www.audiosciencereview.com
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...
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.
I have not commented for an argument. (Lately it's becoming difficult to share a comment or feedback).
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.
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).
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.
How are you deriving this from the test ?
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.
Sometimes more expensive gear may be better; Sometimes less expensive gear may be better.
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.
Possible. But to get a number of people with the same motivation? That’s a large conspiracy!!!
