What would it take to change your view?

[LHC]

4 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

This thread is about changing ones own view. 

Please stay on topic 

 

Well, I have declared myself to be very open minded on many threads. That means I mostly sit on the fence, stays neutral and objective, and accepts all valid evidence without prejudice. So it doesn't take much at all to change my own views; it goes with the weight of the body of evidence that I am aware of at any moment of time. So I may lend towards one camp today, but lend towards the opposite camp the next day. I hope that answers your question.  

[LHC]

I am sure we all want to know what it will take to change @Newman world views! 

[Newman]

I already answered. You obviously don't want to know enough to read my posts.

[LHC]

2 minutes ago, Newman said:

I already answered. You obviously don't want to know enough to read my posts.

If you answered in this thread, I obviously overlooked it. 

[Newman]

4 hours ago, LHC said:

 

It is well documented that people, including audiophiles, can improve their perception proficiency through training. But what you mean by the word 'impossible' is ill-defined. If someone has dedicated their training to reach a point where they can hear differences that most people cannot, does that mean they can 'hear the impossible'? I am not so sure of that.

I think you are misrepresenting what these trials demonstrated. Four training sessions and people reach a plateau; there is no 'ongoing refinement' from 'dedicated self-training'. And the thing that plateaus is their efficiency not their effectiveness. Their preferences for product A over B don't change. 

 

Here is how Toole summarises it: "The good news for the audio industry is that if a loudspeaker is well designed, ordinary customers (i.e. untrained - my note) may recognise it -- if given a reasonable opportunity to judge. ....Fortunately, it turns out that in the right circumstances, most of us possess 'the gift': the ability to form useful opinions about sound and to express them in ways that have real meaning. All that is needed to liberate the skill is the opportunity to listen in an unbiased frame of mind." Not the opportunity to be trained in how to perceive.

 

In which quote he twice makes reference to DBT: "reasonable opportunity to judge", and "listen in an unbiased frame of mind". That's the important thing: DBT. That's the one thing he wants to make most clear, and not open to argument and dismissal based on an endless litany of debating points and false suppositions.

 

Off topic anyway, but simple errors worth fixing, especially that which you say is "well documented".

[Satanica]

7 hours ago, LHC said:

In this other post Scumbag mention a blind test where a particular individual managed to aced it, twice. A statistical rarity. Does that qualify as 'hearing the impossible'? 

 

 

Putting aside definition of impossible. Since this thread is about changing one's views. So let me ask what would it take to change your view about human's ability to hear things that you deemed impossible? 

You exaggerated, he didn't get a perfect score twice out of two so how could he have aced it?

 

Let's assume the 15 out of 16 twice is valid which I haven't read enough of it yet to accept. So even if this is valid, this is not hearing the impossible for him, but it might well be for the rest of the population, for all time. Let's also think about what if he just got lucky? Some people win the lottery don't they? 

 

Many people including numerous on this forum and/or on others have claimed to hear a difference between lossless and non compressed digital audio, FLAC versus WAV for example. What would it take to change your mind that this is false and/or anyone who believes it? 

Edited February 11, 2018 by Satanica

[doogie44]

I have found a context where I almost have changed my world view:

 

I loathe MP3 as the abomination it is, musically and technically and sonically, for a music lover. Prided myself on never listening to it. Deleted all MP3 files from my music hard drive and found FLAC improvements. Can't abide Apple music for this low-fi reason and bad sound too. Love hi-res files if I am going to listen to any digital.

 

BUT, these days I find myself entranced by the playlist of certain internet radio stations (OK, 'PsychoMed and its 4 music genre branches & 'Conzertender' in Amsterdam) which I listen to for hours...the bit rate is no higher than 320 bps!!

 

Either I am a naive, impressionable hypocrite, or they are doing something I like that ordinary MP3 doesn't do. I find it hard to comprehend. I keep listening regardless, just with larger amounts of single malt required.

 

First I accepted digital, then headphones (a late developer) and now I'm starting on low-res. What next?

[Rob181]

Just now, doogie44 said:

First I accepted digital, then headphones (a late developer) and now I'm starting on low-res. What next?

Bose....

[Satanica]

17 hours ago, doogie44 said:

...and now I'm starting on low-res.

Your own mind can deceive you.

You see the word "low" and it must = ****.

Sure some MP3 can sound "low"; current digital radio is an example at about 80-90kpbs bitrate.

320 kbps MP3 has nothing to do with "low" regarding quality; it can deliver "low" noise and "low" distortion at levels vinyl can only dream of.

 

[LHC]

On 2/11/2018 at 11:11 PM, Newman said:

I already answered. You obviously don't want to know enough to read my posts.

 

On 2/1/2018 at 4:21 PM, Newman said:

 

I wouldn't say that this 'made me' change my views, but allowed me to. Like you (seemingly) found, it is humbling. Ego has to step aside, not easy.

 

 

In your own words, you didn't actually answered the question what will it take to make you change your views. You've only described historically how your views evolved over time. I think the OP question asked what needs to happen to made you change your currently held views. 

 

EDIT: I think I can make a guess based on what you wrote, but it is safer to hear from you.

Edited February 13, 2018 by LHC

[doogie44]

Yes, my mind does deceive me often. I know it.

 

Fortunately listening to music occurs in a way that my thinking mind doesn't have to engage much. That's why I have been so surprised (cognitively) that I liked some of the musical results of some 'inferior' formats or amplifier technical issues more than I would have predicted.

 

By analogy, I'm also looking forward to having virtual sex for the same reasons, if I live long enough...

[LHC]

On 2/11/2018 at 10:36 PM, Eggcup The Daft said:

Bringing this back to the original topic of the forum, the key thing here that would change my mind would be evidence showing that we can trust a high percentage of sighted tests including those where sonic differences are very small, where you would expect inaudibility. That would open the floodgates to a lot more sighted test results being available as genuine.

I think you are conflating two things together (very small sonic differences and sighted tests). It may be easier (or give it the best chance) to gather the evidence you speak of if you tackle them separately.

 

On 2/11/2018 at 10:36 PM, Eggcup The Daft said:

Otherwise, clear evidence would change my mind on specific things. I'm actually open to the idea of cable burn in, I just don't see how you prove it without measurements or a repeatable statistical DBT series.

Ok, so that is your answer to the OP question. 

[Guest Eggcup The Daft]

11 minutes ago, LHC said:

I think you are conflating two things together (very small sonic differences and sighted tests). It may be easier (or give it the best chance) to gather the evidence you speak of if you tackle them separately.

They are related in terms of changing my mind. The larger the expected difference, the easier it is to trust someone hearing it!

[LHC]

On 2/12/2018 at 2:05 AM, Satanica said:

Many people including numerous on this forum and/or on others have claimed to hear a difference between lossless and non compressed digital audio, FLAC versus WAV for example. What would it take to change your mind that this is false and/or anyone who believes it? 

 

Ok, let say that someone came forth and claim they can hear differences between FLAC from WAV. I imagine it would be pretty straightforward to set/code this up as an ABX style DBT on a software. Let him/her chose the test equipment, music, source, amp, headphones or speakers, and listening duration. Perform and repeat the DBT over a number of days (to avoid testing them on their bad day), and look at the statistical result. If the result data scatter around the (expected) 50% mark (i.e. random guessing), then clearly he/she can't reliably hear any differences. I would be happy to change my opinion of them if this turns out to be the case.

 

The harder question is what would it take for me to accept no one can hear a difference between FLAC and WAV. If we can repeat the test above for many claimants, then I would be happy to take that as solid evidence. 

[Satanica]

16 hours ago, LHC said:

The harder question is what would it take for me to accept no one can hear a difference between FLAC and WAV. If we can repeat the test above for many claimants, then I would be happy to take that as solid evidence. 

I agree that's it's harder but IMO just about totally irrelevant.

Concentrate the vast majority of your mental energy on what can be proven to be audible, not what can't be proven to be not audible.

If you think about it this simplifies everything and gives a freaky "golden ears" person a chance at proving their claims.

If you statistically take their voice to be heard and their chance to prove themselves away then you're being the thought police.

BTW the intelligence in this specific instance (FLAC vs WAV) says there is zero knowledge that a hypothesis should even exist.

But I'd be prepared to read or be part of testing individuals who claim a difference.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Satanica

[MLXXX]

19 hours ago, LHC said:

Ok, let say that someone came forth and claim they can hear differences between FLAC from WAV. I imagine it would be pretty straightforward to set/code this up as an ABX style DBT on a software. Let him/her chose the test equipment, music, source, amp, headphones or speakers, and listening duration

Whilst it can be shown that a FLAC file encoded with appropriate parameters* from a PCM original can be converted back to a file that is bit for bit identical with the PCM original, that doesn't mean that any player will successfully do an on-the-fly conversion from FLAC to PCM and then process the result in exactly the same manner as if it were reading and playing the original PCM file.  So the actual player could -- well theoretically -- make a difference.

 

If people are truly hearing differences, this aspect could bear scrutiny.

 

Edit: Using the standard ABX player foobar2000 would I think obviate the issue of different playback performance; but it could be said to represent a departure from the playback conditions under which the claimant would likely have developed their view that lossless FLAC sounds different to linear PCM.

 

 

* When converting from PCM to FLAC there can be the option to change the sample rate and/or the bit depth. Such a FLAC version would be inappropriate to use in the type of test under discussion.

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by MLXXX

[sir sanders zingmore]

In the context of this thread I would ask the following:

 

for those of you who are sure there is an audible difference between file formats, what would it take for you to change your own view ?

[rocky500]

20 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

In the context of this thread I would ask the following:

 

for those of you who are sure there is an audible difference between file formats, what would it take for you to change your own view ?

Not needed for file formats. I just would always play the better ones if there is an option, just in case there is a slight difference. I think I have heard it sometimes and that is good enough for me. (No matter how loud people pound on the Internet there is not:-)

Same with cables, if I can afford it (and I buy not extreme priced ones, eg. $100 one here and there), why not then go with the "supposedly" better ones in the possibility that it could be slightly better. There is enough on net from others that it can be beneficial for some.

Now if your talking $1000's of dollars difference, then I might pay more attention but it is a hobby after all and my thinking is all the small things might add up in the end to my enjoyment. It appears that way for me, so why not. Definitely don't want to spend the monotonous hours ever again testing stuff to the enth degree.

Though, I do listen to Internet Radio at 320kps the majority of my listening.

Edited February 14, 2018 by rocky500

[sir sanders zingmore]

10 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

Not needed for file formats. I just would always play the better ones if there is an option, just in case there is a slight difference. I think I have heard it sometimes and that is good enough for me. (No matter how loud people pound on the Internet there is not:-)

Same with cables, if I can afford it (and I buy not extreme priced ones, eg. $100 one here and there), why not then go with the "supposedly" better ones in the possibility that it could be slightly better. There is enough on net from others that it can be beneficial for some.

Now if your talking $1000's of dollars difference, then I might pay more attention but it is a hobby after all and my thinking is all the small things might add up in the end to my enjoyment. It appears that way for me, so why not. Definitely don't want to spend the monotonous hours ever again testing stuff to the enth degree.

Though, I do listen to Internet Radio at 320kps the majority of my listening.

I guess my question wasn't aimed at you then ...

[Newman]

 
In your own words, you didn't actually answered the question what will it take to make you change your views. You've only described historically how your views evolved over time. I think the OP question asked what needs to happen to made you change your currently held views. 

Pedantry knows no bounds in the hands of the true disciple.

[Ittaku]

Slightly different, but regarding the OP's question: I'm very cynical and where there is no possible mechanism for sound to improve by any known means of science, I refuse to even listen to see if there's an audible difference. For me to change my view I'd have to have heard that some scientific method has been discovered to explain how some kind of system change would lead to a difference, and then I'd listen but very sceptically. I guess that means I'm not really changing my view. I know this isn't quite what the OP asked, but it does show a lack of open-mindedness that others value. Note how I've carefully avoided saying what it is I don't believe in either; I loathe the idea of getting into one of the infinite internet debates on this which some people seem to make a living out of...

[Newman]

Open-mindedness and gullibility don't have to go together, Con. I think you are saying that you are open-minded, but not gullible. That's great.

 

Some people in home audio are quite weird in this regard: they seem to be open-minded in ways that makes them gullible, and closed-minded about accepting solid scientific evidence that threatens the beliefs they picked up through their gullibility.

[Satanica]

2 hours ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

In the context of this thread I would ask the following:

 

for those of you who are sure there is an audible difference between file formats, what would it take for you to change your own view ?

I'll just add that the file formats should be noted. E.g. I personally believe I can quite easily distinguish up to 128kbps MP3 and FLAC.

[LHC]

6 hours ago, Satanica said:

 

BTW the intelligence in this specific instance (FLAC vs WAV) says there is zero knowledge that a hypothesis should even exist.

But I'd be prepared to read or be part of testing individuals who claim a difference.

 

Thank you. No one can ask more of you. 

[LHC]

4 hours ago, Ittaku said:

Slightly different, but regarding the OP's question: I'm very cynical and where there is no possible mechanism for sound to improve by any known means of science, I refuse to even listen to see if there's an audible difference. For me to change my view I'd have to have heard that some scientific method has been discovered to explain how some kind of system change would lead to a difference, and then I'd listen but very sceptically. 

 

I respect your approach and your honesty in stating it.

 

There is nothing wrong with using science as the basis for informing one's view. However there are some posters here who claim they follow the way of science, but they don't actually understand how science works. So they use 'science' as a pedestal in order to mock, degrade, and attack other's views as anti-science. But when their posts are challenged and the many problems with their opinions are exposed, then they complain people are being argumentative. You are right, internet debate forum can get very ugly.

 

With regards to the OP question about changing mind and your approach, I will say this. While a lot is known about audio science, there are still more to learn, discover and understand. Science (in contrast to Technology), by its nature, is a slow process. So the scientific explanations that could change your mind may take a long time to emerge, if ever. I hope you appreciate that fact.