Stumped!

The methodology used seems robust in eliminating the usual biases.
The findings are intriguing, specially the 37% who were not able to hear differences or didn't choose any as the best.
The conclusions from the results are disturbing.
 
Check this one



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.
 
Check this one



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.
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.
 
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.
I have not commented for an argument. (Lately it's becoming difficult to share a comment or feedback).

The above was about how when biases are removed, audio myths are 'stumped'. Same is the myth that an old trained ear will hear more details than a young untrained ear. (Though I agree the training is more towards the focus and attention to the percieves sound.....and not as such of the hearing capacity of the cochlea)

Cables, formats , power conditioners, DAC 'sound', warmth of amp, MQA .....etc etc

(Anyway last comment.)
 
Cables, formats , power conditioners, DAC 'sound', warmth of amp, MQA .....etc etc
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.

1650828750573.png
 
Last edited:
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!
 
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!

Eloquently summarised.
 
Not disputing the test but this is an old study done 15 years ago and lot of discussions have ensued in various fora about this. Yet there is a fairly robust high end audio market and prices are creeping upwards everyday. Evidently regardless of what this study or many others (ASR is the relatively new player in this) conclude on objectivity, audio continues on in a subjective manner and IMO will keep on continuing in this manner, as long as people buy luxury items.
Cheers,
Sid
 
Last edited:
I agree: people will buy audio gear for reasons beyond SQ. Some of the reasons I can think of are below. Combinations of these are also probable.
WAF
Appearance, Eye candy factor
Reviews read
Resale value
Peer influence
Size
Experience
Cost
Perceived risk
Availability of audition
 
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).
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.
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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!
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.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Possible. But to get a number of people with the same motivation? That’s a large conspiracy!!!
Anyhow we can only draw limited conclusions from the results. As in any good research care needs to be taken in how far we can interpret the findings and what the shortcomings of the study were.
In this case we can say that a majority could not distinguish clearly between A and B
It may go against our entrenched beliefs but that’s the finding/result.
If facts don’t align with our beliefs then best to check our premise?
 
With these kinds of blind tests, there is no way to prove or disprove the intended goal.
I will assume there is no bias in the above reporting.

But in my personal experience, I have heard mid to high to very high end systems in my friend's showroom in Chennai.
The differences are defenitely there.
They all reproduce music very well, but the differences lie in scaling and dynamics.
I as much enjoy what I own and it works well within my constrains.

So the inference of the above test will remain subjective based on the readers own perceptions.

The best way to experience it is by personally listening to systems of various pricings anf judge.

Coming to racks, any good sturdy rack to safegard the equipment is good enough. Simple isolation like rubber feet (which we usually find in all equipment in more than enough in my experience.

However a wobbly or a feeble stand for standmounters (bookshelf speakers) makes a big difference to the sound output. I guess that was not done in the above test, if furniture quality was another test included above.
 
Last edited:
Follow HiFiMART on Instagram for offers, deals and FREE giveaways!
Back
Top