arnyk wrote: > Not at all, but lets examine the quality of the source of information > that you seem to rely on. > > Like just about all audiophiles you probably judge audio gear based on > casual sighted audiophile evaluations, and reviews based on casual > sighted evaluations. > > Here are a few things that are fatally wrong with casual sighted > audiophile evaluations: > > How does one know that any particular perception is distorted or > reliable? > > I think that what I was taught and did for all of my life to now was; > > (1) Exclude extraneous influences that could undesirably affect the > conclusion. > > (2) Understand and Control all other major influences that could affect > the conclusion. > > Here are what I've found to be the major extraneous influences in > audiophile listening evaluations: > > In just about all casual audiophile sighted evaluations the evaluation > totally fails to be a test because there is no reference other than a > highly flawed distant memory or fantasy about what the UUT's would sound > like if their performance were ideal. > > In just about all casual audiophile sighted evaluations there is no > formal process for listener selection or training. The listeners > supervise the test and they select themselves. The equipment and its > setup receives no formal testing. > > In just about all casual audiophile sighted evaluations there are no > formal controls over listener bias. Since the test is sighted the > listeners can always correctly identify what they are listening to by > means that have nothing to do with listening. Therefore, not only is the > evaluation not a test, it is generally not about listening. The > evaluation is probably best modeled by a public opinion survey based on > advertising, brand reputation, etc. > > In just about all casual audiophile sighted evaluations there is no > formal process for Level Setting or Matching. Listeners pick whatever > listening levels they feel like at the moment in spite of reliable > scientific evidence that listening level is a strong determiner of sound > quality. When two or more pieces of equipment are compared, it is > overwhelmingly likely that they are being listened to at different SPL > and that listener reactions could be more heavily determined by the > differences in SPL than any presumed technical differences among the > equipment itself.\ > > In just about all casual audiophile sighted evaluations there is no > formal process for controlling the music being used to audition the > equipment. Recording quality is a very strong inflence on listneing > pleasure but its effects are ignored. The evaluation is probably well > modeled by a public opinion survey based on choice of recording being > auditioned. Furthermore, there is no formal process for ensuring that > the pieces of equipment allegedly being compared are listened to with > the same musical selections even when the same recordings are used. The > diagnostic ability of recordings to make a given flaw most audible > changes on a second by second basis, but casual sighted audiophile > evaluations completely ignore this well known fact. > > In just about all casual audiophile sighted evaluations there is no > formal process for controlling the associated gear or the listening > room. Audiophiles routinely compare different pieces of equipment > auditioned in different rooms with different associated equipment. If > the differences in sound quality are due to equipment, we don't know > which piece of equipment is actually the controlling factor. > > In just about all casual audiophile sighted evaluations changing from > auditioning one alternative to the other is usually very time consuming. > It is typically accomplished by means of cable swapping which can take > several minutes. Sometimes the alternaives are in different homes or > even in different cities, states, or continents. It is well known that > the most subtle and detailed memories of sounds disappear within a few > seconds, so we are assured that the listeners are unable to fully > exercise their perceptual facilities. Thus the possibility that their > reactions are based on actual small differences as they often claim, is > actually zero.
Thank you, Arny. This is something that, personally, makes me want to continue to read this forum. Great information, presented neutrally, without derision. I can (and did) learn a lot from this. Wonderful! Rg System information ------------------------ Main: Vortexbox/Squeezelite > USB> Benchmark DAC2 D > LFD LE IV Signature amp > Revel Performa F208 speakers. Home Theatre: Touch (Wired) > Pioneer VSX 919 > Energy Take 5 Classic 5.1, Touch FW 7.8.0-r16754. LMS 7.9.0 - 0.71.20150313git1426153261 on a 1TB Micro Vortexbox Appliance, V 2.3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ rgro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=96407 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
