The ABX test in the commentary

[jj]

There always seems to be an element of 'authority' in these wild claims. Double blind testing is deemed invalid because that would diminish their claim to be some kind of authority:a mysterious quality about them that sets them apart from we ordinary folk.

Is anyone surprised when we note the emperor has no clothes, it is met with opposition?

After 25 years of it, not a bit of surprise.

There is also a desire to "putter", and digital systems, as well as modern analog pre-amps and amplifiers, destroy this, because unlike 1950's and 1960's equipment, they are to the point where the equipment that is most accurate in the technical sense is simply like all the rest except for features. N.B. This does not mean that all equipment is good, there's some real (*&(* out there, too. Anyhow, this quasi-perfection of equipment has done several things including REMOVING EUPHONIC DISTORTIONS.
(euphonic distortion: a distortion that makes things sound better)

So, we see modern puttering go in a number of directions, certainly not all of them meaningful in a technical or scientific sense.

This has been going on since the Edison phonograph, you know, there were people back then who demanded one use 'thorn' needles because they were 'natural'. It's been around as long as recorded sound.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Re: Re: The ABX test in the commentary

Why? I imagine that the vast majority of listeners could distinguish between $4 speakers and $4000 speakers in an ABX test even if there were 60 seconds between the listening segments (assuming no noise during that switching time). Why is it unfair to hold a $0.25 cable / $2500 cable test to a higher standard?

The quality of low end products to high end products is not a straight line. I can (probably) tell the difference between a $400 computer and a $1000 computer by just working with it for a few minutes. But telling the difference betwen a $1000 computer and a $8000 computer would take some work.

The issue is that high-end top-of-the-line stuff gives much smaller subtler changes, but the price just dramatically for those small subtle changes. This is true for cars, clothes, computers, macaroni and cheese--everything. When you go high-end, just a "smidgen better" can cost big bucks. And sometimes it is worth it if you need that. So you are right that a $.25 cable compared to a $2500 cable should be significant. But if an audiophile wants the absolute best and believes that the $2500 cable is a "smidgen better", then it may be worth it to them. It is not a question of degree of imporovement, but a question of any imporovement at all--because a true audiophile will pay anything for even a "smidgen better".

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Re: Re: Re: The ABX test in the commentary

So you are right that a $.25 cable compared to a $2500 cable should be significant. But if an audiophile wants the absolute best and believes that the $2500 cable is a "smidgen better", then it may be worth it to them.

This is the point. He is being robbed. There is NO evidence, whatsoever, about any kind of "micro small improvement".

Nothing, Nada. Zero.

 

[marting]

I really don't have any problem with this. In a sense it is a sort of voluntary redistribution system from the stupid rich to a wide range of others including retailers, publishers, workers, etc. Unlike medical quackery, or psychic readers, it does little harm.

marty

 

[jj]

Re: Re: Re: The ABX test in the commentary

The issue is that high-end top-of-the-line stuff gives much smaller subtler changes, but the price just dramatically for those small subtle changes.

While I'm tired of fighting about this issue, why don't you go read my notes about memory vs. the auditory system in one of those threads about writing a teaching unit on critical thinking?

You can, just by refocusing (by thought) your attention in an auditory stimulus, change what you hear substantially, in fact you do remember different things (because you listened to a different set of information that was available at the loudness level, something everyone I know of does).

Given that, to show "subtle differences" one needs DBT's, or some kind of blind, falsiable system, in order to detect differences.

 

[Ladewig]

Re: Re: Re: The ABX test in the commentary

The quality of low end products to high end products is not a straight line. I can (probably) tell the difference between a $400 computer and a $1000 computer by just working with it for a few minutes. But telling the difference betwen a $1000 computer and a $8000 computer would take some work.

The issue is that high-end top-of-the-line stuff gives much smaller subtler changes, but the price just dramatically for those small subtle changes. This is true for cars, clothes, computers, macaroni and cheese--everything. When you go high-end, just a "smidgen better" can cost big bucks.

I disagree with the analogy. Everyone, not just experts, can tell the difference between a $20,000 car and a $200,000,000 car. between a $400 computer and a $4,000,000 computer, between a $2 plate of macaroni and cheese and a $20,000 plate of macaroni and cheese. If you are charging one-thousand to ten-thousand times as much as the next best thing, then the difference shouldn't be so subtle that only people who can see the emperor's new clothes can tell the difference.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The ABX test in the commentary

I disagree with the analogy. Everyone, not just experts, can tell the difference between a $20,000 car and a $200,000,000 car. between a $400 computer and a $4,000,000 computer, between a $2 plate of macaroni and cheese and a $20,000 plate of macaroni and cheese. If you are charging one-thousand to ten-thousand times as much as the next best thing, then the difference shouldn't be so subtle that only people who can see the emperor's new clothes can tell the difference.

I'm not supporting any of this nonsense in any way, I'm just saying why it might be reasonable to believe in the nonsense. I don't think I am wrong in saying that there is usually a much smaller difference in quality when prices get high. Argggh. I can't think of a good analogy. It's like paying $100,000 for a car or paying $1,000,000 for car. What do you get for the extra $900,000? Not much. But people do it. Or paying $20,000 for a computer instead of $5,000, or even $2,000. Yes, you get top of the line, but it isn't really that much better. If you don't really use it to the capacity where it will make a difference, you are spending loads of money for "top of the line". But people do it anyway. For that little extra edge. Which they probably won't even use. And don't even realize. And which maybe isn't actually there. And is a complete fraud. But they will pay "top dollar" for the "top of the line".