool for assessing differences or non-differences between components, formats, et al. I've caught myself before believing that I heard a difference when actually nothing had been changed in my setup.

I also recall similar tricks done by some high end audio manufacturers. A few years ago, Wilson Audio demoed a new speaker system using an iPod as the source. But, they'd first put up this elaborate looking test rig, so the audience didn't know they were listening to those high end speakers through an iPod.

At high end audio shows, Dunlavy and McIntosh have also pretended to swap out speaker cables to make a point about exotic cabling. People would swoon about the "night and day" difference that the cabling made, only to find out that nothing in the system setup had changed between listenings.

With wine tasting, I've definitely seen how preferences and expectations will often boil down to the price point. When you put the blinders on, then it really tests just how good someone's purportedly well-trained taste buds are.

As T mentioned, this is not necessarily an assessment of preference, but rather of reliable comparison. And whether we admit it or not, I think we all have some biases that need to be controlled to some extent.

Woochifer
12-27-2010, 10:33 AM
Trust me, there is very little actual correlation between price and perceived quality, either in wines or in "high end" equipment.

This line however I do take issue with. I think that there's a very strong correlation in the lower price points. When you move up from $20 speakers to $100 speakers, there is definitely a marked improvement. And likewise when you move from $100 to $500.

I agree though that there is a point of diminishing returns, and that's where you get into the stickiness of whether any perceived improvement in performance is worth the often exorbitant price increases.

Ajani
12-27-2010, 11:37 AM
So DBTers don't trust their ears? If you're not blindfolded, you trust your ears only, but if you are blindfolded, you trust something other than your ears? Oh, wait, I get it --- you're trying to imply that the DBT crowd are using their minds, as well as their ears.

I didn't realize I was implying anything... But feel free to assume whatever you want...

You seem intent on getting into a pointless debate on DBT versus Anti-DBT with me... I have no interest in such a debate...

Ajani
12-27-2010, 11:42 AM
I think the issue here is simple bias control. There's definitely a tendency, whether consciously or otherwise, to hear what we want to hear. A blind comparison is a very useful tool for assessing differences or non-differences between components, formats, et al. I've caught myself before believing that I heard a difference when actually nothing had been changed in my setup.

I also recall similar tricks done by some high end audio manufacturers. A few years ago, Wilson Audio demoed a new speaker system using an iPod as the source. But, they'd first put up this elaborate looking test rig, so the audience didn't know they were listening to those high end speakers through an iPod.

At high end audio shows, Dunlavy and McIntosh have also pretended to swap out speaker cables to make a point about exotic cabling. People would swoon about the "night and day" difference that the cabling made, only to find out that nothing in the system setup had changed between listenings.

With wine tasting, I've definitely seen how preferences and expectations will often boil down to the price point. When you put the blinders on, then it really tests just how good someone's purportedly well-trained taste buds are.

As T mentioned, this is not necessarily an assessment of preference, but rather of reliable comparison. And whether we admit it or not, I think we all have some biases that need to be controlled to some extent.

I agree... As I mentioned earlier, both the DBT crowd and the anti-DBT crowd have points... But too often it turns into a hardcore idealogical debate (and shortly thereafter a pointless quarrel), rather than a productive discussion of how best to use sighted versus blind listening...

poppachubby
12-27-2010, 12:17 PM
Double Blind Testing....oh ya sounds like fun. More like funny.

Do people other than scientists actually turn their listening rooms into test chambers? Maybe they just lease a lab for a month or so. "I really love how this piece of kit sounds, but I better verify that with a DBT test. I mean, how can I know that it sounds better than the amp I just had, if I don't?!?"

Whatever happened to buying albums and just hangin with your buddies?

Brett A
12-27-2010, 01:01 PM
The whole thing about DBT-ing audio equipment is that it's always done by regular guys who are trying to prove something. They look at actual DBTs in the legitimate scientific community (such as pharmaceuticals) and think it is a legitimate, scientific way of "proving" something within this hobby.

Just once, I'd like to read an actual scientists take on such DBTs. I doubt they'd pass muster. The testing methods themselves have not been sufficiently tested as far as I know.

So that leaves DBTs of audio equipment solidly in the realm of a hobbyists' curiosity--something to do for fun; albeit informative fun, but as for actual "science", the "prove" nothing in my book. (except maybe that a particular group of people, in a particular room listening to particular music through particular gear had mixed reports of what they were hearing) Wow. Big surprise.

Me, i like to listen to music. And fortunately, i have a retail shop near by that sends out loaners, so I've never had to buy something without spend four days or more with it in my living room.

poppachubby
12-27-2010, 02:06 PM
Brett nice of you to join us over here. Any word on AK? Was it a planned shutdown?

Brett A
12-27-2010, 02:20 PM
Brett nice of you to join us over here. Any word on AK? Was it a planned shutdown?
Dave (Grumpy) posted to Political Chat stating it was a hardware issue. They're working on it.

It's nice to be back over here. I haven't stopped in at AR for a while. It was these folks who got me back into vinyl for which i am very grateful.

GregLee
12-27-2010, 03:10 PM
Do people other than scientists actually turn their listening rooms into test chambers?
I'd guess not so many, counting audio engineers as scientists. I think I profit by blind testing, though I've never done any myself, because my favorite speaker company, Axiom, is said to make extensive use of blind testing in their product development. There is lots of interesting detail, also, on Dr. Sean Olive's blog Audio Musings (http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-to-listen-course-on-how-to.html), of Harman International, from which one can gather that doing it the right way, the way the pros do it, takes a tremendous investment of equipment, expertise, and time+effort.

Ajani
12-27-2010, 03:49 PM
I'd guess not so many, counting audio engineers as scientists. I think I profit by blind testing, though I've never done any myself, because my favorite speaker company, Axiom, is said to make extensive use of blind testing in their product development. There is lots of interesting detail, also, on Dr. Sean Olive's blog Audio Musings (http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-to-listen-course-on-how-to.html), of Harman International, from which one can gather that doing it the right way, the way the pros do it, takes a tremendous investment of equipment, expertise, and time+effort.

Interestingly enough I'm a big fan of manufacturers using blind testing in the design process (though like PoppaC, I can't see myself setting up my listening room to do it during an audition)... One of my 2 favourite brands, Revel, uses DBT extensively in their design process (as you mentioned re Harman International)...

I've never tried Axiom, but I've always been interested to hear how they sound, and their shipping rate to Jamaica is quite attractive...

Geoffcin
12-27-2010, 05:01 PM
One of the reasons that Canadian speaker manufacturers have a leg up on a lot of the industry is that they have access to the Canadian National Research Council's testing lab. Think millions in state of the art testing equipment! There you can do a DBT and really get some science out of it. How anyone could do a DBT at home and come up viable data without such an investment when major speaker manufacturers turn to the experts is beyond me.

RGA
12-27-2010, 05:59 PM
When the complete zippered hood is not available.

bring out the gimp!

Blindfolds are very helpful in many instances when you have not had enough beer.

tube fan
12-27-2010, 06:14 PM
I am totaly against blind testing when it comes to audio. I have to listen to the equipment for a period of time before I decide if it is right for me. In quick blind comparisons I can hear differences but not what is best over the long haul. I think blind listening tests are bull****.

I agree, but only that longterm blind listening tests are needed. Of course, the same is true for wines. Of the last ten blind wine tastings I have attended, the most inexpensive wine won 4 times (prices from $10 to 250). I suspect that the same thing would occur in blind listening tests, both short and long durations. Yes, I bet most "golden ear" experts would not rate their favorite, very expensive components at the top. I bet many cheaper, especially tube driven systems, would be preferred over the unbelievably expensive systems, especially digital and ss based ones.

E-Stat
12-27-2010, 06:29 PM
How could there be such a war? Do you think those doing DBTs don't use ears, or are using something other than ears? What does "ears only" mean to you?
The biggest problem with most double blind tests is they involve a series of unproven assumptions. Most require switch boxes which are assumed to be totally transparent based upon simplistic metrics that are themselves *blind* to inherent faults. Long ago, Frank Van Alstine pointed out that comparing amplifiers with ABX boxes was completely flawed because they required common grounds to prevent horrible switching transients. In practice you are now comparing A+B to A+B. Theory works great when supported by empirical evidence.

I have no problem with blind testing per se, although it tends to be of the single blind category devoid of adding superfluous boxes which always mix and match electrical characteristics of the two devices under test. The only DBTs I trust involve computer based source material which are devoid of obvious electrical faults.

rw

poppachubby
12-27-2010, 06:32 PM
I agree, but only that longterm blind listening tests are needed. Of course, the same is true for wines. Of the last ten blind wine tastings I have attended, the most inexpensive wine won 4 times (prices from $10 to 250). I suspect that the same thing would occur in blind listening tests, both short and long durations. Yes, I bet most "golden ear" experts would not rate their favorite, very expensive components at the top. I bet many cheaper, especially tube driven systems, would be preferred over the unbelievably expensive systems, especially digital and ss based ones.

tube fan, I like you but I will play devil's advocate for a second.

I have heard you say on more than one occasion that you have blindly picked out your favorite (AR?) speakers from a line up of others.

If you are able to do that, then why can't a "golden ear" (and they do exist) pick out a fine piece of tube kit from horrid state?

E-Stat
12-27-2010, 06:44 PM
There is lots of interesting detail, also, on Dr. Sean Olive's blog Audio Musings (http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-to-listen-course-on-how-to.html), of Harman International, from which one can gather that doing it the right way, the way the pros do it, takes a tremendous investment of equipment, expertise, and time+effort.
Dr. Olive also makes erroneous assumptions which invalidate the data if you really care about sound reproduction. Their tests cater to the lowest common denominator of listener and he thinks that speaker placement is irrelevant to performance. I'm amazed at such ignorance. I've had a discussion with him where he is apparently oblivious to the question of optimum placement - which the Harman "shuffler" is incapable of accommodating. Once again. what looks good on paper doesn't necessarily translate to the more complicated environment of the real world. If you really don't care about system optimization, then his simplistic trials may have some bearing.

Sean Olive (http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=prophead&n=53630&highlight=shuffler+E-Stat&search_url=%2Fcgi%2Fsearch.mpl%3Fforum%3Dtubes%26s earchtext%3D5670)

He never responded to my observations about the value of speaker placement. I guess if you assume that such makes no difference to performance, then you will make simplistic assumptions like his. I summarily ignore those who don't understand simple concepts.

rw

GregLee
12-27-2010, 06:53 PM
Dr. Olive also makes erroneous assumptions which invalidate the data if you really care about sound reproduction. Their tests cater to the lowest common denominator of listener and he thinks that speaker placement is irrelevant to performance.
Does he really think that placement is irrelevant? It's hard for me to believe. Maybe you could give us a reference to substantiate this? I read the link you gave, and there seems to be no relevance to what you've said here.

RGA
12-27-2010, 06:58 PM
So DBTers don't trust their ears? If you're not blindfolded, you trust your ears only, but if you are blindfolded, you trust something other than your ears? Oh, wait, I get it --- you're trying to imply that the DBT crowd are using their minds, as well as their ears.

I think that the arguments get out of control on the issue. A DBT is a tool that is used in many different fields and was originally used in the medical profession where patients would get either a placaebo or the actual drug. The data is collected and it's either A or B. The trouble with the Audio Versions of the test and to a degree the educational uses of these tests is the fact that unlike the medical DBT - there is a "testing" factor where someone has to make a choice. No amount of softening can take the "test stress" factor out of the equation. The mere fact that the subject knows they are being "tested" and has to make a choice is a factor that diminishes the "validity" of the DBT in audio.

There are many bright individuals who can write you an essay on a subject but on a test they can freeze up. This is in part why educators hate standardized tests (at least partly) because in fact some people are terrific test takers but not all that bright - they wind up with A's while numerous brainiacs can perform horribly under the test environment. Of course there are also brainiacs that do well on both and some people who do poorly on tests because they're looking up to Forest Gump (or Dubya Bush:-)

As most people are aware the brain is divided into two hemispheres generally refered to as the intellectual logical mathematical side while the other is the artistic music side of the brain. In a regular listening session it is the latter side of the brain that is engaged. In a test invironment (and they have actually hooked up people's brains and tested them), the emotional artistic side is not activiated in the same way. The brain is now in a different mode of listening - not so much for relaxation but concentrating and using the analytical side for identification, processing information, and solving a problem.

It is therefore very ligitimate to argue that the test is no longer truly recreating the normal way a person listens to music or even how they make a buying decision.

All of this does not mean you just chuck out blind listening but the T in the DBT is problematic and many fields including education are moving away from them.

Why is a blind listening important - all the obvious reasons:
Price - if it is more expensive it will be assumed to be better

Looks: mostly males buy audio equipment - males are seduced by visuals and it serves evolution well as we hunt for the most fertile healthiest looking women (somewhat subveted by advertising over the years but still...)

Name brand recognition - more advertising more talk - generates a "me too" attitude as we want to follow the most powerful monkey (err star in humans case - which is why we have movie stars advertising for cologne - now if audio companies did the same you may see more sales for a given company - B&W kind of does that with Skywalker sound and George Lucas)

Build quality/weight - if it is heavy looks beautiful costs a fair bit then it must be better. Consider McIntosh amplifiers - they're built like a Tank - have soothing Blue meters, have great name brand appeal and is a kind of "me too" product. I think most people would prefer to turn on a mcIntosh in their system than staring at a boring black box

Unique - this is opposite of the me too approach where one wants to stand apart from everyone on their block - it may be better or it may serve as a conversation piece - "that's a speaker - it looks like a giant scratching post?" (panel speakers) or that's an amplifier? - what are those little lightbulbs (Tube and SET amplifiers). This doesn't mean they're not bought on sonic preference but illustrating the bias that could be present (I own a tube amplifier).

Specifications/measurements More power is viewed as better. It's simpler for manufacturers to sell their gear this way. 50 watts for the $300 model 70 watts for the $600 model and 200 watts for the $2000 model. Build a product that has flat measurements into the popular measuring standards of the current decade and you can sell that as being accurate and with it being approved as accurate it generates a bias in people. Manufacturers are not stupid - especially big companies that hire big marketing departments - create in house tests, white papers, hire some Phd's and now your packaging up "science" to sell to the folks who will trust the manufacturers' version of things. Kind of like trusting the drug companies, corporations, and the food industry - all of which have their big hands in the Universities. Regardless Athiests make up the biggest minority group in the United States at about 20% and generally science will appeal to us. So why not package up measurements with blind tests and we'll go for it over any other way of attempting to convince us. Granted I am Canadian so I have a healthy distrust of science being conducted from a company that is selling me their product which naturally always wins their tests against competitors who had no say in the test or were able to review the set-up or had any say whatsoever.

Hi-Fi Choice is the only magazine I know of that does in fact conduct blind listening. They have a set of speakers in the room amp cd player etc in the room. They may test 7-10 CD players or what have you. All the CD players are level matched. They have a panel of listeners - maybe half dozen to a dozen people. All of the CD players are hiddend from view. So none of them know what is playing. In some cases manufacturers of the products under test comprise of the listening panel. What is interesting is that sometimes the manufacturer doesn't even choose his own unit as being the best in the listening session. The panelists take notes as they listen.

So you have as close as you're going to get to a DBT from the audio press. The components are all level matched, there is more than one person listening - a panel of listeners, and no one knows what units are being played. So it removes all of the "important biases" and it also doesn't have a stress component to the listening because the listeners are not being tested.

Hi-Fi Choice does not do all their listening in this manner - generally it is done for their shootout. Also, they occassionally have a sighted session tie breaker where the editor will tell you the results and then describe how he might disagree with some of the findings. I have less problem with this in fact because they generally tell the reader all of this so you can decide for yourself to put more weight into the panel session or more weight into the reason perhaps to not follow it.

John Atkinson put stock into them for awhile and sold his pricey gear for relatively cheap gear but after the short duration DBT session wore off he felt that the long term subtlties warranted having his better pricier gear. Then again - who knows. Maybe that was a tactical thing to show the readers that you need to spend large. Otherewise why would you need a Stereophile - just buy a $199 amp at Sears and matching $39 CD player and be done with it. Without expensive gear - there is no point of high end magazines. JA would have shot himself in the foot if he came out for $1k and under amplifiers or insinuated that all properly working SS amplifiers sounded the same. I happen to believe JA does hear the differences - just playing devil's advocate here.

E-Stat
12-27-2010, 07:03 PM
Does he really think that placement is irrelevant? It's hard for me to believe. Maybe you could give us a reference to substantiate this? I read the link you gave, and there seems to be no relevance to what you've said here.
Ok, I guess I need to help you read his comments.

"I'm not sure what you mean that the speaker shuffler, listening room, amps and cables have to be adjusted to compensate for a particular type of speaker such as dipole. Wouldn't that be a rather biased test if each loudspeaker required a unique cable, position and amplifier to sound good?"

Yes Sean, one does have to compensate for the type of speaker when considering optimum speaker placement. Would it be a biased test to compare speakers in their optimum positions? Huh? What are you smoking?

rw

RGA
12-27-2010, 07:05 PM
I agree, but only that longterm blind listening tests are needed. Of course, the same is true for wines. Of the last ten blind wine tastings I have attended, the most inexpensive wine won 4 times (prices from $10 to 250). I suspect that the same thing would occur in blind listening tests, both short and long durations. Yes, I bet most "golden ear" experts would not rate their favorite, very expensive components at the top. I bet many cheaper, especially tube driven systems, would be preferred over the unbelievably expensive systems, especially digital and ss based ones.

Martin Colloms of Stereophile already conducted such a test where an old no feedback tube amp beat expensive SS amps that were the best out at the times. But get this - the blind test was done with all the TOP SS designers and they chose the tube amp as sounding better than their own amps. You don't have to BET that the experts prefer no feedback - they do. here's the link http://www.stereophile.com/content/future-without-feedback

tube fan
12-27-2010, 07:13 PM
This line however I do take issue with. I think that there's a very strong correlation in the lower price points. When you move up from $20 speakers to $100 speakers, there is definitely a marked improvement. And likewise when you move from $100 to $500.

I agree though that there is a point of diminishing returns, and that's where you get into the stickiness of whether any perceived improvement in performance is worth the often exorbitant price increases.

I am NOT talking about $20 speakers. I AM talking about under $10,000 speakers compared to $150,000 ones. I AM talking about something like my system: AR SP8, AR D-70, Fosgate Phono, VPI Scoutmaster, Benz Ruby 3, and Fulton J or Dunlavy SC-IV speakers compared to ones costing $400,000 (like ones I heard at the California Audio Show).

Bias is an all too human trait. When we KNOW we are tasting a Screaming Eagle $1,500 bottle of wine, we tend to look for positives. When we are comparing a Benzinger $15 bottle to the Screaming Eagle BLIND, the resulting evaluation will often be quite different. I recall a series of wine tastings conducted by the NYT. All were Pinot Noir based, from France, Oregon, and California. Tasted and rated knowing the bottle name, the French wines were rated first, then Oregon's, followed by California's. Tasting EXACTLY the same wines blind, California wines came in first, followed by Oregon's and French wines. I've seen it hundreds of times in blind tastings. I bet a similar thing would occur in blind listening tests, short or longterm.

tube fan
12-27-2010, 07:23 PM
tube fan, I like you but I will play devil's advocate for a second.

I have heard you say on more than one occasion that you have blindly picked out your favorite (AR?) speakers from a line up of others.

If you are able to do that, then why can't a "golden ear" (and they do exist) pick out a fine piece of tube kit from horrid state?

Poppa, I am NOT claiming that there are not significant differences in equipment, especially between ss and tube, and analogue and digital. I am NOT contending that no one can consistently rate and identify equipment. I just happen to be quite good at consistently rating and identifying wines
tasted blind. I AM contending that many "golden ears" could not rate consistently their favorite expensive equipment vs more modest ones.

Ajani
12-27-2010, 09:01 PM
Dr. Olive also makes erroneous assumptions which invalidate the data if you really care about sound reproduction. Their tests cater to the lowest common denominator of listener and he thinks that speaker placement is irrelevant to performance. I'm amazed at such ignorance. I've had a discussion with him where he is apparently oblivious to the question of optimum placement - which the Harman "shuffler" is incapable of accommodating. Once again. what looks good on paper doesn't necessarily translate to the more complicated environment of the real world. If you really don't care about system optimization, then his simplistic trials may have some bearing.

Sean Olive (http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=prophead&n=53630&highlight=shuffler+E-Stat&search_url=%2Fcgi%2Fsearch.mpl%3Fforum%3Dtubes%26s earchtext%3D5670)

He never responded to my observations about the value of speaker placement. I guess if you assume that such makes no difference to performance, then you will make simplistic assumptions like his. I summarily ignore those who don't understand simple concepts.

rw

What makes his failure to acknowledge the effect of speaker placement truly puzzling is the fact that Revel's Performa and Ultima Lines both have controls on the speakers, for adjusting treble and bass, to account for being placed near to room boundaries or in open space... So clearly he must understand that placement has some kind of effect on a speaker's performance....

poppachubby
12-28-2010, 02:13 AM
Poppa, I am NOT claiming that there are not significant differences in equipment, especially between ss and tube, and analogue and digital. I am NOT contending that no one can consistently rate and identify equipment. I just happen to be quite good at consistently rating and identifying wines
tasted blind. I AM contending that many "golden ears" could not rate consistently their favorite expensive equipment vs more modest ones.

Don't get defensive, I'm not trying to make you look foolish.

I don't see how your reply answers my question. What you are talking about is apples and oranges. If someone can't pick out expensive gear vs. inexpensive, how are you able to pick out a pair of speakers vs. others?

My point is not expensive vs inexpensive, simply A vs B. I think some people probably can pick out a piece of gear from others, just as you can pick out the AR speakers.

02audionoob
12-28-2010, 05:51 AM
I am NOT talking about $20 speakers. I AM talking about under $10,000 speakers compared to $150,000 ones. I AM talking about something like my system: AR SP8, AR D-70, Fosgate Phono, VPI Scoutmaster, Benz Ruby 3, and Fulton J or Dunlavy SC-IV speakers compared to ones costing $400,000 (like ones I heard at the California Audio Show).


Anyone would have a line where they no longer perceive a difference or claim that no difference could be perceived...and the line would often be right about at their own system. I would bet there are people in this hobby who would claim their own $3,000 can perform up to the level of $10,000 speakers. And then there would be people who claim those $3,000 speakers can't be distinguished from their own $1,000 speakers. We all make our own decisions about this stuff and we quite often base our comments on the subject on our own choices.

GregLee
12-28-2010, 06:16 AM
What makes his failure to acknowledge the effect of speaker placement truly puzzling ...
The whole point of the elaborate method of switching speakers used in Olive's test room is to get the speakers into exactly the same position, because speaker placement does obviously play a large role. To argue that because Dr. Olive won't make ad hoc adjustments in placement for speakers under test he must not understand the importance of speaker placement just makes no sense at all. To make a fair comparison, speakers must be in the same place.

Ajani
12-28-2010, 06:27 AM
Anyone would have a line where they no longer perceive a difference or claim that no difference could be perceived...and the line would often be right about at their own system. I would bet there are people in this hobby who would claim their own $3,000 can perform up to the level of $10,000 speakers. And then there would be people who claim those $3,000 speakers can't be distinguished from their own $1,000 speakers. We all make our own decisions about this stuff and we quite often base our comments on the subject on our own choices.

I made that point on diminishing returns in another thread a short while ago... IMO, diminishing returns in HiFi is virtually worthless as it is 100% subjective... Further, it seems to just come down to the question of how much someone is willing to spend on gear...

Joe A will say that he gets 95% of high end performance with his $1K amp.
Joe B will claim 95% is achieved at his $5K, and $1K amps are midfi (whatever that means).
Joe C will claim 95% with his $25K monoblocks and claim that it sounds better than $250K monos (which he believes are for persons who just want to spend money, blah blah blah)...

However check back on any of these Joes 5 years later and you maybe 'surprised' to find they've moved up the chain to a much higher priced amp, and are now claiming that it lifts a veil off the music and presents the musical information with new dimensionality, emotional complexity and transient existential harmonality or whatever...

IMO, the only thing you should focus on is getting the system that gives you the most satisfaction for your budget... As nice as it is to feed my ego, by claiming my system sounds as good as, or better than, setups costing 5 - 10 times as much, it is just meaningless boasting....

Ajani
12-28-2010, 06:37 AM
The whole point of the elaborate method of switching speakers used in Olive's test room is to get the speakers into exactly the same position, because speaker placement does obviously play a large role. To argue that because Dr. Olive won't make ad hoc adjustments in placement for speakers under test he must not understand the importance of speaker placement just makes no sense at all. To make a fair comparison, speakers must be in the same place.

I think my full post makes it clear that Dr Olive must understand placement...

Now the question to ask is whether it is really fair to have all speakers in the same place...

Consider speakers designed to be used in a corner like from Audio Note. Is it fair to pull them out 5 feet from the front and side walls, for a comparison with a monster tower that needs space not to sound boomy? At 5 feet out the Corner speakers will have weak bass response while the monster towers will have ideal bass... If we switched positions and placed both speakers in the corner for the test, then the Corner speakers would have good bass, while the monsters bass would sound bloated and overbearing...

So there is a valid question of whether shuffling all speakers into the same position is actually a good test... It should work fine for most traditional cone speakers (which are designed to work in free space), but it would not be fair to corner loaded speakers and probably dipoles (as E-Stat said)...

E-Stat
12-28-2010, 09:32 AM
It should work fine for most traditional cone speakers (which are designed to work in free space), but it would not be fair to corner loaded speakers and probably dipoles (as E-Stat said)...
Which was the context of the discussion. If you read some of his other blogs, you find a thinly veiled amazement why some folks like Martin-Logans in particular when the Harman tests with them don't register as well. Placing dipoles in exactly the same position as a monopole will never optimum for one or both of the speakers. I get the smoothest measured low end response with my full range stats eight feet out into the room. Putting them on the "shuffler" and considering that a "fair" comparison indicates a lack of understanding about dipolar response. Not to mention an indifference to the amplifier used for driving reactive loads. His biases are quite clear.

edit: Here's a part of the abstract to one of his AES papers: "The experimental results from both tests show that listener preference ratings for different loudspeakers are significantly influenced by the loudspeaker location within the room. In fact, the positional effects can be larger than the subjective differences between the loudspeakers themselves.

No fooling. :)

rw

Brett A
12-28-2010, 11:25 AM
Originally Posted by poppachubby
Do people other than scientists actually turn their listening rooms into test chambers?
I'd guess not so many, counting audio engineers as scientists. .
I'd like to see evidence of these actual scientific studies. So far, I have not.

When I think of people doing DBTs and ABX-ing audio. Scenes like the one below come to mind; a group of guys getting together to find something out for themselves and then writing about (http://www.matrixhifi.com/contenedor_ppec_eng.htm)it on the interweb.

So far, I have yet to see an objective, scientific assessment of the appropriateness of using DBTs for audio. Can anyone offer links, please?

When the scientific community (at least certain types of current of neuroscience research) wants to runs tests that rely on perception, they often have to do years--and I mean years --of testing to arrive at what the legitimate final test will be.

So far, I have not seen any scientific scrutiny of DBTs for audio testing. Only the occasional EE and/or hobbyist saying they are "proof" of something from a scientific stand point.

To me, all they prove is that statistically, a majority of people cannot discern some differences that they might think they heard if they had visual input, and some can. Which is different than saying there is no difference.

Ajani
12-28-2010, 12:09 PM
Which was the context of the discussion. If you read some of his other blogs, you find a thinly veiled amazement why some folks like Martin-Logans in particular when the Harman tests with them don't register as well. Placing dipoles in exactly the same position as a monopole will never optimum for one or both of the speakers. I get the smoothest measured low end response with my full range stats eight feet out into the room. Putting them on the "shuffler" and considering that a "fair" comparison indicates a lack of understanding about dipolar response. Not to mention an indifference to the amplifier used for driving reactive loads. His biases are quite clear.

edit: Here's a part of the abstract to one of his AES papers: "The experimental results from both tests show that listener preference ratings for different loudspeakers are significantly influenced by the loudspeaker location within the room. In fact, the positional effects can be larger than the subjective differences between the loudspeakers themselves.

No fooling. :)

rw

That's part of the challenge with scientific testing... There are just so many variables to factor in... So once you start to simplify a model too much, you severely limit its usefulness...

I have great respect for the work done at Harman, especially since I am fond of the Revel sound... But I recognize that their testing cannot be applied universally to all types of speakers and amps...

This discussion reminds me of a thread I read, this morning, on another forum: the OP had just played around with his setup for the hell of it - he moved his speakers from the long wall of his room to the short wall (20x13 room) and was utterly shocked at how much better his setup sounded...

GregLee
12-28-2010, 12:09 PM
I'd like to see evidence of these actual scientific studies. So far, I have not.

There are some brief characterizations of such studies along with references in the Olive blog which I already provided a link to.

Brett A
12-28-2010, 01:33 PM
There are some brief characterizations of such studies along with references in the Olive blog which I already provided a link to.
I'll check it out, thanks. I also right about this point just realize that I have issues and should just keep walking....

(or listening to music as the case may be) :14:

E-Stat
12-28-2010, 03:31 PM
I'd like to see evidence of these actual scientific studies. So far, I have not.
In all fairness, DBTs have been used for decades for determining things like distortion thresholds and digital compression limits. They work well with simple sorts of determinations. Unlike the frequent comparison to medical blind trials, audio tests are affected by the level of listener training and acuity. Harman uses them for tonal balance preferences using a single speaker. Click here (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_w5OVFV2Gsos/SVFOQEi1vnI/AAAAAAAAAAM/Ob7m3LztplY/s400/IMG_1041Revel.jpg) to see a variation on your photo - this one with the "blinding" curtain raised to show the shuffler.


Only the occasional EE and/or hobbyist saying they are "proof" of something from a scientific stand point.
Indeed many folks don't appreciate the fact that a null result is the lack of a conclusion. They're fine when the limitations are understood. Indeed, you will find precious few component comparisons that begin to show scientific scrutiny. Instead, you get humorous undocumented *tests* by guys like Roger Russell. :)

rw

Geoffcin
12-28-2010, 03:59 PM
There's also the effect that it is well known that statistically people from a random population prefer a response curve that is NOT flat. Commonly they will prefer a sound that is boosted in the lower midbass, and somewhat rolled off in the upper treble. Also speakers with THD of upwards of 5%-30% in the bass region (floppy boxes) are often described as "pleasing" or even "powerful". This sound profile, while they claim in a DBT is pleasing is technically "colored", and NOT true high fidelity sound, which is all about accurate sound reproduction.

tube fan
12-28-2010, 06:58 PM
Don't get defensive, I'm not trying to make you look foolish.

I don't see how your reply answers my question. What you are talking about is apples and oranges. If someone can't pick out expensive gear vs. inexpensive, how are you able to pick out a pair of speakers vs. others?

My point is not expensive vs inexpensive, simply A vs B. I think some people probably can pick out a piece of gear from others, just as you can pick out the AR speakers.
I am NOT claiming that people cannot pick out their favorite out of a group of components. I AM claiming, much as happens in blind wine tastings, there will be no, or very little, correlation between price and perceived quality. When I was comparing speakers blind (yes, over 45 years ago), in a group that included the famous AR3a, there was a HUGE difference between the AR3a and other (small bookshelf sized) ones (yes, a huge difference to me). I am NOT claiming someone else might not prefer one of the other speakers. I love blind testings precisely because I am looking for a bargain. Everyone, including me, is influenced by brands and advertising. I have seen many fans of expensive cult wines humbled in a blind taste test that included several lower priced wines. I have seen the same thing happen in blind comparisons between audio components. Of course, blind listening tests are much harder to conduct than blind wine ones. Nevertheless, IMO,
the conventional wisdom that holds that there is a direct correlation between price (or a famous brand name) and perceived quality, is no more true in audio than it is in audio.

Ajani
12-28-2010, 08:03 PM
I am NOT claiming that people cannot pick out their favorite out of a group of components. I AM claiming, much as happens in blind wine tastings, there will be no, or very little, correlation between price and perceived quality. When I was comparing speakers blind (yes, over 45 years ago), in a group that included the famous AR3a, there was a HUGE difference between the AR3a and other (small bookshelf sized) ones (yes, a huge difference to me). I am NOT claiming someone else might not prefer one of the other speakers. I love blind testings precisely because I am looking for a bargain. Everyone, including me, is influenced by brands and advertising. I have seen many fans of expensive cult wines humbled in a blind taste test that included several lower priced wines. I have seen the same thing happen in blind comparisons between audio components. Of course, blind listening tests are much harder to conduct than blind wine ones. Nevertheless, IMO,
the conventional wisdom that holds that there is a direct correlation between price (or a famous brand name) and perceived quality, is no more true in audio than it is in audio.

The question I have is whether you are referring to an arbitrary grouping of products from various brands, at different prices in the blind listening test? Or a similar grouping of products from similar/the same brands, at different prices?

Let me explain what I mean:

Test A:

Magnepan MMG $600
Totem Arro $1400
Klipsch Cornwall $3500
B&W 802D $8000?

Test B:

Monitor Audio Bronze BX5 $800
Monitor Audio Silver RX6 $1250
Monitor Audio Gold GX200 $3500?
Monitor Audio Platinum PL200 $8000

In Test A, all the speakers are sufficiently different in design and sound quality, that I could easily imagine there being very little relationship between price and listener preferences... If you love the planar sound, then you might well pick the cheapest speaker of the lot (the MMG)...

In Test B, all the speakers are from the same manufacturer but vary in price... So I would more readily expect there to be a clear relationship between price and listener preferences...

tube fan
12-29-2010, 06:15 PM
The question I have is whether you are referring to an arbitrary grouping of products from various brands, at different prices in the blind listening test? Or a similar grouping of products from similar/the same brands, at different prices?

Let me explain what I mean:

Test A:

Magnepan MMG $600
Totem Arro $1400
Klipsch Cornwall $3500
B&W 802D $8000?

Test B:

Monitor Audio Bronze BX5 $800
Monitor Audio Silver RX6 $1250
Monitor Audio Gold GX200 $3500?
Monitor Audio Platinum PL200 $8000

In Test A, all the speakers are sufficiently different in design and sound quality, that I could easily imagine there being very little relationship between price and listener preferences... If you love the planar sound, then you might well pick the cheapest speaker of the lot (the MMG)...

In Test B, all the speakers are from the same manufacturer but vary in price... So I would more readily expect there to be a clear relationship between price and listener preferences...


I am referring to both type of tests. Say compare various Quad speakers with a Quad 57; compare various Magnepan speakers, 1.6, 1.7, 3.6, and 20.1; compare various Audio Note speakers (these differ wildly in price).
The NYT's Robin Goldstein conducted hundreds of blind wine tests. The Beringer $11 Cab outscored their $120 Private Reserve Cab. The same thing would happen in blind listening tests IMO.

As for speakers in a type A test I would like to hear: Magnepan 1.7, The old and new Gallo speakers, the Audio Note J and E ($7500 version), DeVore speakers ($3700 Gibbon, $16,800 Silverback Reference, and $6500 Gibbon 9), Teresonic Ingenium Silver with more expensive ones: Vandersteen Model seven, Wilson Maxx and Sasha, Magico V5 or 3. Many lists could be as good.

Ajani
12-29-2010, 06:56 PM
I am referring to both type of tests. Say compare various Quad speakers with a Quad 57; compare various Magnepan speakers, 1.6, 1.7, 3.6, and 20.1; compare various Audio Note speakers (these differ wildly in price).
The NYT's Robin Goldstein conducted hundreds of blind wine tests. The Beringer $11 Cab outscored their $120 Private Reserve Cab. The same thing would happen in blind listening tests IMO.

As for speakers in a type A test I would like to hear: Magnepan 1.7, The old and new Gallo speakers, the Audio Note J and E ($7500 version), DeVore speakers ($3700 Gibbon, $16,800 Silverback Reference, and $6500 Gibbon 9), Teresonic Ingenium Silver with more expensive ones: Vandersteen Model seven, Wilson Maxx and Sasha, Magico V5 or 3. Many lists could be as good.

So in Test type B, you think persons might chose the cheapest Monitor Audio, Audio Note or Magnepan speakers over their more expensive siblings? Intriguing... I could imagine persons not hearing a significant difference between cheaper and more expensive models, but I can't say I'd really considered them straight out preferring the cheaper models...

RGA
12-29-2010, 07:02 PM
I am referring to both type of tests. Say compare various Quad speakers with a Quad 57; compare various Magnepan speakers, 1.6, 1.7, 3.6, and 20.1; compare various Audio Note speakers (these differ wildly in price).
The NYT's Robin Goldstein conducted hundreds of blind wine tests. The Beringer $11 Cab outscored their $120 Private Reserve Cab. The same thing would happen in blind listening tests IMO.

As for speakers in a type A test I would like to hear: Magnepan 1.7, The old and new Gallo speakers, the Audio Note J and E ($7500 version), DeVore speakers ($3700 Gibbon, $16,800 Silverback Reference, and $6500 Gibbon 9), Teresonic Ingenium Silver with more expensive ones: Vandersteen Model seven, Wilson Maxx and Sasha, Magico V5 or 3. Many lists could be as good.


I think it will be very easy to detect a difference between different speaker lines. Comparing an Audio Note J or E (any model at any price) versus a Magnepan (any model) versus a Vandersteen (any Model).

It would be more difficult to detect differences between the models of a given line - perhaps depending on the music played. But an E or 20.1 has more bass than a J or 3.6 and if it is blind level matched and you play bass you will detect the difference - if you don't play bass it may become more difficult because the same general technology is used. But in the case of Audio Note - they use different tweeters and different woofers. So in some cases you are paying more for a Higher High Efficiency driver to make it more usable for lower powered amps - it may not really be a very big improvement in sound over the non HE version. But once the dollars start to rise some of it becomes bragging rights over actual sound quality benefits and one has to truly temper their ability to spend with what they're actually getting. Still, to people very very familiar with the house sound of a product line then they will arguably hear more improvement in the $50k version of the speaker over the $10k version more than someone who is not nearly as familiar with the products.

RGA
12-29-2010, 07:06 PM
So in Test type B, you think persons might chose the cheapest Monitor Audio, Audio Note or Magnepan speakers over their more expensive siblings? Intriguing... I could imagine persons not hearing a significant difference between cheaper and more expensive models, but I can't say I'd really considered them straight out preferring the cheaper models...

I suppose it could happen depending on the room. Bass shy speakers tend to sound faster and cleaner. Speakers with good solid bass can also be heard as being distorted (when it's just bass). Thus a lower model could be picked out as being better. I find this with most of the DBTs. They tend to be fairly short auditions - make a selection - speakers with bright sound tend to be preferred on short duration sessions and may very well be chosen in a blind test. Good long tests have not been done. Which may explain why many find metalic tweeters fatiguing over long listening sessions but they often do well in DBT style tests.

tube fan
12-29-2010, 08:22 PM
I think it will be very easy to detect a difference between different speaker lines. Comparing an Audio Note J or E (any model at any price) versus a Magnepan (any model) versus a Vandersteen (any Model).

It would be more difficult to detect differences between the models of a given line - perhaps depending on the music played. But an E or 20.1 has more bass than a J or 3.6 and if it is blind level matched and you play bass you will detect the difference - if you don't play bass it may become more difficult because the same general technology is used. But in the case of Audio Note - they use different tweeters and different woofers. So in some cases you are paying more for a Higher High Efficiency driver to make it more usable for lower powered amps - it may not really be a very big improvement in sound over the non HE version. But once the dollars start to rise some of it becomes bragging rights over actual sound quality benefits and one has to truly temper their ability to spend with what they're actually getting. Still, to people very very familiar with the house sound of a product line then they will arguably hear more improvement in the $50k version of the speaker over the $10k version more than someone who is not nearly as familiar with the products.
I'm really talking about triple blind tests: those tacking the test don't know what's in the test. They are told to rate the overall sound, from highest to lowest. Yes, a given piece of equipment may have more extended lows (or highs), and still be rated below some other equipment in perceived quality. The Beringer Private Reserve is darker, higher in alcohol, and higher in the use of oak, than their $11 cab (all easily determined). The blind testers still preferred the $11 wine over the $120 one. I have heard that many prefer the Magnapan 1.7 over the 20.1, at 5 times the price. One of the salesmen at the Audio Note room at the CAS admitted that he preferred the J to the various E speakers in most smaller rooms, like the one at the CAS.

RGA
12-29-2010, 08:48 PM
I'm really talking about triple blind tests: those tacking the test don't know what's in the test. They are told to rate the overall sound, from highest to lowest. Yes, a given piece of equipment may have more extended lows (or highs), and still be rated below some other equipment in perceived quality. The Beringer Private Reserve is darker, higher in alcohol, and higher in the use of oak, than their $11 cab (all easily determined). The blind testers still preferred the $11 wine over the $120 one. I have heard that many prefer the Magnapan 1.7 over the 20.1, at 5 times the price. One of the salesmen at the Audio Note room at the CAS admitted that he preferred the J to the various E speakers in most smaller rooms, like the one at the CAS.

Then the only magazine for you would be Hi-Fi Choice. The take say 6-12 amplifiers. A panel of expert listeners who are both reviewers and the manufacturers of the products in the test. Listen blind level matched and make notes on the products. Then at the end they find out which was which. What is interesting is that some of the actual manufacturer/designers don't even choose their own products - they pick a cheaper competing product as being the best. Which is kind of funny.

The Stereophile link I posted noted the same thing. Some of the top Solid State amp makers including the guy from Meridian chose an old less expensive tube amplifier over his own top end SS product. A lot of the big English makers have sat in those sessions.

tube fan
12-29-2010, 10:00 PM
Then the only magazine for you would be Hi-Fi Choice. The take say 6-12 amplifiers. A panel of expert listeners who are both reviewers and the manufacturers of the products in the test. Listen blind level matched and make notes on the products. Then at the end they find out which was which. What is interesting is that some of the actual manufacturer/designers don't even choose their own products - they pick a cheaper competing product as being the best. Which is kind of funny.

The Stereophile link I posted noted the same thing. Some of the top Solid State amp makers including the guy from Meridian chose an old less expensive tube amplifier over his own top end SS product. A lot of the big English makers have sat in those sessions.
Yes, this is what I am looking for! I need to look into zero feedback amps. Need to get Hi-Fi Choice.

tube fan
12-29-2010, 10:09 PM
BTW, I recently went to an audio event where they compared blind some higher rez digital music to MP3 versions. 90% of those listening said they preferred the MP3 sound! My wife could correctly hear the difference while texting. One of the men (who owned a $50,000 turntable and $15,000 cartridge) asked my wife how she could hear the difference. Her reply: I'm not deaf. The higher resolution music has WAY more detail, high and low end. It was mystifying, but informative to see how few owners of terribly expensive equipment have no hearing!

RGA
12-30-2010, 09:04 PM
BTW, I recently went to an audio event where they compared blind some higher rez digital music to MP3 versions. 90% of those listening said they preferred the MP3 sound! My wife could correctly hear the difference while texting. One of the men (who owned a $50,000 turntable and $15,000 cartridge) asked my wife how she could hear the difference. Her reply: I'm not deaf. The higher resolution music has WAY more detail, high and low end. It was mystifying, but informative to see how few owners of terribly expensive equipment have no hearing!

I was at my local high end dealer Soundhounds today and it was informative. I enjoy talking to people who have been selling gear for 35 years own 20,000+ vinyls and about 15,000 CDs. A professional musician in Jazz who must make a nice living at it was in the store discussing his M8 (you need some coin if you can afford a system that has an M8 Preamplifier). I like the perspective they all had on some of the gear they sell, don't sell, etc. They carry one line where they like the two ways and then they said it all turns to crap in the three way version of the speakers.

What's good though is they are pretty honest about the relative strength and weakness of the stuff they sell. If you like Staging then they recommend X if you like some other thing they recommend Y. And there really isn't any other way to hear it and iot's not open to personal taste. If you have remotely decent hearing it is clear that Speaker X can do A B and C but is crap at doing M N and O. The only reason people don't notice the foibles of MN and O is because they don't go and listen to speakers that are truly great at doing MN and O.

But I have never been to any other dealer where the first priority is truly about music. An owner that knows a ton about music, listens to it all day every day spends his profits on music not fancy cars and watches. Those kinds of dealers are difficult to find. The vancouver dealers are not remotely like that. The ones I went to in Eastern Canada are not remotely like that. They have their audiophile approved discs they bought that "sounded good" from some other person's yardstick.

Feanor
12-31-2010, 05:24 AM
There's also the effect that it is well known that statistically people from a random population prefer a response curve that is NOT flat. Commonly they will prefer a sound that is boosted in the lower midbass, and somewhat rolled off in the upper treble. Also speakers with THD of upwards of 5%-30% in the bass region (floppy boxes) are often described as "pleasing" or even "powerful". This sound profile, while they claim in a DBT is pleasing is technically "colored", and NOT true high fidelity sound, which is all about accurate sound reproduction.
IMO, it isn't only "people from a random population" who like these characteristics, but also a great many self-defined audiophiles. Back when I first became interested in hi-fi the avowed objective was, indeed, high fidelity whether it actually was or not.

People are a bit less deluded today. Very many just admit that they like their sound with more "body", more "soul", or more "organic", i.e. they like it the way they like it, accuracy be damned. There are still some, though, who is still insist that their personal preferences are more "realistic".

Geoffcin
12-31-2010, 07:06 AM
IMO, it isn't only "people from a random population" who like these characteristics, but also a great many self-defined audiophiles. Back when I first became interested in hi-fi the avowed objective was, indeed, high fidelity whether it actually was or not.

People are a bit less deluded today. Very many just admit that they like their sound with more "body", more "soul", or more "organic", i.e. they like it the way they like it, accuracy be damned. There are still some, though, who is still insist that their personal preferences are more "realistic".

Probably the reason why so many "zero feedback" tube amps get sold to self called "audiophiles" This gets compounded by the fact that some of the speakers these people like have huge impedance peaks and valleys (often caused by the floppy nature of their construction). You add these all together and you have a response curve that you couldn't reproduce without massive eq on a more neutral and ACCURATE system.

While I don't begrudge people who like such systems their enjoyment, I take umbridge at the thought that these systems are in any way "High Fidelity", or that what they are listening to has any remote connection to what accurate sound reproduction is.

Mash
12-31-2010, 07:07 PM
Me? I use the sound of real music as my reference. Recitals are probably best if the ceiling is higher than 15 feet, because the setting is more intimate and there are fewer instruments to focus on. Just remember: no instruments that plug into electricity, and no sound reinforcement system.

Then get an assortment of the best recital recordings of the same music that you can find and have at it. True, recitals are not "blind" but they are a great starting point, and they will even clue you in about whether or not you should even blow the big bucks on pricey gear. Your ears will remember live music far longer than music you hear from a loudspeaker.

I listened to Segovia in concert in Cincinnati, OH in 1965. I next heard Segovia in concert in Hartford, CT in 1985. At the end of the first half of the Hartford concert, I said to my wife: "That is not the Segovia I remember from Cincinnati." At the end of the second half, I said to my wife: "That IS the Segovia I remember from Cincinnati!"

Why?

The reviewer reported the next day that Segovia had trouble the entire first half of the concert with his new $50,000 Spanish guitar not responding so well to the humidity in Hartford. So for the second half of the concert Segovia switched back to his old guitar- the one he previously had been using all the way back to 1960.

I use Mackie HR824 Active Powered studio monitors for our "second tier systems", one pair in the kitchen with a Mackie HRS120 and another pair in the bedroom with a V-dyne 15" for TV sound. These are really good and extremely articulate speakers, but I think our two tube-driven Maggie systems are better. And all are credible when compared to live music.

I suggest the "live music as reference" to evaluate sound systems so you can avoid the entire DBT Debate. However, blind tast-testing of wine might be more comparable to the blind testing of different acoustic guitars. [But trust me, a solid wood guitar should sound a lot better than a plywood guitar.]

Once your system sounds like real music, then what else do you want?

tube fan
01-01-2011, 07:43 PM
Me? I use the sound of real music as my reference. Recitals are probably best if the ceiling is higher than 15 feet, because the setting is more intimate and there are fewer instruments to focus on. Just remember: no instruments that plug into electricity, and no sound reinforcement system.

Then get an assortment of the best recital recordings of the same music that you can find and have at it. True, recitals are not "blind" but they are a great starting point, and they will even clue you in about whether or not you should even blow the big bucks on pricey gear. Your ears will remember live music far longer than music you hear from a loudspeaker.

I listened to Segovia in concert in Cincinnati, OH in 1965. I next heard Segovia in concert in Hartford, CT in 1985. At the end of the first half of the Hartford concert, I said to my wife: "That is not the Segovia I remember from Cincinnati." At the end of the second half, I said to my wife: "That IS the Segovia I remember from Cincinnati!"

Why?

The reviewer reported the next day that Segovia had trouble the entire first half of the concert with his new $50,000 Spanish guitar not responding so well to the humidity in Hartford. So for the second half of the concert Segovia switched back to his old guitar- the one he previously had been using all the way back to 1960.

I use Mackie HR824 Active Powered studio monitors for our "second tier systems", one pair in the kitchen with a Mackie HRS120 and another pair in the bedroom with a V-dyne 15" for TV sound. These are really good and extremely articulate speakers, but I think our two tube-driven Maggie systems are better. And all are credible when compared to live music.

I suggest the "live music as reference" to evaluate sound systems so you can avoid the entire DBT Debate. However, blind tast-testing of wine might be more comparable to the blind testing of different acoustic guitars. [But trust me, a solid wood guitar should sound a lot better than a plywood guitar.]

Once your system sounds like real music, then what else do you want?

Of course, the problem is that NO system sounds like live music. However, IMO, you can get very lifelike sound from some equipment. IMO, those are analogue and tube based systems. Many others prefer ss and digital sound. Either way, if you want to maximize your value to price ratio, blind listening is the way to go.

Ajani
01-02-2011, 07:26 AM
Me? I use the sound of real music as my reference. Recitals are probably best if the ceiling is higher than 15 feet, because the setting is more intimate and there are fewer instruments to focus on. Just remember: no instruments that plug into electricity, and no sound reinforcement system.

Then get an assortment of the best recital recordings of the same music that you can find and have at it. True, recitals are not "blind" but they are a great starting point, and they will even clue you in about whether or not you should even blow the big bucks on pricey gear. Your ears will remember live music far longer than music you hear from a loudspeaker.

I listened to Segovia in concert in Cincinnati, OH in 1965. I next heard Segovia in concert in Hartford, CT in 1985. At the end of the first half of the Hartford concert, I said to my wife: "That is not the Segovia I remember from Cincinnati." At the end of the second half, I said to my wife: "That IS the Segovia I remember from Cincinnati!"

Why?

The reviewer reported the next day that Segovia had trouble the entire first half of the concert with his new $50,000 Spanish guitar not responding so well to the humidity in Hartford. So for the second half of the concert Segovia switched back to his old guitar- the one he previously had been using all the way back to 1960.

I use Mackie HR824 Active Powered studio monitors for our "second tier systems", one pair in the kitchen with a Mackie HRS120 and another pair in the bedroom with a V-dyne 15" for TV sound. These are really good and extremely articulate speakers, but I think our two tube-driven Maggie systems are better. And all are credible when compared to live music.

I suggest the "live music as reference" to evaluate sound systems so you can avoid the entire DBT Debate. However, blind tast-testing of wine might be more comparable to the blind testing of different acoustic guitars. [But trust me, a solid wood guitar should sound a lot better than a plywood guitar.]

Once your system sounds like real music, then what else do you want?

There are a few issues with the use of live music as a reference....

What if very little of the music you listen to is performed live, in an un-amplified setting? If most of your music is mixed in the studio, then the best reference would be the recording studio (now figuring out how you would gain access to the studio is another issue altogether).

Next you have to think about the acoustics of the setting you choose as reference... If you choose a concert hall/cathedral type setting, then you will expect voices and sound to come at you from all directions and hence Dipole speakers will sound very realistic to you... If you listen in a setting more like a typical living room, where voices and music tends to come at you directly, then Dipoles will sound artificial...

RGA
01-02-2011, 11:50 AM
I don't think live is a good reference - but it depends on how you mean it when you say live. If you are talking about a comparison of a an instrument - how it sounds live versus how a stereo reproduced it - say a piano - then Live is a good comparison because you want your stereo to make the instrument/voice sound like he reakl instrument with all the colour texture decay transient timbre tone and "believe" that instrument is actually sitting right there as much as you can. But that is still largely recording dependent.

I have always liked the idea of the system that shows the most differences in recordings since a system that has higher contrasting ability is the one that has more resolutions and is more revealing of recording differences. Classical Music composer and critic Leonard Norwitz and Peter Qvortrup of Audio Innovations (later Audio Note) - wrote about this based inpart on an article that appeared in Positive Feedback.
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0601/audiohell.htm

Mash
01-02-2011, 12:25 PM
First, you seem to be dragging "manufactured music" into my comments. One example of manufactured music is when various tracks of different performers are seperately recorded, often at different times and places, and then all tracks are mixed down to produce the final group product.

There is no front-to-back time-distance information in such manufactured products, i.e. one player is not performing in a different front-to-back position with respect to another player while both are simultaneously being recorded with the same microphones. All performers are acoustically in the same time-distance plane or depth position front-to-back [but not side-to-side, the left-right pan control provides the left-to-right illusion]. Since Maggies are excellent for revealing front-to-back spacial relationships, these kinds of manufactured recordings will sound like crap on Maggies.

You can listen to such manufactured music if you wish, and some of it is quite good. The problem from my "reality viewpoint" is that these mixed-down performances never really happened as "performances in real time". Therefore, you cannot compare them to a recital which IS a performance in real time.

You could record the group referred to above playing together in recital in a large room with a high ceiling, but then you would NOT have a manufactured recording. You would have a real-time recording. And if there are NO amplified instruments being used, you have the recital venue I described.

The purpose of the intimate recital venue I described is to help you learn what real instruments sound like, and after you attend enough recitals this will happen and the particular performance then becomes far less important.

Amplified instruments introduce amplifier distortions, some intentional and some not, and speaker cone distortions, which are very complex. These unnatural effects [i.e. do not occur in nature] also introduce VARIATION, one instrument to another "very similar" instrument, and so on, to the point that you simply cannot learn and internalize reliable instrument sound references.

Attending numerous recitals did me a LOT of good. I learned what different ACOUSTIC instruments really sound like, which for me has transfered to any performance of acoustic instruments.

Bottom line, attending recitals may do you no good. To each his own.

Ajani
01-02-2011, 12:49 PM
IMO, the challenge with trying to determine a clear reference for judging HiFi comes from the idea that we all have different sonic priorities (realism triggers according to some reviewers at The Absolute Sound, if I'm not mistaken).

For example, for some persons the need to cover the entire frequency range is critical, so no matter how good a setup sounds if it can't produce the lowest note of the pipe organ then they will be taken out of the musical experience...

For others it is about whether the instruments have a realistic tone... so does a piano sound exactly like a piano... that person may be able to 'listen around' peaks and valleys in the frequency response as long as the tone is correct... while someone else is very sensitive to even a 1db variation in the frequency response (FR)... so for them, a flat FR is critical...

Someone else values scale/size more than anything else... so no pinpoint accurate mini-monitor is going to sound like real music to them... They need colossal towers, capable of delivering a wall of sound...

Some persons need dynamic range. So if a system in unable to produce concert level volumes, then it just won't sound like real music to them... Some need to feel the physical impact (kick in the chest) of deep bass, so no planar bass will do (regardless of whether it sounds more precise)...

Some persons value the ability to hear the most minute detail... others are all about precise leading edge definition (PRAT lovers), while others value the decay at the end of a note...

So two persons could easily listen to a live performance, then listen to it replayed on several HiFi systems and disagree on which system sounded most like the live performance...

Feanor
01-02-2011, 01:03 PM
IMO, the challenge with trying to determine a clear reference for judging HiFi comes from the idea that we all have different sonic priorities (realism triggers according to some reviewers at The Absolute Sound, if I'm not mistaken).

For example, for some persons the need to cover the entire frequency range is critical, so no matter how good a setup sounds if it can't produce the lowest note of the pipe organ then they will be taken out of the musical experience...

For others it is about whether the instruments have a realistic tone... so does a piano sound exactly like a piano... that person may be able to 'listen around' peaks and valleys in the frequency response as long as the tone is correct... while someone else is very sensitive to even a 1db variation in the frequency response (FR)... so for them, a flat FR is critical...

Someone else values scale/size more than anything else... so no pinpoint accurate mini-monitor is going to sound like real music to them... They need colossal towers, capable of delivering a wall of sound...

Some persons value the ability to hear the most minute detail... others are all about precise leading edge definition (PRAT lovers), while others value the decay at the end of a note...

So two persons could easily listen to a live performance, then listen to it replayed on several HiFi systems and disagree on which system sounded most like the live performance...
I really like the idea of "realism triggers". :thumbsup:

I guess biggies for me are "realistic tone" (i.e. accurate timbre) and "minute detail", (i.e. resolution / transparency).

Mash
01-02-2011, 02:40 PM
well acquainted with the live (acoustic instruments) venue which has then allowed both of us to acquire our accurate references for real acoustic instruments, then the differences you refer to become irrelevant because we are still using the same references even though we may inadvertantly emphasize different personal priorities.

It is as though we are using the same tape measure [the same reference] on different features of an object: we get different values for different features of that object but in the end we can agree that we are measuring the same object.

Conversely if we are using different tape measures, one that measures in furlongs and one that measures in rods, then our agreeing that we are measuring the same object becomes much more difficult even though we CAN convert furlongs into rods. But what if we CANNOT convert our individual measurements into a common system? Chaos results.... which is what routinely occurs in audio equipment discussions and evaluations. Everyone is talking past everyone else because they have no common reference. Then the Audio Gurus step in and make a great living as you defer to their greater wisdom.

Ajani
01-02-2011, 03:03 PM
well acquainted with the live (acoustic instruments) venue which has then allowed both of us to acquire our accurate references for real acoustic instruments, then the differences you refer to become irrelevant because we are still using the same references even though we may inadvertantly emphasize different personal priorities.

It is as though we are using the same tape measure [the same reference] on different features of an object: we get different values for different features of that object but in the end we can agree that we are measuring the same object.

Conversely if we are using different tape measures, one that measures in furlongs and one that measures in rods, then our agreeing that we are measuring the same object becomes much more difficult even though we CAN convert furlongs into rods. But what if we CANNOT convert our individual measurements into a common system? Chaos results.... which is what routinely occurs in audio equipment discussions and evaluations. Everyone is talking past everyone else because they have no common reference. Then the Audio Gurus step in and make a great living as you defer to their greater wisdom.

No. Not at all... It's not a case of measuring the same thing using different units of measure... It's a case of two persons measuring different things altogether...

Many audio reviewers constantly rant at length in their reviews, about the live performances they attend on a regular basis... Yet they still disagree completely on what components sound good... Both Art Dudley and John Atkinson of Stereophile, listen to live music regularly... yet they have very different tastes in equipment... members of this forum and many other forums also listen to live music regularly and disagree completely...

The never ending arguments in HiFi comes from the failure of so many audiophiles to accept that someone else can have a different opinion of what sounds more accurate/real... The panel fans need to prove that their tech is superior to monkey coffins... SET amps must be superior to SS... Digital must be better than analog.... This tech is distorted...That tech robs the soul from the music... blah blah blah...

IMO, it seems as if many audiophile can't just be happy with their choices in equipment, unless they prove that others who bought something different for the money, or spent more money, were foolish, deaf or don't listen to real music...

It's quite obvious to me that different technologies have different strengths and weaknesses, so your own realism triggers (and musical tastes) will determine what gear you gravitate towards...

Ajani
01-02-2011, 03:22 PM
I really like the idea of "realism triggers". :thumbsup:

I guess biggies for me are "realistic tone" (i.e. accurate timbre) and "minute detail", (i.e. resolution / transparency).

ah... "timbre".... that's the word I was looking for....

I really think realism triggers is the most sensible explanation of the different priorities of audiophiles...

JoeE SP9
01-02-2011, 03:36 PM
J. Gordon Holt was probably the first to publish that "Live unamplfied orchestral music is the only reference". Mr. Holt's taste was restricted to classical music. Mine isn't. So I leave out the word orchestral. The other three words (Live unamplified music) are what I'm trying to reproduce in my room with a high degree of fidelity. It's likely an unobtainable goal. I'll continue trying anyway. Working toward that goal has made other types of music sound better. Reproduce the reference and everything else will sound better.
Mash has a good point with his definition of "manufactured music". The kind of three dimensional playability in a good recording is simply not there on most studio recordings. Listen to a Direct-To-Disc LP or one of the very few CD's recorded live to two track. Any halfway decent system and setup will let you hear the sound of a large room "over there" by and around the speakers. You should then be able to convert to the scale Mash uses.

RGA
01-02-2011, 03:47 PM
Ajani

Excellent point about JA and Art D. These guys tend to have quite differing views on what constitutes the right sound and both have good ears and are knowledgable about audio.

I sat down and had a conversation with Peter Qvortrup (Audio Note) at CES for a good 45 minutes while taking a rest from 8 hours of listening to gear. As you might expect he's a bit of a character and is highly opinionated. Remind you anyone? Here is a guy who has been to every major opera house, has heard all the best musicans live - and not just classical - but Rage Against the Machine, Slayer, and the like. He can also afford the best seats in the house. So you have a guy with a staggering knowledge and a collection of classical recordings that people here would crap themselves if they had the chance at them. So he has the music collection, he has the live experience in that he has not just been to the local hall but all the best ones everywhere, he has recorded music, and he has bought all of the best competition. And he makes SET. Michael Fremer who also collects lots of music and is a vinyl diehard buys massive SS amplifiers.

And you are not going to convince either of them that they're on the wrong path. That's kind of why I like Martin Colloms. He loves AN gear and CJ. He also owned big Apogee speakers. Now he has the top Wilson speakers and loves Krell. I may not agree with the guy on some things but you have to admit that he likes a lot of different things because you won't mistake those brands.

I remember asking once on AA for people to provide me the most technically accurate system from the resident acoustic engineers and I got panels, horns, transmission lines (like PMC), two-way boxes, line arrays, Omni-directionals which have a certain amount of logic to them, single drivers (ideal sound comes from a single point in space and thus no large speaker can possibly be accurate), dual concentric, SET/Tubes (less to no corrective measures like Feedback which creates a problem then tries to fix it and arguably doesn't do it right) and SS(technically better distortion etc). When the math guys can't agree then there is no wonder there is so much debate on forums. :crazy:

That said - My opinion is always right.:D Even when I change my mind.

Mash
01-02-2011, 04:43 PM
Re:
"Many audio reviewers constantly rant at length in their reviews, about the live performances they attend on a regular basis... Yet they still disagree completely on what components sound good... Both Art Dudley and John Atkinson of Stereophile, listen to live music regularly... yet they have very different tastes in equipment... members of this forum and many other forums also listen to live music regularly and disagree completely... "

You have to sell the sizzle, not the steak. If they calmly agreed then wouldn't our interest in their prognostications be significantly lessened? Nothing stimulates audiophile interest better than a good reviewer catfight.

And in the end, as you have noted, everyone can find something that supports their bias. Everybody feels good about themselves and so they come back for more. All they have to do is keep spending more and more money for their endless upgrades. Which particular upgrades is not important. Audiophiles spending money is all that really matters because it makes Mr. Dudley's and Mr. Atkinson's advertisers very happy.

Happy advertisers buy more ads.

Remember what DeepThroat said: "Follow the money!"

Stereophile routinely publishes recommended equipment lists of what equipment their considered evaluations have led them to recommend.... except from time to time items will disappear from their list without explanation. Oops, now you hafta trade up.........

I was specifically recommending recitals where one can focus on a few instruments so as to learn their sound, say a concert grand piano. Maybe a Steinway if you want to narrow things more. We can be interested in different specific attributes of a Steinway, but our common reference will be that same Steinway. You judge how accurately the Steinway's attributes important to you are rendered, and I judge how accurately the Steinway's attributes important to me are rendered. If we are both satisfied then we can achieve a degree of consensus.

You have pointed out that consensus is totally lacking between Mr, Dudley and Mr. Atkinson. Their lack of any published consensus will generate greater profits for them. Not for you.

I was not suggesting complicated symphonies which do not lend themselves to such a learning endeavor.

Ajani
01-02-2011, 04:59 PM
Re:
"Many audio reviewers constantly rant at length in their reviews, about the live performances they attend on a regular basis... Yet they still disagree completely on what components sound good... Both Art Dudley and John Atkinson of Stereophile, listen to live music regularly... yet they have very different tastes in equipment... members of this forum and many other forums also listen to live music regularly and disagree completely... "

You have to sell the sizzle, not the steak. If they calmly agreed then wouldn't our interest in their prognostications be significantly lessened? Nothing stimulates audiophile interest better than a good reviewer catfight.

And in the end, as you have noted, everyone can find something that supports their bias. Everybody feels good about themselves and so they come back for more. All they have to do is keep spending more and more money for their endless upgrades. Which particular upgrades is not important. Audiophiles spending money is all that really matters because it makes Mr. Dudley's and Mr. Atkinson's advertisers very happy.

Happy advertisers buy more ads.

Remember what DeepThroat said: "Follow the money!"

Stereophile routinely publishes recommended equipment lists of what equipment their considered evaluations have led them to recommend.... except from time to time items will disappear from their list without explanation. Oops, now you hafta trade up.........

I was specifically recommending recitals where one can focus on a few instruments so as to learn their sound, say a concert grand piano. Maybe a Steinway if you want to narrow things more. We can be interested in different specific attributes of a Steinway, but our common reference will be that same Steinway. You judge how accurately the Steinway's attributes important to you are rendered, and I judge how accurately the Steinway's attributes important to me are rendered. If we are both satisfied then we can achieve a degree of consensus.

You have pointed out that consensus is totally lacking between Mr, Dudley and Mr. Atkinson. Their lack of any published consensus will generate greater profits for them. Not for you.

I was not suggesting complicated symphonies which do not lend themselves to such a learning endeavor.

Even if I was to accept that all reviewers are puppets of their advertisers (which I don't), the problem still remains that audiophiles (who are not reviewers) clearly have different sonic priorities... Even non-audiophiles have them... So there will never be any type of consensus about what sounds more real or live... So even if we both use a Steinway as reference, that doesn't mean we'd agree in anyway on which system more accurately recreates the sound of the Steinway... You might prefer the one that matches the timbre exactly, while I might prefer one which handles the frequency extremes better....

I don't see any evidence that Professional reviewers choose equipment in a manner much different from the average audiophile, which is part of why I've never bought into the whole advertisers' puppets conspiracy theory... Why should the average Joe disagreeing on what sounds better occur naturally, yet Art Dudley and John Atkinson disagreeing be based on advertising revenue?

Mash
01-02-2011, 06:14 PM
I had always heard Maggies at the various ARC/Magnepan dealers, and they were always driven with Audio Research amps. I REALLY did NOT like the Maggie sound I heard at the dealers.

I went to a doctors house in 1974 & he had maggies that sounded so real I felt I could touch the performer. I looked around to discover what was different. I saw the old-timey tube amp glowing on the floor. I was sold. But there had been NO reviews of Futterman amps in ANY publication FOR MANY YEARS.

When I met Mr. Futterman I asked him "why no reviews?" Can you guess his answer?

Because, he said, he did not advertise his amps anywhere. But in 1974 he had a 3 month backlog as a result of "word of mouth", i.e. peolpe like me hearing his amps in someone's house. By 1977 when I bought my monoblocks, he had a 9-month backlog, again from word of mouth. And that backlog continued to grow.

I never wrote that anyone in the audiophile press was a "puppet of their advertisers". But do YOU really think it is a good idea to bite the hands that feed you?

Geoffcin
01-02-2011, 06:37 PM
There are reviewers that I place more faith in than others. Certainly Atkinson and I have similar tastes (even if he doesn't know how to test panel speakers!), and even if I do think Art writes with more pizazz. Nobody can hear everything, but if Atkinson likes it, I believe I would too. He's also a good counterpoint to some of the more flowery statements made by other reviewers.

From my brief foray into professional audio journalism I can tell you that the press needs the industry, and the industry needs the press. Read what you want into that, but a word from a top reviewer can often make or break an esoteric product. In the same way, a reviewer who says a high priced product isn't any better in some way than a low priced one is soon looking for a new job reviewing only low priced products. Is this some kind of conspiracy? No, I would say not, more like a pragmatic way to deal with the reality of the industry as it stands today.

E-Stat
01-02-2011, 06:41 PM
When I met Mr. Futterman I asked him "why no reviews?" Can you guess his answer?Because, he said, he did not advertise his amps anywhere.
There are numerous brands which do not advertise and are reviewed nevertheless. Why? Because they are worthy of comment. Reviewers don't talk much about what they don't like.
rw

Ajani
01-02-2011, 06:56 PM
I had always heard Maggies at the various ARC/Magnepan dealers, and they were always driven with Audio Research amps. I REALLY did NOT like the Maggie sound I heard at the dealers.

I went to a doctors house in 1974 & he had maggies that sounded so real I felt I could touch the performer. I looked around to discover what was different. I saw the old-timey tube amp glowing on the floor. I was sold. But there had been NO reviews of Futterman amps in ANY publication FOR MANY YEARS.

When I met Mr. Futterman I asked him "why no reviews?" Can you guess his answer?

Because, he said, he did not advertise his amps anywhere. But in 1974 he had a 3 month backlog as a result of "word of mouth", i.e. peolpe like me hearing his amps in someone's house. By 1977 when I bought my monoblocks, he had a 9-month backlog, again from word of mouth. And that backlog continued to grow.

I never wrote that anyone in the audiophile press was a "puppet of their advertisers". But do YOU really think it is a good idea to bite the hands that feed you?

Problem is that just as I choose to take the word of some reviewers that they are not biased by advertising revenue, you also must take Mr. Futterman's word on his reason for not having his amp reviewed...

Many small scale manufacturers don't send samples for reviews to major mags... Sometimes they even say exactly what Mr. Futterman said, based solely on what they believe to be true, rather than on any actual experience they've had... Or they sent a request for a mag to review their product, never got a response and assumed it was because they didn't advertise in the mag...

Keep in mind that if you already have good word of mouth about your brand, and a loyal fan following, who believe the review mags are keeping you out, then what incentive would you have to get your product reviewed? If you get a bad review it may hurt future sales and word of mouth...

As for biting the hand that feeds you: Review mags write negative reviews quite regularly, but since most persons who believe the mags are corrupt, don't read the mags anyway, they'd never notice this...

Also, ask yourself this: Why would a mag the size of Stereophile need to appease advertisers?

Stereophile gave the Totem Forest a negative review this year, which resulted in Totem pulling their ad revenue from Stereophile. What do you think happened to Totem's ad space? another brand took it... Why? Because Stereophile has a wide readership... so there will always be brands wanting to advertising gear in Stereophile... And there is no way that every product that is reviewed is going to be bad... In fact, considering that many reviewers focus mostly on products that interest them, then most reviews will be positive... So even without any advertising bias, there will be a load of good reviews...

Mash
01-02-2011, 07:09 PM
soley because people hear your unreviewed audio product at someone's house, shouldn't that be proof enough that your product is "worthy"? I think so.

What better evidence of "WORTH" is there than people voting for a product over MANY years with their wallets? I think this beats ANY reviewer's opinion.

When NYAL acquired the Futterman they did three things:

They advertised the Futterman;
They got reviews for the Futterman, even in Stereophile, and
They raised the paired-monoblock price from $500 (I paid) - $900 (later) to
[wait for it] $3000.
Then they introduced the 4-chassis paired monoblocks for $9000.

And my Futtermans have all the bells & whistles of the NYAL models...........

Ajani
01-02-2011, 07:13 PM
Certainly Atkinson and I have similar tastes (even if he doesn't know how to test panel speakers!)

I think the issue with testing at Stereophile is the same as at the Harman group... The tests are designed for more 'traditional' cone speakers and SS amps....

I'm 100% for testing in HiFi, but I think a lot more tests need to be developed before we can rely on them.... And I'd love to see more clear correlation between the test results and the sonic characteristics they are supposed to test...

Ideally, testing should get to the point where you can just look at the results and know whether a speaker will have correct timbre and a wide/deep soundstage etc....

E-Stat
01-02-2011, 07:22 PM
soley (sic) because people hear your unreviewed audio product at someone's house, shouldn't that be proof enough that your product is "worthy"? I think so.
Only to those who have limited access to what is available on the market.


And my Futtermans have all the bells & whistles of the NYAL models...........
Congratulations.

rw

Geoffcin
01-02-2011, 07:28 PM
Stereophile gave the Totem Forest a negative review this year, which resulted in Totem pulling their ad revenue from Stereophile. What do you think happened to Totem's ad space? another brand took it... Why? Because Stereophile has a wide readership... so there will always be brands wanting to advertising gear in Stereophile... And there is no way that every product that is reviewed is going to be bad... In fact, considering that many reviewers focus mostly on products that interest them, then most reviews will be positive... So even without any advertising bias, there will be a load of good reviews...

No you are mistaken. The final review wasn't negative, and in fact Atkinson takes extra time out to test the speakers and finds the anomaly, he writes;

So what to conclude from this Follow-Up to a Follow-Up? First, Totem's consistency in manufacturing the Forest to a uniform standard over an eight-year period is impressive.(based on three sets of measurements over a decade)

"Second, from my conversations with Erick Lichte, it is clear that the woofer of SN PM4002 failed after he had concluded his critical listening to the Forests. However, if the woofer had been abused by one of the dealers who had used the review samples before they were sent to Stereophile for review, it's possible that this either made it more vulnerable, or contributed to EL's finding the Forests' imaging to be not as good as he had been led to expect. "

He goes on to test the tweeter of the failed speaker and finds that it matches the other within less than 1dB! This can only be done by close matching during assembly. These are no "slap them together" speakers.

To me it's quite obvious that one speaker had been damaged and the reviewer was oblivious to the fact. In addition he seems clueless about mass loading, something that the speakers were designed for! As a reviewer you have to do your homework. Vince has every right to be mad that the reviewer didn't contact them when something seemed amiss. The whole review might have been completely different if he would have done so.

Ajani
01-02-2011, 07:42 PM
No you are mistaken. The final review wasn't negative, and in fact Atkinson takes extra time out to test the speakers and finds the anomaly, he writes;

So what to conclude from this Follow-Up to a Follow-Up? First, Totem's consistency in manufacturing the Forest to a uniform standard over an eight-year period is impressive.(based on three sets of measurements over a decade)

"Second, from my conversations with Erick Lichte, it is clear that the woofer of SN PM4002 failed after he had concluded his critical listening to the Forests. However, if the woofer had been abused by one of the dealers who had used the review samples before they were sent to Stereophile for review, it's possible that this either made it more vulnerable, or contributed to EL's finding the Forests' imaging to be not as good as he had been led to expect. "

He goes on to test the tweeter of the failed speaker and finds that it matches the other within less than 1dB! This can only be done by close matching during assembly. These are no "slap them together" speakers.

To me it's quite obvious that one speaker had been damaged and the reviewer was oblivious to the fact. In addition he seems clueless about mass loading, something that the speakers were designed for! As a reviewer you have to do your homework. Vince has every right to be mad that the reviewer didn't contact them when something seemed amiss. The whole review might have been completely different if he would have done so.

Yes there has been a lot of debate around the Totem review... However, some valid claims are also made by EL about his review: First Totem's instructions don't claim that you MUST mass load the speakers... It is optional... Hence the speakers should work well without the mass loading... Also, it is fair to point out that not everyone who buys a $3,500 speaker expects to have to put in that much effort to get it to sound good... It should sound good without the mass loading and better after... The two previous reviews in Stereophile required quite a bit of adjustment to get good sound from the Forests.... JA's (I believe) required him to put 2 bags of sand on top of the speakers, in addition to the mass loading... Not everyone wants to do that (even if only for aesthetic reasons as it kills the whole look of the Totem)....

tube fan
01-02-2011, 08:19 PM
JA doesn't even have an analogue system (at least in his published associated equipment)! His tests are a joke as even he sees on occasion! For example, his measurements of the AR VSi60 integrated amp indicated that the amp was nothing special. However, when JA reviewed the Acapella High Violoncello II ($80,000!!!), only the AR
VSi60 made the speakers sound great! I have heard the $80,000 speaker, and was NOT impressed (but then it wasn't being driven by tubes).

Ajani
01-08-2011, 02:23 PM
I'm really talking about triple blind tests: those tacking the test don't know what's in the test. They are told to rate the overall sound, from highest to lowest. Yes, a given piece of equipment may have more extended lows (or highs), and still be rated below some other equipment in perceived quality. The Beringer Private Reserve is darker, higher in alcohol, and higher in the use of oak, than their $11 cab (all easily determined). The blind testers still preferred the $11 wine over the $120 one. I have heard that many prefer the Magnapan 1.7 over the 20.1, at 5 times the price. One of the salesmen at the Audio Note room at the CAS admitted that he preferred the J to the various E speakers in most smaller rooms, like the one at the CAS.

Interesting analogy... It leaves me wondering if we (audiophiles) train ourselves to "like" products that the average Joe wouldn't like...

Auricauricle
01-08-2011, 02:27 PM
Great point, Ajani!

tube fan
01-08-2011, 10:22 PM
Interesting analogy... It leaves me wondering if we (audiophiles) train ourselves to "like" products that the average Joe wouldn't like...

The exact same thing happens to "wine lovers". They all too often
learn to rate high alcoholic, dark, low acidic, fruit bombs highly, just like Parker and the Wine Spectator do. These wines are just horrible with food. Many expensive, thousand watt amps are crap if you actually listen to them. Ditto for $10,000 CD players and $50,000 ss amps. I asked 5 women at the recent CAS what was their favorite room and 4 replied "the audio note" room!!! They did NOT hesitate to answer. It was my second favorite room, but then they were not playing analogue, and I DO have a preference for analogue.

RGA
01-08-2011, 10:46 PM
The exact same thing happens to "wine lovers". They all too often
learn to rate high alcoholic, dark, low acidic, fruit bombs highly, just like Parker and the Wine Spectator do. These wines are just horrible with food. Many expensive, thousand watt amps are crap if you actually listen to them. Ditto for $10,000 CD players and $50,000 ss amps. I asked 5 women at the recent CAS what was their favorite room and 4 replied "the audio note" room!!! They did NOT hesitate to answer. It was my second favorite room, but then they were not playing analogue, and I DO have a preference for analogue.

It's too bad AN didn't bring their turntable rig to CAS. They brought it to CES last year and it was the best vinyl sound I have ever heard. The Voyd inspired TT3 was no slouch and went head to head with most out there.

Of course I will never afford one. Fortunately there is a guy in town who just got the new TT3 and this reminds me that I should give him a ring to see if I can audition it. AN usually at least brings a TT1 - And it usually sounds awesome considering how damn simple it is. check out the TT3 reviewed by Hi-Critic and they compare it to the best CD and DSD and SACD and well read it yourself :-) http://www.audionote.co.uk/articles/reviews/HFC10_AN.pdf

Feanor
01-09-2011, 05:18 AM
Yes, this is what I am looking for! I need to look into zero feedback amps. Need to get Hi-Fi Choice.
Somehow this strikes me has hypocritical. The guy who doesn't care about specific characteristics, only about the overall impression, the big picture, is searching for amps of a specific characteristic, zero-feedback.

Geoffcin
01-09-2011, 05:55 AM
Interesting analogy... It leaves me wondering if we (audiophiles) train ourselves to "like" products that the average Joe wouldn't like...

I would not generalize what an "audiophile" likes. Some of us are into truth, others are into what they perceive as "beautiful" regardless of how euphonic the sound is.

For example;

Zero-feedback amps ALL have high levels of second order harmonic distortion. SET amps ALL have reactive impedance loading issues, yet this doesn't stop audiophiles from seeking these flawed designs out. Even calling them preferable to more realistic and truthful-to-the-original-sound (High Fidelity) systems.

Geoffcin
01-09-2011, 06:08 AM
Yes there has been a lot of debate around the Totem review... However, some valid claims are also made by EL about his review: First Totem's instructions don't claim that you MUST mass load the speakers... It is optional... Hence the speakers should work well without the mass loading... Also, it is fair to point out that not everyone who buys a $3,500 speaker expects to have to put in that much effort to get it to sound good... It should sound good without the mass loading and better after... The two previous reviews in Stereophile required quite a bit of adjustment to get good sound from the Forests.... JA's (I believe) required him to put 2 bags of sand on top of the speakers, in addition to the mass loading... Not everyone wants to do that (even if only for aesthetic reasons as it kills the whole look of the Totem)....

Actually the claims are IN-valid. ALL thin tall speakers will have much better (lower) harmonic distortion if braced in some way. (why I use Sound Anchor stands for my maggies) While I'm not expecting people to have an engineering degree, I would expect someone who has the wherewithal to afford $3500 speakers to see this as self evident.

Atkinson is one of the most demanding reviewers in the world. The Totems worked fine without the sandbags, but JA wanted to push the envelope of what mass loading can do for a speaker of this design. Totem uses much more attractive "Beaks" to achieve this. The problem with the beaks is that you have to understand the principle of them and adjust them accordingly. The reviewer didn't have a clue about them, not did he even bother to call Totem to ask. Very unprofessional.

tube fan
01-09-2011, 06:56 PM
So answer me this (this is directed to those who object to blind listening): would you buy a piece of audio equipment that sounded inferior to some other (using your favorite music; yes, use a wide selection)? Based on measurements and/or recommendations of some "expert"?
I just don't get it. Many wine snobs buy all of Parker's 100 point wines (must be perfect, right?). I bet few, if any, would pick a 100 point wine, tasted blind, from 7 others (most MUCH less expensive). I regularly go to a blind tasting wine group, and we have NEVER rated a Parker 100 point wine #1.

If you listen blind, and rate the music blind, and prefer say a 5 watt SET amp over a 1000 watt ss one, would you go out any buy the ss amp based either on measurements or someone else's recommendation? YOU must drink the wine and listen to the music. Why NOT buy what you like best?

Geoffcin
01-09-2011, 07:21 PM
So answer me this (this is directed to those who object to blind listening): would you buy a piece of audio equipment that sounded inferior to some other (using your favorite music; yes, use a wide selection)? Based on measurements and/or recommendations of some "expert"?
I just don't get it. Many wine snobs buy all of Parker's 100 point wines (must be perfect, right?). I bet few, if any, would pick a 100 point wine, tasted blind, from 7 others (most MUCH less expensive). I regularly go to a blind tasting wine group, and we have NEVER rated a Parker 100 point wine #1.

If you listen blind, and rate the music blind, and prefer say a 5 watt SET amp over a 1000 watt ss one, would you go out any buy the ss amp based either on measurements or someone else's recommendation? YOU must drink the wine and listen to the music. Why NOT buy what you like best?

When it comes to high end gear I know of nobody who buys gear that they don't think sounds superior in some way. Some people dip their fillet Mignon in catchup too.

tube fan
01-09-2011, 07:36 PM
When it comes to high end gear I know of nobody who buys gear that they don't think sounds superior in some way. Some people dip their fillet Mignon in catchup too.

And I, of course, think YOU are dipping YOUR steak in catchup with ss and digital!!! I bet you bought into the CD sound from the beginning! Yes, it's improved, but IMO it still falls far short of analogue. Ditto for ss vs tubes. BTW, you are COMPLETELY incorrect that people do not buy either wine OR audio equipment based on some "expert" recommendation, rather on actually listening and rating blind the units in question.

Geoffcin
01-09-2011, 07:40 PM
Fortunately audio is different than wine in that you cannot quantify the quality of the latter empirically, while the former is easily quantified.

tube fan
01-09-2011, 08:52 PM
Fortunately audio is different than wine in that you cannot quantify the quality of the latter empirically, while the former is easily quantified.


you are QUITE mistaken if you think audio quality is EASILY quantified. How can you explain JA's measurements of the AR SCi60 amp, vs his appreciation of the same unit playing, you know, actual music over, you know, actual components. ONLY through the average measuring AR amp did the speaker sound great. And that is JA, the god of hopelessly meaningless measurements!!!

tube fan
01-09-2011, 09:00 PM
Geoffcin, what you and others (e.g., TTT) don't understand is that human hearing is MUCH more sensitive to the thousands of factors involved in music reproduction. Whatever, if YOU cannot rate a given piece of equipment blind, then, you are just buying numbers (meaningless in this case) vs YOUR blind ratings. I have enjoyed dozens of my friends rate $15 wines over their "favorite" (bought just on the high rating by Parker) wines. I doubt YOU would rate your favorite ss amp over many, lower priced tube amps, but only if listened to blind.

Raj J
01-09-2011, 11:12 PM
Greetings to all for 2011 and may you have a new year full of promise and desired results!

good on you tube fan!
hey fellow audiophiles and enthusiasts if the guy (or girl...) wants to listen and test blind - then so be it! that's the way he/she wants to evaluate audio gear so let them for crying out loud! afterall it's their dollars not yours, what's all the fuss about?

yes of course we would generally like to have something visually appealing (specially those with the wifey factor...) as well as something sounding good as it looks! but that's us, and so we will buy something that WE feel is a good deal by both parties involved in the transaction and you go home feeling it was a good buy indeed.

ah! but wait till you do a blind test at one of those shows or at a friends place - I'll be dammed if it really sounds better than what you just purchased! I am afraid our tube fan is right ladies and mostly gents out there, we also do buy what is visually appealing or striking; something that excites us and therefore should sound great. we also tend to think just because it looks stunning, built like a rock or with exquisite materials it should sound top-notch! but infact some sound like a load of bollocks! and there are some that do live up to all those good looks indeed. but what the hec, aren't these high-end systems supposed to caress our ears, in which case why bother with the looks? we are all human afterall & supposed to have good hearing... therefore if someone chooses equipment doing blind tests good for them! I hope they are truly happy with their purchase at the end of the day.
enjoying YOUR music on YOUR SYSTEM is what it's all about, and if he/she is enjoying exactly that, then that's about it!
cheers, Raj J

tube fan
01-10-2011, 07:04 AM
I fortunately have a great wife who let's me put my speakers and audio equipment wherever I want. My huge Fulton J speakers look OK (at best). My wife also lets me play my music at realistic (similar to live) levels.

BTW, the new 3.7 speaker looks stunning! Valin loved the 1.7, and the 3.7 might be even better.

Ajani
01-10-2011, 08:38 PM
Geoffcin, what you and others (e.g., TTT) don't understand is that human hearing is MUCH more sensitive to the thousands of factors involved in music reproduction. Whatever, if YOU cannot rate a given piece of equipment blind, then, you are just buying numbers (meaningless in this case) vs YOUR blind ratings. I have enjoyed dozens of my friends rate $15 wines over their "favorite" (bought just on the high rating by Parker) wines. I doubt YOU would rate your favorite ss amp over many, lower priced tube amps, but only if listened to blind.

There are several factors to consider here:

1) Some audiophiles can indeed hear and appreciate differences between cheaper and more expensive gear... They buy expensive gear because it sounds better to them (whether that is always natural or an acquired taste is an interesting question, IMO)

2) Another set of audiophiles only think they can hear differences, but would likely be embarrassed in blind tests...

3) Yet another set buy expensive gear for the same reasons many persons buy a BMW, expensive bottle of wine or a Rolex: to show off their wealth and status...

The problem being that all types exist on audio forums and all 3 will claim that they buy the more expensive gear because it sounds better... When only 1 of the 3 types actually buys it for that reason...

tube fan
01-10-2011, 10:12 PM
There are several factors to consider here:

1) Some audiophiles can indeed hear and appreciate differences between cheaper and more expensive gear... They buy expensive gear because it sounds better to them (whether that is always natural or an acquired taste is an interesting question, IMO)

2) Another set of audiophiles only think they can hear differences, but would likely be embarrassed in blind tests...

3) Yet another set buy expensive gear for the same reasons many persons buy a BMW, expensive bottle of wine or a Rolex: to show off their wealth and status...

The problem being that all types exist on audio forums and all 3 will claim that they buy the more expensive gear because it sounds better... When only 1 of the 3 types actually buys it for that reason...
And, thus, another reason for blind listening tests. And even then, the number who fit in class 1 approaches 0 as a limit!

Ajani
01-11-2011, 04:03 AM
And, thus, another reason for blind listening tests. And even then, the number who fit in class 1 approaches 0 as a limit!

The audiophiles in Class 1 won't benefit from blind testing, as they will be able to identify the more expensive gear and will select them regardless... Just as many real wine connoisseurs would always select the more expensive wine...

The audiophiles in Class 2 would benefit from blind testing... though of course, they would probably also benefit from regular hearing tests... Something too few of us do regularly enough... It is rather silly (if you really think about it) to drop $30K on a stereo, based on your excellent hearing, if you've not had a hearing test...

The audiophiles in class 3 could care less about blind testing, as audible benefit was not the real reason for their purchases anyway...


IMO, only the posers in class 2 would benefit from blind testing as it might humble them...

What's the aim of blind testing in HiFi? To eliminate sighted bias (so picking the expensive gear because you know it is more expensive)? So take this scenario: An audiophile, who can genuinely hear differences, prefers a Mark Levinson No. 532H (300 Watt) amp in a sighted test over an Emotiva XPA-2 (300 Watt) amp. If he was to then test those 2 amps in a blind test he'd still be able to identify the Levinson. So if he really selected the Levinson based on price bias in the sighted test, he'd do the same in the blind test...

Nasir
01-11-2011, 04:06 PM
Dear me, this IS heavy. After a couple of glasses of ANY wine, I just want to sit down on something cosy and listen to ANY HIFI system.... just as long as the music is good!!!
In our apartment, the Cardas, WASP or any other method of speaker placement is quickly rejected in favour of " Itīs either you or the speakers " REPLACEMENT method.
Since I have yet to be replaced, one presumes that my speakers are eye pleasing and do not encrouch on the invisible frontiers of the 3 cats free running around space.
In other words, my speakers please the eyes and the ears, do not have to be banished to a listening room full of room treatments with the only ONE person sweetspot!! Maybe one day, when I can afford it, I might have it that way.
As for a persons individual biases, it will always overpower even the most scientific of tests. And if you are not allowed to see what you are listening too, then the immediate impact will outweigh any and all qualities that the system would have shown over time. No one wins!!!

tube fan
01-12-2011, 08:51 PM
The audiophiles in Class 1 won't benefit from blind testing, as they will be able to identify the more expensive gear and will select them regardless... Just as many real wine connoisseurs would always select the more expensive wine...

The audiophiles in Class 2 would benefit from blind testing... though of course, they would probably also benefit from regular hearing tests... Something too few of us do regularly enough... It is rather silly (if you really think about it) to drop $30K on a stereo, based on your excellent hearing, if you've not had a hearing test...

The audiophiles in class 3 could care less about blind testing, as audible benefit was not the real reason for their purchases anyway...


IMO, only the posers in class 2 would benefit from blind testing as it might humble them...

What's the aim of blind testing in HiFi? To eliminate sighted bias (so picking the expensive gear because you know it is more expensive)? So take this scenario: An audiophile, who can genuinely hear differences, prefers a Mark Levinson No. 532H (300 Watt) amp in a sighted test over an Emotiva XPA-2 (300 Watt) amp. If he was to then test those 2 amps in a blind test he'd still be able to identify the Levinson. So if he really selected the Levinson based on price bias in the sighted test, he'd do the same in the blind test...

Trust me, if you think "real wine connoisseurs" could consistently (much less ALWAYS) pick out the expensive wine, you are, let's be polite, A TOTAL FOOL!!! If you pick the expensive audio component, great! But don't be so sure sure you would!

E-Stat
01-13-2011, 06:12 AM
Trust me, if you think "real wine connoisseurs" could consistently (much less ALWAYS) pick out the expensive wine...
So why would an *expensive* wine taste better anyway? I'm a scotch fancier and the differences between blends, single malts and more expensive cask strength and single cask variations have clear distinctions that easily account for the differences. Similarly, I couldn't care less about an audio component's price - I'm more interested in the topology, quality of parts used and strength of power supply. As another long term Audio Research fan, you can easily see why their current models are better than ones from the 80s and 90s. I trust you are aware of the ARC database site.

rw

Ajani
01-13-2011, 07:19 AM
Trust me, if you think "real wine connoisseurs" could consistently (much less ALWAYS) pick out the expensive wine, you are, let's be polite, A TOTAL FOOL!!! If you pick the expensive audio component, great! But don't be so sure sure you would!

Perhaps my wording is not clear, so let's see if a rephrase helps:

Real wine connoisseurs could consistently identify the more expensive wines... Now whether they always prefer them is another issue...

The point is not that you must prefer the more expensive wine or audio equipment but that you'd be able to identify it...

Now let's take you as an example: Why don't you trust yourself to audition sighted? Do you find that you pick different products when you can see the brands versus when you can't? The fact that you believe cheaper gear can sound better than more expensive ones, suggest you are probably not as prone to sighted bias as you believe... Perhaps if you trusted yourself more, you'd pick the same gear (whether cheaper or more expensive) in a sighted test as you would in a blind one...

Note: "TOTAL FOOL" can never be polite (though it is a funny insult), however if you want to avoid having posts edited by Mods and what comes after that I'd suggest not handing out insults to other forum members... Insults never aid a discussion...

Feanor
01-13-2011, 08:38 AM
So why would an *expensive* wine taste better anyway? I'm a scotch fancier and the differences between blends, single malts and more expensive cask strength and single cask variations have clear distinctions that easily account for the differences. Similarly, I couldn't care less about an audio component's price - I'm more interested in the topology, quality of parts used and strength of power supply. As another long term Audio Research fan, you can easily see why their current models are better than ones from the 80s and 90s. I trust you are aware of the ARC database site.

rw
You're referring to THIS (http://www.arcdb.ws/index.html) site which is one of the better vintage sites and most interesting. (Wow -- I see they've got advertising nowadays.)

Speaking of what's on the inside, it brings to mind computers. People have asked me why I like to assemble my own, I tell them I'd rather know thebrands on the inside, than what brand is on the outside.

Ajani
01-13-2011, 08:50 AM
So why would an *expensive* wine taste better anyway? I'm a scotch fancier and the differences between blends, single malts and more expensive cask strength and single cask variations have clear distinctions that easily account for the differences.

So essentially you'd be able to identify differences between them whether you could see the label or not.... Whether you prefer the most expensive or not would be a matter or taste...


Similarly, I couldn't care less about an audio component's price - I'm more interested in the topology, quality of parts used and strength of power supply. As another long term Audio Research fan, you can easily see why their current models are better than ones from the 80s and 90s. I trust you are aware of the ARC database site.

rw

Looking at the internals seems a much better judge of quality than price tag....

Just to be difficult (devil's advocate, I suppose): What if you listened to two products and clearly preferred the one with lower quality parts, power supply & topology? Would you still purchase the one with the better internals?

tube fan
01-13-2011, 05:26 PM
Ajani, you are NOT getting it. Recall the NYT tasting I mentioned earlier: in the morning everyone (all wine "experts") tasted and rated the wines knowing which was which. The French were rated first, Oregon next, and California last. When the EXACT same wines were tasted blind, the California wines came in first, followed by the Oregon ones, with the French wines being last. I have been to several blind tastings where "experts" gave widely different scores to the same wine. Recall Robert J Reina's article on the ARSi60 integrated amp ($4,000). He actually preferred the $4,000 integrated over his $20,000 pre and power amp separates in the bass. As he put it: "over a wide range of recordings, I felt that the VSi60 bettered the Audio Valve/Ref 110 combo in every aspect of bass articulation and definition. But this made no sense to me. Why would a higher-powered amp with a similar circuit topology, bigger transforms, and better parts produce a bottom end slightly inferior to that of the baby integrated?"

Of course, I often listen sighted (like at the CAS). However, by focusing on and rating the music, rather than rating the audio components themselves, I am (yes, IMO) able to overcome some of the bias involved in listening sighted.

Ajani
01-13-2011, 05:45 PM
I don't think we're really disagreeing on much here...


Ajani, you are NOT getting it. Recall the NYT tasting I mentioned earlier: in the morning everyone (all wine "experts") tasted and rated the wines knowing which was which. The French were rated first, Oregon next, and California last. When the EXACT same wines were tasted blind, the California wines came in first, followed by the Oregon ones, with the French wines being last. I have been to several blind tastings where "experts" gave widely different scores to the same wine.

Those "experts" are what I call posers... If they were really experts then they would be able to tell the differences in a blind test...



Recall Robert J Reina's article on the ARSi60 integrated amp ($4,000). He actually preferred the $4,000 integrated over his $20,000 pre and power amp separates in the bass. As he put it: "over a wide range of recordings, I felt that the VSi60 bettered the Audio Valve/Ref 110 combo in every aspect of bass articulation and definition. But this made no sense to me. Why would a higher-powered amp with a similar circuit topology, bigger transforms, and better parts produce a bottom end slightly inferior to that of the baby integrated?"

Now that's a case of a reviewer not having sighted bias... So he would not need blind testing...


Of course, I often listen sighted (like at the CAS). However, by focusing on and rating the music, rather than rating the audio components themselves, I am (yes, IMO) able to overcome some of the bias involved in listening sighted.

Which ties back to my point: IMO, persons (like you) who are willing to be honest with themselves don't need to listen blind... Blind testing is best for showing up the "Fake Golden Ears" and the "Wine Conno-Posers"... If you're not prone to believing that more expensive must be better, then knowing the price tag is not going to have much (if any) impact on your decision...

tube fan
01-13-2011, 08:37 PM
I don't think we're really disagreeing on much here...



Those "experts" are what I call posers... If they were really experts then they would be able to tell the differences in a blind test...




Now that's a case of a reviewer not having sighted bias... So he would not need blind testing...



Which ties back to my point: IMO, persons (like you) who are willing to be honest with themselves don't need to listen blind... Blind testing is best for showing up the "Fake Golden Ears" and the "Wine Conno-Posers"... If you're not prone to believing that more expensive must be better, then knowing the price tag is not going to have much (if any) impact on your decision...

These were top rated wine experts. Yes, in the opinion of the NYT. IMO, you VASTLY overrate the number of true expert tasters. I have been to many blind tastings where winemakers from top wineries failed to pick out their own wine (out of 6 or 8). I bet many engineers of audio equipment would similarly fail to pick out their own gear.

Ajani
01-13-2011, 08:47 PM
These were top rated wine experts. Yes, in the opinion of the NYT. IMO, you VASTLY overrate the number of true expert tasters. I have been to many blind tastings where winemakers from top wineries failed to pick out their own wine (out of 6 or 8). I bet many engineers of audio equipment would similarly fail to pick out their own gear.

Note: I never said there were a lot of real experts...

I have no doubt that a large number of wine experts and golden ear audiophiles are either posing or delusional...

So let me ask this question:

Do you think that someone posing as a wine expert or golden ear audiophile would more likely a) change their choice as a result of a blind test and admit that they can't tell the difference or b) blame the test conditions and not do anymore blind tests?

If you're willing to do regular blind testing as you do, then chances are high that you don't need them...

tube fan
01-13-2011, 09:29 PM
Note: I never said there were a lot of real experts...

I have no doubt that a large number of wine experts and golden ear audiophiles are either posing or delusional...

We agree that a large number of wine "experts" or audio "experts" are not really experts. However, I think true blind tests would reveal that the number of true experts would approach 0 as a limit.

You ARE correct, IMO, that I am not influenced much by price, brand, or format in my own ratings. For example, at the CAS, I was hugely impressed by the Audio Note room, despite the fact that they played only digital, and I always hate digital. However, the sound was like no digital I have ever heard. First, it had real tonal accuracy. Voices, male or female sounded like they were in the room. The high end was extended, but not harsh (a real shock). One CD of a 15 piece jazz group sounded almost exactly like what I heard dozens of times at SF's Pearls on Monday nites: great detail but warm when the playing required it. Plus the system loaded the room properly: by that I mean that the 15 piece band seemed to be in the room, rather than sound coming from speakers. No one in my area carries Audio Note equipment, so it's going to be difficult for me to audition their equipment.

Raj J
01-13-2011, 11:00 PM
We agree that a large number of wine "experts" or audio "experts" are not really experts. However, I think true blind tests would reveal that the number of true experts would approach 0 as a limit.

You ARE correct, IMO, that I am not influenced much by price, brand, or format in my own ratings. For example, at the CAS, I was hugely impressed by the Audio Note room, despite the fact that they played only digital, and I always hate digital. However, the sound was like no digital I have ever heard. First, it had real tonal accuracy. Voices, male or female sounded like they were in the room. The high end was extended, but not harsh (a real shock). One CD of a 15 piece jazz group sounded almost exactly like what I heard dozens of times at SF's Pearls on Monday nites: great detail but warm when the playing required it. Plus the system loaded the room properly: by that I mean that the 15 piece band seemed to be in the room, rather than sound coming from speakers. No one in my area carries Audio Note equipment, so it's going to be difficult for me to audition their equipment.

greetings from down under! speaking of under, we are experiencing some major floods in Queensland... hope they get out alright! rains seem to have subsided finally.

Now, why doesn't everyone just go back home and listen to your music eh?
blind folded or not... who cares! you all talk too much and listen less.
enjoy your music ANYWAY you like dudes!

by the way, tube fan -Audio note is an excellent product if partnered well. I have had some experience with an Audio note preamp partnered with some huge monoblocks from Melos - the sound was very tubey and seemed to have a level of listener fatigue. then the very same preamp was partnered with Carey monoblocks CAD-se series, and sounded much more relaxed and less annoying. (although overall the system was still annoying due to a pair of massive horn speakers from Avant garde, Trio's) the room was probably just right for an oversized guinea pig! yes, the room was small as a shoe box!

have you considered conrad johnson gear? if you want that true 3-D effect on a live scale give it a try. to me it is the absolute sound! you can listen for endless hours...
and you know what, now it's 6pm, and I am out the office heading to the gym. and then of course some outstanding music from 10pm to 4am, and still can't get enough!
cheers, & enjoy that music!
have a good one! RJ

Ajani
01-14-2011, 04:01 AM
You ARE correct, IMO, that I am not influenced much by price, brand, or format in my own ratings. For example, at the CAS, I was hugely impressed by the Audio Note room, despite the fact that they played only digital, and I always hate digital. However, the sound was like no digital I have ever heard. First, it had real tonal accuracy. Voices, male or female sounded like they were in the room. The high end was extended, but not harsh (a real shock). One CD of a 15 piece jazz group sounded almost exactly like what I heard dozens of times at SF's Pearls on Monday nites: great detail but warm when the playing required it. Plus the system loaded the room properly: by that I mean that the 15 piece band seemed to be in the room, rather than sound coming from speakers. No one in my area carries Audio Note equipment, so it's going to be difficult for me to audition their equipment.

Perhaps it's time you change that view, as you've now heard a digital system sound amazing...

E-Stat
01-14-2011, 10:00 AM
What if you listened to two products and clearly preferred the one with lower quality parts, power supply & topology? Would you still purchase the one with the better internals?
Never run into that situation, but I have compared two equivalently well built and priced amplifiers where one had decidedly "prettier" cosmetics - and I clearly preferred the sound of the other. Witness my VTL amps...

rw

E-Stat
01-14-2011, 10:05 AM
You're referring to THIS site which is one of the better vintage sites...
Yes. You'll note it is not limited to their vintage products. You'll find the latest REF40 line stage with its 2 lb each teflon coupling caps and a 40 lb power supply befitting a power amp . :)

rw

tube fan
01-14-2011, 10:52 PM
Never run into that situation, but I have compared two equivalently well built and priced amplifiers where one had decidedly "prettier" cosmetics - and I clearly preferred the sound of the other. Witness my VTL amps...

rw

I bet (a lot!) that you have NEVER actually, you know, actually rated components blind!!!

E-Stat
01-15-2011, 07:00 AM
I bet (a lot!) that you have NEVER actually, you know, actually rated components blind!!!
Sorry. You would lose that bet. The tests have been of the single blind category, however, since true double blind testing (where both the tester and the person giving the test don't know the answer) most often requires the addition of specious boxes which can affect the outcome in unpredictable ways. True science requires a known control - not unproven assumptions. I've asked my wife (a university professor accustomed to proctoring exams) to switch cables with me out of the room and such that she and I enter and leave the room from different doors to eliminate possible cueing. She recorded the results.

On the other hand, you might be interested in this (http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=26428&highlight=audiophile+test) post of mine from a couple of years ago. Here is a computer based DBT that eliminates the issues that arise from adding boxes. To a certain extent, it is as much a test of the equipment you use which was not stellar in my case. TAH was able to better my results. In any event, you might find it fun to play!

rw

hifitommy
01-15-2011, 12:49 PM
blind testing requires WILLING participants and proper implementation of the procedure. i think a good place for this activity would be at an audio-fest such as the rocky mtn or CES. professionals and novices alike are attending these events and there is a wealth of equipment to choose from.

one of the problems with dbt is an internal fear on the part of the participant of failure to be RIGHT. hand in hand with this is the experience with or especially the lack thereof of the actual sound of the instruments and what they should sound like in a given original recording environment.

one of my biggest repulsions to dbt is the group of people who insist that its the only valid way to pick components. sorry, but that just isnt so.

the actual cost of the gear has little to do with my choices unless the item is out of my willingness to pay the price. certain items like the nad 3020 would suffice as a lifelong component if need be. it want hard to pick the arc sp3a1 over every other preamp i have had in my system but i could go back to the 3020 and not be sorry if it became necessary. i would most assuredly pick the 3020 over the adcom gfp565 that the arc replaced.

mlsstl
01-15-2011, 02:16 PM
....one of the problems with dbt is an internal fear on the part of the participant of failure to be RIGHT.....

....one of my biggest repulsions to dbt is the group of people who insist that its the only valid way to pick components. sorry, but that just isnt so. .

Two comments.

First, the anxiety factor is a red herring. What about the group pressure of sighted listening? That's a very big (and well proven) bias potential, whether toward compliance or a contrarian position.

A dbt for the purposes of research need not embarrass anyone or make them anxious - participants don't have to be told they were right or wrong.

However the central point is that people are free to buy equipment any way they want and believe what they wish to believe. A person's daily listening after the purchase will certainly be sighted, and if subjective influences help that along, great! Many people do not find it necessary to divide every belief they have into the physical and psychological components.

I'm in the camp that thinks serious scientific research needs good controls for subjective factors. However, the purchase of a stereo component is not serious science research and never will be. It is a personal preference and bias is fully part of the process.

That said, the point of bias is that it is unique to each individual. If fat wire interconnects covered in woven red cloth influence one listener positively, just keep in mind it may have the opposite effect on someone else. That's why so many "big" differences often get very small (or even disappear) when a level of blindness is introduced. One party may lose a positive factor while another one loses a negative.

tube fan
01-15-2011, 10:42 PM
blind testing requires WILLING participants and proper implementation of the procedure. i think a good place for this activity would be at an audio-fest such as the rocky mtn or CES. professionals and novices alike are attending these events and there is a wealth of equipment to choose from.

one of the problems with dbt is an internal fear on the part of the participant of failure to be RIGHT. hand in hand with this is the experience with or especially the lack thereof of the actual sound of the instruments and what they should sound like in a given original recording environment.

one of my biggest repulsions to dbt is the group of people who insist that its the only valid way to pick components. sorry, but that just isnt so.

the actual cost of the gear has little to do with my choices unless the item is out of my willingness to pay the price. certain items like the nad 3020 would suffice as a lifelong component if need be. it want hard to pick the arc sp3a1 over every other preamp i have had in my system but i could go back to the 3020 and not be sorry if it became necessary. i would most assuredly pick the 3020 over the adcom gfp565 that the arc replaced.

You don't get it. The blind listeners CANNOT be wrong any more that blind tasters can be wrong. They each prefer one piece of audio equipment over another or one wine over another. Everyone is right!!! Would you tell someone who preferred an inexpensive wine over a Parker approved 95 point wine, tasted blind, that they were "wrong" to prefer the
cheaper wine? Would you tell someone who preferred MUCH less expensive audio gear that they were wrong not to select more expensive equipment?

Ajani
01-16-2011, 04:56 AM
You don't get it. The blind listeners CANNOT be wrong any more that blind tasters can be wrong. They each prefer one piece of audio equipment over another or one wine over another. Everyone is right!!! Would you tell someone who preferred an inexpensive wine over a Parker approved 95 point wine, tasted blind, that they were "wrong" to prefer the
cheaper wine? Would you tell someone who preferred MUCH less expensive audio gear that they were wrong not to select more expensive equipment?

Cannot be wrong??? Seriously???

So if I say I prefer the sound of an Emotiva CDP and AMP with Cervin Vega speakers over some raved about tube integrated and turntable with Magnepan 3.6 speakers, no audiophiles will claim that I am deaf or have no taste in music?

There is all manner of snobbery in this hobby... Just as there is in wine tasting or any other hobby where loads of money can be spent...

Some resent anything remotely affordable, while others resent anything expensive (which is part of why DBT has not caught on IMO, as it is often associated with persons who think there are no differences in amps or cables and that anyone who spends more than X amount is insane)...

tube fan
01-16-2011, 09:39 PM
Cannot be wrong??? Seriously???

So if I say I prefer the sound of an Emotiva CDP and AMP with Cervin Vega speakers over some raved about tube integrated and turntable with Magnepan 3.6 speakers, no audiophiles will claim that I am deaf or have no taste in music?

There is all manner of snobbery in this hobby... Just as there is in wine tasting or any other hobby where loads of money can be spent...

Some resent anything remotely affordable, while others resent anything expensive (which is part of why DBT has not caught on IMO, as it is often associated with persons who think there are no differences in amps or cables and that anyone who spends more than X amount is insane)...

Of course, you are leaving out just ONE thing: YOU WOULD NEVER prefer the cervin Vega system!!! DUH!!!

tube fan
01-16-2011, 09:43 PM
But, let's just say, that you actually DID prefer the Cervin Vega system, should you buy another system which you liked less?

JoeE SP9
01-16-2011, 11:36 PM
Gotta' agree with you Ajani. Most people who constantly push for DBT'ing are firmly in the "if it costs more than I think it should it's snake oil" camp. There are a lot of DBT proponents at AK. Almost without exception they are against anything high end, claiming that paying more than they think is appropriate is wasteful.

If you want to use DBT to decide what to buy or use, that's your business. If you don't, that's also your business. I wish DBT (objectivists) proponents would stop trying to make everyone follow their lead. What attracted me to the subjectivist camp is it's mantra; "Forget analyzing, listen and enjoy". That's what I try to do.

In my experience, most systems set up by strict objectivists almost always sound awful. The ones that don't sound awful just sound "blah".

mlsstl
01-17-2011, 05:15 AM
What attracted me to the subjectivist camp is it's mantra; "Forget analyzing, listen and enjoy".

If they only left it at that!

Unfortunately, one doesn't have to read too far in most audio magazines or web sites to find that many of the subjectivists are just as vociferous in considering their opinion a sacrosanct universality.

That is just as annoying as the objective type who thinks one or two measurements, taken in isolation, fully describes the sound of something.

If they could only recognize their opinion is no more than that, things would be less contentious. One of the basic points of subjectivity is that it tends to be specific to the individual - a characteristic that impresses one person may do nothing for another and be a negative for a third.

On a side note to Tube Fan, the Cerwin Vega CLS-215 got a very nice review in The Absolute Sound back in 2009. I've never heard them, but that's quite a coup for a $1K speaker.

Feanor
01-17-2011, 07:32 AM
.... What attracted me to the subjectivist camp is it's mantra; "Forget analyzing, listen and enjoy". That's what I try to do.
...
If they only left it at that!
...
Green chicklet for you, Misstl. :thumbsup:


...
Unfortunately, one doesn't have to read too far in most audio magazines or web sites to find that many of the subjectivists are just as vociferous in considering their opinion a sacrosanct universality.

That is just as annoying as the objective type who thinks one or two measurements, taken in isolation, fully describes the sound of something.

If they could only recognize their opinion is no more than that, things would be less contentious. One of the basic points of subjectivity is that it tends to be specific to the individual - a characteristic that impresses one person may do nothing for another and be a negative for a third.
....
I'm ultimately a subjectivist myself when it comes to equipment. I don't pay much heed to published performance specs (excepting, to an extent, power ratings). For me the greater issue is accurate vs. euphonic sound.

However -- not surprisingly, maybe -- the euphonic school tends to subjectivism. The rub is euphonic/subjectivist school are constantly telling us what is good sound and what we ought to like. However when you ask what they like, they either refuse describe the characteristics of their preference, (like Tube Fan), or they wax on-and-on about "organic", "holistic", or other such non-descriptive b/s.

E-Stat
01-17-2011, 07:39 AM
You don't get it. The blind listeners CANNOT be wrong any more that blind tasters can be wrong. They each prefer one piece of audio equipment over another or one wine over another.
There really are two separate aspects here: the ability to correctly identify any given component as compared with another and preference. In the former, there is only one correct answer. You can either successfully identify a given component blind or you cannot. Or, for the link I provided, you are able to correctly identify the intentionally distorted signal vs the original at a given level or you are not. As you indicate, however, there is no *correct* preference.

rw

JoeE SP9
01-17-2011, 02:48 PM
But, let's just say, that you actually DID prefer the Cervin Vega system, should you buy another system which you liked less?

No. IMO you should buy what you personally like. I too have heard very good things about the CV XLS series speakers.

tube fan
01-18-2011, 08:41 PM
Gotta' agree with you Ajani. Most people who constantly push for DBT'ing are firmly in the "if it costs more than I think it should it's snake oil" camp. There are a lot of DBT proponents at AK. Almost without exception they are against anything high end, claiming that paying more than they think is appropriate is wasteful.

If you want to use DBT to decide what to buy or use, that's your business. If you don't, that's also your business. I wish DBT (objectivists) proponents would stop trying to make everyone follow their lead. What attracted me to the subjectivist camp is it's mantra; "Forget analyzing, listen and enjoy". That's what I try to do.

In my experience, most systems set up by strict objectivists almost always sound awful. The ones that don't sound awful just sound "blah".

CLEARLY, this makes NO sense! In a DBT you don't know the cost of the equipment. Your evaluation is based solely on your listening evaluation. You may well prefer the more expensive equipment. Those who have a bias for or against expensive equipment must judge based solely on their blind listening.

JoeE SP9
01-19-2011, 12:01 PM
CLEARLY, this makes NO sense! In a DBT you don't know the cost of the equipment. Your evaluation is based solely on your listening evaluation. You may well prefer the more expensive equipment. Those who have a bias for or against expensive equipment must judge based solely on their blind listening.

With all due respect, listening to music is what this "passion" is about. DBT'ing is short term, rarely reveals any differences and is about testing. Subtle differences are usually masked because of the short time period involved, unfamiliar gear, strange acoustics and shortness of the musical selections. I've participated in several DBT tests in my 45 years of active involvement with stereo gear. None of them proved anything except, short term listening to unfamiliar gear in unfamiliar acoustics doesn't reveal much of a difference.

After listening to two amplifiers over a three month period, I was able to identify (under DBT conditions) which one was in the chain about 90% of the time. The test was conducted in my room with my gear and acoustics I'm familiar with. The longer time spent listening to each amp allowed me to become familiar with their individual characteristics. DBT'ing usually doesn't allow this. Consequently only "gross" differences are audible if there are any "gross" differences. The point here is that many differences are very subtle.

I don't give a rat's ass what a given piece of gear costs. Cosmetics are just as unimportant to me. As I posted earlier, if DBT works for you that's your business. I'm not interested in testing anything. Frankly, I don't understand why some have an urge to quantify everything. I'm going to listen to some music (Best Of Blue Note) and enjoy myself.

Enjoying yourself, not testing yourself is what this hobby is all about.

tube fan
01-19-2011, 07:32 PM
I have CONSISTENTLY advised to conduct LONG term blind listening tests. I recently compared the Fosgate Phono unit to my reference Counterpoint SA2, the AR PH3, and the Auditorum 23 trannie, over hundreds of hours. Each and every record that I rated blind favored the Fosgate. Yes, I bought the wonderful Fosgate phono unit. It only takes one other person to set up the blind test, and, after taking as long as you want, you KNOW which unit you prefer.