Guest Muon Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 I reckon I'd make a really good kindergarten teacher.Given the state of our youth, I thought you were
proftournesol Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 MODERATORS COMMENT We all know where these threads usually lead. This thread is an opportunity to do it differently. If it ends up descending into intolerance & rancour the thread will be closed and people suspended.
GFuNK Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) Wow, I left because I had better things to do on valentines night ... People talk against entrenched positions and then express one. The OPr and a few others are clearly only interested in an argument. I'm an engineer and I believe in scientific rigor. I believe in rewarding good engineering design in the context of the better sounding products. It saddens me that the hi-fi world is riddled with examples of snake oil and people willing to market them. If your interested in getting the best bang for your buck or any bang for that matter and rewarding good engineering then "objective listening" is the best way of doing it. If not, then so be it. I dare say, if "audiophiles" were more objective, you would see less snake oil... If you truly want to learn about how you can be more objective I'm willing to discuss, but don't come back with illogical rants on why you think "objective listening" is flawed. If you understand the concepts properly and disagree with logical arguments then I'm willing to discuss... Edited February 14, 2012 by GFuNK
Guest Muon Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 So what is this Snake Oil you speak of? Does it include anything that can't be measured?
Dr X Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 No need to get upset. You're right, that's why I didn't, really believe me. BTW I use capitals for certain words to oibviously put an emphasis on them. I'm not yelling and really should be "bolding" them instead, but I'm too lazy. Cheers.
GFuNK Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 So what is this Snake Oil you speak of?Does it include anything that can't be measured? Like people selling ridiculously expensive speaker spikes and claiming they isolate and improve bass. It might tighten the bass up if they were improperly mounted to start with, but they do not isolate, and yes it can be measured. If you can't hear the difference in an ABX test then there is no need for measurements. Although, as an engineer, I like graphs .
cheekyboy Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) To me, hi-fi is an enjoyable hobby. To go to the lengths that Drizt described and to which you seem to also embrace, would turn a hobby into an obsession. I simply don't want to go down that path. There are too many other enjoyable aspects of life outside of hi-fi that are simply more important to me. Hi Wal, I fully agree with this sentiment and believe that this hobby is for listening to and enjoying the music, but I do also believe that it is certainly possible for it to become an obsession and that is clearly evident when reading some of the posts here and also in the closely aligned 'hi res v vinyl' thread, that was ultimately turned down this path. Of course I know and respect the OP's question and that he has a genuine desire for it to be explained and I guess that desire comes from the frustration with the suggestion that a preference must have an objective or controlled proof for it to be legitimate, which demonstrably is simply not the case. I learnt many years ago that you can waste a lot of time and not get a lot from this hobby, when you start to listen to the equipment more than the music. I was certainly guilty of this for a long time and I did spend an inordinate amount of time changing equipment in and out and blind testing long before I owned a PC, let alone reading about it in some audio forum. That is why I'm with Wal on this and even though I still love to fiddle and build things related to this hobby, it is the music that comes first and I'll trust my own ear when it comes to evaluating how it sounds and what I prefer. Cheers, Keith Edited February 14, 2012 by cheekyboy
Paul Spencer Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 Turntable, I think you know what it is ... but here is my take on it. A proper listening test should have the following ingredients: 1. No knowledge of which item is being heard out of two options 2. Level matched - because a difference in level alone can skew the result 3. Instant switching without a break, from one to the other 4. No other spurious differences that might skew the result Why do all that? Because in such a test we are trying to isolate the sonic differences without anything that might mislead our conclusion. We aren't so much looking for an emotional connection in a controlled test. Instead we want to find out first if we can actually hear a difference. Then if we determine we can, then what is that difference? I don't do this kind of thing all the time, it's a fair effort and it's a rare thing I might do hoping for confirmation. I did experience one demo at Bathurst that was a real eye opener. Previously I organised a comparison of active crossovers. In these tests you are trying to eliminate things like emotion. Obviously you don't do these tests for fun! In the active crossover listening tests, the differences were so close to inaudible we didn't feel it necessary to spend much more time on it. My conclusion was that they are all close enough in sound quality, the real differences are in how they are used. The Bathurst demo indicated that DEQX which was in the previous test, can sound far far better if allowed to use the extra features it has that the others don't. The tests were very revealing in this regard and the differences that were heard would have been obscured by normal subjective uncontrolled listening. Why? Because a simple thing like a time gap between A and B obscures differences, makes them harder to pick. The instant switch shows you that suddenly the sound stage has become bigger. With a delay in between you might miss it, or not be quite so sure. It's been shown that people are influenced by what they see. People will prefer different speakers when they can see them, as shown here: http://seanolive.blogspot.com.au/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html Music should never be about objective or controlled listening. it should be about opinions, emotions, impressions and subjective choices. Who are you expecting to disagree with that? Obviously no one is going to think otherwise. However, this topic isn't about music, but about controlled listening when you want to find out the truth about how A and B sound. For those who don't want to be seduced by factors such as aesthetics, brand and marketing, but simply want to hear what actually sound better without considering anything else. Surely that is not hard to understand. Now I don't push people to do it. I do controlled listening so rarely myself. It's tedious and I feel that the need for it is rare. I don't think the average audio enthusiast really does need to do any controlled listening. It is the kind of thing for professionals or enthusiast nerds (like Drizt ) and those who take their hobby too seriously. However, to deny that controlled listening tests aren't useful for anything, that does suggest either ignorance or a stubborn unwillingness to admit that people like Drizt do actually have a few good points. How can one listen objectively? At first it might appear a rhetorical question with the obvious answer "you can't!" But actually you can listen objectively. When instantly switching from A to B, can you identify whether the tonal balance changes? What happens to the noise floor? Does the level change? Is the perceived location of instruments any different? Does the apparent source size of different sounds change? Those things are not without the subjective element, but they are certainly more objective than to simply listen for "emotional engagement," which is just too vague. When I'm working on my system, I work on more specific things like those aspects. I'll aim to get the bass tight, paying attention to objective measurements. After I've done that, and eliminated specific problems like modal ringing, or frequency response issues, I have a result where I can relax. Emotional engagement happens then, but it's not a very good guide along the way, and certainly not the thing to look for in a blind test. However, if you really wanted to compare two amps in your system, I suppose you could sit back at home in an extended blind test and see how you feel about emotional engagement. Trouble is, I think we like to know what we are hearing. We don't want to get warm fuzzies from that cheap cold solid state amp! No one should be prodded to do controlled listening. It's a pain in the butt. It's turning a hobby into hard work! It's called taking your hobby too seriously. (I'm guilty of that charge). Likewise, no one should commit the intellectual faux pas of denying the very valid and strong argument in favour of controlled listening as the most reliable way of establishing real sonic differences between A and B. But I have no illusions about anyone stopping either of those two after reading this. Enthusiasts can't help themselves.
Guest Muon Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Like people selling ridiculously expensive speaker spikes and claiming they isolate and improve bass. It might tighten the bass up if they were improperly mounted to start with, but they do not isolate, and yes it can be measured.If you can't hear the difference in an ABX test then there is no need for measurements. Although, as an engineer, I like graphs . Cheers mate.You had me worried you were going to be one of those crazy "all caps are the same" or "all amps sound the same" kind of guys.
Young Skywalker Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 These discussions are meaningless unless each person declares their own biases and objectives when assembling a "system" for the playback of recorded music. 1. Are you someone who values fidelity to the master tape? This means that you seek out the very best recordings and the most neutral equipment to showcase them. 2. Are you someone who values fidelity to the "live" experience? This means that you have a preconceived, but by no means universally accepted, idea regarding what elements of a live music performance are most important in eliciting a positive emotional response and you seek to build a "system" which emphasises these elements on all recordings, even if it is at the expense of other elements? 3. Are you someone who wishes to make every single recording sound as "nice" as possible, even if this means sacrificing certain elements? 4. Maybe you are a combination of some or all of the above?
GFuNK Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 I am confused ... I was not discussing how to describe preferences to others...
brumby Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 My listening is anything but controlled, but it is certainly objective. If I like the music, it's good. If not, not.
Paul Spencer Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 YS, whilst I think those are interesting enough distinctions, I don't see why they need to be made in order for the discussion to have any meaning. Two people could be in any of those camps and still figure out in a blind test that speaker B has sharper imaging, amp A and B sound the same and DAC A has a higher noise floor while DAC B has a thin tonal balance. Get people to listen for specific things in a controlled test and the camp in which you sit matters much less. Developing an ear for something is as simple as listening for something specific.
perthpete Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Best post in the thread!! Turntable, I think you know what it is ... but here is my take on it. A proper listening test should have the following ingredients: 1. No knowledge of which item is being heard out of two options 2. Level matched - because a difference in level alone can skew the result 3. Instant switching without a break, from one to the other 4. No other spurious differences that might skew the result Why do all that? Because in such a test we are trying to isolate the sonic differences without anything that might mislead our conclusion. We aren't so much looking for an emotional connection in a controlled test. Instead we want to find out first if we can actually hear a difference. Then if we determine we can, then what is that difference? I don't do this kind of thing all the time, it's a fair effort and it's a rare thing I might do hoping for confirmation. I did experience one demo at Bathurst that was a real eye opener. Previously I organised a comparison of active crossovers. In these tests you are trying to eliminate things like emotion. Obviously you don't do these tests for fun! In the active crossover listening tests, the differences were so close to inaudible we didn't feel it necessary to spend much more time on it. My conclusion was that they are all close enough in sound quality, the real differences are in how they are used. The Bathurst demo indicated that DEQX which was in the previous test, can sound far far better if allowed to use the extra features it has that the others don't. The tests were very revealing in this regard and the differences that were heard would have been obscured by normal subjective uncontrolled listening. Why? Because a simple thing like a time gap between A and B obscures differences, makes them harder to pick. The instant switch shows you that suddenly the sound stage has become bigger. With a delay in between you might miss it, or not be quite so sure. It's been shown that people are influenced by what they see. People will prefer different speakers when they can see them, as shown here: http://seanolive.blogspot.com.au/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html Who are you expecting to disagree with that? Obviously no one is going to think otherwise. However, this topic isn't about music, but about controlled listening when you want to find out the truth about how A and B sound. For those who don't want to be seduced by factors such as aesthetics, brand and marketing, but simply want to hear what actually sound better without considering anything else. Surely that is not hard to understand. Now I don't push people to do it. I do controlled listening so rarely myself. It's tedious and I feel that the need for it is rare. I don't think the average audio enthusiast really does need to do any controlled listening. It is the kind of thing for professionals or enthusiast nerds (like Drizt ) and those who take their hobby too seriously. However, to deny that controlled listening tests aren't useful for anything, that does suggest either ignorance or a stubborn unwillingness to admit that people like Drizt do actually have a few good points. How can one listen objectively? At first it might appear a rhetorical question with the obvious answer "you can't!" But actually you can listen objectively. When instantly switching from A to B, can you identify whether the tonal balance changes? What happens to the noise floor? Does the level change? Is the perceived location of instruments any different? Does the apparent source size of different sounds change? Those things are not without the subjective element, but they are certainly more objective than to simply listen for "emotional engagement," which is just too vague. When I'm working on my system, I work on more specific things like those aspects. I'll aim to get the bass tight, paying attention to objective measurements. After I've done that, and eliminated specific problems like modal ringing, or frequency response issues, I have a result where I can relax. Emotional engagement happens then, but it's not a very good guide along the way, and certainly not the thing to look for in a blind test. However, if you really wanted to compare two amps in your system, I suppose you could sit back at home in an extended blind test and see how you feel about emotional engagement. Trouble is, I think we like to know what we are hearing. We don't want to get warm fuzzies from that cheap cold solid state amp! No one should be prodded to do controlled listening. It's a pain in the butt. It's turning a hobby into hard work! It's called taking your hobby too seriously. (I'm guilty of that charge). Likewise, no one should commit the intellectual faux pas of denying the very valid and strong argument in favour of controlled listening as the most reliable way of establishing real sonic differences between A and B. But I have no illusions about anyone stopping either of those two after reading this. Enthusiasts can't help themselves.
rantan Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Controlled listening is where you get to press the buttons, decide on the music and have the music at your desired volume level. Also, you get to keep the remote next to you in your favourite chair.
betty boop Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 I keep reading about objective or controlled listening is more accurate than subjective listening when comparing sound quality or whether it sounds like a master tape. Can someone explain to me exactly what controlled listening is? Listening by definition is a human emotion and such is subjective and potentially different to each listener. yep spot on no matter what you do people will be using their senses and trying to make a very subjective evaluation. this is no matter how rigorous the testing is or whether sighted or the supposed "blind" or full ABX DBT. music and listening is all about the listener, you simply cannot divorce the listener in any evaluations. anyone thinking so is either very naive or foolish. if anyone is involved with any rigid testing involving human senses they would know they infact embrace the subject instead. understanding how important a factor that is and give the subject training and understanding to make a subjective and informed conclusions. and it will always remain person dependant the result. no matter how rigorous or controlled you make it.
proftournesol Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Paul that's an interesting study by Sean Olive. He doesn't go into the test methodology in great detail but to be truly blind the subjects should have been unaware that they were evaluating speakers. Nevertheless I'm sure the findings are still valid otherwise marketing would be totally ineffective, and my Avantgarde Solos would have sold on their first day in the FS section:) Controlled listening certainly has it's place but if we use an analogy of car purchase for a minute: suppose that you could blindly test all the cars that were on your evaluation list (it reminds me of that Ray Charles Peugeot ad), who would buy the one with the best test results if were also the ugliest car? Almost nobody...
Paul Spencer Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Michael, there are two basic questions that need to be separated, yet somehow they often get mixed together in this kind of discussion: 1. Is controlled testing the most reliable way to determine sonic differences in isolation of all other factors? I would say an emphatic YES! I don't see a comparable alternative that will reach the same goal. 2. Is controlled testing the best way to make audio choices? Again an emphatic answer - NO! The thing that makes it effective for its intended purpose makes it ineffective as the sole basis for purchase decisions. When you buy, there are many other factors involved. Sound quality is just one of them, but aesthetics, warranty and perceived reliability, brand recognition and pride of purchase, features among other things are an important part of the choice. So this brings up the question 'how useful is controlled testing in the larger context of making a purchase decision?' That is up to the individual to decide.
perthpete Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Once one is up to a choice of (maybe) 2 and not able to really decide, then it could be time to do some objective testing... To help on your final choice. WHAT specific elements one chooses to be tested is up to the decider obviously.. (But all this is probably already said in the thread ...)
Dustin Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 yep spot on no matter what you do people will be using their senses and trying to make a very subjective evaluation. Agreed, and this is indeed the intention. this is no matter how rigorous the testing is or whether sighted or the supposed "blind" or full ABX DBT.music and listening is all about the listener, you simply cannot divorce the listener in any evaluations. anyone thinking so is either very naive or foolish. No. Failure to understand the difference in those testing methods is what you missed. This has been covered before, but Google "confirmation bias" Perhaps we could kill two birds with one stone here. Instead of wringing our hands over mentioning that unmentionable acronym, I suggest possibly the "Pepsi Challenge"?
betty boop Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Agreed, and this is indeed the intention.No. Failure to understand the difference in those testing methods is what you missed. This has been covered before, but Google "confirmation bias" Perhaps we could kill two birds with one stone here. Instead of wringing our hands over mentioning that unmentionable acronym, I suggest possibly the "Pepsi Challenge"? hehe been involved in too many ABX DBTs that are statistically sound and involving beverages to make a the "pepsi challenge" look like a joke. if your believing some lack of understanding in this regard from my part, thats a failure on your part. not something I can do anything about
betty boop Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Controlled listening is where you get to press the buttons, decide on the music and have the music at your desired volume level. Also, you get to keep the remote next to you in your favourite chair. hehe like it !
proftournesol Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Michael, there are two basic questions that need to be separated, yet somehow they often get mixed together in this kind of discussion:1. Is controlled testing the most reliable way to determine sonic differences in isolation of all other factors? I would say an emphatic YES! I don't see a comparable alternative that will reach the same goal. 2. Is controlled testing the best way to make audio choices? Again an emphatic answer - NO! The thing that makes it effective for its intended purpose makes it ineffective as the sole basis for purchase decisions. When you buy, there are many other factors involved. Sound quality is just one of them, but aesthetics, warranty and perceived reliability, brand recognition and pride of purchase, features among other things are an important part of the choice. So this brings up the question 'how useful is controlled testing in the larger context of making a purchase decision?' That is up to the individual to decide. I completely agree Paul:) If you are a DIYer and make all your own gear then the complete control of aesthetics is yours alone, in that case you may find 'controlled listening' a useful way to evaluate changes although I suppose you'd have to make 2 of everything in order to do it properly. If like most of us, you are buying commercial products then it may be impossible to set up an evaluation like this, and there are other factors to consider anyway.
Paul Spencer Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 As I mentioned earlier, I set up a test of active crossovers. It was prompted by a quick informal one where a group couldn't hear a difference when the MiniDSP DAC was switched in and out of the chain as an extra conversion. I was curious to see if MiniDSP or DCX as budget choices were inferior to the much more expensive DEQX. $100/$400 vs about $5k. Given that the active crossover is at the system foundation for someone like myself, it was very important! In other choices, like amps, preamps etc I'm probably going to do it like everyone else - either have a listen (uncontrolled) or take a punt. At some stage I may set up a controlled test and run it as an event. Probably a long time until I get around to that one. The tricky part is working out how to do instant switching. One thing that would be interesting to test is amplifier topology. Trevor (ZB) has often said that amplifier topology is the main determinant of sound. Sounds credible enough. So it could be tested (in part) with a valve and solid state amp sharing the same topology. Do they sound the same? Then at the very least another amp, either valve or solid state, that has a different topology. So with that kind of outcome in mind, can people see the logic to using a controlled test? What you don't want is "confirmation bias" going on where people are listening for "valve sound" when they know they are hearing a valve amp. Take that away, by not knowing what you are hearing, and while a bit unsettling and unusual, you then hear in a more honest way. It's quite foreign to us because a certain knowlege about what we are hearing influences us more than we are aware of most of the time. The brain is very good at gathering evidence to back up a belief and reinforce it. Our brain works hard to confirm what we already believe. It takes an artificial test to really get to the truth, if you want to find it.
CraigC Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) My take is that listening cannot be objective as processing occurrs in the brain which will introduce a bias. I'm not sure even how linear our hearing is, but it would be safe to say that everyone's will be different. Only instruments taking measurements have the potential to be objective if used within their designed ranges. I too was tranined in electronics so can related to the numbers, but really we only have a few parameters that are measured which set a basic standard, after that no measurements really explain how something sounds and why things sound different. Having said that when evaluating components some basic measurements are useful, but it all boils down to listening. Afterall who buys something they don't like the sound of because it measures well? Edited February 16, 2012 by LockedoutofCraigC
Recommended Posts