Source units affect sound?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
news:csblq20hed@news2.newsguy.com...
> On 15 Jan 2005 16:46:05 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >My basic problem is I believe the blind testing itself knocks out many
> >significant "ways" of hearing beyond just sight, and none of the
arguments
> >here have convinced me otherwise. Until the testing is verified not to
> >interfere with open-ended evaluation of differences, and until the
> >"disappearing" is investigated in more depth than it has been, I and
others
> >will continue to trust our basic instincts.
>
> Several years ago I conducted a test which the participants believed
> to be sighted. They all heard the differences quite distinctly every
> time, and had no problem at all identifying the two components under
> test.
>
> The only problem was that the cables I was changing were not in fact
> the ones carrying the signal. The real cables remained unchanged
> throughout the test.
>
> So without the pressure of blind testing, the participants were all
> relaxed enough to hear the differences easily. Shame really that there
> were no differences to hear.
>

Yep...the first conclusion you can draw from this is that people don't
expect to be lied to.

The second is that people can easily imagine differences where none exist
*IF* they have a reason to believe such differences should exist.

None of this proves that people can't hear real differences sighted.

Nor does it prove that blinding does not remove some real differences that
are perceived under different listening conditions.

> This is why blind testing really works, and why the results it gives
> can be trusted.

Yep, seems logical on the face. But not proven via controlled testing,
especially as regards to something as slippery as open ended evaluation of
audio components.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"I guess there is no use in arguing with you...you have your mind made up.
But the size/capacity/stability of the power supply has a direct bearing,
IME, on how well the unit presents the lower midrange and upper bass. It
is
one of the distinguishing characteristics between true high end sound and"

And how will you support this assertion? More likely is the rule of ps
enough such that any increase in capacity makes no difference. Either
electrical measurements and/or blind listening test will be support enough
for your assertion. I know, I know, it is a well worn sentimen in audiio
marketing/publishing about the ps and how it makes a difference, show us
in ways external to those claims that can be verified by others not so
self convinced. The third party confirmation is how one gets around the
you have a mind about this and I have a mind and we will not change it by
continued assertion.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry Lavo <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
> <OneActor1@aol.com> wrote in message news:csbe7v031ev@news3.newsguy.com...
>> <<I guess there is no use in arguing with you...you have your mind made
>> up.
>> But the size/capacity/stability of the power supply has a direct
>> bearing,
>> IME, on how well the unit presents the lower midrange and upper bass.
>> It is
>> one of the distinguishing characteristics between true high end sound
>> and
>> mid-fi.>>
>>
>> It's not me you're arguing with as much as it is the blind testing I've
>> been involved in. People are very "mental" about what they hear, or
>> what they *think* they hear. When you know you're comparing a $5,000 CD
>> player to a $125 player, and you're watching a sales person switch
>> between the two, it's very easy to "hear" a difference. When you're
>> forced to sit away from the players and can no longer see which one is
>> being played, your ability to "hear" those differences simply goes
>> away. I have very sensitive hearing, and enjoy high-end gear, I'm also
>> very picky about my sound. And if I could find any solid evidence that
>> a $5,000 player truly was better than a $125 player, I'd pay the $5k.
>> But the difference simply isn;t there OR it's not a difference that
>> your ears can pick up. You're partially fighting medical-science here,
>> there are simply things that the human ear CANNOT detect. If my dogs
>> ever learn to speak, I'll ask them if THEY heard a difference. =)

> My basic problem is I believe the blind testing itself knocks out many
> significant "ways" of hearing beyond just sight, and none of the arguments
> here have convinced me otherwise. Until the testing is verified not to
> interfere with open-ended evaluation of differences, and until the
> "disappearing" is investigated in more depth than it has been, I and others
> will continue to trust our basic instincts.

Harry, have you studied what the partial loudness model is made of yet?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<<My basic problem is I believe the blind testing itself knocks out
many
significant "ways" of hearing beyond just sight>>

I don't understand what it is you're saying.Your ears and your eyes
don't need to both be "on" to work, and blind testing is the most
reliable way to find out wether or not we actually HEAR any differences
between players.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>>> On 14 Jan 2005 00:31:28 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you cannot give an example of a $5k player that sounds "as good" as
>>>> a
>>>> $500 one, then it would be good to just say so.

There's been much talk here about the differences between $5k and $500 CD
players. I'd be interested in hearing from those who think there isn't much
audible difference. How low can one go with the low priced unit before
you're not willing to make the same statement?

I own CD players that cost me $9, $10, $25, $30 & $150. The $10 player (a
portable) had many grave design defects; I consider it a failure. But the
other ones sound identical--identical to each other, and identical to a Rega
Planet to which they were compared. Not just to me, but also to other
people with excellent hearing who were strongly motivated to detect a
difference.

Norm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:cse4us01660@news3.newsguy.com...
> "Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
> news:csblq20hed@news2.newsguy.com...
>> On 15 Jan 2005 16:46:05 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >My basic problem is I believe the blind testing itself knocks out many
>> >significant "ways" of hearing beyond just sight, and none of the
> arguments
>> >here have convinced me otherwise. Until the testing is verified not to
>> >interfere with open-ended evaluation of differences, and until the
>> >"disappearing" is investigated in more depth than it has been, I and
> others
>> >will continue to trust our basic instincts.
>>
>> Several years ago I conducted a test which the participants believed
>> to be sighted. They all heard the differences quite distinctly every
>> time, and had no problem at all identifying the two components under
>> test.
>>
>> The only problem was that the cables I was changing were not in fact
>> the ones carrying the signal. The real cables remained unchanged
>> throughout the test.
>>
>> So without the pressure of blind testing, the participants were all
>> relaxed enough to hear the differences easily. Shame really that there
>> were no differences to hear.
>>
>
> Yep...the first conclusion you can draw from this is that people don't
> expect to be lied to.
>
> The second is that people can easily imagine differences where none exist
> *IF* they have a reason to believe such differences should exist.
>
> None of this proves that people can't hear real differences sighted.
>
> Nor does it prove that blinding does not remove some real differences that
> are perceived under different listening conditions.

And what this response proves is that believers will find fault with any
test that really IS a test.
It seems to lead to the following equations:

Blind or unknown = stress
stress = no audible difference.

Why either of these should be true remains unexplained.

Coupled with the further proviso that "people don't expect to be lied to,"
and you have a situation where it is impossible to disprove any statement an
audiophile might make.

I've struggled mightily to come up with some valid way of testing claims of
audible differences--a way that's persuasive to all audiophiles. I've
failed. If it really is a test, there's always some objection.

Norm Strong

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
>>>> On 14 Jan 2005 00:31:28 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you cannot give an example of a $5k player that sounds "as good" as
>>>>> a
>>>>> $500 one, then it would be good to just say so.
>
> There's been much talk here about the differences between $5k and $500 CD
> players. I'd be interested in hearing from those who think there isn't much
> audible difference. How low can one go with the low priced unit before
> you're not willing to make the same statement?
>
> I own CD players that cost me $9, $10, $25, $30 & $150. The $10 player (a
> portable) had many grave design defects; I consider it a failure. But the
> other ones sound identical--identical to each other, and identical to a Rega
> Planet to which they were compared. Not just to me, but also to other
> people with excellent hearing who were strongly motivated to detect a
> difference.
>
> Norm
>

I have a Pioneer universal player that costs about $130, and I can't
tell that apart from another much more expensive player *after* I made
sure that the output levels are matched. It is very easy to tell
differences if they don't have the same levels, and I suspect that is
what happens when you listen to them in the showroom.

Mr. Lavo raved about a Panasonic player that sold for less than $100, so
that's another data point.

I also read the Stereophile review on the Apple iPod, and it measured
very well against stand-alone CD players, playing uncompressed files. I
suspect that there may be some detectible degradations in the cheap
portables, though.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

OneActor1@aol.com wrote:
>
> << think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b, although I
> ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more money." Am I
> wrong?>>
>
> I wouldn't say that you're "wrong", I'd say that you're hearing
things
> the way you want to hear them, and not the way they actually ARE.

Another possibility is that he is hearing a real difference--the result
of differences in output levels between the two units. If one is even
imperceptibly louder than the other, this could easily affect his
preference for one over the other.

I can't prove this, but I've often suspected that audiophiles
subconsciously tweak the volume control to favor the unit they "want"
to sound better.

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
> news:csblq20hed@news2.newsguy.com...
> >
> > The only problem was that the cables I was changing were not in
fact
> > the ones carrying the signal. The real cables remained unchanged
> > throughout the test.
> >
> > So without the pressure of blind testing, the participants were all
> > relaxed enough to hear the differences easily. Shame really that
there
> > were no differences to hear.
> >
>
> Yep...the first conclusion you can draw from this is that people
don't
> expect to be lied to.
>
> The second is that people can easily imagine differences where none
exist
> *IF* they have a reason to believe such differences should exist.

And isn't this exactly the problem with all sighted evaluations? Any
visual difference, or any known difference between the units under
test, establishes a reason to believe [audible] differences would
exist. You can't reject Don's experiment on this logic without
rejecting every sighted comparison you have ever done.

> None of this proves that people can't hear real differences sighted.

Why would we need to prove this?
>
> Nor does it prove that blinding does not remove some real differences
that
> are perceived under different listening conditions.

Since when is it anyone else's job to disprove your baseless
hypothesis?
>
> > This is why blind testing really works, and why the results it
gives
> > can be trusted.
>
> Yep, seems logical on the face. But not proven via controlled
testing,

Tell that to the folks in the Psychology Department of your local
university. They could use a good laugh.

> especially as regards to something as slippery as open ended
evaluation of
> audio components.

The reason it's slippery is that it involves not just sound, but also
the mental state of the listener. The whole point of blind testing is
to eliminate--to the extent possible--mental states as a factor.
Designers of audio equipment should want to do this, because they
cannot engineer for mental states.

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cse4r101641@news3.newsguy.com...
> On 15 Jan 2005 16:17:41 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >On 1/14/05 3:28 PM, in article cs9a210arb@news3.newsguy.com, "Stewart
> >Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On 14 Jan 2005 00:31:28 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If you cannot give an example of a $5k player that sounds "as good" as
a
> >>> $500 one, then it would be good to just say so.
> >>
> >> Try the Meridian 800 series. Many would regard it as sheer engineering
> >> overkill, but it *is* designed to be utterly linear, without any 'high
> >> end' trickery to make it sound 'better' than mainstream units.
> >
> >OK, that is your $5000 player.
>
> More like $10,000, but whatever.
>
> > What about the $500 one?
>
> Why mess about with a mere CD player at that price? Go for the Pioneer
> 'universal' DV-565, and get great sound from almost any variety of
> silver disc - plus all the films you can watch! If you insist on a
> 'pure' CD player, then the Arcam CD-73 is probably as good as it gets
> technically.

I'm sorry, but I have that machine (568 here in the USA) as well as a Sony
C222ES. On SACD in particular, there is a substantial difference between
the two in the amount of transparency/ambience retrieval. I have never once
put a SACD on, gone elsewhere and gotten busy and walked back into the room
without being able to identify which machine is playing before I enter the
room. I can do that with some other equipment.

That doesn't mean the 568 does anything terribly wrong...it is actually a
fine-sounding player....it just doesn't quite match the Sony in
transparency. That's one of the things extra design money can buy you. The
222 uses Elna caps (second only to Black Gates in transparency) and separate
power supplies for the digital and analog stages. Those are also the
primary differences between it and the less expensive 775CE it is based
upon...and side by side you can hear the difference.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<outsor@city-net.com> wrote in message news:cse4vh01666@news3.newsguy.com...
> "I guess there is no use in arguing with you...you have your mind made up.
> But the size/capacity/stability of the power supply has a direct bearing,
> IME, on how well the unit presents the lower midrange and upper bass. It
> is
> one of the distinguishing characteristics between true high end sound and"
>
> And how will you support this assertion? More likely is the rule of ps
> enough such that any increase in capacity makes no difference. Either
> electrical measurements and/or blind listening test will be support enough
> for your assertion. I know, I know, it is a well worn sentimen in audiio
> marketing/publishing about the ps and how it makes a difference, show us
> in ways external to those claims that can be verified by others not so
> self convinced. The third party confirmation is how one gets around the
> you have a mind about this and I have a mind and we will not change it by
> continued assertion.

Yep, I'm still waiting for the confirmation of the test technique. Then
I'll use it. Hasn't been done. In the meanwhile I'll continue to follow my
instincts while being aware of the pitfalls.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:csef5601tem@news1.newsguy.com...
> normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
> >>>> On 14 Jan 2005 00:31:28 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> If you cannot give an example of a $5k player that sounds "as good"
as
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> $500 one, then it would be good to just say so.
> >
> > There's been much talk here about the differences between $5k and $500
CD
> > players. I'd be interested in hearing from those who think there isn't
much
> > audible difference. How low can one go with the low priced unit before
> > you're not willing to make the same statement?
> >
> > I own CD players that cost me $9, $10, $25, $30 & $150. The $10 player
(a
> > portable) had many grave design defects; I consider it a failure. But
the
> > other ones sound identical--identical to each other, and identical to a
Rega
> > Planet to which they were compared. Not just to me, but also to other
> > people with excellent hearing who were strongly motivated to detect a
> > difference.
> >
> > Norm
> >
>
> I have a Pioneer universal player that costs about $130, and I can't
> tell that apart from another much more expensive player *after* I made
> sure that the output levels are matched. It is very easy to tell
> differences if they don't have the same levels, and I suspect that is
> what happens when you listen to them in the showroom.
>
> Mr. Lavo raved about a Panasonic player that sold for less than $100, so
> that's another data point.

I raved about it, but that doesn't mean I can't tell it from other players.
I commented on both its transparency and its concommitant "leaness". These
are distinquishing characteristics that set it apart from many other
players. I was most impressed with the transparency, as this is much more
rare in inexpensive players than in more expensive gear. For example, the
Arcam DV-79 @ $1500 has this same level of transparency but without much of
the leaness. And therefore sounds even better.

> I also read the Stereophile review on the Apple iPod, and it measured
> very well against stand-alone CD players, playing uncompressed files. I
> suspect that there may be some detectible degradations in the cheap
> portables, though.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 16 Jan 2005 16:32:28 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
>news:csblq20hed@news2.newsguy.com...
>> On 15 Jan 2005 16:46:05 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >My basic problem is I believe the blind testing itself knocks out many
>> >significant "ways" of hearing beyond just sight, and none of the
>arguments
>> >here have convinced me otherwise. Until the testing is verified not to
>> >interfere with open-ended evaluation of differences, and until the
>> >"disappearing" is investigated in more depth than it has been, I and
>others
>> >will continue to trust our basic instincts.
>>
>> Several years ago I conducted a test which the participants believed
>> to be sighted. They all heard the differences quite distinctly every
>> time, and had no problem at all identifying the two components under
>> test.
>>
>> The only problem was that the cables I was changing were not in fact
>> the ones carrying the signal. The real cables remained unchanged
>> throughout the test.
>>
>> So without the pressure of blind testing, the participants were all
>> relaxed enough to hear the differences easily. Shame really that there
>> were no differences to hear.
>>
>
>Yep...the first conclusion you can draw from this is that people don't
>expect to be lied to.
>
>The second is that people can easily imagine differences where none exist
>*IF* they have a reason to believe such differences should exist.
>
You miss the point. There was nothing to stop any of these people
saying "I can't hear a difference". There was no requirement put on
them to hear any kind of difference. Simply put - they expected to, so
they did.

>None of this proves that people can't hear real differences sighted.
>

Of course you can hear real differences sighted. What it proves is
that you can hear non-existant differences sighted as well.

>Nor does it prove that blinding does not remove some real differences that
>are perceived under different listening conditions.
>
>> This is why blind testing really works, and why the results it gives
>> can be trusted.
>
>Yep, seems logical on the face. But not proven via controlled testing,
>especially as regards to something as slippery as open ended evaluation of
>audio components.

The real conclusion is that you can't trust a sighted test. The
results will be whatever you want them to be.

d

Pearce Consulting
http/www.pearce.uk.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <cse4n90160i@news3.newsguy.com>,
"OneActor1@aol.com" <OneActor1@aol.com> wrote:

> <<You didn't expect start an argument, but you wanted to see if anyone
> thinks there's a difference so you can tell them they're wrong?
> >>
>
> Umm...no. I wanted to see if anyone could actually deny the reality of
> the situation and come up with any evidence to support their claims.
> The "I thought I heard it, so it's there" rhetoric is faulty.
>
> << think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b, although I
> ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more money." Am I
> wrong?>>
>
> I wouldn't say that you're "wrong", I'd say that you're hearing things
> the way you want to hear them, and not the way they actually ARE.

Has anyone here been able to id the Arcam CD 23 blind?

Stephen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <cse46c015eq@news3.newsguy.com>, nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
>
> > I think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b, although I
> > ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more money." Am I
> > wrong?
>
> You might be. What part of the latter's design do you think is subpar,
> and how do you know that it is sufficiently subpar to be audible?

I'd have to be a designer or engineer to make that kind of analysis. The
Arcam has a more advanced DAC and a heftier power supply, plus it's in a
silver box instead of a brown one.

> And while we're at it, how do you know you aren't just imaging a
> difference between them? Happens all the time.

Frequency response is likely different. Hearing "Elephant Talk" on the
AMC was akin to hearing a completely different mix.

Stephen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <csef5q01tfc@news1.newsguy.com>, nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:

> OneActor1@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > << think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b, although I
> > ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more money." Am I
> > wrong?>>
> >
> > I wouldn't say that you're "wrong", I'd say that you're hearing
> things
> > the way you want to hear them, and not the way they actually ARE.
>
> Another possibility is that he is hearing a real difference--the result
> of differences in output levels between the two units. If one is even
> imperceptibly louder than the other, this could easily affect his
> preference for one over the other.

Not a switched comparison, so that's not it.

> I can't prove this, but I've often suspected that audiophiles
> subconsciously tweak the volume control to favor the unit they "want"
> to sound better.

I think it's also common to turn up the ugly one to find missing detail.

Stephen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <cse4n90160i@news3.newsguy.com>,
"OneActor1@aol.com" <OneActor1@aol.com> wrote:

> <<You didn't expect start an argument, but you wanted to see if anyone
> thinks there's a difference so you can tell them they're wrong?
> >>
>
> Umm...no. I wanted to see if anyone could actually deny the reality of
> the situation and come up with any evidence to support their claims.
> The "I thought I heard it, so it's there" rhetoric is faulty.

You'll notice I didn't use that rhetoric.

> << think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b, although I
> ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more money." Am I
> wrong?>>
>
> I wouldn't say that you're "wrong", I'd say that you're hearing things
> the way you want to hear them, and not the way they actually ARE.

Why would I care? I own both units and use each for different purposes.

Stephen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<OneActor1@aol.com> wrote in message news:cse51r0167n@news3.newsguy.com...
> <<My basic problem is I believe the blind testing itself knocks out
> many
> significant "ways" of hearing beyond just sight>>
>
> I don't understand what it is you're saying.Your ears and your eyes
> don't need to both be "on" to work, and blind testing is the most
> reliable way to find out wether or not we actually HEAR any differences
> between players.

I am saying that blind testing has not been verified as to its validity for
hearing some of the subtle differences audiophiles seem to notice. Nor is
this just wishful thinking.

The fact is: hearing is a combination of physical propagation and complex
brain evaluation. Plenty of studies show that different awareness states
and emotional states affect which parts / how the brain interprets data.
When evaluating components, we are trying to judge "musical accuracy"
against some remembered archetypes of what live music sounds like. It is
not at all impossible that when forced into a comparative mode the brain
evaluates sound differently than in a relaxed, listening mode. It is not at
all impossible that such things as a sense of ultimate transparency, a sense
that all is right or not in how equipment handles micro- and macro-
dynamics, etc. may be affected by the test itself. We do know that the
brain is "hard wired" in some cases to evaluate music; we do not know
whether this "hard wiring" is overcome by other senses in doing comparative
evaluation. We do know that blind comparative testing can handle static
loudness differences, static frequency response differences. That is all we
really know. The validation for use of these test techniques, borrowed from
eudiometry, for general open-ended evaluation of audio gear has not been
done. The assumption that it is valid is just that...an assumption. And
the typical response to these objections is that validation is not needed,
since loudness and frequency response explain everything anyway.

I for one do not buy it...until such time as the testing has been
specifically validated with regard to these concerns, I and many others will
simply follow our instincts that not everything we hear is an illusion.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:csef9601thd@news1.newsguy.com...
> Harry Lavo wrote:
> > "Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
> > news:csblq20hed@news2.newsguy.com...
> > >
> > > The only problem was that the cables I was changing were not in
> fact
> > > the ones carrying the signal. The real cables remained unchanged
> > > throughout the test.
> > >
> > > So without the pressure of blind testing, the participants were all
> > > relaxed enough to hear the differences easily. Shame really that
> there
> > > were no differences to hear.
> > >
> >
> > Yep...the first conclusion you can draw from this is that people
> don't
> > expect to be lied to.
> >
> > The second is that people can easily imagine differences where none
> exist
> > *IF* they have a reason to believe such differences should exist.
>
> And isn't this exactly the problem with all sighted evaluations? Any
> visual difference, or any known difference between the units under
> test, establishes a reason to believe [audible] differences would
> exist. You can't reject Don's experiment on this logic without
> rejecting every sighted comparison you have ever done.
>

Yes, except there is a big difference when evaluating, lets say, a known
expensive and well-regarded piece of equipment vs. a cheapo, versus trying
to ascertain differences between two different pieces of gear that are
roughly of same value and manufacturing quality. There may be a bias
towards hearing differences where none exist, but that bias is not likely to
be so strong as to override an ability to hear real differences, if that is
the goal.

As a specific example, I recently bought a used power amp by a manufacturer
based on my satisfaction with another piece of gear from the same range by
that same manufactur. It was hopefully to replace a piece of gear that I
had been relatively happy with, but I felt was slightly lacking in a
specific regard. When I got the unit, I pulled out a few "test" disks and
substitued the units back and forth, playing and replaying sections from the
disks. My overall evaluation was that the units sounded essentially alike
in frequency response and speaker control, and the new unit had the
characteristic I had been looking for (also good). So I was predisposed to
keep/like the unit. I put it in the system and used it as I worked at the
computer for a week...but I noticed that I became tired of listening and
slightly irritated after several hours..that had never happened with the old
unit. Switched it back in, went another week, no problem. Put the "new"
unit back in, another few days...same irritation problem. Back in went the
old...no problem..and it is staying there and I am selling the new unit. If
anything my expectation bias was that I would like the new unit, and the
comparative testing tended to support this. But clearly long term there is
a problem and it is a piece of gear I cannot live with. If I had "blind"
tested, I might have concluded the units sounded the same (they were that
close) or that the new unit sounded slightly different (and probably better)
since it clearly has the characteristic I was after. It clearly would not
have shown anything about the long term irritation that has caused me to
reject the unit.

> > None of this proves that people can't hear real differences sighted.
>
> Why would we need to prove this?
> >

Because there is a tendency here to assume that anybody who hears
differences is kidding themselves, and that most likely there is no
difference unless we are talking about phono cartridges or loudspeakers.
That "standard" is applied to turntables, tonearms, tuners, CD players,
amplifiers almost without discrimination.


> > Nor does it prove that blinding does not remove some real differences
> that
> > are perceived under different listening conditions.
>
> Since when is it anyone else's job to disprove your baseless
> hypothesis?
> >

Well, you haven't proved it baseless. But you don't have to prove it, and I
don't have to accept your preference for blind testing.


> > > This is why blind testing really works, and why the results it
> gives
> > > can be trusted.
> >
> > Yep, seems logical on the face. But not proven via controlled
> testing,
>
> Tell that to the folks in the Psychology Department of your local
> university. They could use a good laugh.
>

Come on. We've gone over this before. Nothing proven that specifically
applies to some of the esoterica of audio component evaluation.

> > especially as regards to something as slippery as open ended
> evaluation of
> > audio components.
>
> The reason it's slippery is that it involves not just sound, but also
> the mental state of the listener. The whole point of blind testing is
> to eliminate--to the extent possible--mental states as a factor.
> Designers of audio equipment should want to do this, because they
> cannot engineer for mental states.

Nice if you ignore the fact that the test itself changes the mental state.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:csesio01b0k@news3.newsguy.com...
> In article <cse46c015eq@news3.newsguy.com>, nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > MINe 109 wrote:
> >
> > > I think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b, although I
> > > ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more money." Am I
> > > wrong?
> >
> > You might be. What part of the latter's design do you think is subpar,
> > and how do you know that it is sufficiently subpar to be audible?
>
> I'd have to be a designer or engineer to make that kind of analysis. The
> Arcam has a more advanced DAC and a heftier power supply, plus it's in a
> silver box instead of a brown one.
>
> > And while we're at it, how do you know you aren't just imaging a
> > difference between them? Happens all the time.
>
> Frequency response is likely different. Hearing "Elephant Talk" on the
> AMC was akin to hearing a completely different mix.
>

In general the newer Arcams seem to have a "house sound" that favors a wide
soundstage, bright and clear transparency, extended bass, but a slightly
lean mid-bass. This sets them slightly apart from most CD players that
sound a bit "darker". Why this is so I do not know.