10 Biggest Lies in Audio

[itsnotmeatall]

if i hear a difference, I hear a difference. I wont be biased, specially if its with borrowed cables.:lol:

Large random lot of people might be for surveys. during the test, i only care about what I am listening to.

Most of us like to think we are unbiased and fair, but however objective we consciously try to be, it is at the subconscious level that bias and subjectivity creeps in. At least according to the Director of Acoustic Research for Harman International, someone you would expect to be on the 'expensive is better' side of the fence.

The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests

It quotes Stereophile magazine founder, Gordon Holt:

Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me...

 

[unleash_me]

None is selling darkness too

Err....

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

But all this stuff is like presenting the religious with a perfectly-reasoned document saying that there is no god*. It will have no effect whatsoever.

Most of us like to think we are unbiased and fair, but however objective we consciously try to be, it is at the subconscious level that bias and subjectivity creeps in. At least according to the Director of Acoustic Research for Harman International, someone you would expect to be on the 'expensive is better' side of the fence.

The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests

It quotes Stereophile magazine founder, Gordon Holt:

Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me...

This.

People forget the most important factor in all this, and pretty much everything else, is human psychology.

You cannot talk to irrational stubborn fools with fragile egos (audiophiles) using logic and knowledge.

Use pro speakers, they provide data and are the superior choice. Problem solved.

/thread.

 

[arj]

Somehow the whole topic is now on the theme of " I know you are wrong..prove yourself right" ! For either side.
Why talk of science or philosophy when the objective Is to disprove rather than understand

Let's just lock this thread...nothing has been gained so far


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[reignofchaos]

Don't all these threads end in exactly the same way :-|. There's no point even starting one.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Hmmm... I think these threads are part of the deal! I also think they are educative, both in themselves, and in prompting further research.

Square_wave, I agree entirely about adding switches, etc, making potential problems in itself. The test bed itself would have to be transparent. That is one reason why I said it would have to be set up by engineers. But then, one person's definition of "transparent" may not be another's, and someone is bound to say they can hear the test bed. Not being an engineer, I wouldn't have a clue where to even start the definition. Might cost as much as some of the gear being tested, which is why I suggest it may be feasible for publications. Not only do I think it would be unfair to expect manufacturers to test their products against those of their competitors, but I wouldn't trust the results to get through the marketing department. See this line that goes '^^^'? The brochure would be prettier if it went '___'. It's not a technical change, it's an artistic one.

What to do? All audio testing to be done by a cat in a sealed steel box?

itsnotmeatall, thanks for the link; However much of a cynic I may be about the commercial world, here is a manufacturer, and a big one at that, talking about honesty. It really is worth following the link to the Stereophile article and interview from which your quote comes. It doesn't make pleasant reading, though!

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

When I read the Stereophile J Gordon Holt interview last night, I had no idea that I would be seeing a major carnatic musician giving a completely unamplified violin-solo concert the next day.

It is a long time since I heard any mic-less carnatic music, and this was an eye-opener. My first thought was, "If this was how my hifi, or even my PC monitors, sounded ... I'd throw them away!" And yet this was very real music. Hi Fidelity: fidelity to what? Have we forgotten?

 

[itsnotmeatall]

I don't think the discussion on double blind tests reached any satisfactory conclusion, but while researching CDP's came across this interesting report:

Matrix HiFi --> Blind testing high end full equipments

They did a blind test on a low end (roughly 35k) system sitting on a rickety wooden chair (!) vs a hi end system costing almost 6 lacs placed on a equally hi end rack, and came up with the surprising result that most people preferred the cheap system!

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Hat's off to those guys. I look forward to checking out the rest of their site tonight or tomorrow. The whole ethos and methodology of the testing is superb.

It also show that, contrary to what I had thought, an effective blind test can be set up and conducted without too much difficulty by amateurs.

We need to try this!

 

[soulofmusic]

Not a good thing to read if u hv made a major commitment on one of these systems...

 

[marsilians]

Most times its also about bragging rights in terms of which brand equipment one owns. I think we should start treating our hobby like our partners (wife, husband, GF, mistress, ... fall into this category) - in thinking they are the best for us while getting mileage out of their abilities and showing them off to others EVEN THOUGH there might be better ones in our sights and mind

 

[thatguy]

I don't think the discussion on double blind tests reached any satisfactory conclusion, but while researching CDP's came across this interesting report:

Matrix HiFi --> Blind testing high end full equipments

They did a blind test on a low end (roughly 35k) system sitting on a rickety wooden chair (!) vs a hi end system costing almost 6 lacs placed on a equally hi end rack, and came up with the surprising result that most people preferred the cheap system!

I had read this article when I was researching amplifiers. After reading this and the Audio critic review, I bought the power amp they had used in the cheap system (Behringer A500). In fact, I liked them so much I bought another one and bi-amped my bookshelves

 

[ajinkya]

When I read the Stereophile J Gordon Holt interview last night, I had no idea that I would be seeing a major carnatic musician giving a completely unamplified violin-solo concert the next day.

It is a long time since I heard any mic-less carnatic music, and this was an eye-opener. My first thought was, "If this was how my hifi, or even my PC monitors, sounded ... I'd throw them away!" And yet this was very real music. Hi Fidelity: fidelity to what? Have we forgotten?

Thanks very much for the article link, Thad. It was enlightening to read the thoughts of someone who was, in many ways, a pioneer of putting hi-fidelity audio in homes. And his thoughts resonate with much of how I approach this area...with skepticism and objective thinking.

Here is another link that makes for very interesting reading. It echoes my thoughts almost exactly. The author does not seem to be a hard-core objectivist nor an emotional subjectivist, and the article is balanced on the merits of both lines of thinking.
NwAvGuy: Subjective vs Objective Debate

On the HFV forum at least, we should stop being tolerant towards anyone who uses the "if our ears hear a difference, then a difference is there, and will be proved when Science is sufficiently advanced to measure it" argument. This is like saying: "my car actually flies just a little above the road while I'm driving....I can feel it. But because automotive engineering does not have the precision tools to measure that slight gap between the tires and road, the measurements don't really show the effect!"

 

[murali]

May be this latest helps, from a reputed Science magazine:

BREAKING NEWS: Error Undoes Faster-Than-Light Neutrino Results
by Edwin Cartlidge on 22 February 2012, 1:45 PM | 0 Comments
Email Print | More Previous Article It appears that the faster-than-light neutrino results, announced last September by the OPERA collaboration in Italy, was due to a mistake after all. A bad connection between a GPS unit and a computer may be to blame.

Physicists had detected neutrinos travelling from the CERN laboratory in Geneva to the Gran Sasso laboratory near L'Aquila that appeared to make the trip in about 60 nanoseconds less than light speed. Many other physicists suspected that the result was due to some kind of error, given that it seems at odds with Einstein's special theory of relativity, which says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. That theory has been vindicated by many experiments over the decades.

According to sources familiar with the experiment, the 60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos' flight and an electronic card in a computer. After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed. Since this time is subtracted from the overall time of flight, it appears to explain the early arrival of the neutrinos. New data, however, will be needed to confirm this hypothesis.
Follow ScienceInsider on Facebook and Twitter
Posted in
Physics

 

[ajinkya]

May be this latest helps, from a reputed Science magazine:

BREAKING NEWS: Error Undoes Faster-Than-Light Neutrino Results
by Edwin Cartlidge on 22 February 2012, 1:45 PM | 0 Comments
Email Print | More Previous Article It appears that the faster-than-light neutrino results, announced last September by the OPERA collaboration in Italy, was due to a mistake after all. A bad connection between a GPS unit and a computer may be to blame.

Physicists had detected neutrinos travelling from the CERN laboratory in Geneva to the Gran Sasso laboratory near L'Aquila that appeared to make the trip in about 60 nanoseconds less than light speed. Many other physicists suspected that the result was due to some kind of error, given that it seems at odds with Einstein's special theory of relativity, which says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. That theory has been vindicated by many experiments over the decades.

According to sources familiar with the experiment, the 60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos' flight and an electronic card in a computer. After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed. Since this time is subtracted from the overall time of flight, it appears to explain the early arrival of the neutrinos. New data, however, will be needed to confirm this hypothesis.
Follow ScienceInsider on Facebook and Twitter
Posted in
Physics

Murali,
I'm sorry but I am unable to see in what way this helps, either for or against measurements?

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

Thanks very much for the article link, Thad. It was enlightening to read the thoughts of someone who was, in many ways, a pioneer of putting hi-fidelity audio in homes. And his thoughts resonate with much of how I approach this area...with skepticism and objective thinking.

Here is another link that makes for very interesting reading. It echoes my thoughts almost exactly. The author does not seem to be a hard-core objectivist nor an emotional subjectivist, and the article is balanced on the merits of both lines of thinking.
NwAvGuy: Subjective vs Objective Debate

On the HFV forum at least, we should stop being tolerant towards anyone who uses the "if our ears hear a difference, then a difference is there, and will be proved when Science is sufficiently advanced to measure it" argument. This is like saying: "my car actually flies just a little above the road while I'm driving....I can feel it. But because automotive engineering does not have the precision tools to measure that slight gap between the tires and road, the measurements don't really show the effect!"

Excellent link. It illustrates the facts that the "audiophile" world is built on psychological issues and money. That is really all there is to it. No mystery.

People need to feed their egos somehow. Some choose audio.

 

[murali]

Thanks very much for the article link, Thad. It was enlightening to read the thoughts of someone who was, in many ways, a pioneer of putting hi-fidelity audio in homes. And his thoughts resonate with much of how I approach this area...with skepticism and objective thinking.

Here is another link that makes for very interesting reading. It echoes my thoughts almost exactly. The author does not seem to be a hard-core objectivist nor an emotional subjectivist, and the article is balanced on the merits of both lines of thinking.
NwAvGuy: Subjective vs Objective Debate

On the HFV forum at least, we should stop being tolerant towards anyone who uses the "if our ears hear a difference, then a difference is there, and will be proved when Science is sufficiently advanced to measure it" argument. This is like saying: "my car actually flies just a little above the road while I'm driving....I can feel it. But because automotive engineering does not have the precision tools to measure that slight gap between the tires and road, the measurements don't really show the effect!"

Here we go...

In the article quoted in my previous post, it is pretty evident that a simple fiber optic cable is enough to disprove Einstein's relativity theory. Do I need to say more?

Coming to more real-life examples, here are a couple:
(1) Like our ears-nerves-brain system forms the sensory perception of hearing, it is the tongue-nerves-brain system that gives us "taste". You serve the same dish to different persons and how do you decide that it tastes the same to each and every person? Do we need measurements to understand the differences in taste or without measurements, do we conclude that all tasted the same?
(2) You cook a dish and let another person do the same using the same ingredients, vessels, cooking medium etc. Do both dishes taste the same? How do you envisage measurements to scientifically prove the differences?

The whole point is the perception of hearing, or more correctly listening. I personally know of a few guys who are such wonderful listeners that they can instantaneously point out a sudden discordent note in an orchestra playing several instruments. There are people who can enoy and appreciate the different flavours and tastes of a single dish made of several ingredients whereas there are some who can swallow whatever is given but cannot distinguish tastes (unless something hurts). I drink coffee and enjoy it when it is made from roasted and ground coffee beans concentrated through a water percolator and mixed with milk and sugar. I feel nothing when the same is made from the so-called instant coffee powder. Music is similarly not just a single entity subject to measurements alone. A full-fledged orchestral music playing hundreds of instruments and vocals can be enjoyed better if you have systems with high resolving power giving you the feel of them collectively as well as individually compared to a system without. Similarly someone mentions about listening to a vocal live and questions the effectiveness of the reproducing components and accessories. Believe me, a good system with the right accessories certainly brings the two close together whereas a mediocre system treats both the real coffee and instant coffee the same.

Very close to my native place in Kerala, there is a temple town called Ambalapuzha which is very famous for its so-called kheer (called 'palpayasam' in Malayalam) made mainly from milk, rice and sugar. That taste is unique in that several people have tried the same recipe with the same ingredients and in old times, some of the kings had even used the same vessels outside the temple premises. But noone has ever succeeded in recreating that flavour, at least to my knowledge. Call it divine, or superstition, whatever it might be, but truth is truth.

Everything in life is not subject to scientific measurements and I am not ashamed to declare that I belong to that camp which believes every small thing in a whole system of audio components, be it electronics, cables, stands, supports etc has an impact.

Sorry for this but I want to set things right after reading your "On the HFV forum at least, we should stop being tolerant towards anyone who uses the "if our ears hear a difference, then a difference is there, and will be proved when Science is sufficiently advanced to measure it" argument". To put it mildly, it smacks of impertinence.

cheers.
murali

 

[stevieboy]

Hi Ajinkya,

We all perceive depth, height and width of soundstage and separation of instruments. By your logic everything should be measurable else its a figment of imagination, so am curious, what instruments currently exist to measure these parameters in playback?

Regards


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Music is similarly not just a single entity subject to measurements alone.

It was recorded.
Therefore it can be, and was, measured.

I am not ashamed to declare that I belong to that camp which believes every small thing in a whole system of audio components, be it electronics, cables, stands, supports etc has an impact.

Somewhat at odds with your anti-metric preceding argument?

"On the HFV forum at least, we should stop being tolerant towards anyone who uses the "if our ears hear a difference, then a difference is there, and will be proved when Science is sufficiently advanced to measure it" argument". To put it mildly, it smacks of impertinence.

I don't think so, because of my, now rather often repeated statement: it was recorded, therefore it can be measured. If there is equipment which can measure the original performance, then, plainly, there is equipment that can measure the reproduction, and probably, that would be a much easier task.

It's a matter of principle, as I also keep saying it has nothing to do with enjoying or not enjoying music, which affects us at every level of our being, and if some believe it is spiritual, and others do not, then we have a philosophical argument, not a technical one.
murali[/QUOTE]

 

[malvai]

It was recorded.
Therefore it can be, and was, measured.

alright... but what about the stuff that was recorded, but could not be measured at the time it was being measured by equipment that does not have the capabilty to measure it????