Dumb things you've heard from "audiophiles"...

heiney9

Didn't know you cared so much about whether I was in or out? I'm out arguing with Beef as we are never going to resolve our POV's. Doesn't mean I can't comment further on the discussion with others. Or did I break some arbitrary rule I wasn't aware of?

Glad you stopped by to offer so much substance to the discussion, I'm sure it's appreciated :rolleyes:

H9

heiney9

Again the silence is deafening.

H9

madmax

As I read through this thread I am considering a donation to the Institute for the Deaf Dumb and Blind.

steveinaz

Lol!!

halo71

pffftt....I read today that a solid state Behringer pro amp sounds exactly the same as any solid state amp made by Krell or Conrad Johnson! :eek:

heiney9

madmax wrote: »

As I read through this thread I am considering a donation to the Institute for the Deaf Dumb and Blind.

Going to need a LOT of donations to take care of everyone.

H9

tonyb

One clown shy of a circus I tell ya.....no....wait, I see one....yep, a full blown circus. Cotton candy anyone ?

DarqueKnight

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I thought blind testing didn't work for audio? I see you are willing to accept it when it has the results you want.

What I said was:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The application of blind and double-blind tests is thought by a small, but vocal, minority in the audio community to be the supreme evaluation standard for detecting audible differences in audio systems. It is true that some types of audio systems are well suited for blind and double-blind A/B or A/B/X type tests. A/B and A/B/X tests are useful in scenarios when the two audio signals being compared are simple in nature. For example, telephone company engineers have routinely used, and continue to use, A/B and A/B/X tests to evaluate improvements in voice circuit quality. However, we must realize and understand that a test that is suitable for one type of audio system might not be suitable for another. It is worth noting that the same company (the Bell Telephone System) that was responsible for the invention and implementation of telephone service was the same company that was responsible for the invention and implementation of home stereophonic audio systems. It is even more interesting to note that while A/B and A/B/X tests were found to be appropriate for evaluating voice quality improvements on bandwidth-limited telephone circuits, subjective, non-blind listening tests based on careful listening, evaluator training and realistic home listening conditions were the scientific standards for the evaluation of stereophonic audio systems.

WilliamM2 wrote: »

If the Petri-Larmi study is correct, then it should be easy to demonstrate the difference a power cord can make, in a blind study, since the difference is 33 to 53 times greater than the audibility threshold.

The ability to perceive an audible difference in any trial will depend on many factors such as listener ability and system resolution. I could hear a difference between the two power cords in my system. If I had listened to both cords in another system, I might not have been able to distinguish between them. In another system, the difference(s) may be many multiples of some prior established audibility threahold, but could still be masked by other factors, such as the distortion performance of the loudspeaker or the room acoustics.

One thing to consider is that the Petri-Larmi study was a study in simple SIGNAL DISCRIMINATION. They were comparing signals corrupted with various levels of noise. They were not evaluating audible differences in similar types of AUDIO EQUIPMENT. Therefore, since Petri-Larmi was testing the discrimination ability of subjects, a discrimination test like A/B was appropriate.

Also worth considering is the fact that, before the Petri-Larmi A/B tests were conducted, much ground work was done to establish control factors. Listener hearing capability, listener experience with stereo sound, listener seating position, the resolution quality of equipment and length of trials were all appropriate to stereophonic testing. The Petri-Larmi study didn't put a group of random people in a room and start swapping gear in a low resolution system.

One final thing to consider is that I, and other audiophiles, conduct many "accidental" blind tests throughout the year. These "blind tests" occur when we change something in our system and some disinterested party, (wife, girlfriend, random visitor) notices that "something sounds different".

Did you find my research, comments and calculations to be reasonable with regard to the audibility of measured differences in noise content between two power cables?

BlueFox

What I do not understand is that if I change my speakers, amp, pre, CD, etc. and hear a difference then that is a valid result. Yet, if I change a power cord, or other cable, and hear a difference then it is really my mind playing a trick on me. Sounds like convoluted logic to me. Oh well. I will just enjoy my system, and enjoy these threads.

CCNJ

CCNJ wrote: »

You need a warm sounding power cord to tame the brightness of the.....

I feel responsible for starting this mess - although it has been very entertaining to say the least. I thought the quote above was funny because if my system was bright sounding, I would look to change speakers or electronics before experimenting with power cords.

With that said, this is a hobby and all of us are looking to optimize the sound quality of our systems. For me, speakers and electronics interest me the most so that's where I tend to experiment the most. Look at my sig - you people have cost me a pretty penny over the few short years that I joined this forum:eek:

I have begun to upgrade my cables and ICs but I never tested those changes in isolation so I can't comment on the various degrees of improvement that I received with each upgrade. For now I'm happy knowing that I am a step above a budget system and the sound is really pleasing to me. Maybe someday I will have time to do critical listening while swapping out individual components so I can join in on the great cable debate. For now, I will defer to those who have more experience in this area.

My last comment is that audio is very subjective and hearing sensitivity varies greatly. If you hear an improvement with an upgrade, and are happy with the sound of your rig, that is all that really matters.

Chris

gdb

This has removed-a-blanket-from digital-ready unshakeable-space/time-separation for me and many others, I am sure.

SDA1C

This whole time I thought it fleshes-out jaw-dropping see-through-to-the-source-transparency. Only based on the leading-edge-transients and lit-from-within digital-ready dimentionality :cheesygrin:

CCNJ

gdb wrote: »

This has removed-a-blanket-from digital-ready unshakeable-space/time-separation for me and many others, I am sure.

Sticking to the topic of this thread are we?

SDA1C

Oh Wait! I have one...to the OP....

Hi my name is Polkfarmboy.....

WilliamM2

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The Petri-Larmi study didn't put a group of random people in a room and start swapping gear in a low resolution system.

Really?

The threshold of audibility of TIM distortion was determined for 68 subjects representing all categories of listeners, from musicians and sound engineers to the average man on the street.

I also found this quote from the study, which seems to differ from your claim of .003%:

The most sensitive group of listeners could reliably perceive 0.5 percent of momentary TIM. Low values of TIM were generally perceived only as slight changes in the tonal character of the sound, and not as distortion. In a number of cases, a preference was found for the slightly distorted sound.

5 times the distortion you measured.

Did you find my research, comments and calculations to be reasonable with regard to the audibility of measured differences in noise content between two power cables?

No.

tommyt21

Anyone? Plus your hearing increases exponentially while hammered thats a fact...

Jstas

Man, you guys really know how to take the fun out of dysfunctional.

BlueFox

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I also found this quote from the study, which seems to differ from your claim of .003%:

In a number of cases, a preference was found for the slightly distorted sound.

They must have been using tube gear.

SDA1C

heiney9 wrote: »

Going to need a LOT of donations to take care of everyone.

H9

Ain't no pocket deep enough to fix this place!:cool:

Toolfan66

Toolfan66

Toolfan66

SDA1C

WELL its about stinking time! Lawrence, got anything else to derail this nonsensical BS? Please say Yea to the a fore mentioned! Hasn't this quandary gone on long enough?

Oh by the way ... Power Cables matter ! AAHHAHAHAHAHA

Rivrrat

After reading this thread I feel pretty unqualified to just sit down and listen to music anymore.

I guess I'll just stick to the ipod.:razz:

dorokusai

The dumbest things I've heard from "audiophiles" is when they start using terms like decay, microdynamics and attack when it comes to describing what they hear or have heard in a particular demo. I understand those terms and fully get the meaning but it's unneccesary. I find it even more ridiculous when it comes from folks that never even knew the term before, or let alone could understand what it meant before a magazine told them. Maybe I'm just old school but it either sounds good or it doesn't and I'm not sure it really needs the extra adjective or adverb that Stereophile and The Absolute Sound writers like to add to their oh so useless descriptions of every piece of gear they hear.

You HAVE to describe things, its normal but keep it based in reality and simple. If you sit in front of any piece of electronics, trying so very hard to hear something....you will.

I've sold a number of things in my travels and they do two things, sound good, sound bad, The nuances are opinion and can be summed up in simplicity. Sterile, Sharp, Harsh, Warm, Enveloping, Wide, Present, Hard, Sweet, Bitchin' Tubelar Wavey Crazy Man. Who knows, maybe I'm just boxed in and can't extrapolate anything outside my boundaries but when did Audio become so complicated?

Mark

DarqueKnight

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Really?

The threshold of audibility of TIM distortion was determined for 68 subjects representing all categories of listeners, from musicians and sound engineers to the average man on the street.

Yes really.

In your haste and inattention to detail, you mistakenly referenced an earlier Petri-Larmi study, the results of which were also published in 1980, in an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) journal. In post #201 of this thread I quoted the reference citation and the abstract for the Petri-Larmi study I used, which was published in the journal of the Audio Engineering Society (AES). I will provide the citation again, with important parts that you missed in bold and underline:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The title of the paper is "Psychoacoustic Detection Threshold of Transient Intermodulation Distortion, by M. Petri-Larmi, M. Otala and J. Lammasniemi. It was published in the March 1980 issue of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, pp. 98-105. The abstract is as follows:

"The audible threshold of transient intermodulation distortion (TIM) was determined for the SIX most sensitive subjects of the previously reported test series of 68 listeners. Improved equipment, carefully controlled listening environment, a digital TIM generator, and five recorded stereophonic music samples were used. The results show that in certain types of passages of music, a trained and sensitive listener can reliably detect extremely low values of distortion. Low distortion values were perceived only as changes in sound character, and not as distortion."

The citation for the Petri-Larmi study that used 68 listeners is as follows:

"M. Petri-Larmi, M. Otala, E. Leinomen, and J. Lammasniemi, "Audibility of Transient Intermodulation Distortion, "IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, vol. ASSP-28, pp. 91-09 (1980)."

Page 100 (section 3, column 2, paragraph 1) of the 1980 AES followup study states:

"The six subjects were selected according to following principles:

1) They showed particular sensitivity to the distortion in the previous investigation [3].
2) They had some knowledge of audio, which enabled them to characterize and verbalize what they heard.
3) They could be freed from their daily duties to participate in the measurement sessions lasting from 2 to 4 full days per subject."

I wonder if you have some reading comprehension issues because the abstract of the Petri-Larmi 1980 (AES) paper specifically mentions only six subjects and the abstract of the Petri-Larmi 1980 (IEEE) paper specifically mentions 68 subjects. This alone would have tipped off a rational person that they were reading a different paper than the one I cited.

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I also found this quote from the study, which seems to differ from your claim of .003%:

The most sensitive group of listeners could reliably perceive 0.5 percent of momentary TIM. Low values of TIM were generally perceived only as slight changes in the tonal character of the sound, and not as distortion. In a number of cases, a preference was found for the slightly distorted sound.

WilliamM2 wrote: »

5 times the distortion you measured.

Of course it differs. It is a completely different study. The 0.003% figure is first mentioned on page 102 (column 1 paragraph 2) and again on page 103 (column 2, paragraph 7) of the 1980 AES Petri-Larmi study I referenced and quoted. I will quote that statement again:

"It can be noted that the reliable detection threshold was 0.003% rms (250 ms) or 3% peak, both for piano."

The statement you quoted citing the 0.5% TIM figure is from the abstract of the 1980 IEEE Petri-Larmi paper.

I pulled the 1980 IEEE Petri-Larmi paper today. Obviously you did not read the paper because this is stated on page 95 (column 2, paragraph 5):

"To study this phenomenon more closely, a second investigation was conducted. The results have been published elsewhere [10] and they show markedly lower thresholds, -in some cases as low as 0.003 percent rms over a 200 ms integration period for the detection of the "change in sound character."

Therefore, the paper you quoted which you perceived to be an indictment of some misstatement on my part is actually an indictment of your lack of lack of rationality and clarity of thought.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Did you find my research, comments and calculations to be reasonable with regard to the audibility of measured differences in noise content between two power cables?

WilliamM2 wrote: »

No.

In light of the fact that I accurately quoted the Petri-Larmi study that I referenced (AES 1980) and that the quotation was affirmed by the Petri-Larmi "smoking gun" paper that you erroneously referenced (IEEE 1980), would you like to revise your opinion regarding my research, comments and calculations regarding the audibility of signal noise reduction due to higher quality power cables?

SDA1C

Raif, May I ? ...I think this gentleman is grouped with the common misunderstood, that audible differences are of tonal quality and may or may not be noticed in the latest rendition of "Smoke on the water" in its entirety. One thing that seems to elude folks is the fact that regardless of whether it is an "in your face" difference to most, it is somewhat obvious to those that truly enjoy the hobby and revel in the slightest improvements in detail. Not to say the upgrades in quality are anything less then substantial in the experiences I have had but that some do not realize these differences due to audiological deficiencies. My wife's Master Thesis was based on the ability of the deaf to note and recognize differences in tonal substrate, however, as we sit here tonight she has an informally tested difficulty in identifying the changes in 200 to 700 hrtz.

Not to discount the clear abilities to identify changes in other frequencies but I have noticed a correlation between those that nay-say and those that seem to be lacking in sensitivity to specific frequency ranges.

In short...they simply can't hear well enough to notice the difference. In my view is and of itself grounds for dismissal of their unsubstantive claims and or arguments.

Oh .. BTW Power Cables DO make a difference!

DarqueKnight

SDA1C wrote: »

In short...they simply can't hear well enough to notice the difference. In my view is and of itself grounds for dismissal of their unsubstantive claims and or arguments.

Yeah...but where's the entertainment value in ignoring them?

It's not always a case of not being able to hear well enough, but rather a case of not knowing how to listen. Many people have to learn how to properly perceive a stereophonic sound field. This was explicitly stated by some of the early researchers in stereophonic systems.

headrott

BeefJerky wrote: »

Okay, I think I see the real issue here. You and I shouldn't even be discussing DBT/ABX at this time since you claim you don't even believe in the "placebo effect" when it comes to audio. However, it does appear that you believe it when it comes to medicinal purposes. So, just to clarify and make sure we are on the same page:
You do believe that the use of placebo is necessary in medicinal testing due the placebo effect. Specifically, there are cases where the brain/body can heal itself of disease, or even create disease based on expectations. Yet, you don't believe that your brain can alter your perception of hearing due to expectations or input from other senses. Really???

On the other hand, if your problem is more with my choice of term, I'm sure we can come up with something more to your liking. I'll admit that it may not be an optimal term for describing the effects of expectation upon one's perception of auditory stimuli. Nonetheless, it is used because it is referring the same affect of the patients body altering itself or its perception based on expectations. As of now, I haven't found a better term, but I'm certainly open to suggestions!

As for me assuming that there is no audible difference, you are correct in this case. There simply is no scientific evidence supporting the claims of power cable and digital cable enthusiasts. Really, there is no proof either way! An ABX/DBT could provide some evidence for or against my claims, just as has been done with other types of audio equipment. If I do test different cables, I actually would prefer to do it ABX or DBT style in an effort to abate my own expectations. It seems that one power cable believer is willing to join me in such a trial, and I hope others might as well. If a test does prove differences in power/digital audio cables, I am prepared to admit that my assumptions and expectations were wrong.

BeefJerky, again you did not address these statements I made in the quote below. You again tried to side step what I brought up. Do you not have a response for the issues brought up in the quote below? Try reading this again and respond:

headrott wrote: »

Again I don't believe "placebo effect" is applicable for sterephonic audio as it was intended for medical evaluations. It's similar to DBT's and their application for stereophonic audio. The term placebo is used for a false medication given to the patient receiving the placebo the idea that they were receiving the true medication. Since cables either do or do not make an audible difference there is not necessarily a secondary "false cable" (or placebo) to test if there is an audible difference between two cables, the term does not apply to a stereophonic audio situation (and that has been my point all along). You cannot assume that there is no audible difference because you don't think there is. Where is your proof that there is no audible difference? As you stated, you won't even try cables until you are shown proof there is a difference in them. You don't know if there is a difference or not as you have not discovered for yourself if there is one or not. As a mater of fact, you are refusing to until there is proof there is one. Do you see the illogical circular argument that makes?

Also, regarding this quote:

BeefJerky wrote: »

Okay, I think I see the real issue here. You and I shouldn't even be discussing DBT/ABX at this time since you claim you don't even believe in the "placebo effect" when it comes to audio. However, it does appear that you believe it when it comes to medicinal purposes. So, just to clarify and make sure we are on the same page:
You do believe that the use of placebo is necessary in medicinal testing due the placebo effect. Specifically, there are cases where the brain/body can heal itself of disease, or even create disease based on expectations. Yet, you don't believe that your brain can alter your perception of hearing due to expectations or input from other senses. Really???

On the other hand, if your problem is more with my choice of term, I'm sure we can come up with something more to your liking. I'll admit that it may not be an optimal term for describing the effects of expectation upon one's perception of auditory stimuli. Nonetheless, it is used because it is referring the same affect of the patients body altering itself or its perception based on expectations. As of now, I haven't found a better term, but I'm certainly open to suggestions!

As for me assuming that there is no audible difference, you are correct in this case. There simply is no scientific evidence supporting the claims of power cable and digital cable enthusiasts. Really, there is no proof either way! An ABX/DBT could provide some evidence for or against my claims, just as has been done with other types of audio equipment. If I do test different cables, I actually would prefer to do it ABX or DBT style in an effort to abate my own expectations. It seems that one power cable believer is willing to join me in such a trial, and I hope others might as well. If a test does prove differences in power/digital audio cables, I am prepared to admit that my assumptions and expectations were wrong.

First off, I never said I didn't believe in "placebo effect" when it comes to audio (an opinion), I said that it was not intended to be used for audio (a fact). So, by that logic, I believe (to make us on the "same page") I said that a placebo was intended to be used for medicinal purposes, whereas a placebo was not intended to be used for stereophonic audio testing. As in my quote above stating:

headrott wrote: »

Again I don't believe "placebo effect" is applicable for sterephonic audio as it was intended for medical evaluations. It's similar to DBT's and their application for stereophonic audio. The term placebo is used for a false medication given to the patient receiving the placebo the idea that they were receiving the true medication. Since cables either do or do not make an audible difference there is not necessarily a secondary "false cable" (or placebo) to test if there is an audible difference between two cables, the term does not apply to a stereophonic audio situation (and that has been my point all along).You cannot assume that there is no audible difference because you don't think there is. Where is your proof that there is no audible difference? As you stated, you won't even try cables until you are shown proof there is a difference in them. You don't know if there is a difference or not as you have not discovered for yourself if there is one or not. As a mater of fact, you are refusing to until there is proof there is one. Do you see the illogical circular argument that makes?

So, as you can (hopefully) see it is not the term choice or my lack of belief in placebo (for it's intended use). It is the methodology used for ABX, DBT's, and your use of placebo that I have issue with. You are applying these where they not intended to be applied. Make sense?

Greg

SDA1C

Indeed. It is a bit of fun just watching though. I find some solace in the self destructive nature of a few, not so dependent on their demise, but just the assurance that I am not 13 anymore LOL.


p.s. note to self...reminder to buy more tweeters in the morning (just for the off chance that I don't notice an audible difference at ear bleeding levels) lol.