Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy? - Page 102

The thing is, about the all amps sounding similar argument. Even if you sidestep the blind test conditions and all of that. The people experiencing the change, THEY BELIEVE IT, so it is real for them. You may not experience it, but they do. They, the audiophile can and do put a value on what they think they taste/hear.

So at the end of the day, it's all futile. The listener believes he heard a difference and it is a truism for that person.

Fine, but that doesn't mean those people should be advising others on how to spend their money. A placebo is not real medicine, and shouldn't be sold as such. I like to think that The Truth is valuable in its own right.

--Ethan

Then we do a proper listening test with the same user, the same equipment, and the same music. He hears no differences. What is the truth?

The truth is that the differences were not due to the equipment, but were due to the crude procedures used in the test.

So is that the product that audio's far-out high end sells - badly done listening tests? Doesn't seem very attractive or inspiring does it? ;-)

Sure, what *if* the result was due to a bad test procedure? If the person felt he heard a difference regardless then what does it matter? It's a truism for him.

Their own truth is that they heard audible differences, even if it was an audible illusion. They experienced it as if it were real. Whether it was due to bias, or a bad test, or a mood swing etc is not particularly relevant. The fact is, they experienced something and I'm sure those people can put a value on that change.
Edited by OllieS - 4/19/13 at 12:56pm

Since all sighted evaluations are inherently bad test procedures, what did you do with the results of all of the sighted evaluations that you have done?

Depends on how seriously he takes himself, no?

Some of us have had enough flawed or illusory perceptions that we take ourselves with a grain of salt, or even a whole bag! ;-)

Here's the scam - you demonstrate an illusion, and then you tell the sucker over and over again that he is always right in his naive perceptions.

I believe many of us learned about this tactic with the old fable, "The Emperor's New Clothes", no? ;-)

It really is IMO accurate to use the drug versus placebo analogy. If I take a placebo and find it reduces my pain, I might run around and tell all my freinds to get the placebo. but the folks who ran the test will know that while my pain may have abated, it was not due to anything the pill contained. Since my reaction to the placebo is internal to my psyche, I'd be well served to figure out how to get the placebo effect whenever I want it without having to bother to ingest sugar shaped into a pill first.

Similarly, when we hear differences in uncontrolled tests, there's a very good chance that the difference was not caused by the change of (name the device: amp, preamp, DAC, interconnect, speaker connect, cable elevators or Shakti stones). Imagining the differences are some subtle but overwhelming indescribable "thing" that only we and our friends can perceive (and don't ask us to participate in a double blind test, please) doesn't make it so. If we've reacted to internal changes in our own attitude or attention, or if there's some other factor involved that actually changed the sound in some relatively subtle way (changing seating positions, for example, will change how tweeter and woofer blend) then we start spending money on the things that don't make a difference, using faulty reasoning to support our likely incorrect conclusions.

On the other hand, if I was allowed to believe that the sugar pill ACTUALLY, through its chemical action, improved my pain, and at some point noticed they weren't working any more I might have less than charaitable feelings toward whichever quack sold me the bill of goods for as long as they could.

Especially if the sugar pills cost $200 each, which is typical for audio tweaks like replacement power cords and boutique USB wires.

--Ethan

If the person would leave it that, there would be no problem. Unfortunately, that same individual is highly inclined to participate in forums, argue to their last mortal breath against sound reasoning, and ultimately cloud productive conversation with needless banter and confusion. Lets leave that to the manufacturer's advertising department.

Personally, I'm seeking truth, not fantasy or faith based reasoning, when I'm looking to buy an electronic equipment. Though we all know its true that AVS Forum is a great site for partying with no cover charge, as long as you're prepared to bring your own drinks, and don't need to ogle at the opposite sex, that's not why I drop in from time to time; ask for advice; throw a little offering to someone who wants opinions on buying outdoor speakers for five hundred bucks or less. No... despite those alluring qualities available at the AVS Forum, I'm generally interested in getting valid information.

Despite the mildly entertaining aspect of surly argumentation from the overly subjective AV enthusiasist, those viewpoints are generally of no value.

How about the exalted "Direct" setting available on Receivers and Controllers? Over and over again I've read postings of the superiority of the feature over equalization and DSP processing because the audio is getting closer to what the studio engineer desired and elimination of noticeable distortion. Is this valid reasoning?

My personal observation is that the logic of defeating EQ is generally not the best approach despite the possibility of distortion introduced by video and... whatever other signals are at play... tone controls? Before using AV Receivers, for most of my recordings I preferred using the Holography setting available on my Carver equipment over the CD Direct setting.

The advantage seems to be rooted in preference, nothing superior or objective.

"Is this valid reasoning?"

No. The biggest variable on frequency response is your room and how your speakers interact with it and your listening position. Most of us have no way of knowing what the studio/mastering/mixdown engineer hears. The best we can hope for is a flat in-room system so it does not muck with what the artist/engineer heard when the recording was made. Going direct means our room response will dictate the frequency response instead of the recording.

All IMO - Don

Yes the elephant is the ROOM also don't forget your EARS!

I disagree on two points;

Belief that your amp is a sonic wonder, may on balance lead to a lesser listening experience. The need to have the best when no real metric exists for what that is, means a life of anxiety combined with insane spending to keep up.

We aren't talking person to person, but in a forum sense with dozens of reader/poster. So will get educated, even if the poster does not.

Saw this on a used equipment site. It pretty much says it all, a "what's wrong with this picture" example that I've seen time and time again. This is a person who's very likely to tell us he hears the difference between copper and silver cables.....

Good example ...

The loudspeaker mfr goes to great length to mitigate issues w/diffraction, yet the user tucks these things up against both the sidewall, and the wall behind them,...on the bare floor to boot!

However, those mammoth Mc mono-blocks go a long way toward pleasing appearance. Maybe those that love the extra wide ASW would dig the obfuscated mess this would create.

That kind of example soooo reminds me of being in photography forums where you had people with the most expensive and extensive camera gear collections yet some of the most poorly executed and uninspiring photography work in their albums to show for it. All the gear and no idea. And yet bizarrely these same people would pass themselves off as the ultimate authority on everything in the forums with huge post counts to their names giving "advice" to any hapless sod that came along. It is as if someone's knowledge is somehow directly related to how much they run up on their credit card each month.

This reminds me to keep a reality check even in these forums and realise that a poster with a huge post count to their name and lots of expensive equipment in their sig could be just another one of those self appointed "experts" and whose own room is a complete acoustical disaster.

Ouch why would one do that talk about a waist of really nice performing gear!

Good equipment perhaps, but...

The electronics looks great, but has no sonic benefits over any other good amps. The speakers are poorly positioned and the room is very likely overly reverberant.

Give me an AVR and some good but reasonably priced towers well positioned in a well-designed room, and the SQ will eat this fancy stuff alive.

Agreed, the room is 50 % of the sound, place this equipment in a well design room and they will kick A....