Hearing is not just about age of listener but also about experience / ability to pick differences. You seem to make it mutually exclusive which I find fallacious.Check this one
![]()
Blind A/B test between (Benchmark AHB2+Topping D90SE/Pre90) and Hegel H190
I have been an owner of Hegel H190 which I use in my living room and I recently started putting together my next system around AHB2 for my home office and as the pieces arrived I decided to A/B test the two stacks. I tried to be systematic as much as possible, but by all means critique my...www.audiosciencereview.com
ASR has lots of threads on such ABX test. And I also believe that human ear can resolve not more than 115 db SINAD. (this is for a young ear without hearing loss). So can imagine what 'golden ears' of 60-80years audiophile veterans will be able to hear.
Why so, Sir.The conclusions from the results are disturbing.
I have not commented for an argument. (Lately it's becoming difficult to share a comment or feedback).Hearing is not just about age of listener but also about experience / ability to pick differences. You seem to make it mutually exclusive which I find fallacious.
Secondly the components in ASR test are , price wise ,if not same , in similar ballpark , but in the thread posted - they differ by a huge margin (more than 20x )- so the results in that test are more interesting and to go by @Analogous - disturbing too.
Who’s arguing ?I have not commented for an argument. (Lately it's becoming difficult to share a comment or feedback.
Your life , your choice ..(Anyway last comment.)
Been there heard that. Now I'm nearing 60. If only my age old ears could compensate for biolical degradation with experience, that would be nirvana. But what you wrote above, comments involving the above is superfluous. Unless there is a magical kingdom that defies physics and if that can be proven, the person deserves a super nobel prize. My vote would be for geriatric Paul of PS audio, for snake oil salesmanship, who can do magic with power conditioners, cables and what not.Cables, formats , power conditioners, DAC 'sound', warmth of amp, MQA .....etc etc
If over 60% of participants said the much cheaper set up sounded better or could not conclude which set up sounded better to them, it should raise uncomfortable questions in the entire HiFi industry and all those associated with it (including us).Why so, Sir.
If over 60% of participants said the much cheaper set up sounded better or could not conclude which set up sounded better to them, it should raise uncomfortable questions in the entire HiFi industry and all those associated with it (including us).
In terms of audio quality alone the difference between cheap/easily affordable equipment and expensive ones may be far lesser than we believe. It may be worth revisiting concepts of “diminishing returns” prejudice, bias, and placebo effects etc.
At the very least it should prompt more investigation on the findings with better methodology to find out if this is replicable, reliable and why.
News that goes against our beliefs usually tends to be met with disbelief or dismissal. I don’t wish to be ingenuous about this. I would like to know more on the issue.
I also believe a lot of us in the “audio community” are invested partly because of the perceived “resale value” of our audio gear and at least a partial return of investment as we “upgrade”. This belief is comforting and Findings of such ABX tests can cause small economic tremors in our core.
Yes, I would call it a bit disturbing. (Or discombobulated?). The OPs header “Stumped” is simple, Crickety and describes the feeling best!
So room treatment is a must. Once that is done, there maybe difference i assume.They did a blind test on a low end (roughly 35k) system sitting on a rickety wooden chair (!) vs a higher 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!
Read on….
View attachment 68983
How are you deriving this from the test ?So room treatment is a must. Once that is done, there maybe difference i assume.
The question of perceived improvement in SQ with investment in better (read more expensive gear ) is already a contentious one since long. It is not a new thing as far as I'm aware. Diminishing returns (keeping only sound quality in mind ) is true.If over 60% of participants said the much cheaper set up sounded better or could not conclude which set up sounded better to them, it should raise uncomfortable questions in the entire HiFi industry and all those associated with it (including us).
Yes , confirmation bias plays a large role in affecting how we hear music.In terms of audio quality alone the difference between cheap/easily affordable equipment and expensive ones may be far lesser than we believe. It may be worth revisiting concepts of “diminishing returns” prejudice, bias, and placebo effects etc.
Sometimes more expensive gear may be better; Sometimes less expensive gear may be better.The question of perceived improvement in SQ with investment in better (read more expensive gear ) is already a contentious one since long. It is not a new thing as far as I'm aware. Diminishing returns (keeping only sound quality in mind ) is true.
Yes , confirmation bias plays a large role in affecting how we hear music.
Also , we are hesitant to acknowledge ownership pride factor & ego-boosting as we spend more on exotic gear, thinking it does improve the SQ.
If over 60% of participants said the much cheaper set up sounded better or could not conclude which set up sounded better to them, it should raise uncomfortable questions in the entire HiFi industry and all those associated with it (including us).
In terms of audio quality alone the difference between cheap/easily affordable equipment and expensive ones may be far lesser than we believe. It may be worth revisiting concepts of “diminishing returns” prejudice, bias, and placebo effects etc.
At the very least it should prompt more investigation on the findings with better methodology to find out if this is replicable, reliable and why.
News that goes against our beliefs usually tends to be met with disbelief or dismissal. I don’t wish to be ingenuous about this. I would like to know more on the issue.
I also believe a lot of us in the “audio community” are invested partly because of the perceived “resale value” of our audio gear and at least a partial return of investment as we “upgrade”. This belief is comforting and Findings of such ABX tests can cause small economic tremors in our core.
Yes, I would call it a bit disturbing. (Or discombobulated?). The OPs header “Stumped” is simple, Crickety and describes the feeling best!
I think these kind of tests are done with the motivation to disprove the commonly held notion that more expensive gear may be necessarily better (again keeping only SQ in mind ). They can be , yes , but not by default.Sometimes more expensive gear may be better; Sometimes less expensive gear may be better.
Much as we would like to, I don’t think there are absolute conclusions or a generalisation that will apply in all A-B comparisons.
In this specific example cited by the OP, the results are there for us to see and possibly question how we make personal choices and why.
Possible. But to get a number of people with the same motivation? That’s a large conspiracy!!!I think these kind of tests are done with the motivation to disprove the commonly held notion that more expensive gear may not be necessarily better (again keeping only SQ in mind ). They can be , yes , but not by default.