And so the next major audiophile engineering challenge is, err, well what?

[tfarney]

LOL!!

No disrespect, Tim, but I couldn't give a monkey's bollocks what "a statistically significant sample of civilians/audiophiles/recording engineers" think. I trust my own ears, and those of people whose opinions I respect, nothing else matters to me - and so it will always be...

Oh, and these days I rarely, if ever, use magazines to assess the performance standards of equipment, so I'm pretty unconcerned how they carry out their tests. There are plenty of other things which I find hi-fi magazines useful for, though.

Marco.

No disrespect taken and no offense meant, Marco, but the simple truth is that if a given tweak/component/difference cannot be heard often enough by a sufficiently large set of humans with normal hearing to exceed a margin for error (statistical sample), yet you still think you hear it, your ears are not to be trusted. I'm not saying that would happen, but it's really that simple. If you can manage to hear everything for yourself, fine. If not, a bit of AB/X testing might make those audiophile magazines good for something more than toilet paper again.

Tim

[tfarney]

Seems reasonable to me.

Maybe the difference should as clear as day and night, before it should be considered to be present.

Or perhaps the difference should at least be consistently identifiable. I'm not even looking for as clear as night and day. Audible would be good enough.

Tim

[Marco]

No disrespect taken and no offense meant, Marco, but the simple truth is that if a given tweak/component/difference cannot be heard often enough by a sufficiently large set of humans with normal hearing to exceed a margin for error (statistical sample), yet you still think you hear it, your ears are not to be trusted.

I would agree, Tim, providing the participants had sufficient hearing acuity to ascertain any real differences. When it comes to testing hi-fi equipment, you'd have to ensure that the "sufficiently large set of humans" was represented by discerning audio enthusiasts (such as the type of people on this forum for example) and not just ordinary members of the public. In many cases with tweaks, etc, you need to know what to listen for and have some reasonable benchmark (in terms of hi-fi system) from which to judge the results

Imagine asking your average person on the street to take part in a hi-fi mains cable test or analysing the difference VTA or miniscule changes to cartridge alignment makes when setting up a turntable? He or she would think you were bonkers, when in fact these things cause significant audible differences in a sufficiently revealing system, and to those with appropriately trained ears. The wrong people (no matter how many there were taking part in the test) probably wouldn't hear any differences with these things, but that would by no means automatically mean that no differences actually existed...

I'm sorry, but your model for hi-fi testing is fatally flawed.

Marco.

[niklasthedolphin]

I would agree, Tim, providing the participants had sufficient hearing acuity to ascertain any real differences. When it comes to testing hi-fi equipment, you'd have to ensure that the "sufficiently large set of humans" was represented by discerning audio enthusiasts (such as the type of people on this forum for example) and not just ordinary members of the public. In many cases with tweaks, etc, you need to know what to listen for and have some reasonable benchmark (in terms of hi-fi system) from which to judge the results

Imagine asking your average person on the street to take part in a hi-fi mains cable test or analysing the difference VTA or miniscule changes to cartridge alignment makes when setting up a turntable? He or she would think you were bonkers, when in fact these things cause significant audible differences in a sufficiently revealing system, and to those with appropriately trained ears. The wrong people (no matter how many there were taking part in the test) probably wouldn't hear any differences with these things, but that would by no means automatically mean that no differences actually existed...

I'm sorry, but your model for hi-fi testing is fatally flawed.

Marco.

I would say that even within claimed audio- and hifi nerds or "discerning audio enthusiasts", as you name them, only a very small percentage have the realy good hearing.

And furthermore, now that we have this thing analyzed and naturally concluded that a listening seance is purely subjective by nature, like all other experiences, one person with the ears put on correctly might hear a change while another on doesn't, due to mood, subconsciousness, traumatized childhood or whatever.

Therefor, AB(X) tests only work for one individual at a time.

It's very simple and basic.

Otherwise everybody having the very high-end set-up would have the same gear and no shops would be able to sell "snake oil".

"dolph"

[Labarum]

Many years ago I was in a HiFi shop, very close to a Quad electrostatic as a CD of cello music was about to be played. I heard the cellist bang the instrument on his knee as he made ready to play. Just the tiniest nudge that set the instrument resonating. "Sounds good" I thought to myself, even before the first note was played. At that time I was spending a lot of time knee to knee with my ten year old son, supervising his cello practice. I knew that sound very well!

And my point? The best persons to make an evaluation of a system's worth are those who play, or who are very familiar with the instruments and the style of music being played on the sound system at the time.

They could be completely ignorant of HiFi matters - probably better if they are - the question is straightforward: is this realistic?

[Marco]

I would say that even within claimed audio- and hifi nerds or "discerning audio enthusiasts", as you name them, only a very small percentage have the realy good hearing.

I completely agree, Dolph! It's such a pity you have a penchant for fatally flawed turntable technology

The best persons to make an evaluation of a system's worth are those who play, or who are very familiar with the instruments and the style of music being played on the sound system at the time.

They could be completely ignorant of HiFi matters - probably better if they are - the question is straightforward: is this realistic?

Brian, again I totally agree. What you're referring to essentially is a person's available 'benchmark' with audio. We all have one - but the fact is those belonging to some are better (read as more realistic) than others.

Marco.

[Labarum]

Brian, again I totally agree. What you're referring to essentially is a person's available 'benchmark' with audio. We all have one - but the fact is those belonging to some are better (read as more realistic) than others.

There is, however, a class of very musical people who don't care about the audio quality, for they hear the music in their minds. What their ears receive is just a memory prompt. They might have a similar experience by reading the score: and that they might prefer, because they interpret the music as they wish, rather than have another opinion forced on them.

This is way off topic!

[Filterlab]

There is, however, a class of very musical people who don't care about the audio quality, for they hear the music in their minds. What their ears receive is just a memory prompt. They might have a similar experience by reading the score: and that they might prefer, because they interpret the music as they wish, rather than have another opinion forced on them.

This is way off topic!

Doesn't matter, keep it coming! I've never thought of playback as a memory prompt, it's a good theory as to why many people are happy listening through their mobiles or whatever - maybe they just need to hear it as a reminder.

[Labarum]

But have we any musicians who can talk about the memory in their fingers?

When my son was younger (he ended up a graduate engineer, which is another clue) he would play the dining table with his fingers as he listened in his mind to a piano piece; or he would raise his left hand and manipulate an imaginary cello fingerboard.

The memory was in his fingers!

Many less musical people have the same experience with telephone numbers - ask them the number and they cant say it - show them the keypad and they will enter it.

It's probably the same with touch typists.

[tfarney]

Marco.

I would agree, Tim, providing the participants had sufficient hearing acuity to ascertain any real differences. When it comes to testing hi-fi equipment, you'd have to ensure that the "sufficiently large set of humans" was represented by discerning audio enthusiasts (such as the type of people on this forum for example) and not just ordinary members of the public.

This is why I offered civilians, audiophiles or recording engineers. Your choice. The truth is, given a sufficient number of people and tests, you can statistically reduce the chance for error, or even bad hearing to below the margin for error. So, given a sufficiently large and expensive study, a random group of people, not a hand chosen one, would be best. But I'd be willing to go with audiophiles, or even highly trained and experienced mastering engineers.

Imagine asking your average person on the street to take part in a hi-fi mains cable test or analysing the difference VTA or miniscule changes to cartridge alignment makes when setting up a turntable?

This completely misses the point. If the "average person" or the highly-trained professional knows what they're listening to or what to listen for, the test is inherently flawed. But I'd even be willing to go for that. Give me a roomful of audiophiles or engineers, tell them they're listening for changes in hifi mains cables, run a sufficient number of AB/X listening tests to obtain a sufficiently low margin for error and see what we get.

] In many cases with tweaks, etc, you need to know what to listen for and have some reasonable benchmark (in terms of hi-fi system) from which to judge the results

And I suppose that's ok if the testing is truly blind; I'd have to consult some research professionals. But when you're testing hifi on your own, and you are insisting that you must know what is being tested and you must know what to listen for and you're aware of what you're listening to when, that truly is a useless model. You have opened the door to psychological bias so wide that just about any notion could walk through. You may trust your ears under such conditions, but no one else should. You may as well simply say that you like having X component in your signal chain as it makes you feel good whether you can hear it or not.

I'm sorry, but your model for hi-fi testing is fatally flawed.

You've missed the point again. I'm not talking about testing hifi. I'm talking about testing whether or not a change in a system can be heard at all. I'm talking about testing hearing vs. psychological bias. I'm probably also wasting my time. I suspect I could show the dedicated audiophile that his favorite component was, even in his own ears, inaudibly different from the one he replaced with it and he'd simply conclude that my test was flawed. He would always find some cause other than his own bias.

Carry on.

Tim