Just because you are not aware of advancements in audio and sound, doesn't mean that every one else is just as uninformed
Sorry, the misunderstanding is that technology is usually trickle down.
This is why most users have more solid biases when they are at home relaxed with thier gear.
Actually in my experience with audiophiles you pretty much can.
I agree that biases can run rampant and we end up seeing fanboys of all types of gear.
Fact is that blind listening tests work excellently. I am able to find tiny differences that objectively there in audio using ABX tests. Vast majority of audiophiles however cannot. This means that they don't have critical listening abilities anyway. Therefore, any assessment they have of sound is false. Tested sighted or not.
Yes, sadly, there are many biased audiophiles and normal users out there.
Not many people mature from that.
I think being open minded and using all tools available, is valuable for discerning, so I respect your position.
You think based on what? I read between 50 and 100 new audio papers a year. I keep the good ones for future reference. This is the stats on that folder:
Wow impressive.
I appreciate you for mentioning that.
Very interesting, did any of the papers turn out to be corrected by others?
This probably to general a question but must be very interesting to read up this stuff.
How much have you read really? I assume the answer is a handful if that. Which is fine but please don't be dismissive of those of us who have dedicated our lives to learning about that science and summarizing it for others to learn. You don't dismiss the advice of your doctor when you are sick. Don't do that to us....
Apologies I am newby here so thanks for corrections and your time you give.
I think it's a great thing to give knowledge to others, and a great loss to not do so.
For example, I have heard about the old tube manufacturers took their secrets to the grave.
Rare is the piano tuner who doesn't use a tuning fork as a reference for the initial note (typically 440 Hz for the middle A). From there, the rest can be worked out through an elaborate sequence of ratios (relatively) easily identified by ear when two notes are played together. These days, it is common to use a microphone and electronic frequency meter to simply measure the frequency of each string and adjust until correct.
That's fine but it doesn't disprove my point about that profession.
Not impressed. My phone can do the same, and with greater precision. Ask a piano tuner to name five random notes playing at the same time. My phone can do that.
That's fine but your overlooking the point that they are trained to hear very critically.
Well, that is unwise. But it is not just placebo that steers you wrong. It is the lack of understanding of our hearing works. We routinely change our perception of audio, from moment to moment. If this is not equalized in testing, which only occurs in blind tests, then you again get wrong results. There was a reason I thought in identical playback of the same track twice in a row, one had much higher fidelity, more air, more resolution, etc. I simply listened differently and read all that into the identical experience.
I know none of this is intuitive for you and others like you. But the evidence is so overwhelming that one should ignore all sighted, uncontrolled tests.
You need to change the "you" to a "we, in general" ,as I do agree on many points especially the bias, so I do use what tools I have and don't have any problems discerning what I hear.
My actual point has now changed as I realize now that many are swayed, which is actually quite disappointing.
I had assumed everyone had a good judgement in discerning, but the tests say different...
Sad.
That is the problem with improper listening tests. The outcome is as good as random. It is not reliable and as such, durable over time, content, mood, etc.
I agree.
Nope. It has nothing to do with that. And what you are saying has been tested and shown to be false:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ity-and-reliability-of-abx-blind-testing.186/
As you see, taking the device home, listening on one's system for long period did the reverse: it reduced one's ability to tell differences, NOT more.
This is so very dissapointing for me to learn I am quite surprised in a sad way.
I didn't know so many people have such high failure rates, regardless what test it is.
I took for granted and believed many, not knowing how easily they can be swayed.
I don't know how trained those people were in that test, but I assume they are representative of your average and audiofiles listeners.
Yet that doesn't apply to all, or you (as you stated you can detect), or me.
Regardless,
I am more inclined to be in agreement with this guy:
Yeah?
Try this:
The squares marked A and B are the same shade of gray.
View attachment 29550
Haha good one!.. but you do not take into account that these imagery is "static" and controlled by being under certain conditions.
In real life our brains rely on continuously changing & incoming information into the eye (or ear) to discern our environment.
Nice trick though I admit.
If you refuse to use the most basic controls, what you're doing is worthless voodoo. That sounds harsh, and admittedly it is (I am not renowned for my sense of diplomacy), but it's true. Throwing a couple of whoppingly incorrect things in like "state there is no difference in anyting (sic)" does not increase the reliability of anything you claim.
I see, and agree with your statement fully.
But this is the whole point.
If the difference between components is so small being scared that not knowing even if the component has changes created doubt there is obviously either no difference or such a tiny difference (for the listener) that it is of zero consequence.
Don't forget it is differences described by people as "night and day" ,"enormous" and so forth which fade to zero in level matched tests. In my case all I needed to do was match the levels accurately, even sighted it was obvious they were the same or inconsequentially different and I was astonished that a 1:15 price ratio of DACs from reputable companies (not bodged boutique nonsense) sounded the same, Mind you the £15k unit was in a beautifully made machined from solid case and the £1k unit in a painted folded steel box with separate power supply...
I agree, that we talking tiny tiny differences, but that's what we are all chasing after, that elusive gains for a more realistic performance.
Anyways, I appreciate and like to give thanks to all the knowledgeable members here that give up their time to school us.
I believe there is always more to learn.