Advice for Beginners - consider this test from an audio club

[SWL]

One of my favorite quotes: “I know I have a tin ear, that’s why I rely on measurements.”

Now there's a t-shirt to hand out at the pilgrimage. [emoji39]

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Zen Traveler]

2 hours ago, TubeHiFiNut said:

There's room for everyone in our hobby.

I agree. My point was that there are several different audio hobbies we seem to be talking about and the information to beginners would be different for 2 channel compared to multichannel. I gather mono recordings would fit into the former group.

[robert_kc]

10 hours ago, Edgar said:

 

Years ago I entered a discussion (argument) with another audiophile, who authoritatively stated the following: "If there is a difference in the sound, then ABX testing will find it." In response to that, I wrote down on a piece of paper, with him watching:

 

If there is a difference in the sound, then ABX testing will find it.

 

Under that, I wrote the following:

 

If there is a difference in the sound, then harmonic distortion testing will find it.

If there is a difference in the sound, then intermodulation distortion testing will find it.

If there is a difference in the sound, then frequency response testing will find it.

If there is a difference in the sound, then phase response testing will find it.

If there is a difference in the sound, then transient intermodulation distortion testing will find it.

If there is a difference in the sound, then crossover distortion testing will find it.

 

I pointed out that all of the latter statements had, at some point in the past, been asserted just as authoritatively as his ... and that all of them had later been proven wrong.

 

I'm not saying that the statement about ABX testing is false. (I actually believe that it may be the best test that we currently have.) I'm saying that asserting something is not the same as proving it.

 

10 hours ago, TubeHiFiNut said:

There have been so many "be all, end all" tests that were supposed to tell us how a component sounds and, as you point out, none of them have panned out.

 

In my opinion it takes time to familiarize the listener with the subtle pros and cons of a particular component. The DBT/ABX protocol is short term and focuses on "different" rather than quality.

 

My criteria for selecting components is simple: the components that facilitate my emotional connection with the music I love are the components I keep and use. Might be tubes, might be solid state. I try to use the right tool for the job. Others may have different criteria - each to their own.

 

Experience is gained by listening to lots of gear over time. That is what I suggest to audio newbies.

 

Just my opinion.

 

I agree with these comments by @TubeHiFiNut and @Edgar, and similar advice that others have offered to a newbie:  Listen with your own ears, and form your own opinions about which hi-fi configuration sounds best to you.

 

As has been discussed, I believe that from the consumer’s perspective, ABX testing doesn’t address the important issue:  Which sound does the consumer prefer?

 

ABX testing has entered this discussion based on the argument that “if people can’t reliably identify a difference in modern solid-state amps during ABX testing, then modern solid-state amps must all sound the same”.   The problem is that many experienced hobbyists report that they can hear differences in amps – even differences between solid-state amps.  Are the people who report hearing differences in amps “audiophools”, or is there a problem with employing ABX testing to evaluate audio sound quality?

 

I’ve been reluctant to comment about the legitimacy of ABX testing for audio quality because I’m not an expert.  And it’s been a few years since I’ve read about ABX testing.   With that said, I suggest that the newbie ask themselves a few common-sense questions.  (You can spend hours reading on-line about ABX testing if you wish.)

 

Does the fact that ABX tests often fail to show that people can hear subtle differences in sound quality (e.g., different amps, hi-res recordings vs. CD, different cables, etc.) cause concern about the effectiveness of ABX for audio testing?   Does ABX testing reliably provide information about differences in sound quality, or does ABX testing mostly provide information about limitations in people’s ability to remember sound?  Is ABX testing fundamentally flawed when applied to the evaluation of audio sound quality?

 

Suppose a listener were asked to listen to 1,000 music samples that have subtle differences in audio quality, followed by Sample X, and asked to identify which of the 1,000 samples is the same as X.   My guess is that no one would be able to remember how 1,000 music samples sounded, and therefore would not be able to identify which is the same as X.  (I have no scientific basis for this conclusion.  I’m sharing my gut level instinct.)  Can a person remember how 10 samples sounded, and reliably identify which is the same as X?   $64k question:  Can most people listen to 2 different music samples (A & B ) that have subtle sound differences, and then listen to Sample X, and reliably identify whether A or B is the same as X?  What are the limits of human memory of sound?

 

Bottom line:  Does the fact that (reportedly) ABX tests often conclude “no difference proven” – even though experienced audiophiles often report they can hear differences – suggest that perhaps the ABX methodology is not well suited for audio tests?

 

IMO the same general question is relevant for other forms of structured listening tests (e.g., blinded tests):   Does the testing methodology reliably provide information about differences in sound quality, or do the test results suggest that the test methodology is ineffective - even if we don’t currently understand why the methodology produces flawed results.

 

Note also that specific listening tests have had specific issues.  For example, a test of recording sampling rates apparently did not use hi-res sources for the “hi-res” files.   (Garbage in / garbage out.)   And there are concerns about whether or not the listeners were hearing artifacts of software that apparently was used to facilitate testing and “simulate” different digital formats.   (IMO anytime PC software “mucks around” with sound files, I have zero confidence in any test results.)

 

This thread includes comments from many experienced audiophiles who say that they place faith in their “real world” experience with multiple amps, vs. placing faith in structured listening tests – even if the listening tests are described as being “scientific”.

 

I don’t have a definitive answer regarding the effectiveness of various structured listening tests for audio, but I think there’s enough doubt about ABX testing methodology that one would be foolish to blindly draw conclusions from ABX test results.

 

Your thoughts?

 

[garyrc]

9 hours ago, TubeHiFiNut said:

The DBT/ABX protocol is short term and focuses on "different" rather than quality.

 

DBT/ABX is not the be-all and end-all, but it can be useful.  "Difference" is a starting point.  DBT/ABX can also be used to look at "preference," rather than "difference."   People can be asked to determine which trials have the most "realistic," or "natural" or "neutral" sound, etc., etc. 

[Dave A]

Hey ODS123, did those testers make any recommendations regarding what capacitors to use in their setup? I know those can make a big difference in how the amp sounds.

[pzannucci]

58 minutes ago, garyrc said:

 

DBT/ABX is not the be-all and end-all, but it can be useful.  "Difference" is a starting point.  DBT/ABX can also be used to look at "preference," rather than "difference."   People can be asked to determine which trials have the most "realistic," or "natural" or "neutral" sound, etc., etc. 

True but everything is an interpretation.  What is real to my ears may not be real to someone else.

 

It is really what illusion to you like the best.  Once you change one thing in the setup, there is now a deviation and in the end.. difference.  Doesn't need to be as drastic as an amp change.  It will all be synergy.

[TubeHiFiNut]

2 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

I agree. My point was that there are several different audio hobbies we seem to be talking about and the information to beginners would be different for 2 channel compared to multichannel. I gather mono recordings would fit into the former group.

I agree that Mono and Stereo are in the same category and are differentiated from Home Theater and multi-channel audio.

 

Any advice offered would need to address the specific requirements of that catagory.

[garyrc]

6 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

I'm not sure where we disagree but feel your further audio pleasures dating back to the 50's and 60's make me think you may be in the lower single digits of audio enthusiasts...Just sayin'  

I'm there too! 

8 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

 ... I gotta go back to the difference between 2 channel (used to be called "stereo") and multichannel folks😕.

Starting in 1959, we listened to 2 channel "stereo" at home, and 4, 6, or 7 channel "stereo" in certain movie theaters, which we had been doing, whenever possible, since 1952.  By the time the stereo record was introduced, we were addicted to multichannel, thanks to the movies, and wanted more than a paltry 2 channels.  Around 1970, the Hafler circuit started to fill that need, using our old, treasured, 2 channel disks.   Movie multichannel was nearly always called "stereo," regardless of the number of channels.  Banners were hung under marquees, trumpeting "Stereophonic sound."   In dictating his famous notes for A Farewell to Arms, Selznick said, "Stereophonic sound never sold a ticket."  He was dead wrong.  My friends and I would take public transportation (often an hour each way) to travel to a theater our phone calls had verified was showing a movie with stereo sound.  Martin Mayer, in his 1958 book on Hi Fi used the terms "binaural" and "stereo" interchangeably.  He was the only one doing that, IIRC.  Several of our schoolteachers and parents had seen a very early multichannel movie, Walt Disney's Fantasia, in "Fantasound," in 1940, and they shared their impressions with us (starting with the phrase, "Long before you were born"), often using the same word to describe the sound: "Hypnotic."   According to Scientific American (Peck, 1941), it was recorded on 9 tracks, mixed down to 3, plus one "control track" that turned the sound up and down, and panned one or more channels around, to up to 90 speakers behind the screen and around theater.  Peck says sound could be made to "creep down the aisle."

 

Walt Disney and Leopold Stokowski working on bringing multichannel stereo to the screen

 

8 hours ago, Shakeydeal said:

😕

Well count me in on whatever that percentage might be. I have no use for car chases, explosions and dinosaur stomps as part of my entertainment. And even when I did, I made sure it was completely separate from what I was using to enjoy music... 

Shakey

But for a film like Amadeus ...  even with Khorns, a subwoofer comes in handy to reinforce the authority of many instruments, as well as when the statue of the Commendatore walks through the brick wall in Don Giovanni.

8 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

Sure. You are a 2 channel person. I, otoh, haven't purchased any stereo material in almost 2 decades and during that time have appreciated multichannel music formats as well as movies and the system listed in my sig is great for both...Different strokes for different folks.

My 2 channel is played on the LF and RF of my HT system.  Or, recently, through PLII, for 5.1 channels from 2, which is much better than I thought it would be.

7 hours ago, TubeHiFiNut said:

@Shakeydeal

I love Jazz and Classical recorded in the 1950s and 1960s - Stereo and Mono. In addition to the stereo systems, I'm in the process of assembling a nice mono system for the large number of mono records in the collection.

It's fascinating to me that one of the highest fidelity jazz recordings I have was made in 1956.  It was recorded at the Reeves studio in NYC (Reeves was the 7 channel Cinerama sound guy) and transferred to SACD by Fantasy in Berkeley.  It is Brilliant Corners, by Monk.  Several top quality classical recordings were made back then, too.

 

[TubeHiFiNut]

45 minutes ago, garyrc said:

It's fascinating to me that one of the highest fidelity jazz recordings I have was made in 1956.  It was recorded at the Reeves studio in NYC (Reeves was the 7 channel Cinerama sound guy) and transferred to SACD by Fantasy in Berkeley.  It is Brilliant Corners, by Monk.  Several top quality classical recordings were made back then, too.

I am familiar with Brilliant Corners. Excellent album.

 

Monk was a very special Jazz pianist and composer.

[Tizman]

3 hours ago, Dave A said:

Hey ODS123, did those testers make any recommendations regarding what capacitors to use in their setup? I know those can make a big difference in how the amp sounds.

Do you mean in the speaker crossovers, amps or CD players?

[Dave A]

1 minute ago, Tizman said:

Do you mean in the speaker crossovers, amps or CD players?

Oh he can talk about any of them he wishes. I figure it would be, ah well lets just say amusing.

[Zen Traveler]

On ‎12‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 4:40 PM, TubeHiFiNut said:

On ‎12‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 3:52 PM, Deang said:

@ODS123 I’m sure you’re a fine fellow and all - but nobody gives a shit. 

 

Amen to that.

Ha! 27 pages later it appears quite a few of you gives a shit. 😎

[Deang]

Lol, touché.

[TubeHiFiNut]

42 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

Ha! 27 pages later it appears quite a few of you gives a shit. 😎

It would appear that interest was rekindled to some degree.

 

For me, as long as folks are very clear when posting opinion as opinion, I don't care.

 

 

[Tizman]

In my opinion, a careful scientific analysis will show that everything sounds the same as a careful scientific analysis sounds like my opinion.

[ClaudeJ1]

9 hours ago, jason str said:

Klipsch would have folded long ago if everything sounded the same, luckily many of us can hear well enough to decipher what sounds great to us and what does not.

 

The bonus of having a tin ear = huge cost savings for you.

 

The rest of us = pay dearly.

so true

 

[Don Richard]

On ‎1‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 6:38 PM, mikebse2a3 said:

I have found that variations of as little as .5db in Frequency/SPL over a bandwidth of an octave are easily perceived in many situations to a trained ear when dialing in a loudspeaker system with a high quality DSP processor.

 

I have observed the same. It's not an increase in loudness that I'm hearing but a change in timbre, and more than a subtle change.

[Don Richard]

On ‎1‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 7:28 PM, Deang said:

That is an especially useless endeavor - you should be using pink noise. 

 

Exactly.

[Don Richard]

On ‎1‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 6:47 AM, TubeHiFiNut said:

You seem to have a blind and unquestioning belief in the DBT/ABX religion. 

 

Religion? Blind testing protocols aren't "religion", which implies blind faith. These sorts of tests are scientifically designed to remove biases and emotion in order to reveal the truth. Some people, when faced with the reality that they can't hear a difference between expensive equipment and a less expensive component, exhibit an emotional response; "This cannot be - the test is flawed" or "So all amplifiers sound the same? Bullshit". Of course, the test is not flawed and only the two pieces of gear that were tested are proven to sound the same.

[Dave A]

48 minutes ago, Don Richard said:

 

Religion? Blind testing protocols aren't "religion", which implies blind faith. These sorts of tests are scientifically designed to remove biases and emotion in order to reveal the truth. Some people, when faced with the reality that they can't hear a difference between expensive equipment and a less expensive component, exhibit an emotional response; "This cannot be - the test is flawed" or "So all amplifiers sound the same? Bullshit". Of course, the test is not flawed and only the two pieces of gear that were tested are proven to sound the same.

Interesting point. In manufacturing there is something known as tolerance stack up. It means that all the little within 1% or 5% or even 10% tolerance things add up and when bad enough even though it passes inspection it is not as good as one that was say 1% tolerance or less all the way through. On any given piece of gear especially with electrolytic capacitors and inductors if they use 10% tolerance that is + and - so variance can be significant and still get out the door. I have a hand full of .1mh air coils here and all of them even though the claim was for modern tight tolerances test 5 to10% out.