If a forum contributor has done many experiments with their system, and only ever report improvements, treat with caution.
Not just mere improvements, but massive ones at that. Even as big as going Katalyst. What's becoming interesting is that it can all be explained via the scientifically proven theory of the placebo effect.
@akamatsu As a word of caution, we cannot make a conclusion it's all placebo effect until a controlled test with associated results suggests so.
So far, every single person on the Wam I've engaged who insists on 'just listen' and complains when objectivity raises its head, has refused to do ABXing.
I know one who knows the objective side too but likes the exploratory hifi journey on the subjective basis, whom together with another, finds the whole objective testing too long-winded and a faff. I can understand that and to each their own in that respect.
So far, every single person on the Wam I've engaged who insists on 'just listen' and complains when objectivity raises its head, has refused to do ABXing.
I know one who knows the objective side too but likes the exploratory hifi journey on the subjective basis, whom together with another, finds the whole objective testing too long-winded and a faff. I can understand that and to each their own in that respect.
Thank you. I realize that. Notice I said "can all be explained." I have invited others to present another theory that can explain it all. Nothing so far, other than defective hearing.
What I'd like to do is find people who, once lockdown is over, can do objective bake-offs that are filmed to show everything is above board.
I write software, so I can always create something for ABX testing to randomly select between two items, or something additional in the system or out of it and capable of scoring people listening 'blind'.
Ideally, it should be filmed.
And ideally, it should test any tweaks that are being touted as night and day differences, or similar.
I write software, so I can always create something for ABX testing to randomly select between two items, or something additional in the system or out of it and capable of scoring people listening 'blind'.
Ideally, it should be filmed.
And ideally, it should test any tweaks that are being touted as night and day differences, or similar.
It’s easy to point the finger at bias and promote the scientific method when it comes to judging audio equipment.
But, auditory sensory impressions are treated with tremendous speed through a process of predictive coding, i.e. bias. Expectations play an important role in auditory perceptions f.i. in understanding language. Similarly, music cognition is shown in studies to rely on prior knowledge. The difference between timbre and pitch is such an example where the training of the listener plays a paramount role.
Minimizing the effect of bias needs to be treated through both randomization and double blind testing. Randomizing includes picking out a cross section of the public, it’s not enough to do double blind A-B, A-B-A (or whatever) within a small circle of interested parties. Conducting proper scientific peer reviewed testing, such as the speaker tests at the Canadian Research Counsel, is therefore extremely time consuming, costly and rare.
But, auditory sensory impressions are treated with tremendous speed through a process of predictive coding, i.e. bias. Expectations play an important role in auditory perceptions f.i. in understanding language. Similarly, music cognition is shown in studies to rely on prior knowledge. The difference between timbre and pitch is such an example where the training of the listener plays a paramount role.
Minimizing the effect of bias needs to be treated through both randomization and double blind testing. Randomizing includes picking out a cross section of the public, it’s not enough to do double blind A-B, A-B-A (or whatever) within a small circle of interested parties. Conducting proper scientific peer reviewed testing, such as the speaker tests at the Canadian Research Counsel, is therefore extremely time consuming, costly and rare.
Last edited by a moderator:
Phone recordings can contribute to this sort of process. I mentioned them on another thread. I use them for some of my own tweaking experiments. They obviously have their limitations, however they can also convey differences that many people can independently assess. The Lejonklou forum makes extensive use of recordings, and also has a lot of information on techniques and limitations.
I've found other people's input into my recordings very helpful in my tuning process.
I've found other people's input into my recordings very helpful in my tuning process.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a bias for vinyl. If I hear the same recording on LP and on DS, I'll say that the LP sounds better. Another who has a bias for DS would probably say the digital version sounds better. So who is right? Everybody.
We hear what we expect, and we expect what we've heard before and are used to. DS sounds better to me after I've listened for a while and my brain has adjusted.
We hear what we expect, and we expect what we've heard before and are used to. DS sounds better to me after I've listened for a while and my brain has adjusted.
The stress of such an approach would also surely affect the results? The pressure to "perform".
But then the way the recording is captured and played back is a new variable. I seem to recall some posts there where listeners preferred one choice one time and a different choice another time.
Rather like Netflix / Prime check the quality of your connection before deciding what quality of image and audio to send to your watching device, who's to say the same is not happening with these phone clips, either during upload or during download? Stream the first one when the internet in your street is quiet and it will sound better than the second one that has been throttled because your local internet has just become busy.
I believe that was studied too at one point, but I don't have a reference, so cannot say either way.
I think the key point is, if the sound of an 'improvement' is SO obvious, it should remain obvious to detect in ABX situation.
I'm quite happy to entertain, that a non-statistically significant result in one direction, if repeatable, likely means there is a difference, just harder to discern.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, a whole set of other variables. Both when capturing and listening. Despite this, recordings can contribute if they are treated with caution. Sometimes they produce results that are contradictory or conflicting, and sometimes they are compelling.
I'm still learning how to capture them and also how to listen to them. To minimise recording variables I now fully charge the phone, restart it, set it to airplane mode, place it on a stand in the sweetspot, and set the amp volume to the same level.
- May 20, 2014
- 3,516
- 4,526
- 148
- HiFi Trade?
-
- No
I’m 63. I have yet to have a hearing test, but know my hearing is deteriorating (my wife tells me). I have mild tinnitus in one ear and know my higher frequencies aren’t what they were in my “prime”. However, I can still tune a guitar by ear and tell when things aren’t in tune. To me, that’s the essence of “Tunedem” - to me, something is better if it makes the tune easier to follow (or even, in my experience, reveals more tunes in the mix - harmonies etc)
As ever, YMMV.
’troll
Akamatsu, does it not occur to you that someone like that may reporting what he has genuinely heard? That it might be solving a problem he has experienced over long period, which he had reported as the opposite of an improvement on this forum a few months ago.
That he has heard the progressive improvements with Exakt, Katalyst, etc. over many years and is quite capable of recognising it again. Yet he still remains sceptical and he arranges for someone else to repeat the changes for him so he can listen blind to be sure that he is not mistaken.
Do you not think he’d be very cautious about reporting his findings here, given the hostile reception they were likely to face from some people on this forum?
Do you not realise that he’d be absolutely delighted if someone here could give him a cheaper alternative to solve his issue?
Do you not understand how insulting it is to deny all of that on basis of a YouTube video that you think gives you some special knowledge of the workings of science?
As I said to Phobic a few days ago, I did a post grad degree in Research Methods - I do know the risks of bias in research and have attempted to guard against it. To suggest it’s all down to some sort placebo effect is downright offensive.
This is the last thing I have to say on the subject, so by all means have the last word.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sadly, it’s inevitable that hearing loss or hearing damage will eventually catch up with all of us. Many audiophiles that seem oblivious to this fact (I’m not highlighting this forum in particular).
I think my biggest bugbear is that some audiophiles that seem to think that because they love music, have spent large amounts of time, effort and money in curating a system, it gives them some divine right to have exceptional hearing.
I also read various AV/home theatre forums, I can’t remember anyone claiming they have superior vision because they watch loads of movies!
Age induced hearing loss has very little to do with the ability to appreciate or perform music, just take a look look at the number of conductors practicing well into advanced age.
And yes, just as a sommelier or coffee blender trains her/his taste or a ‘nose’ in the perfume industry can learn to distinguish between thousands of smells, of course you can train your hearing!
And yes, just as a sommelier or coffee blender trains her/his taste or a ‘nose’ in the perfume industry can learn to distinguish between thousands of smells, of course you can train your hearing!
But we are not talking about the ability to appreciate or perform music, we are in the realms of identifying distortion artefacts. Yes, you can train your hearing but that takes serious effort and dedication to be able to identify these artefacts. Considering the amount of audiophiles that have no interest in graphs and measurements, what chance is there in them putting in the effort to train their hearing?
Absolutely, I think that people reporting what they hear really do hear it. I'm not aware of previous problems.
I don't know how cautious anyone is being other than myself. I haven't seen any hostility, just questions.
I'm not aware of this.
I'm not denying anybody of anything. I'm just rendering my opinion on matters related to hifi on a hifi forum. I have no special knowledge of the workings of science. But the theory of the placebo effect reconciles the data. I have asked for other explanations, but the only one suggested implied that people who don't hear a difference have defective hearing. I'm still waiting for someone to come forth and explain how some people hear a difference and others don't. This is a forum. Present your ideas and let's discuss.
I said it "can" be, not it is. It's not a conclusion. I'm hoping that there are people here who know more than I do and can explain what is happening using an alternate theory.
I'm not concerned with having the last word. I would love for you to respond.
Evaluating distortion artifacts in a musical recording that is part of the circle of confusion* in the audio reproduction chain is a futile exercise. The tune-dem method that Linn is advocating, in contrast, focuses on the ability of the equipment to communicate the musical language. As this is conveyed through the ability to reproduce mainly timing & pitch (melody) you can, through active listening, definitely enhance your skills and through that improve not only how to evaluate audio equipment but also broaden your enjoyment of music.
*http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html?m=1
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
